Election Results

[Gambit]

But N Korea HASN'T done anything overtly aggressive yet (threatening, yes). Saddam had. I'm not excusing, I'm just trying to work out the logic.

Bin Laden/muslim : I don't. However, you have to ask yourself if the leadership (bin Laden) really feels this religious conviction or if he instills it in his followers to service his own ends. Same as with any religious leader.

Fox: As more right-leaning news outlets come on-line, the better ones will take viewers and/or respect from the worse ones. Fox may become the "Inquirer" of these, or it may adjust its tactics. My point is that people go there because they think it's better than the alternative, or just want a different point of view - which Fox is happy to supply, propaganda or not.

World/Free market : Agreed, it's not there yet. My point was merely that it's spreading, and this change is the source of the turmoil. Anyway, China is one country - nearly all the world pays labor less than the US.

Kerry's test - We did that. The Brits apparantly fed us a line that agreed with ours. Most everyone else was inconclusive, IIRC, with few to none in both the trusted category with a "definitely not" response. A false pretense means that the wrong decision was made knowingly and that an excuse was offered to justify it which was known to be false at the time. What the commission found was that the intel services supplied bad information. Tough to make a good decision on bad information. Perhaps Bush is a bald-faced liar. Perhaps he just showed poor judgement Perhaps he made the best decision anyone could make given the information he had. I don't know, and neither do you. Somebody does, and their story probably is out there, but which one is it?

BTW, China announced a couple weeks ago that they're not going to regulate their yuan vs our dollar like they have. Significant concession. They also happen to be the largest single (foreign?) consumer of American steel at the moment.

[Gambit]

(Oh, and wow, that's some article, Steele. Thanks!)

[Kaleban]

Well, I submit that Iraq hadn't done anything overtly aggressive since the end of Desert Storm, oh about a decade ago.

Face it, the ousting of Saddam and establishing an American friendly puppet in the Middle East has been a big part of the American political agenda (mostly Republican but several Democrats) for the last 20 years, you can find articles about it at the CIA website that have been declassified.

Regardless of what reasons the administration gave you, I based my voting for Kerry on one simple comparison:

Bush is a KNOWN failure, who as I mentioned in my first post has done nothing but screw up for the last four years. Kerry is an unknown quantity who the Bush campaign tried to paint as the incumbent. Remember, not once did the Bush campaign run on his record, because it stinks. Heck, out of the first nine months in office, Bush spent 42% of his time on vacation!

So my choice was clear, vote in a guaranteed failure, or gamble on someone who might not fail, but if he did, could not possibly do any worse than Bush.

Besides, a lot of the "facts" we're arguing are mostly opinion anyways, hence my "moron/salt" disclaimer!

And remember this, many veterans denounced the swift boat ads and such targeting Kerry, calling the ads "irresponsible", "idiotic", "bald faced lies" etc, etc. Yet many people believed them. I find it highly ironic that the only candidate with NO real Vietnam war experience has repeated the mistake of the past by embroiling this country in a war which will no doubt have the same resolution, pulling out in ten years leaving the place decimated and in a shambles, with some vague apologies and no economic reparations. A shame really, I know plenty of people from Vietnam, from when I LIVED there, as well as Saudi Arabia, and both Moslems and Vietnamese are perfectly decent, well mannered, if a little poor people. No wonder they hate arrogant, loud, decadent, imperialistic, over commercialized, capitalist America. I'm starting to as well.

[Gambit]

Hmm... Firing weapons at planes isn't overtly aggressive? I seem to recall quite a bit of that going on.

I don't doubt the M.E. thing. Militarily, we need a presence there, as I said.

Kerry's voting record in the Senate is indeed a known quantity. You can examine his record in that respect for yourself. http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_cat...an_id=S0421103

No economic reparations - well, we're making a massive investment in the Iraqi infrastructure, if nothing else. Of course we'd like to buy their oil - but if they want to sell and we give 'em a fair price, they're way better off than they were.

Can't really argue the swift boat ads. Dems did fire a few salvos of that sort of their own, as I recall, but swift boat did strike the first blow in that respect.

End of our actions in Iraq - and how exactly was Kerry planning to clean it up? He never did make that clear. Neither did Bush. It's a complicated situation, everyone here and abroad wants us out, but there's no good way to do it at this point. The US will get plenty of blame no matter what, so we might as well try to do the best we can.

If a citizen is unhappy with the direction the country is headed, they are empowered to either work to improve it or they have the freedom to leave - unlike many other countries where there is no such freedom. Too many people do neither and just sit around complaining, which helps no one. Many such don't even vote, or don't take the time to research a few facts about the candidates, though you're obviously not one of them.

[Cerberus]

Kerry is a pro-partial birth abortion, voted against every military program or vehicle that we are CURRENTLY using in Iraq, has absolutely no religious morals despite what he says. So if the US remains an Island, at least we'll be on the right Island, while the rest of the world is lost in a sea of declining morals. I voted for Bush and for Rossi.

[SiFi]

Morals are not exclusive to those of you who are religious. Considering the history of Cristianity/Catholicism and their various splinters, that might be a good thing. To be fair, many modern day churches are paragons of virtue, that want to help their communities, and succeed at doing so. My problem is with the mixing of church and state, and the corruption of both. On it's own, religion can be a good thing (despite my own views on it); providing peace of mind and unity of spirit to people. On it's own government can be a good thing, guiding nations through these troubled times. The problem with mixing them is that priests become corrupt and poiliticians become puppets. You can keep you fundamentalist "morals," and stay in the 20th century, and the rest of the world will move on.

[Kaleban]

If an Iraqi MiG-21 buzzed anywhere near Washington D.C., what do you think would happen? KABOOM! Plane shot down. Firing missiles at foreign military aircraft flying near your capital city is not a terrorist attack, nor aggressive, it is a defensive measure. This is the second time we've attacked them, admittedly the first was to help out a fringe ally (Kuwait) but the second was unprovoked and totally unwarranted.

And while we are investing in the re-building of Iraq, its been stated by both political parties that a drawn out Iraqi conflict will gain nothing for the citizens of Iraq, and will take decades for even maximum oil output to repay what the USA has invested to this point in time. Ten or more years down the road, and all the oil they have won't pay it back. Remember, after a year and a half AFTER Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" we've spent over $200 BILLION in Iraq...

I agree that currently, the USA has many freedoms that other countries do not enjoy, however with an all-Republican government, with many extreme conservative Christians in office, I have a feeling that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the new targets of the updated and improved Patriot Act. While I would say I find partial birth abortion very distasteful and is something to be avoided if possible, what I don't agree with is that we have a President who brings morality into judicial and legislative authority. One person's morals do not (or should not) dictate what every other person in a country as diverse as the USA should follow, but the government under Republicans and Christians sure are trying hard.

I mean, how many states took a vote on gay marriage right after November 2nd? 11, 12? And half passed or something like that? As our founding fathers said (who, by the way were even more hard-line religious Puritans, but were wise enough to realize not everyone else was) separation of church and state are of paramount concern.

I seriously doubt that Chinese-Americans, African-Americans, Latino-Americans, etc., etc. share the same moral or religious values that the Christian Coalition espouse, and it will be a sad day indeed when our society looks like something out of John Carpenter's Escape From New York/L.A. movies...

/rant

P.S. Look at morals like this (in my opinion):

Clinton got a BJ in office, and was impeached. The Republicans went at him from every angle on Whitewater, never proved anything, and used a frivolous and trumped up sexual harrassment case to take him down, because he wasn't killing towel-heads and spending money like water.

Bush currently has gotten over 1000 U.S. soldiers killed for what many think is a useless or at least misguided war. And the body count rises daily, with no clear plan from our current administration (Bush, being Commander in Chief is the one who must take responsibility).

If, in the end its found that Bush collaborated with the Saudis, that Cheney is in it for Halliburton, and even IF these rumours are proven unfounded, who has caused the greater pain to the office of the President, and the Nation as a whole? I know who I'd say.

[SiFi]

Know what? I'm just going to stop trying to make points. Kaleban makes them so much better.

[Aluscia]

I am a Christian. I am a Socialist (leaning hard left, but quite moderate in a lot of ways... Think post-WWII Britain). I hate Capitalism. Unfortunately, I have to survive in a predomiantly capitalist West so I turn a blind eye to a lot that goes on, mark my ballot every election for the NDP (the only left in Canada that ever has a chance of making a difference), and cry bitter tears when the government of Canada (Right now, the Liberals), which purported itself as a neither left-nor-right leaning governing body, and had governed by default for over a decade (The anti-Progressive Conservative (Mulroney) motion was so violent, it was only this past election that we are recovering our ability to look at alternatives), makes decisions that seem to only take the right into consideration. While we are definitely more moderate than the US in a lot of political ways, the current government in power is taking us in a direction I don't necessarily agree with.

My reason for being so anti-Bush is a very simple bible quote (although, admittedly, I don't remember which gospel it is from): "How can you presume to take dust out of another's eye with a log stuck in your own?" His lack of a "big picture", or perhaps even more specifically, a big picture omitting a lot of colours/parts with a giant Red White and Blue flag in the middle of it, scares me significantly. He is an incredible *reactive* leader. If Al Gore had been in office, the response to 9/11 probably wouldn't have been enough. There might not have been a response at all. So, I will give Bush that credit. But he didn't stop! He should have cleaned out Afghanistan (since they declared Jihad against the US), empowered the FBI/struck a new body to find Osama etc., and concentrate on working with the world to bolster themselves from threats of terrorism. However, Bush went further. He decided to act on old, inaccurate information to muster the world's forces to rid Iraq of a despot. Despite the fact that world has countless other despots, some of which who perform even worse atrocities on their own people. Despite the fact that many of America's friends were not showing support for the war (then again, they just slandered the **** out of all the countries that declined/opposed so I don't think they can be classified as friends). Despite the fact that Canada did not show support for the war (for which I am glad. Many right-wingers screamed bloody murder at our PM Jean Chretien, claiming we were turning our back on a "righteous war"... look at how righteous it has become). Despite the fact that trade embargos had already decimated and demoralized the population of Iraq. Despite the lack of understanding that every government has supporters, or else it wouldn't be in power. Essentially, what Bush did was declare war on a country that had a government he didn't like under the pretenses of stopping them from harnessing WMDs and harbouring terrorists (neither of which have surfaced, really) and establishing a beautiful democracy that the West could be proud of.

The results of the war are ongoing history. I don't need to post a tally of Casualties, because it will be inaccurate regardless. What I really want to see is a comparison of how many Americans (not counting the foreigners) died in the 9/11 attacks and how many Americans have died in the war on Iraq. It would be interesting to see, because if the numbers are as close as I think they are, then the Bush administration is actually guilty of worse crimes than Osama himself! I won't presume to make that accusation however... It's obvious that the voting public of the US didn't care. They like feeling safe; the insular feeling of rabid protection of "morals", the great security of a national "terror alert" system, the stringent immigration policies and checks in place at PoEs, the development of the Star Wars missile defense shield. All of these factors lead to a safe and sound homeland.
The thing I don't understand is why more nations that are in the West don't esperience the same problems with terrorism that the US does. I'm not in fear at all of a terrorist attack on my person, my city, my province, or even my country. Similarly, much of Europe feels this way. Why? I can think of a number of reasons, but none of them are complete. The biggest reason, I feel, is that America simply has no room for broadening of its own cultural identity. The past exploits and wars of America are simply still too fresh to abandon the idolistic worship of them, and thus foreigners who come to "the land of promise" can only be integrated if they abandon their own pasts and join in the frenzied orgy of warmongering. It exists on so many levels too, from sports team competition to road rage to gang violence to political races to... eventually down to the very conept of Capitalism itself, which is the freedom for an individual to rise above any other in standing (however that is measured, by influence/money/property/wives etc). The problem with it now is that America sees it as a right to push everything else out of the way so they are "America: Biggest and Best". taking the indivudal struggles of capitalism to the macro level of nation state governance.

Pulling in my last beef with Bush, the pretense of religion. As I stated at the beginning, I am a Christian. Avowedly, I am not perfect, nor will I ever be close. I don't strive for perfection, I don't want to be a saint, and in fact, I don't even really like evangelizing. I firmly believe in the bible as a guide, and yet, I also firmly believe in its antiquity. I don't, however, view it as a play book on how society should be run (with the sole exception of the words of Christ himself, which I also strive to make my guide). I don't like how so many people throw crazy ass bible quotes out to justify action that is "moralistic". As I said, I am a Christian... I'm also gay. In a lot of branches of Christianity, this would pose a serious conflict between my spirit and my sexuality. However, using Christ's own abolition of the ways of the Pharisees, who followed Levittacus/Deuteronomy to the letter, and his 2 simple commandments of loving each other and loving God as we love ourselves, I think I'm carving out a pretty decent and holy lifestyle. Nowhere in Christ's words exists the right of some to step in and remove choice from others, on any scale. That includes that abolition of same-sex marriages, the abolition of abortion, the rigid control of stem cell research, the invasion and conversion of other countries/religions by the sword, or the squelching of difference in opinion by a leader who purports himself as a "Christian".
Essentially, I dislike and am afraid of another Bush mandate because it takes my core being as a Christian, twists it around, and puts it on display for everyone else to see its misplaced pride in "morals". Is it any wonder that other religions look at Christianity as a threat, instead of as a way of peace and harmony?

I apologize for being rabid in my own views. I love you all a lot, but I find it very frustrating when I see someone who is an enemy of peace in the world come to power for the second time. I find it even more frustrating that it seems people are duped by his "strengths" enough to completely forget his "faults". That said, I pray for a safer and better world, regardless of what mischief Bush may put it up to.

[Gambit]

Kal,

Planes shot at were in the "no-fly zones", there to make sure Saddam didn't slaughter more Kurds like he did every chance he got. They were NOT flying near/over Bagdad. Second time we've attacked them? Some figure it as an extension of the first, which was only interrrupted because Saddam granted certain concessions (was one of those the no-fly zones?) *which* *he* *never* *fulfilled*.

If all the oil Iraq makes for ten years won't pay us back, doesn't that kind of deflate the "blood for oil" argument?

"what I don't agree with is that we have a President who brings morality into judicial and legislative authority" -- WHAT? You want IMMORAL laws and judges? No thanks.

FYI, in EVERY state that proposed banning gay marriage, the proposal passed by a significant margin. In Oregon, where the pro-gay movement concentrated hardest and thought they had the best chance of winning, spending millions of dollars on their campaign, it still passed by (I think) 67%. Mississippi was the stronges, at >85%.

Those same founding fathers you mention ALL publicly stated or wrote that the Bible should be taught in school. Some were Christians, some were Deists, some were atheist, but all knew the value of the morality taught within. And you're certainly correct in saying that other cultures do not share the same moral codes as traditional American Judeo-Christian values. But something about this country must be better, because they came here. You don't see mass numbers of people running away from the US to go live in China or India or Africa or anywhere else. Those traditional values shaped the system these people want.

Dude, Clinton lied under oath. And admitted it. People go to jail for that, y'know. There's a lot shady about the Clintons. I met the man, and talked to plenty of people who know him personally and knew of his activities firsthand, before I cared much about politics. I can honestly say they don't call him "Slick Willy" for nothing.


Laur,

I sure don't like the way things went in the international community. I do wish it had gone better, for many reasons. I wish we'd had the right information, but what we had was what we had and we couldn't get any more updated info because Saddam just wasn't cooperating. If he didn't wan't folks messing around with his palaces he should have stayed out of Kuwait.
Isn't it true that sometimes you have to stand alone for something you believe in? What if the folks at the top honestly and sincerely believed there was a specific and serious sort of terrorist danger there? Some folks would have gone in immediately, guns blazing, and taken care of the situation. Would you want a leader who did nothing at all when faced with such reported danger? There were months where we tried to show other nations what was there, not to mention find more/better intel. Even then, Saddam could have let the inspectors in, but didn't.

Other western nations & terrorism: You're not afraid for your city. Congratulations, and you're welcome.
Ask Spain what terrorism has done for them.
Of course Saddam had supporters. They were a band of thugs. Saddam worked as an assassin, and rose to power by fear of execution and greed. In any group of people of sufficient size, there will be people who stand by what they believe, and people who will do anything to get what they want. Which group supports whom?

You say you're a Christian. You say you believe in the Bible as a guide, but you "believe in its antiquity." In the context, I think you're implying it's outdated. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Christ said love God first, with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. Then, love others as you love yourself. Also, he said, if you love Me, keep My commandments. He also said that the old Mosaic law (which the leaders of the time had taken entirely too far and replaced worship with tradition) was not superseded by his words and would not pass away until heaven and earth do. There's much more in the Law than the "ten commandments," but let's take those for a start. Love God: covered that. Don't worship idols: Well, we don't do that explicitly, but our actions betray us sometimes. Don't murder: ok, we have a law against that. Don't steal: ok, got that too. Don't lie: Hmm.. No law there, except under oath. Don't commit adultery: no law there, either. (Can we define adultery as "sex outside of marriage," just for clarity?) Don't covet stuff that doesn't belong to you: no laws, again, because men can't get inside other men's heads.

I will be frank. I have serious problems with homosexuality. Not the people, the practice. I also have problems when people say they're gay, but they're Christian, but Christ says we're to love each other anyway and wave that around as an excuse. True, He said that, but He also said "Go, and sin no more!" FWIW, I feel very much the same way about heteros who sleep around and make the same claim, so it's not just homophobia. Or liars, or theives, or whatever. It's hypocritical.
Let me insert here and say that I sin, and frequently. But it's wrong, I acknowlege that it's wrong, and I want to stop doing it. That sin hurts me and it hurts those around me, whom I love. Yes, I'm hypocritical too. I have a log in my eye, and cannot condemn you or anyone else. Jesus said he didn't come to condemn anyone. When He returns, though, it will be as our judge.

That Law that I spoke of is there not just as a guide to life, but to show us how we fail to measure up. No one can honestly live it out - but Christ did. Faith in Him saves us, but that faith requires repentence. If you don't admit to your own sin and turn away from it, then you aren't acknowledging that you need Him.


==========================
Whee, now that we've well and truly mixed religion and politics in the same post, I have one final monkey wrench to throw:

I don't know how he voted in the last,or any, election, but a few years ago Billy Graham publicly stated he's a democrat.

[SiFi]

It is at this point that I'm going to bow out of any active participation in this debate (such as it was), as it is moving beyond the scope of my knowledge. I will continue to watch, and continue to support Laurelin with whatever aid I can give. Other than that, I'm surprised that this thread hasn't devolved into a flame war, though that may be just an impression that I get from reading other, less mature forums. I'm VERY imnpressed with the maturity and restraint shown by everyone in this debate, and while everyone rants, no one's an ass about it.

I am so very glad that I'm applying to this clan instead of another.

[Aluscia]

Gamb, I will sum my feelings up simply: If God did not make me exactly as I am, homosexuality and all, then I will go to hell because he is not the God I believe in. While I understand your feelings (I've had to listen to my mother's Christian radio shows from the States talking about converting gays from lives of "sin", and being told "I'm glad no one in our family is sick like [the gays]."), I don't share them (obviously). To be lumped in with adulterers as a similar sexual sin is... wrong. Adultery is in the 10 commandments (along with thievery, murder, and a whole bunch of other big list criminalities), while Homosexuality shows up in the same chapter that includes not planting more than one crop in one field (goodbye engineered crops), Not wearing clothing of two different types of material (goodbye cotton blends), and taking slaves of only other nations (goodbye emancipation proclamation). I firmly believe all of these laws were created to save the tribes of Israel from themselves, moving them away from things with dangerous outcomes *or* things that would reduce the number of functioning members in society. So why, given what you said about these laws being in place until the end of this world, do we mix crops and materials? Why do eat non-kosher foods, and do all sorts of things that would make us "unclean" and then go to church? Because we find those laws no longer apply, because they're less important. They're inconvenient. And yet, why should any other law be less important? Is it our place to decide which laws to break and which to follow? That said, I don't really mind that you're against homosexuality. I just don't understand the biblical argument because it just doesn't add up. Even if you use the easiest story from the Bible (Sodom & Gomorrah), the sins for which the cities were destroyed was not predominant homosexuality: It was rape, and thievery, and the fact that they accosted an angel of God sent to determine the cities' legitimacy. If anything, that story was only included to explain why Lot's daughters had to commit incest.

As far as what I said about the 'antiquity' of the bible, you got the right impression. It is outdated for exactly the reasons I listed above.

[Kaleban]

Gambit, I'm gonna quote you on a few things, but just to crystallize my own points, not to mock you or anything.

Originally Posted by Gambit

Kal,

Planes shot at were in the "no-fly zones", there to make sure Saddam didn't slaughter more Kurds like he did every chance he got. They were NOT flying near/over Bagdad. Second time we've attacked them? Some figure it as an extension of the first, which was only interrrupted because Saddam granted certain concessions (was one of those the no-fly zones?) *which* *he* *never* *fulfilled*.

The capitol thing was just an example. If Iraqi MiG-21s flew over ANY American territory, what would our response be? Simple. KABOOM! Just as we would, Saddam was defending his country. Whether we think its right or not, every country has the right to defend itself, I find it highly amusing that Iraqis, in their own country, fighting against a foreign aggressor, are labeled as "terrorists." They're "defenders" actually. Regardless of what FOX News or the Republicans would have you believe, MANY Iraqis are fighting because of their beliefs, not due to some masochistic suicidal terroristic behaviour. If America were invaded to "liberate" us from Bush, don't you think a good number of people would fight back, even if others told them it was a bad idea? The Iraqi defenders are simply Moslem Republicans in a funny way. But history is very simple, the victors write the books, and get to call whomever they conquered whatever they wish.

Originally Posted by Gambit

If all the oil Iraq makes for ten years won't pay us back, doesn't that kind of deflate the "blood for oil" argument?

The FOOD for oil program was established to give the starving masses a shot at food, without the government stepping in to "tax" the relief aid. And the FOOD for oil program was established I believe by the UN, and while not perfect, it certainly was more effective at feeding the poor than a Mk. 82 Snakeye dropped through a front door!

Originally Posted by Gambit

"what I don't agree with is that we have a President who brings morality into judicial and legislative authority" -- WHAT? You want IMMORAL laws and judges? No thanks.

No, you missed my point. I don't want morality brought into the government at all. Lack of morals in the judicial system does not make for immoral judges, it makes for impartiality. I don't want some fire and brimstone judge handing down crucifixion sentences for loitering, as I don't want some pot-smoking hippie judge letting everyone go while he takes another hit off his bong. I want a system where laws and judgements are made to suit the issues at hand. What is wrong with gay marriage? It affects no one but the couple being married. All the perceived "opening doors" BS is just that, BS. If that were the case, marriage itself is "opening a door" to marriage between a man and a woman, a woman and her dog, a man and his plant, etc., etc. Rediculous, but the same argument is what is used to eliminate the possibility of gay marriage. IMHO, the state and feds should eliminate marriage from their vocabulary, and only provide civil unions, leaving marriage to the province of religion. So ANY union, whether it is hetero, gay or otherwise confers the same legal benefits, but only hetero gets to do it in a church.

Originally Posted by Gambit

FYI, in EVERY state that proposed banning gay marriage, the proposal passed by a significant margin. In Oregon, where the pro-gay movement concentrated hardest and thought they had the best chance of winning, spending millions of dollars on their campaign, it still passed by (I think) 67%. Mississippi was the stronges, at >85%.

Yeah, well that is not good is it? The people that are voting against gay marriage, which usually is all sorts of nasty people, from the KKK and Arians to "right wing nut jobs" who don't care that their prejudice and "morals" are restricting the happiness of people they're likely to NEVER meet or interact with. VERY selfish.

Originally Posted by Gambit

Those same founding fathers you mention ALL publicly stated or wrote that the Bible should be taught in school. Some were Christians, some were Deists, some were atheist, but all knew the value of the morality taught within. And you're certainly correct in saying that other cultures do not share the same moral codes as traditional American Judeo-Christian values. But something about this country must be better, because they came here. You don't see mass numbers of people running away from the US to go live in China or India or Africa or anywhere else. Those traditional values shaped the system these people want.

Nothing wrong with the Bible being taught, impartially, in school, its using it as a manual for running a country composed of many different cultures and religions that I have issues with. Many of the people that are here are descendants of slaves and other cultural groups, who are either stuck here in low paying jobs and cannot afford to move (urban sprawl) or the conditions are so bad in their home country that ANYTHING is better (such as Cuba), or they simply are unaware of what is going on. Rich and wealthy people certainly do move out of the USA, most notably to other English speaking countries with laxer rules and laws. And while the founding fathers knew the value of morality, they knew that morality is SUBJECTIVE, so in making the groundwork for laws they tried to be as ambiguous and flexible as possible, which is quite genius 200+ years ago. Subsequent administrations have refined and distilled the basic laws, but contemporary conservative groups are going AGAINST what the founding fathers dictated, that of separation of church and state. The attempts to ban stem cell research are out of a fear of aborted fetus farming, or women intentionally having abortions to make a couple hundred dollars. This is absurd. Its reactionary politics, something Republicans are good at, along with empty rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Gambit

Dude, Clinton lied under oath. And admitted it. People go to jail for that, y'know. There's a lot shady about the Clintons. I met the man, and talked to plenty of people who know him personally and knew of his activities firsthand, before I cared much about politics. I can honestly say they don't call him "Slick Willy" for nothing.

I've also met Ex-President Bill Clinton, when he was overseas on a humanitarian effort back in '94 I believe. Very personable, charming and charismatic. You know what specifically he lied about under oath right? He lied about having an affair with Linda Tripp, while his wife was in the first row of benches, to an incensed Kenneth Starr who was unable to make headway upon the case at hand, that of a real estate scandal brokered by his wife Hillary. It was totally objectionable, and yet, the Republican judge, allowed the question to go forward.

Ken Starr spent MILLIONS of dollars prosecuting a president for impeachment based on a lie most men would tell. That's why three polls taken in his last year cited over 80% of those polled (three different groups) stated they wished the Republicans would end the witch hunt and act responsibly. They just hated Clinton that much, and spent our dollars to hurt the man.

Look, I know you and I will most likely never agree on these issues, and that's fine. But one thing you should do when watching the news, or anything involving another culture, is put yourself in their shoes. If guys in military fatigues beat down your door, accused you of treason, took you to a camp, stripped you naked and molested and abused you on camera, would you take it all with a smile and acknowledging it as your civic duty? Or would you hate the men who did it, since they never even had probable cause, and secretly nurture a desire for revenge?

I try to live my life by two basic rules:

Treat others the way you wish to be treated.
Always attempt to put yourself in another man's shoes (figuratively) before making any opinions/judgements.

The people that voted for Bush, and fervently support him, banning of gay marriage, banning of stem cell research, continuing an unjust war, etc., etc. simply do not understand nor follow these two basic precepts.

Anyways, good argument, kicak ass on T:V!

[Gambit]

I'm going to go out of order and answer Kal first.

Kal, you keep missing my point with the flyovers. I've got to assume it's intentional so I'll quit wasting breath there.

"Blood for oil" is the slogan that anti-war folks use, saying that Bush started a war, spilling blood so we can get the oil. What I meant was that if that oil isn't going to be paying for the war, that argument is pointless.

Ok, so you want A-moral insteal of im-moral laws and judges. Still, no thank you. You "want a system where laws and judgements are made to suit the issues at hand." Sounds quite similar to relative ethics. Is there no absolute right or wrong in your universe? If there is, where does it come from? Mine comes from the Bible, and while my understanding of it will change, the Bible itself won't.

My religious self is adamantly against homosexuality, as it is against any extra-marital sex. Politically, I have to acknowledge that not everyone in the country is required to share my moral code, and this part could settle for civil unions, leaving marriage for church. That doesn't mean I'll vote in favor of them, though.

BTW, those KKK and Aryans and nut jobs are citizens, and have the same right to vote as you do. You demonstrate here that you want others to respect your viewpoint but don't care to respect theirs. (And if I didn't respect yours and Laur's, we wouldn't be having a civil discourse here... )

Immigration/Emigration : There are poor folks here. There are poor folks in every country. There are rich folks in every country. Many, many, many more want to get in than get out. More people want to get into the US than anywhere in the world. Why is that?

Whether most men would tell that lie doesn't legally matter, does it?. If a law to be valid, it has to apply to all people in all situations. Pardon may be granted by a court, in special cases or under extenuating circumstances, but that doesn't make them any less guilty.

"AGAINST what the founding fathers dictated, that of separation of church and state." Actually, they never dictated that. They stated that the government may not interfere with the establishment of religion. Look it up. They were trying to protect religion from the state, not vice versa. If, indeed, "fundamentalist right-wingers" do achieve total power, they cannot interfere with the establishment of a Satanist church, or a Muslim mosque, a Bhuddist temple, a Jewish temple, or whatever. The same rights and freedoms granted to one religion are granted to all.

"The attempts to ban stem cell research are out of a fear of aborted fetus farming, or women intentionally having abortions to make a couple hundred dollars. This is absurd." Why is this absurd? I listened to a guy today who counseled a woman who prostituted herself and her *two-year-old daughter* to support her drug habit! When you permit abortion, and say that the fetus has no intrinsic value, and then say, waitaminnit - we can use the stem cells! What do you think is going to happen?
To clear up a little misunderstanding, there IS NO BAN on stem-cell research. It's just that there are NO FEDERAL FUNDS granted to perform said research, except on the previously identified cell groups. There's a difference there which I really wish people would acknowledge.

How can you imply that I would support the prisoner atrocities at Abu Graib? Of course that's unacceptable, for anyone to be involved in that sort of thing.
Do you think Saddam treated prisoners any better? Not that that's an excuse, but there's a big difference between that treatment being official, expected policy and the outcry that followed its discovery here. Bush, if you'll recall, went on the air and apologized to the US, Iraqis, and the world for that incident.

You claim to try to see things from the other guys viewpoint - but I haven't got so much as a glimmer of agreement on any point from you. If you'll go back and look at my posts and your posts, you'll see that I publicly acknowledge where you make points and I agree with you. Is it too much to expect a little of that in return? Surely you agree with something I said, somewhere? From what I've seen, you simply haven't looked at it from the other side. Perhaps we ought to reverse our roles - you defend Bush and I'll attack him.
*edit* (Your "Bible in schools" comment in your last post is close - but not quite what I meant.)


Laur,

The Torah, the Mosaic Law, is understood by the Jews to have been given to them alone. The Jews regarded themselves as a people set apart, chosen by God, and they recognized that their laws did not apply to Gentiles (non-Jews). The phrase "ten commandments" is not Jewish in origin - there are at least three places in the Torah where they are listed, and they don't always number ten. You are correct, therefore, in some of your interpretation that some things are no longer needed, such as keeping Kosher, planting the crops particular ways, etc. as they were intended to keep the Jews healthy and strong. Usually they're good to keep anyway - I know I certainly enjoy Kosher food!

However, there are things that apply to Gentiles, as well. Homosexuality is directly addressed in the New Testament, as well, such as in Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth. Corinth was a Greek city, not Jewish, and almost all of the people in that church were Greek. He writes there (6:9):

... Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

You say to be lumped in there with adulterers is wrong. Paul said that, not I, and thieves, drunks, and crooks are lumped in there too. And, lest you think that Paul was simply intolerant, this also was written by him in that same book (9:19):

19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.

That's probably a little cryptic, so let me clarify and give some background. Paul was born in Tarsus, with the name Saul. He was a Jew's Jew, a Pharisee, and at the same time by virtue of his birthplace a Roman citizen. He was educated under some of the best Rabbis of his day and took Jewish law very, very seriously. In this passage, after his conversion to Christianity, he's saying among other things that he sits and eats (non-kosher) with Gentiles! (those not having the law) This was abhorrent to the Jews, and they'd have to go through purification rituals and such after just associating with such people. He's saying he does even this and more to bring Christ to these people.
And in the other verse, he says that those listed behaviors are sinful, and need to be repented of. There are other sins, and other lists, and commandments aplenty, and this is but one small example. I'm not trying to guilt-trip you. I've got sins aplenty of my own - no way I can say I'm better than you or anything like that. Your homosexuality doesn't mean a fig next to the larger issue. There are some things which do seem very clear, much as our culture wants to muddy them for its own convenience. Yes, homosexuality is one, but that's not what I'm talking about. Does God have to be made in your image for you to listen, or can you accept that a God who is capable of making the universe might have a slightly different point of view than yours? (Or mine - I'll admit that I don't have a grasp on such things beyond the Bible, or even all of that.)

[Steele]

whew dem are some long reads who started this thread anyways

Someone said:

I will continue to watch, and continue to support Laurelin with whatever aid I can give. Other than that, I'm surprised that this thread hasn't devolved into a flame war, though that may be just an impression that I get from reading other, less mature forums. I'm VERY imnpressed with the maturity and restraint shown by everyone in this debate, and while everyone rants, no one's an ass about it.

I'd like to second that...I am impressed at givien the strong feelings on each side of these issues that everyone is keeping cool...I gotta digest what I've read here tonight...good discussion