Obama...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Isy, Nov 5, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vanessa New Member

    I wasn't comparing the two, and you actually just agreed with what I said by giving an example of how shitty it used to be for minorities. We dont have it anywhere near as bad as people have in the past. We have done alot to improve this nation and make it a better place to live for many but we aren't or (shouldn't be) finished yet.
     
  2. I can only agree with this. We are in a much better position race-wise than we were then. I mean, look at how people were so afraid of middle eastern people after 911, but now its almost a distant memory...to most. But there are those people who you cant help. there will always be those who hate based on differences.

    And yes, I think there is a difference between preferring a race and hating a race. You can prefer to hang out with or date your own race or culture and this is some what normal. those who are alike tend to be drawn together. its a whole other game when you hate a racial or cultural difference.

    /end rambling
     
  3. Ivan New Member

    That is either very convenient for you or you need to grow some thicker skin.

    When Palin takes her children to a doctor does she take them to a faith healer? I think you are trying to paint her as some over zealous religious fanatic which she isn't. You can be devoted to your religion and still be rational.

    If it wasn't a problem then there wouldn't be people, more specifically teachers, trying to ban religious t-shirts and paraphenalia worn by students. Oh it's okay to spew bias political views and try to indoctrinate kids to your political affilliation, but if it has anything to do with religion toss it out.

    When "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance has little relevance to the context of our discussion. I don't care if it says God, Allah, or whomever your deity of choice is, or when it was added. What I do care about is people should not be disallowed from inserting that said deity when it is recited because the person next to them isn't christian, muslim, etc. They are free not to say "under God". That is their right. However my children should have the right to say it should they so choose.

    Lets get back to the whole moderate voter thing as this is something I really wanted to test your superior "education" on.

    Define for me what a political moderate is and give me some examples.
     
  4. Cedwyn Banned

    Today in my history of science and technology class, we discussed the atomic bomb (or in other words, the collaboration of science). Einstein believed Germany was creating an atomic bomb and could use it on America, so he advised the white house to start a nuclear project on home turf. However, when the war ended, the Nazis were no where near completing an atomic bomb, yet America was about ready to launch theirs.

    So, the war has ended (Nazis have surrendered) and what do the Americans want to do? They used the bomb on Japan. Why? To show their power? Who knows. And then people wonder why their country is hated...


    On the topic of countries based around god. Anyone been to Malaysia? They are an Islamic state. I have a friend there that told me that it is illegal (with fines and jailtime) to show affection in public (kissing, holding hands, etc.). Obviously America has no laws like this nationally (though I'm sure there are some religion focused laws in some states).
     
  5. thorizdin Administrator

    It's far from convenient and I have taken (and given) much worse during my time in the Army both as enlisted man and an officer. It is incredibly insulting.

    Absolutely you can, and I provided an example of someone who did just that. My concern with Sarah Palin is that she does not appear to fit into that category, though given her obscurity on the national stage until now we didn't exactly have a great deal of background on her. What has been documented about her rise to power in Alaska doesn't reassure me. It doesn't completely damn her in my eyes either, but when she has had the chance to demonstrate discernment she hasn't. The word that is (and has been) coming from sources in the McCain camp also doesn't help. On the topic of religion, Barak Obama is quite devout from all outward signs but is also very clearly a well educated and highly intelligent man. (Not being afraid to tell people that belief in physical angels may be a sign of irrationality goes a long way toward making me think he can view things through a clear prism.) Palin has a degree in Sports Journalism, which is a perfectly respectable profession but doesn't have a big focus on critical thinking.

    If you want to talk about something like this then provide specifics, I've been on both sides of this kind of discussion. I personally don't have a problem with any personal religious observation in school, provided it's not disruptive. However, the courts have consistently ruled that students' 1st Amendment rights are abridged in the classroom setting. That includes political and religious speech. Not all religions have nice messages and even mainstream religions have splinter groups that tend to be much more radical. I will never forget seeing several signs in a small Tennessee town (on private property) advising that this particular god fearing community wouldn't tolerate various races, Catholics, "murdering" Jews (the exact wording on one of them), nor idolaters. Would wearing a shirt that advocated killing people who run abortion clinics be acceptable for a student to wear to school in your opinion?

    First, it does have revelance because the first argument social conservatives use is the same one you tried, the founding fathers made it that way so it must be right. That kind of unravels when they realize that they are actually undermining their own position. However, I don't care what your child (or you) says as a personal observation, but I don't want a teacher suggesting or leading the class into saying that. Just as you have a right to raise your child as you see fit doesn't an atheist or a polytheist have the right to do the same? If you have a specific event where your child wasn't allowed to do or say something then post the specifics, I'd honestly like to see them.

    Notice the statistics I gave were for people who self categorized themselves. They picked what category they fit into rather than some researcher trying to find a model that did so accurately. Trying to craft a precise definition isn't really possible, at least not without more words than I want to write tonight. The same is true of the other political categories, but if you're still curious there are a number of online survey sites that can provide you with a score based on your responses.

    This is one of the older and better known examples:

    http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

    Though I personally prefer this test:

    http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/

    Here is how I rate:

    [​IMG]

    As for examples of moderates, most of the Blue Dog Democrats, Lieberman (who you mentioned earlier), Richard Lugar, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins. There are also many more people may be very left or right on some key issues, while being centrist on most other things. Lindsey Graham from my home state is an example of someone who is able to reach across party lines on many issues and is critical of his own party at times. John McCain, especially before gaining his party's nomination fit into this mold.
     
  6. Ivan New Member

    As I said, if that is "incredibly insulting" then grow some thicker skin.

    We'll have to agree to disagree on Palin and Obama. There are just as many sources questioning Obama's experience as there are on Palin's lack of intelligence (although I haven't read many articles stating she isn't intelligent, but rather quite inexperienced in national politics). We can go back and forth on those two for days.

    You are taking most of what I say and twisting it to your own preconceived ideas of how you believe I think.

    --

    I have never said I want teachers or government officials to preach religious or political views. What I have said is that I believe it is the right of the individual to express their religious beliefs. Of course if it isn't disruptive, I thought that was obvious. I'll break it down further for you in the future. I'm also not going to respond to every single radical example you give about some small Tennessee town with signs. There are radical groups on both sides.

    --

    I also never said that what the founding fathers said has to hold true today. What I did say was that religion had a profound influence on their principles and I think it should be used as guidance in what we do today. Quit painting me as some far right conservative radical. I am not.

    --

    What constitutes a moderate changes from person to person. Chuck Hagel and Joseph Lieberman can both be considered moderate. However, neither would agree on just about anything.

    For example, a socially conservative, anti-abortion voter who believes in big government policies could be fairly called a moderate. On the other hand, a socially liberal, pro-abortion voter who doesn't want any new government programs could also be fairly called a moderate.

    It is almost impossible to build a party based around appealing to moderates.

    It is also the base, not moderates, who contribute the money, work on GOP campaigns, and are generally going to vote Republican, if they vote at all.

    Again, this isn't to say that the moderate voter isn't important. It just isn't where you start. Which was my original point to counter to your moderate voters are the alpha and omega.
     
  7. Detritus Lord

    Ivan I'm afraid there is something you are missing here. Likort cannot have in his possession (or even in his media) any swastikas or Pro-Nazi materials. The reasons for this should be obvious in the wake of Nazi atrocities. When I see people with their bumpers plastered with absurd "In case of Rapture this vehicle will be unoccupied", and other pompous Christian bullshit, I find it to be in bad taste. There are no shortage of Christian atrocities that warrant their expulsion from the public space.

    America's history of tolerating religious freedom is being crushed under the weight of frantic fanatics. Christians stand in the way of Science, such as stem cell research. The largest Christian sect still treats women as second-class citizens, and others treat them as property. From the Crusades, Holocaust and enslavement of Native Americans, Witch Burnings and the continued opposition of scientific and cultural progress; it is only a matter of time before their symbols in public are also banned as hate material.
     
  8. Shagbot Member

    Telling a fellow american he can love it or leave it because his views differ from your own isn't just insulting, it's un-american.


    Who needs articles, just watch her interviews, shes as dumb as pocket lint. Personally, I don't want a president who believes humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together, or who believes we are living in the "end times", do you really want the person responsible for launching nukes believing in "end times prophecy", or this for that matter:

    Christianity can be defined as the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."


    You're missing Thors point, the bible is open to interpretation, you probably don't agree with all the way all christians interpret the bible:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT_WHiHaXdw

    I could argue either side of the whole "founding fathers were christians" debate, I've come to the conclusion they weren't for the most part, heres why:

    John Adams (the second President of the United States) :

    Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
    “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

    From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
    “Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

    From a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
    “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

    Thomas Jefferson (the third President of the United States):


    From Thomas Jefferson’s Bible:
    “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

    “Christianity...[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man....Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.”

    Thomas Paine :

    From The Age of Reason, pp. 8–9:
    “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

    James Madison (the fourth President of the United States)

    Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:
    “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”
     
  9. Borric Der Kriegsminister

    Once again folks, let's stop the ad hominem attacks or I will lock this thread. We all have our different political and religious beliefs. If you disagree with someone, it's fine to state that and argue against their point. But do it without insulting the person who posted.
     
  10. thorizdin Administrator

    Nice, first you want to dictate how our country should be and then you want to decide what I should consider insulting. I spent years of my life in service to this country and it is insulting when you attempt to take away my ability to question our direction.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    Let me be clear, I wasn't trying to compare you to that kind of mindset. I used that example as way to place bounds that I thought we'd both, and it seems we do, agree on. There have to be some limits on 1st Amendment rights for students. For me that means we as Americans have to make judgment calls on whether or not something is disruptive (or will be). I simply wanted to hear the specifics of some of your personal experiences, not claim that you were part of a fringe cult. I'll go ahead and apologize for that, since I wasn't clear enough in my wording. Sarah Palin has been part of a very evangelical congregation for most of her life and doesn't show any signs of intellectual independence from their positions. While she has backed away from the statement she previously endorsed teaching creationism/intelligent design and is anti-abortion to a degree that isn't practical.

    I'm not trying to, but when we talked about what America would have been like if some other religion than Protestant Christianity was dominant you simply laughed it off. I ask that question for a reason, even though Christianity will likely be the dominant religious choice for a long time to come, it's going to (many say it already does) look very different than Christianity during our nation's formative years.

    [​IMG]

    The point of my question is to get people to think about what this country will be like when Protestant Christianity is no longer the dominant religion.

    I agree completely.

    On this you're both right and wrong. It's true that in our warped 2 party system you end having meld ill fitting parts to create a large enough pool of people to help. However, we can see by looking outside of our borders that clearly isn't the case in most other democracies. Social conservatives are one fraction of the "conservative" movement, but they have pulled the Republican party too far out of line with it's actual core of small government and getting the hell out of people's personal lives. When I say religion and politics don't mix it's because I've seen first hand how bad they are for each other. Political operatives are by nature highly cynical people and when you tie religion too closely into politics then politicians have to either be a cynical manipulators of religion or a true believers with huge blinders on. Of course, the real discussion is what is "too closely".
     
  11. Hades Lord of the Dead

    There is a reason we don't talk politics here, and its because the threads get out of control.

    You can talk sex, work, gaming, etc but politics discussion never ends well here.

    Locked.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page