"Why I voted for Bush"

[Arrian]

Exactly. So what to do? Personally, I feel I must choose the lesser of two evils (or rather I would if I lived in a swing state). To me, that is Kerry.

-Arrian

[Q Classic]

even if i did live in a swing state, i would still refuse to vote for either bush or kerry.

the two party system must die.

[SpencerH]

I should put this in my sig

Why choose the lesser of two evils? Vote Cthulhu.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
even if i did live in a swing state, i would still refuse to vote for either bush or kerry.

the two party system must die.

I voted for Kerry because I'm in a swing state. The democrats aren't all bad. They used to be a good party until the liberals and socialist hijacked them.

[Kramerman]

Why choose the lesser of two evils?

Vote CTHULHU

thats a good idea. Im writing in Cthulhu. MORBO would be a sweet president too

[MrFun]

Originally posted by dojoboy
Drachasor, google for Kerry's lies. You'll have plenty to read. Me recounting them here is futile.

And others can Google for Bush's lies.

[Ted Striker]

.

[Q Classic]

I voted for Kerry because I'm in a swing state. The democrats aren't all bad. They used to be a good party until the liberals and socialist hijacked them.

to be fair, the republicans aren't all bad. they used to be a good party until the neocons, fundies, and down-right dirty bastiges hijacked them.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


I guess you forgot about that whole 9/11 thing

Now, now -- you shouldn't mock someone just because they might have amnesia.

[Q Classic]

to be fair, the republicans aren't all bad. they used to be a good party until the neocons, fundies, and down-right dirty bastiges hijacked them.

actually, on second thought, i recant that statement.

the republicans and the democrats are two faces of evil, and america would still be better off with the wholesale annihialation of the two-party system.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

I voted for Kerry because I'm in a swing state. The democrats aren't all bad. They used to be a good party until the liberals and socialist hijacked them.

to be fair, the republicans aren't all bad. they used to be a good party until the neocons, fundies, and down-right dirty bastiges hijacked them.

agreed

[Ted Striker]

I also agree

[Ben Kenobi]

That's like asking someone to stand up for Hitler if he said 2+2=4

No difference. Just because he's hitler, doesn't mean he's always wrong.

The sight of openly gay people being forced in Christian families? Well they are still choosing to use that right, and I'm sorry but in life you're going to encounter things you don't agree with.

True. I agree that I see plenty of things everyday that I disagree with, that I have to tolerate, because this is what they are free to do.

The very fact, that they are free to disagree is a point in my favour, because the state is choosing not to interfere.

Arguing that of course is demonstrative of some considerable intolerance of course, my answer to that is that seeing other people living their lives is not imposition, the only way you can justify imposition is if you are being forced to be gay or forced to participate in gay marriage, that act of removing choice is unacceptable.

If you render marriage as merely choosing something, why should there be any restrictions upon marriage whatsoever? Why should the state be involved at all?

You want to take all the regulations imposed on marriage out, but that comes with a real cost. If you remove these restrictions, you also remove the benefits that the state provides to marriage.

Do gay people really want the pensions and the rest of the recognition that society provides to marriage stripped? Yet, if you are advocating that the government ought to get out of the marriage business than this is what will happen.

Oddly, you are not an ally of the gay marriage folks, but will push them in a worse position then they are now, at least in Canada, where they receive almost all the benefits without the costs contigent to straight couples.

With regards to the question he was posing, you're right it's a poor argument. I've never seen Buddhists trying to lobby government, indeed most Eastern religions, mainstream Islam and Judaism only seem to lobby on a local level (with some exceptions) and that's generally for their own interests.

Thank you. Now, you have to prove your bias against evangelical Christians, that they will utilise the state in order to shape the world around them, to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

You may think this is an obvious point, but if most religious people do not force their ideals, why do you single out the evangelical Christians?

then with a belief is strong, extreme and nonsensical as theirs, is that really so surprising?

MLK had an interesting point. Is it bad to be an extremist for love?

Ah! You're splitting the issue into individuals churches/parishes?

No, I'm looking for concrete cases rather than spurious speculation.

Or Churches as a religious group with numerous parishes under that? I'm inclined (as an outsider) to look at them all as the same thing,

Then why have a 'sliding scale' that happens to correspond with your individual bias?

If you are treating them as one body, then it is impossible to single out evangelicals alone, as you have done so here.

Now, let's take your point. Supposing that it is only the evangelicals you accuse of imposing their ideals, does that not mean you approve of the conduct of the vast majority of Christian denominations, or that you merely approve of the ones that either agree with you, or choose not to oppose you?

Why Evangelicals only, Whaleboy?

I can't even justify that position, even if I were on your side.

you cannot deny the power their wield over government, and seek to wield where they do not.

And how have they used this power in order to impose their specific 'evangelical' Christian ideals among the community?

What I don't understand is how the god squad grew so rapidly... what circumstances have goaded people like this? Did they all see the passion of the christ and are it's equivalent of star-trek convention goers? Quite sad.

So rapidly?

Maybe you need to take off your rose-coloured glasses. You have discounted the influence of intelligent Conservative philosophers for a long time, so when their ideals begin to be taken up, you are shocked.

In my opinion, their political influence is not that new, and has been in place for a long time. It's just surprising to those who have been coddled to think that liberals are the only ones politically active.

I think you're twisting his words. The church seeks to make it's dogma law.... after all it believes it to be universally and absolutely true, with the big guy upstairs (the accountant) and their pre-fab God on their side, it would be strange to claim otherwise.

Just because one believes one has the truth, does not mean you insist that the law should coerce everyone to accept this truth.

Rather, if you believe in the truth, you also believe that those who are open to the truth, will be compelled to accept the truth of their own free will. Therefore, any compulsion, to these ideals, will create negative rather than positive persuasion.

Granted, it hasn't always been the position of Christians, but give us credit for coming to a better understanding today.

Religion, from the Latin "re" meaning "return to" and "ligio" meaning "to bind", or "bondage". Religion is by definition a "return to bondage". Fine for personal choice... after all we deny ourselves the choices and rights available to us daily, but organised religion is doing it on a mass basis.... a herd of blind sheep following a blind, though rich shepherd.

The word religion stems from the Latin word religionem meaning respect for what is sacred, probably with the original meaning of care for worship and traditions. The derivation of the Latin was in dispute even among ancient writers: Cicero derived it from relegere meaning read again (re again plus legere to read) Servius and Augustine derived Latin religionem from religare meaning to bind fast, in the sense of place an obligation on . The spelling of the word religion as we know it today is first recorded in about the year 1300.

So, my question to you, if religion means respect for what is sacred, does this alter your beliefs towards religion?

That is what has puzzled me about the study of etymology. It seems to me, a very obscure, yet oddly powerful subject. Most people know very little, yet the changes in the meanings of words, is very powerful.

Look at the word, 'Islam' which means submission.

Religion does not teach that one has respect for oneself, but rather, learns to look outside of oneself for things worthy of respect. In this, you bind yourself up, to allow oneself to be freed.

You say with our choices, that having the freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want, frees us, but the reality is the opposite. What happens when we are given that freedom?

If we hypothetically take that definition, and hold it to the Church (any physical or communal church), do you think Christ would approve? Removing the hypothetical, what other definition would you apply?

The definition of above.

Look at the OT, which places the value of self-restraint over that of a conqueror of cities. Christ seems to me of a similar bent, in seeking to free people to live moral lives, through self restraint, rather than being slaves to their own desires.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
US soil huh

Yes.

I guess you forgot about that whole 9/11 thing

No, I didn't. If you don't understand the meaning of the words I used, just ask.

[Ben Kenobi]

social responsability.

Interesting choice of phrase.

In what sense, have democrats sought to encourage individual, rather than collective responsibility?