Nov 4 2004, 6:21 pm
In response to Spuzzum
|
|
Jotdaniel
 |
I pretty muched stopped reading after I saw you state France and Germany didn't want to help for humanitarian reasons. Im sure it wouldn't be, you know, all those french and german weapons Iraq had that they werent supposed to have... just couldn't be.
|
Xooxer wrote:
You forget all the middle-eastern people he's killed. I think that is what he meant. If you don't count them, the count would be zero. And I'm sure for Kerry it was kill or be killed. Same situation here, partly. All Saddam had to do was give us access so we could see he was telling the truth and he would have been fine. Without doing that, we have every right to believe that he is not abiding by the rules put on him; and that means we have every reason to believe that he may well kill a million of us with a well placed nuke. | |
Although I disagree with much of what you said there, I will only reply to the last part at this time.
Children have everything to do with marriage, it is not just about love. Why should people get a tax break just because they are in love? I love my family, why don't I get a tax break for that? That makes no sense, but what does make sense is people being legally recognized as married because they are trying to raise a family and getting tax breaks because of that. My idea there solves everything and makes perfect sense, all of it. If you do it any other way it becomes nonsensicle and unreasonable. | |
Gughunter wrote:
We have lost 1,000 lives and gained nothing. NOTHING. I 2nd that! | |
not to mention the vacations bush took...
I mean do you really want a guy who takes vacations for a job that only is a 4 year term? It's only 4 years, you can't make it through 4 years without giving into your desires? You have millions and you can't go golfing some OTHER time? This is the guy we want to lead us? Someone who instead of spending 100% of his time trying to make this country better, golfs? I mean come on people... that's just rediculous. out of several thousand million people, we choose the guy who golfs instead of doing his job. We're brilliant. We shouldn't accept anyone other then someone willing to dedicate his LIFE for those 4 years into making our country better. He should be dwelling on the facts at hand, there are a ton of problems in america that need fixing. | |
Xooxer wrote:
Then why bring it up? Because it is interesting to note. Democrats bring up irrelevant facts put in such a way as to try and bash Bush, so why can't I bring up facts about Kerry especially when I'm twisting them around and bashing him with it like the Bush-haters do? Kerry isn't the perfect U.S. president. But he's at least the lesser of two evils. I mean, Bush is a friggin' evangelical fundamentalist! A religious nutjob is the last person you want running the U.S. That's not an insult, It's a fact. But he put it in such a way as to make it an insult. The post I mentioned that Mike replied to might well have been fact, but that doesn't make it any less insulting. As you said (I do believe it was you who said it up there) it is not your place to say whether it was insulting or not. It is the place of those on the other side of the fence. But that aside, no it is not a fact. I am not religious. There are many people who are not religious, and he was being very specific. Christian Fundamentalist. That's very specific. I highly doubt you are not religious. As long as you have a belief in how the universe came into being and why it is in existence then you have a religion. I don't find exaggeration to be specific. "There must have been a million flies in that barn." is not specific, it tells you there were a lot but is not specific. Uh, yeah. I don't believe in god, I don't have a religoius belief. Guess what, I still don't kill. You don't need god to threaten you with eternal burnination to know it's wrong to commit murder. Are you telling me you think murder is right if god says so? That just makes no sense. It's as if you saw a few words I wrote but didn't read the entire thing. However, I will try to answer that anyway. Murder is not wrong because God says so, rather it is the other way around. God says so because murder is wrong. But refraining from murder is not the only thing said within it. The point to which you replied to yet somehow didn't reply to though, that still stands. I would rather have a leader who thought for himself, instead of relying on some 5,000 old book for advice on running a nation. Or listened to what some preacher says is right and wrong according to their interpretation of a poorly translated book a bunch of guys wrote 5 millenia ago that has little relavence to current affairs. Right, and I would rather have a leader who thought for himself, instead of relying on professional writers to make his major speaches, yet most presidents do that and there is nothing actually wrong about it. We don't get to know their mind as well when the thoughts aren't coming directly from them but rather indirectly through someone elses pen. What does listening to what some preacher says about right and wrong have to do with anything? I never brought that up, in fact I don't listen to what a preacher says about right and wrong myself since I don't go to their buildings and listen to them preach. That's the definition of religious nutjob. People who think that their religion is the only true religion, and who are willing to go to extreme measures to make sure non-believers are either converted or destroyed. Remember the Puritains and the with burnings? Those type of people were christian fundamentalists. You want those nut jobs running your country? No, and Bush is not like that. Notice religious nutjob is in parenthesis in my statement, that was used extremely loosely. If Bush was like that I would have voted against him and prayed that he didn't get elected, as we would all be forced to adopt for our lifestyle what some preacher says we should, and then we really would all be listening to what they say is right and wrong - not my idea of a good nation. I don't want something like the old Catholic "church", which basically was another branch of government. | |
Bush has been known to do some of his work while he is vacationing at his ranch(So I have heard atleast. I know atleast that he practives speechs and has made calls to forgien leaders in the past there.). It provides a less stressful enviroment.. Face it is a stressful job.. A rapid ageing president proves that. I see nothing wrong it. I don't even know why you brought that point up. It has no relevance.
((Edit: Typos... I am the GW of the internet!)) | |
I think he spent a good 6 months vacationing... I think the vacationing can wait for when he's out of office. I wonder how many other presidents vacationed as much as him...
| |
Loduwijk wrote:
I hope you aren't insinuating that the democrats don't have propaganda of their own, since it is there and, arguably, worse. Of course it's there. Everyone has their own propaganda. I haven't seen much Democrat propaganda (Bush gets more screen time in Australia, being the president already, so I've unavoidably heard more of his), so I can't comment on which side is worse. Though I suspect that it will always be "the other side" - propaganda is rarely recognised as such by people who already agreed with it before it was aired. While I'm on the subject... In reponse to Zlegend2 saying that there is no Republican propaganda: I sincerely hope you were joking. If not, this is the difference between the basis of my views and the basis of yours; I know that most of what I hear from any group of people is propaganda, so I can (and do) think about what I'm hearing before I accept it. If you don't realise that something is propaganda, that means you are consciously or unconsciously accepting it without question; which is dangerous, no matter who it comes from. Maybe US spies were detecting more extreme anti-U.S. sentiment (which is hardly surprising, with all the people Bush has been bombing lately), but the reality is that those "terror alerts" were stirring up panic (whether intentionally or not), and the more fearful a population is, the more likely they are to vote the current government back in. Bush is rich: Check. All U.S. presidents are rich (certainly by my standards, anyway) so that's practically a given. Bush is arrogant: Check. It sickens me when people try and make out that the U.S. is the only shining beacon in a world of darkness, where everyone else is evil unless they kow-tow to us. Hey, look over here guys! Let me introduce you to our country, it's called "Australia". Of course he knows about Australia, but the anti-terrorist rhetoric he spouts frequently ignores it. Bush is corrupted: For my response to this, look at what Xooxer and others have been saying over in the other subthread about Bush and 9/11, and Bush and oil. I don't necessarily think that all of that is true - which is to say, I'm skeptical of most of it but I haven't dismissed the possibilities - but the possibilities are definitely there, and Bush could easily get away with most of it. Besides, I think any U.S. president is corrupt in some form or another. I hate to resort to tired old maxims, but the phrase "power corrupts" does have some truth in it I think. Also, I don't think that past generations force the current ones to be just as corrupt, but I do find it interesting that one of the things the democratic campaign tried ever so hard to cover up was that Kerry's forefathers aquired much of their worth through illegal means with their merchanting. I don't recall all the exact particulars, but that is something you probably can (and should) find on the 'net. Ah, but how you do know that isn't just Republican lies? =P And if it isn't, wouldn't you try to gloss over your forefathers being criminals? I certainly would, and I'm not even running for president. I find it interesting that Mike didn't reply with his moderator green to this, as it is worse than telling someone they are dimwitted (which he replied to farther up). Possibly because I'm insulting Bush, rather than someone who's likely to read these forums; I'm fairly certain that Bush doesn't read these forums. =P A Christian (everyone is religious, you have to be more specific) I'm not religious, thanks very much. And I was more specific. Quote: "evangelical fundamentalist". is definately not the last person you want running the U.S. In fact, it is the opposite. Even if you aren't one yourself, you have to admit that at least most of the biblical commandments do nothing but give people good morals and build their character. I believe they all do; but if you won't admit that at least most of what it teaches is good then I think that, and I think most will agree with me, your views are not ideal and are not what we want in a leader. Most of what the Bible says is good, yes. But not all of it. I think any ancient religious text is fundamentally flawed anyway, because it simply can't take into account the changes that the world has gone through. This isn't the fault of the Bible, or Christianity, but it means that it must be interpreted; which is where people force in their own ideas, that were never intended to be expressed through the Bible. This inevitably leads to the original message being twisted. Differences in language and problems in translating from the original don't help matters. This is why I think living a life based on a religious text is not a good idea. Morals should come for their own sake, not because it's written. I should recognise that I should not kill by myself; if I need a collection of words, however venerated, to tell me how to live, then I really need to examine how I am living. "My views are not ideal"? You only say that because you don't agree with them. From my perspective, YOUR views are not ideal. A "religious nutjob" is the first person we want running the U.S. As long as the person does not force his/her other religious views onto the government and other people then you would be hard-pressed to find a better candidate where that is concerned. Forcing views may not be happening - though personally America's political focus on God sickens me (what happened to the separation of church and state people? In Australia, politicians hardly ever mention their religious backgrounds unless they're using it to boost their campaigns, which only a couple of minority parties do), but forcing people to abide by the rules that your belief dictates DOES happen. You can't argue that this doesn't happen, because it's happened already; case in point, gay marriage. This sort of thing unavoidable; if your beliefs are based on the Bible, and you're running the country, then your beliefs WILL be part of your policies. So in effect, Bush is running the country according to the Bible. Or rather, his twisted and wrong, I believe, version of the Bible. Which is great if you're a Christian fundamentalist, but a disaster otherwise. | |
Of course it's there. Everyone has their own propaganda. I haven't seen much Democrat propaganda (Bush gets more screen time in Australia, being the president already, so I've unavoidably heard more of his), so I can't comment on which side is worse. Though I suspect that it will always be "the other side" - propaganda is rarely recognised as such by people who already agreed with it before it was aired. Yeah if you don't think Michael Moores's movie is much you must have excessivly high expectations! Though the other side got its own recent counter version to it Celcius 41.1. Heh reminds me of the quote from Back to the Future "No wonder your president has to be an actor. He has to look good on TV." If you don't realise that something is propaganda, that means you are consciously or unconsciously accepting it without question; which is dangerous, no matter who it comes from. Yep they always put their best foot forward while trying to show their opposition in the worst light. Generally this leads to incomplete versions of both stories and generally exagerated out of context. Then supporters(and haters) tend to take this even further when telling someone else and pretty soon you have some pretty big conspiracy theories. Ah, but how you do know that isn't just Republican lies? =P Bah republicans don't lie! That's just a nasty rumor the democrats like to spread! Possibly because I'm insulting Bush, rather than someone who's likely to read these forums; I'm fairly certain that Bush doesn't read these forums. =P Your conspiracy theory doesn't include people who monitor forum activities for clever people catching onto their schemes!? I'm pretty sure I picked up that rumor from some reputable democratic source. | |
Theodis wrote:
Yeah if you don't think Michael Moores's movie is much you must have excessivly high expectations! Though the other side got its own recent counter version to it Celcius 41.1. Not entirely sure what you mean here... Fahrenheit 911 was a pretty blatant piece of propaganda. I think he ruined some of his material because he i Bah republicans don't lie! That's just a nasty rumor the democrats like to spread! This reminds me of the classic puzzle where one person always tells the truth, and the other always lies, and you have to work out which is which by asking them questions. Only this time, unknown to the puzzler, there's a difference that the puzzler wasn't told about; BOTH of them always lie. Your conspiracy theory doesn't include people who monitor forum activities for clever people catching onto their schemes!? I'm pretty sure I picked up that rumor from some reputable democratic source. Heh. Now that's one conspiracy theory I don't believe. Besides, nobody would WANT to monitor everyone on this forum. They'd have to employ someone full-time, mostly because of certain people who like to type a lot... ;-D | |
I highly doubt you are not religious. As long as you have a belief in how the universe came into being and why it is in existence then you have a religion.According to the Oxford Advanced Learner's dictionary: religion noun 1 [U] the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and the activities that are connected with the worship of them: Is there always a conflict between science and religion? 2 [C] one of the systems of faith that are based on the belief in the existence of a particular god or gods: the Jewish religion Christianity, Islam and other world religions The law states that everyone has the right to practise their own religion. 3 [sing.] a particular interest or influence that is very important in your life: For him, football is an absolute religion. - and I don't think you're talking about 3. ;) On top of that, I don't have a belief in how the universe came in to being. I don't see how I could. It's part of my philosophy not just to blindly believe things for no apparant reason. Sure I might consider various theories, but as yet I do not believe any of them. Murder is not wrong because God says so, rather it is the other way around. God says so because murder is wrong. But refraining from murder is not the only thing said within it. Indeed. A chunk of the bible is in agreement with my morals. But there's also stuff like this: Exodus 31:15 'For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. That's always seemed the most random thing to me. | |
Exodus 31:15 Work on Sunday is punishable by death? Sounds like a decent rule to me just need to misinterpret it in some way to add a few more days. | |
Besides, nobody would WANT to monitor everyone on this forum. They'd have to employ someone full-time, mostly because of certain people who like to type a lot... ;-DThey would want to and no they don't need to employ someone to do it. They use things like Carnivore and Evil Mouse-chasing Eyes to do the dirty work. O.O | |
Ungh, close this.
For every intelligent statement in this thread there are three ignorant or misinformed ones. This thing is an eyesore. | |
Zlegend2 wrote:
Thats not an insult. Get real. ah, but you see there is the problem: opinions can neither be right nor wrong- they are opinions, ie. personal feelings, and not based in fact. These people feel they are right, and you feel you are right- these are opinions and are different from the facts. Aside from that, a moderator has asked to you to kindly not to continue that direction of thought on these forums, but return the debate. Otherwise you could violate the basic tenants of forum policy. Besides, opinions are rarely debateable, and do little more than start flames. | |
Crispy wrote:
Zlegend2 wrote: It's also still the fattest nation.<_<.. | |
Xooxer wrote:
You forget all the middle-eastern people he's killed. And I'm sure for Kerry it was kill or be killed. How many died in 9/11? It sure feels like kill or be killed over here too. | |
Ebonshadow wrote:
Xooxer wrote: I'm glad I'm a Brit. But wait, didn't they say it was us next? | |
Loduwijk wrote:
Children have everything to do with marriage, it is not just about love. Why should people get a tax break just because they are in love? I love my family, why don't I get a tax break for that? That makes no sense, but what does make sense is people being legally recognized as married because they are trying to raise a family and getting tax breaks because of that. Actually, until recently there was a pretty substantial tax penalty for being married. Even though I'm married, I believe it made sense, really. If two people are sharing living expenses, they'll be saving money as compared to two people living completely separately. So in the eyes of the government, that extra money should be taxed extra. Recently the penalty was either substantially reduced or removed altogether, I forget which. I suppose I'll know this April when we file our taxes again... I could play devil's advocate and argue that kids should be taxed more because they use our public services, but I won't. :) That said, I'll have to agree with Xooxer that children should have nothing to do with whether people can be considered married (this is how your argument came across, forgive me if I misinterpreted). There are certain legal benefits to being married, such as power of attorney over your spouse when he/she is incapacitated, etc. There's no reason having kids should be a prereqisite for any of that. I believe that was the original point of this little subthread. | |
