"Why I voted for Bush"

[Ben Kenobi]

that'd imply killing is immoral, which makes it again a religious issue

I hope not.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

Okay, now we've got a grab bag of issues here. Best to go over each one in turn.

1. Drugs have many opponents who oppose drugs not on grounds of their religious teachings, but rather, over the health and welfare of others.

Are they Christians?

They consider the costs to society of addiction, which takes a variety of forms, including property damage, due to an increased number of thefts.

They don't care enough to research facts or they'd already know massive black markets drive up property crime, not eliminating those markets. I've heard numerous Christian preachers explain that the Bible condemns drugs and they point to the word "pharmakia" in the NT as their proof. Christians led every prohibitionist movement in this country, so if you think drug or alcohol prohibition was not religious based you don't know US history on this matter.

It seems to me rather lopsided to say that those who are against the legalisation of drugs are motivated only by their religious teachings.

They are, they admit it, they call themselves Christians. And I didn't say only Christians oppose legalisation, non-religious folk are irrelevant. You denied that Christians use government to impose their religious views on others and I'm showing just a few ways they do exactly that.

Secondly, suppose you include the prohibition among these members. Do understand that Christianity does not forbid everyone from drinking, but rather, for those who have problems drinking, they ought not to be encouraged to drink.

Tell that to Christians, they were the driving force behind prohibition.

Therefore, if one is to say that the Prohibitionists were motivated solely by religious inclinations, they could not be Christians.

That's what I've been saying for months here at Poly, but these people are a massive majority, not a small minority of zealots. So do they define Christianity or does Jesus? If all these people aren't really Christians, then aren't I right when I said the Church/Christians had become a monster and Christianity died long ago except on a personal level?

2. Prostitution.

This is an interesting issue. You will often find two groups of people united in their opposition to prostitution, some religious groups, and also some feminists.

That's true, but the feminists don't want prostitutes jailed, the religious folk do. So how does this prove Christians aren't using the state to impose their religious views on others?

Now, this to me is a clue that there is something more going on. Why would the feminists be opposed to prostitution. Generally, this is because the women involved in prostitution are generally victims, of either debt or drug addiction, and turn to prostitution in order to support their habits.

It's because they don't like men.

So that's hardly a religious motivation to oppose prostitution, and one grounded on the principles, that we should not take advantage of these women for profit.

Why are you citing the alleged motives of people who aren't religious? They don't matter, Christians matter and prostitution is illegal almost everywhere because of Christians.

3. Gambling

You'll find folks on the church on either side, and again, an interesting grab bag of interests opposed to gambling. Many are the social welfare folks who see gambling hurt poor people by putting them in debt, or a bad influence, as a font for organised crime.

Again, you seem to think that Christians are not imposing their religion on others because there are
non-religious folk who impose their views on others.

5. Blue laws, same as prostitution.

Blue laws are laws against selling beer on Sunday (well, that's what I was talking about anyway). You wanna explain that one by pointing to atheists who thought we needed to restrict "sin" on Sundays?

6. homosexuality.

Finally a good point.

Do know, that gay marriage can't be included in this. Restrictions on sodomy, have a much better case, yet you will also find religious folks, who say that while their church may oppose sodomy, that it is not the role of the state to enforce such restrictions.

And there are many more religious folk who do believe the role of the state is to enforce such restrictions. C'mon Ben, the evidence is overwhelming that Christians use the state to impose their views on others.

So to say that the church seeks to impose their laws, is not really accurate, for many in the church do not agree with this position.

Does the Church? The Catholic Church perpetrated countless atrocities using various governments, did the fact many Catholics opposed the Inquisition etc mean Christians weren't using these governments to impose their religious beliefs on others? No... The fact all Christians don't support punishing prostitutes doesn't mean the laws we have against prostitution were not put in place by Christians.

7. Abortion

If the unborn child is a person, then we should not kill that person, and opposition to abortion need not be rooted to religious faith.

But it is rooted in religious faith - that we have a soul.
This soul enters us at conception... The fact one can be non-religious and oppose abortion does not mean millions of Christians aren't trying to use the state to ban abortion, it simply means others want to ban abortion too.

9. Welfare.

If you know the church's position on welfare, please let me know. I'd be sincerely interested!

Depends on the church, the Catholics are big supporters of welfare. Why? Because they feel we are our brother's keepers, i.e., a religious belief is being imposed on others.

Ben, your argument is this: others do it too. I agree, so what? That doesn't mean Christians have not and are not using the state to impose their religious views on others.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Interesting choice of phrase.

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

You may recall that welfare reform in the 1990's wouldn't have passed if Democrates hadn't joined Republicans to vote for it and a Democratic President had signed the bill. Or you could consider the various education bills and student aid bills which required individual students to actually get good grades and show a certain grade point average if they wanted public funds. There are a ton of things like this which people just seem to over look because they are to busy to take off their partisan blinders.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ted Striker You were criticizing Carter's handling of the hostage crisis. Which is ridiculous considering all of the hostages were released. Especially after there was already one botched rescue attempt. The POINT was that the hostages were released, plain and simple, calling for "action," we never know what would have happened, but Carter determined that taking more action would have put their lives at risk.

As you pointed out, Carter did call for action after months of failed negotiations. Unfortunately, the rescue attempt was a debacle of the highest order. Of course it looked all the worse in comparison to the brilliance of the Israelis.

Dont forget that Vietnam was still fresh in everyones minds. Carters failure to to free the hostages through negotiations or act immediately signalled to the world that the US was impotent. That impression led to increased terrorist actions by Libya and Syria and to aggressive moves by Cuba.

Ronnie changed all that though.

"He (Quadaffi) counted on America to be passive, he counted wrong." -RR

[Ramo]

Carter did free the hostages through negotiations (that started in July 1980). He sacrificed his political career to both avoid war and get the hostages back home safe.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ramo
Carter did free the hostages through negotiations (that started in July 1980). He sacrificed his political career to both avoid war and get the hostages back home safe.

What an interesting viewpoint! I guess the fact that the Iranians refused to release the hostages while Carter was president and only resumed negotiations once RR was president-elect tells you nothing. The Iranians refused to deal with Carter and he had no answer to the problem. Its ridiculous to claim that Carter freed the hostages despite his considerable efforts to do so.

BTW I dont 'blame' Carter for acting as he did any more than I ''blame' Bush I for failing to finish off Saddam Hussein or 'blame' GWB for acting prematurely in Iraq. Its easy to armchair quarterback after the fact. That being said, the consequences of Carter's inability to resolve the problem with the hostages were dire for the USA and for the middle-east in general.

[Ramo]

They resumed negotiations in July 1980. Well before Ronnie was Pres elect.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ramo
They resumed negotiations in July 1980. Well before Ronnie was Pres elect.

Link?

As far as I can tell, real negotiations did resume with the new Iranian government in Sept but only became fruitful through the mediation of the Algerians after the election.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Secondly, if these gay people are so tolerant of differences in opinion, why do they force people to agree with them that homosexuality is a good thing?

MrFun - I daresay obiwan here is not a homophobic bigot: an educated man who believes that homosexuality is not natural perhaps, but this will probably not cause him to discriminate against gays IRL (just from my observation of his online behaviour, anyways).

But to be fair obiwan - would it not be ridiculous for anyone to disagree that heterosexuality is a good thing? People disagree on issues, but it's an extremely strong and insulting thing to have someone describe you or your beliefs as immoral or evil. PARTICULARLY when it's not a choice of yours, simply the way you are. You'd have to be very sure in your moral absolutism, and in today's diverse world someone with such an inflexible set of beliefs to the effect that millions are indecent or even evil would have to be very sure there was no other viewpoint. Which in this matter, there is.

[MrFun]

Bennie advocates that homosexuals should be denied equal privileges and rights through marriage -- thus, he discriminates against gays.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
well some of my friends have basically cracked and said they are voting for Bush. what do i mean by cracked? I mean the anti-Bush rhetoric forced unto them everyday finally reached the critical point when they realized it was all complete bull****... yall liberals in Philly just pushed too hard...

it was a couple of things... the blaming Bush for the flu... blaming Bush for soldiers dying (like one of my friends said, every soldier enlisted knowing the risks)... and dozens of other things...

it got to the point where one guy (who is pro-life, pro-death penalty, and opposed to welfare) who was always quoting Michael Moore as gospel (once again, conservatives who swear they are liberals) suddenly just did a 180 when he heard some woman just lamentating every problem and blaming Bush for things completely irrelevant... he did a 180 on the spot and realized how stupid the liberals are.

see what yall don't realize is that yall liberals are overdoing it. you blame Bush and the GOP for every little thing (come on now... the flu?) because you're trying to get more and more poeple to hate Bush and ultimately the only thing you are doing is showing your own stupidity and ignorance.

thank you liberals for adding three new Bush votes from Philly...

I was beginning to wonder about Kerry leaners/voters. Apparently some of them are not complete idiots and can recognize pettiness when they see it.

Your post reminds me an old saying. False in small things, false in large as well.

[Ned]

Originally posted by dojoboy
Oct. 6, 2004. It was written by Mathew Manweller who is a Central
Washington University political science professor.

The title of the article was "Election Determines Fate of Nation."

"In that this will be my last column before the presidential election there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high. This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two fold. First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland. It is said that America's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest generation.' But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last generation.' Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WW II, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake 'living in America' as 'being an American.' But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities. This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve. I believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and
daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."

Ah, another person who understands that the choice in this election is between Churchill and Chamberlain.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Bah, it isn't like Kerry is going to leave Iraq anytime soon if he gets elected.

Send a message to the rest of the world? Well, if Bush gets re-elected then it sends a terrifying message about American Democracy; that it is our way or the highway and we'll shoot first and sort out the mess later. The rest of the world and shocked and mortified by what the U.S. had done by and large, and confirming that this is what America is would send a very chilling message indeed.

I will tell you one thing though, democracy in the middle east is certainly too big of a job for Bush. He can't realize we don't have enough troops or allies. He refused to acknowledge that most of the Iraqis are very angry with us. He acts like this group of Iraqi forces we've trained there like us, when they might have 5% of their ranks infiltrated and the rest of them aren't too thrilled about the occupation either.

We need a president that will recognize the realities of the situation. That is something Bush and his Administration can't or won't do; they've demonstrated that again and again over the past 4 years.

-Drachasor

Edit: clarified the intent of my first sentence. Added "Iraq" and "if elected".

Drach, answer this simple question. Does Kerry view bringing democracy to the ME as necessary?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I have never felt this ashamed in my country ever


You know, when I grew up, we always watched great movies. In them, America always protected the world from the bad guys.

Unfortunatley, this time we ARE the bad guys.

George Bush and President Cheney have disgraced our nation more than any other leaders in history.

My write in ballot goes out tomorrow morning. I will fill it out tonight, and make my mark for John Kerry.

This is coming from someone, who waited in line, all by him self, up all night, without food or water, for 17 hours, to pay my last respects to President Reagan.

George Bush has perverted everything that I stand for. He is not the United States of America.

You've been watching too many movies with Farenheit in their title.

The truth is that Kerry represents appeasement, not strength. Ditto Carter. The people chose wisely in 1980. It is good, Ted, that you understood the wisdom of that choice. Hopefully, you will change your mind about Kerry.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
this is the most disgusting thread I have ever seen.

I'm a conservative, and I didn't vote for Bush. I don't expect any sane person to vote for him.

How much more does he have to screw up to lose?

I can't believe bush is going to easily win this election.

Sane? Voting for Kerry is insane.