#238881 - 26/10/2004 17:01
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
And by the way, you've never seen me try to touch my toes. It's not a pretty sight.
Ah, I knew it! You ARE a bot!
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238883 - 26/10/2004 21:57
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: JeffS]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
While it is interesting (and surprising) that there are so many here who support Bush, I still think the opinions found throughout the life of the BBS how a definite leaning toward the left.
Entirely possible; as I'm a newbie, and with all the tangents the leady me off on, I've only read about 3000 of them so far...a mere drop in the bucket. BTW, did you read the Christian response on the 'bushforkerry' site, and if so, what was your reaction to that?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238884 - 26/10/2004 22:53
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: kayakjazz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
BTW, did you read the Christian response on the 'bushforkerry' site, and if so, what was your reaction to that?
I hadn't, but I just did. I suppose the easiest thing to do is respond point by point. But before I do, please remember I’m not a huge Bush fan. I just think he’s the better of two poor choices.
Now, from the web page:
Quote:
I'm voting for John Kerry because I'm a Christian. I know that my second cousin, George Bush, claims that he is the anointed leader of the American people and that God told him to run for office. I believe he may even believe that. I don't.
While it is true Bush claims this, the context also should be understood. Most Christians I know believe EVERYTHING they do is at God’s behest and with His approval, right down to going to the store to buy bread. Now certainly a wrong choice, like cutting someone off in traffic, is not what God asked for, but a Christian who is making a positive decision he or she thinks is the right one believes that this is something that God wants. Sometimes they find out later they were wrong, but that doesn’t negate the original feeling that “God ordained it.” In Bush’s case, certainly if he’s running for the highest office in the land he’s only doing it if he believes it’s what God wants him to do. The language he’s used (that I’ve heard) is entirely consistent with this, and many Christians I know would not interpret the things Bush has said the way this person has, nor do I believe Bush meant it the way she is taking it. However, I do understand the reaction.
Quote:
My Christian faith leads me to a concern for the poor and the marginalized, yet Bush's actions in office have repeatedly cut funding for health care, aid to failing schools, jobs programs . . .
I understand this completely, and I think it’s a tough call what the government’s responsibility is toward the poor and marginalized. I think that it’s a bad idea for the government to be heavily involved and that caring for the poor and marginalized should be a personal responsibility, but that’s easy to say in my comfortable house typing away on one of my many computers. Reasoning it all out logically, I know the government can’t be responsible for everything, otherwise we’ll have communism which always breaks down into corruption. So the only real question is where to draw the line. I draw it further toward personal responsibility than this lady does, but I realize I might be wrong. In the end, though, it’s not a question of Christian belief, it’s a question of what economics best meet that belief. She and I want the same things, but we disagree about how to get there.
Quote:
My Christian faith tells me the peacemakers are the blessed ones, yet George Bush wants to resurrect the Crusades . . .
I think this is over-the-top and just plain wrong. There may be lots of allegations about why Bush went into Iraq (she seems to think it’s about oil), but only the worst conspiracy theories compete with the horror of the crusades.
Quote:
[Jesus] was talking about liberating his OWN people from within, not invading an oil-rich country out of purely selfish motives, then claiming it was for the liberation of others.
If she’s right about his motives, well then she’s right. But I don’t think so. I truly think he believed (as did most of the nation, Congress, and Kerry) that attacking Iraq was the best way to ensure long term peace.
Quote:
My Christian faith moves toward greater inclusiveness and acceptance, George Bush moves toward punishment, division, and exclusion.
This is just a general statement, and could be attributed to a lot of things so it’s hard to argue. In any case, it’s oversimplified from my perspective. Jesus was exclusive toward some people (the Pharisees, for example), but he was certainly inclusive toward those who wanted to follow Him.
Quote:
My Christian faith seeks to bring people into the circle of decision-making, George Bush seeks to keep them out. My Christian faith seeks to afford equal rights and responsibilities to all, George Bush seeks to reserve more rights for the privileged few.
Once again, very general statements that I can’t really respond to. I don’t know who she believes is the “privileged few”. If it’s that those who have the most money get to spend the most money, I don’t see that as being un-Christian (I don’t see it as being Christian either- just economics).
Quote:
My Christian faith is not looking for a new Messiah named George Bush.
Once again, she’s pushing Bush’s words pretty far. He never claimed this; rather I think he’d be ashamed to even think it.
In the end, I think that though she and I may both be Christians, we are coming from very different places. Some of it (the economics) is religiously neutral and we just happened to differ. In other places, we seem to differ in our interpretations of events or how much benefit of the doubt we give Bush. Finally, there are also some clear theological differences that yield different worldviews.
Whew! Sid that answer your question! 
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238885 - 27/10/2004 04:00
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: JeffS]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
I was also surprised, having spent the last month reading old posts, and the point is valid even if you have to figure that the folks who voted for Bartlett will likely vote for Kerry if only in desperation--this is very much an "anybody but Bush..." election. It is also part of the rhetoric of the right to suggest that anything that doesn't eagree with their world-view is liberal left-wing bias without the observation too far here. While it is interesting (and surprising) that there are so many here who support Bush,
I'd say that you, Brad, and JBjorgen, being frequent posters in this kind of discussion, do a fair job of balancing that out, but overall, you're probably right, and especially are correct about the reasons. techies tend toward the liberal end of the spectrum.
Quote:
while there does seem to be a "liberal bent", no one seems to feel the need to stuff themselves into a pigeonhole and remain there. Sometimes very surprising opinions come from people unexpectedly, and there are clear instances in which those on opposite “sides” have agreed...
It's refreshing to know you're having a conversation with a thinking person rather than a machine that compiles the question, lines it up against a set of stone ideologies,
It IS refreshing, and it IS because people on this board are clearly smart enough to think for themselves. Things have gotten so polarized that some of us are meeting in the middle. I've just been discussing long-distance, (with my co-ex-wife of 33 years; that's how liberal I am...) the scarey fact that we've found ourselves agreeing with Pat Buchanan lately, at least fiscally.
Quote:
As far as right/left wing media bias, I'm afraid that the media panders to whatever is popular at the moment.
Good point; our media have become so biased in one direction or the other that I now get most of my news on the net, from boards, blogs and other English-speaking newspapers around the world rather than bother sorting out the biases here...although of course everybody's got some degree of it, with enough different views one may arrive at an approximation...
Quote:
Incidentally, have you heard that the West Wing is considering a GOP president to fill Bartlett's shoes? I don't know if it’d be out of an attempt to be artistically credible or simply a product of more pandering, but I wonder how its viewership will respond if that happens?
I'm not a television watcher, although I'vve seen "West Wing" with friends and enjoyed it; but I'd suspect they'd have to build a whole new viewer base, because while some, like Tony, would watch it just for the writing, many others would find the politics unpalatable..but then, the other half of the country might well fill that void...frightening how divided we've become.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238886 - 27/10/2004 05:16
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
Most Christians I know believe EVERYTHING they do is at God’s behest and with His approval
And there, Jeff, you have put your finger on exactly why George Bush frightens me so much.
Here we have a man who engages in actions that I (and many others) consider to be irrational and at odds with reality -- a man who can convince not only himself but the sycophantic yes-men that surround him that whatever he wants to do is not just OK, but ordered and ordained by God, and anybody who disagrees is just an atheistic, unpatriotic, commie pinko degenerate intent on the destruction of....
OK. Close eyes. Take a deep breath. om mani padme hum...
I feel better now. In case there was any doubt, I am not a Bush supporter.
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238887 - 27/10/2004 10:23
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: JeffS]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Quote:
Jesus was exclusive toward some people (the Pharisees, for example), but he was certainly inclusive toward those who wanted to follow Him.
[off_topic_clarification] Actually, Jesus was inclusive towards everyone, including the Pharisees (i.e. Nicodemas). It's just that most were/are exclusive towards him. [/off_topic_clarification]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238888 - 27/10/2004 12:04
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
[off_topic_clarification] Actually, Jesus was inclusive towards everyone, including the Pharisees (i.e. Nicodemas). It's just that most were/are eclusive towards him. [/off_topic_clarification]
[finer_theologlical_point]
I suppose this depends on what you mean by "inclusive". From my view, if Jesus were truly inclusive of everyone then he'd have forced those who didn't believe to follow him anyway, being God and all. However, he did not do that, and instead allowed people to reject him. It may sound silly to classify this as exclusion, but with the way Jesus is often charactarized today as being accepting of every behavior and belief is not consistent with how He is portrayed in the bible. Those who rejected him and his admonishment of their sin received did not forgiveness, but harsh criticism instead.
[/finer_theological_point]
That being said, I appreciate your point and the clarification that Jesus responded to people and their hearts, not their titles, positions, or classes.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238889 - 27/10/2004 12:28
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Here we have a man who engages in actions that I (and many others) consider to be irrational and at odds with reality
Everyone draws their sense of what is a proper action based on something. For Bush that might be what he believes God wants. If you don’t believe that God is talking to Bush or inspiring him somehow, I can understand why this would scare you to death. For me it is exactly the opposite. The idea of someone running the country and ignoring the One who created it all and sustains our very existence is frightening. In the end, this is a polarizing belief, and a point on which there really can’t be resolution.
Quote:
and anybody who disagrees is just an atheistic, unpatriotic, commie pinko degenerate intent on the destruction of....
And see, this is where I think the understanding of Bush's statement has gone too far.
Both candidates seem to have the "if you're not for me, You're against me" kind of attitude, but when it comes to Bush specifically, I don't think this is coming from his belief that God wants Him to be president. When most Christians I know and respect say that they believe God wants them do something, they are not meaning it to say that to be against them is to be against God; they are saying that they are doing their best to serve their Creator and that they want you to know it’s their primary desire to follow God.
Of course, you can argue that Bush is not like “most Christians I know and respect”, and I’ll grant you that might be a possibility. You can’t get that, however, from only the statement that he believes God wants him in the Whitehouse.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238890 - 27/10/2004 13:01
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Everyone draws their sense of what is a proper action based on something.
Very true, and I can understand (what I consider) misassigning attribution of a personal choice as God's will, but that's not the problem.
Consider, if you will, biblical literalists. Their point in defending the notion that the universe was created in exactly six days seems to be that if the Bible is wrong in that point, then who knows what else the Bible might be wrong about. (IMO, this is taking the easy way out to avoid having to come to an independent conclusion, but that's a story for another time.) If they have that attitude about the Bible, and they legitimately believe that God's telling them what to do, then where does retrospect and correction come from? There are many possible outs even for people who believe this sort of thing (I misunderstood, Satan was tricking me, etc.), but it's easy to see a culture of avoidance of responsibility and dismission of faults. I believe that this may be where GWB is coming from. (I don't retract my previous statements about his faith being ingenuine, but he's a good mimic, as his accent shows.) It seems obvious to most of us that, at best, Iraq was invaded on false pretenses. (Whether or not they were intentionally false is a different question.) Yet Bush claims that he wouldn't change a thing -- apparently not even how to represent the attack.
Back in the early 60s, Kennedy OK'd the Bay of Pigs invasion/uprising, potentially as big a pitfall as the invasion of Iraq. But Kennedy publically admitted his mistake, and that showed a lot of character and introspection, despite the fact that it was a terrible, terrible, fisaco. Trying to imagine GWB offering the same sort of contrition for the invasion of Iraq is hard at best. And I don't believe that you'll ever see that sort of thing come from him. We all make mistakes, and the best of us own up to them. He does not, which leaves him well outside the camp of "best".
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238891 - 27/10/2004 13:04
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: JeffS]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
I define inclusive as "allowing access without bias." This doesn't necessarily take into consideration the issue of free will. The access was there, just without coercion.
Quote:
...but with the way Jesus is often charactarized today as being accepting of every behavior and belief is not consistent with how He is portrayed in the bible.
You are correct, sir.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238892 - 27/10/2004 13:23
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I define inclusive as "allowing access without bias." This doesn't necessarily take into consideration the issue of free will. The access was there, just without coercion.
Ok, I'll conceed the point on the language. Your definition makes more sense than mine. Conceptually, it appears to me that we are in voilent agreement (as I think we both acknowledged fromt he outset).
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238893 - 27/10/2004 17:11
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
Most Christians I know believe EVERYTHING they do is at God’s behest and with His approval
Quote:
And there, Jeff, you have put your finger on exactly why George Bush frightens me so much
It's what appears to be a Messianic complex, especially coupled with Bush's well-documented aversion to disagreement or even facts, that scares most of us.
There is a fine line between faith and delusion in such a person (not that I mean to equate them, generally). Also, as with many others, I find Bush's actions, as compared to his rhetoric, antithetical to the understanding of Christianity I was taught.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238894 - 27/10/2004 18:57
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 16/06/2000
Posts: 1682
Loc: Greenhills, Ohio
|
I usually stay out of political debates since I don't vote and haven't for many years (I would vote if I felt anyone running had some integrity left to hold an office but I have given up hope on that and got tired of voting for the lesser of two evils) but I saw something today that totally disgusted me and pissed me off and makes me wish that I could vote so I could vote against Bush.
I was driving around today and saw two large trucks with signs on them saying "Kerry, Edwards. A bloody team for a bloody America." with very large pictures of aborted fetuses. I found it to be totally uncalled for and sickening and if Bush supports those kinds of tactics then he would never ever get my vote. I won't go into the pros or cons of abortion (which I am for) but crap, why doesn't he send trucks out with pictures of people being blown up and beheaded and shot during his war and say "This is the kind of bloody leader I am."
Politics is not about the issues anymore, it's about who can smear who and none of them deserve any votes for running campaigns that way.
_________________________
Laura
MKI #017/90
whatever
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238895 - 27/10/2004 19:07
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: Laura]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
It's THAT kind of thing that really is evil, not just "the lessor of two" (I agree, BTW, I've been voting against, rather than for, ever since I was old enough to vote; quite a while ago), and it's that kind of tactics that STRONGLY impels me to vote this time...no one's stopping you, either.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238896 - 27/10/2004 19:53
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: kayakjazz]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 16/06/2000
Posts: 1682
Loc: Greenhills, Ohio
|
The fact that I am no longer registered is 
_________________________
Laura
MKI #017/90
whatever
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238897 - 27/10/2004 21:03
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: Laura]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
The fact that I am no longer registered is
Is it too late to register? It has been so many years (decades, actually) since I registered, I have no idea of the timeframes involved.
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238898 - 27/10/2004 21:34
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 21/08/2000
Posts: 346
Loc: Rochester, NY USA
|
it differs state to state (bizzare). Link here: web page
_________________________
Cheers,
-Doug Morrison
Mk2-32G Back light buttons, Neon red screen
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238899 - 27/10/2004 21:48
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 16/06/2000
Posts: 1682
Loc: Greenhills, Ohio
|
October 2 was the last date for me.
_________________________
Laura
MKI #017/90
whatever
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238900 - 27/10/2004 22:55
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: Laura]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Same here. Luckily I'm registered.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238901 - 28/10/2004 00:28
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: Daria]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Same here. Luckily I'm registered.
October 2 here in WA. Taking the bus downtown tomorrow to (paradox alert!) vote absentee in person, just to make sure I am still on the rolls.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238902 - 28/10/2004 02:28
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
Is it too late to register?
...shouldn't be, unless you've moved since you last registered; otherwise, I think you're retained until/unless you register elsewhere, but it shouldn't be too hard to check...the Knowles/Murkowski race was on NPR this morning as if the fate of the nation hung on the outcome---I wish!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238903 - 28/10/2004 10:54
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: Laura]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
if Bush supports those kinds of tactics then he would never ever get my vote.
FWIW, I doubt seriously Bush would support that bumper sticker or those tactics. While I'm against abortion myself, I agree that such a sticker is offensive and inappropriate, to put it mildly.
However, Kerry supporters have also done such offensive things as well. In our city some people have been putting swastikas on other people’s front yard Bush or republican signs. What a sickening feeling that must be to wake up and find a symbol of such evil displayed in your front yard. Yet as gross as this is, it’s not something I think anyone can blame Kerry for.
Having said all of that, I think both candidates have run pretty dirty campaigns, even if not to the level of the examples above. Or like you said: Quote:
Politics is not about the issues anymore, it's about who can smear who
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238904 - 28/10/2004 11:30
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: JeffS]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 16/06/2000
Posts: 1682
Loc: Greenhills, Ohio
|
If it had been bumper sticker size that is one thing, but this was almost billboard size. I agree that any campaign is run rather dirty these days.
_________________________
Laura
MKI #017/90
whatever
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238907 - 28/10/2004 13:16
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: Laura]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
October 2 was the last date for me.
Laura, it may not be too late to make a difference. I stumbled upon this blog that mentioned an outfit called Women Really Against Bush Investing in Democracy and their plan for an October surprise only in November.
Roughly, the plan is: unregistered women hang out in front of polling places in selected precincts and engage hunky men who approach. They had a few snips from a role-playing guide:
Him: "Hi, are you here to vote for George W. Bush and stop the terrorrists?"
You: "Why of course! But hey...you wanna grab some lunch first?"
You can fill in the rest. Later that evening.....
Him: "Gosh! The polls are almost closed! I need to go right now and vote for George W. Bush and stop the terrorrists!"
You: "Awwww. Do you have to go right nowwww? Can't those dumb terrorists wait just a teensy-weensy bit?"
The role-playing guide had a few other scenarios, but this was the one that seemed most promising.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238908 - 28/10/2004 15:27
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
Where is the link for that one? i wanna join if there's a geriatric chapter....there's the whole baby boom to work on!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238909 - 28/10/2004 22:30
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 16/06/2000
Posts: 1682
Loc: Greenhills, Ohio
|
Quote:
You: "Why of course! But hey...you wanna grab some lunch first?"
You can fill in the rest. Later that evening.....
I'm against Bush and all but I don't know that I want to have to screw some strange guy all afternoon just to keep him from voting
Anyway, I have to work.
_________________________
Laura
MKI #017/90
whatever
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238910 - 28/10/2004 22:33
Re: Who would you vote for?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
I just caught the acronym for "Women Really Against Bush Investing in Democracy". Heh.
That whole thing you just said is a joke, right Jim?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index