|
|
Post by Rider on Nov 4, 2004 15:36:15 GMT -5
The draft is nothing more than a rumor. Time and time again it's been started that it was simply started by someone who wanted to sway young voters into voting Kerry. Besides, I doubt, even if Bush wanted to, he'd be able to. He's probably be bludgeoned alive before he could even utter the sentence suggesting it. There is no draft guys. Heck, I'm a democrat and even I know that. I voted for Kerry because Edwards is so pretty and snuggly I belive John Kerry can bring us into the future. *hides issue of Tigerbeat with John Edwards poster*[glow=red,2,300]For the last time, it is a joke! Hence the smiley at the end! And yes, I'd have a lot of reasons to not vote for Mrs. Clinton. And none of them have to do with her gender.[/glow] |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Nov 4, 2004 16:47:34 GMT -5
Religion influences policy, you know, for the ones who are deeply religious. Heck, I'd vote for Bush because of his strong Christian views (I tried voting, but my absentee ballot didn't get here on time. -__-) . I think what you don't realize here is that to Christians, our religion is the most important aspect of our life (or, it should be.) I mean, it dictates how we should act, treat others, live our life, and how we view death. So it would go without saying that it would also affect who we choose for a candidate. Both parties, to me, have good points about policy. I'm swayed either way with their politics, but at least if I choose someone who is Christian, their views will equal mine on a spiritual perspective, and that's all that matters. You do realize the Kerry is a Chrisitan too, right? And has, in fact, been one for far longer than Bush? See, I have nothing against taking someone's religion into account when voting for them - ubt it should be given weight. And I think - personally - that someone's religious views shouldn't be worth as much as, say, their political views and ideals. Especially when the other guy is a Christian (and, as I've said, been one for much, much longer) as well. IMHO, of course. But, according to the exit polls, most people don't seem to agree with me... Still, you have to give the Republicans a good amoutn of credit - they painted Bush and Kerry perfectly. The former as a good, righteous holy man who loves the Bible, and the later as less-so. This, according to many, is why Kerry lost. So, kudos to the Right! *cheers* EDIT: Oh, and one more thingy I forgot to mention. I'm really proud of Kerry for conceeding as gracefully as he did. He could've tied this up in the court systems for weeks, had he choosen to (and as many expected him to). But instead, he chose to give in to the inevitable and not drag this out any longer. They say you can tell a winner's character by how they lose. And if that's true, well, Kerry probably would've been a great winner. |
|
|
|
Post by sollunaestrella on Nov 4, 2004 17:59:13 GMT -5
You do realize the Kerry is a Chrisitan too, right? And has, in fact, been one for far longer than Bush? See, I have nothing against taking someone's religion into account when voting for them - ubt it should be given weight. And I think - personally - that someone's religious views shouldn't be worth as much as, say, their political views and ideals. Especially when the other guy is a Christian (and, as I've said, been one for much, much longer) as well. IMHO, of course. But, according to the exit polls, most people don't seem to agree with me... Still, you have to give the Republicans a good amoutn of credit - they painted Bush and Kerry perfectly. The former as a good, righteous holy man who loves the Bible, and the later as less-so. This, according to many, is why Kerry lost. So, kudos to the Right! *cheers* EDIT: Oh, and one more thingy I forgot to mention. I'm really proud of Kerry for conceeding as gracefully as he did. He could've tied this up in the court systems for weeks, had he choosen to (and as many expected him to). But instead, he chose to give in to the inevitable and not drag this out any longer. They say you can tell a winner's character by how they lose. And if that's true, well, Kerry probably would've been a great winner. Length doesn't matter - sincerity does. Whenever Bush ever talked about God or Jesus, you could see it in his face that he really did believe. Kerry? He claims to be a "Catholic" but believes in things that the Catholic church condemns - that abortion is okay, as an example. The fact is, religion influences a lot - political ideals and morals, for one. I was talking to someone a while ago very briefly (we were in a small chamber music emsemble together, so it was vital that we would be able to work together  ) about politics, and she commented that personal/spiritual life should not come into play during an election. But I can't believe that. If a man cannot control his personal life or be totally honest and sincere about the way that he views God and the community with which he most intimately shares his beliefs about God, then how can you expect him to run a country? I'm not so much condemning non-Christian leaders as leaders who don't have a faith strong enough about anything - even disbelief or doubt in God - to proclaim it. A lot of people think that Bush can't be Christian because of the death penalty or because he went to war. But I can hear the words of one the people I most admire in my life - who is, yes, my pastor: that there is peace with justice and peace without justice - that peace with justice, without morality, means nothing. And I think that's what the War in Iraq is really accomplishing: peace. The Iraqi people are finally free. That is peace with justice, not Saddam Hussein killing off his people without anyone trying to stop him; that lack of war is peace with justice. What did it mean? And the death penalty. Okay, so I don't know where I personally stand on the death penalty; but there's something to be said, at least, for the death of one preventing the death of many. But I don't think that's all, and I'm really undecided on that one. As for whining! Yesterday at my school there was a perfect pity party. Kerry won Maine - nearly losing one district, but I'm certain the district that almost went to Bush was the northern district, which is much more rural and farming and hard work-oriented. So I heard lots and lots of lovely things, how this country was going to go down the s***ter, about f***ing Republicans... honestly, I think I'm probably the kind of person people hate up here: a Republican Yankee fan. One of my favorite radio talk show hosts (YES, I listen to talk radio!) is, I think I mentioned a long time ago, Glen Beck. Unfortunately, I only get to listen to him on days off from school, but I listened to his election coverage instead of watching the news (it was a thousand times more entertaining too!) And he kept saying that the day after election, his show would either be a pity party or a gloat-fest - and then we would all move on so that the world can actually get somewhere. One day of venting and then everyone would become mature and forward-looking. So far, I haven't heard the pity party of the liberals up here be broken up. But I'm very glad Bush won. Very, very glad. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Nov 4, 2004 18:28:20 GMT -5
*yawn*
Come on people, no offense, but it's over with. Do we really need to cover Kerry and Bush anymore? Aren't you all tired of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Nov 4, 2004 19:21:39 GMT -5
Every other race supported Kerry, especially African Americans. 89% of Black voters voted for Kerry. I thought that was very interesting. Erm, you know what else is interesting? The majority of African Americans have been voting Democratic since early Civil War times. That was even a question on my Government AP Exam. Huh, go figure. You do realize the Kerry is a Chrisitan too, right? And has, in fact, been one for far longer than Bush? You do realize that it doesn't matter how long someone's been a Christian? |
|
|
|
Post by Nobdy interesting on Nov 5, 2004 4:35:43 GMT -5
Erm, you know what else is interesting? The majority of African Americans have been voting Democratic since early Civil War times. That was even a question on my Government AP Exam. Huh, go figure. I was just saying I thought it was interesting, I expected most people would know that but I didn't because I don't live in the US and even if I did know it I wouldn't have expected it to be such a high percentage. Huh, go figure. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Nov 5, 2004 11:05:04 GMT -5
I was just saying I thought it was interesting, I expected most people would know that but I didn't because I don't live in the US and even if I did know it I wouldn't have expected it to be such a high percentage. Huh, go figure. The main reason for that, uhm...Tegh(? correct me if I'm wrong. I'm only guessing it's you) is that during the years after the civil war the conservatives weren't exactly pro-black rights. The progressives/liberals at the time said "Look, you vote for us and put us into power [that is assuming they weren't disfranchised], and we'll do some things for you..." and it's pretty much been that way ever since. Although the liberal and conservatives sides at that time were radically different. Imagine this, I would probably be a huge liberal if I had lived back then, just by my stance on things today. |
|
|
|
Post by Linnen Malfoy on Nov 5, 2004 11:26:08 GMT -5
He claims to be a "Catholic" but believes in things that the Catholic church condemns - that abortion is okay, as an example. But see, why should it be that you arn't a true 'catholic' if you belive in things it doesn't? Religion is about finding a path to God and inner-peace, not about what you should, and shouldn't belive in. I was very mad when a member of the church came out and said that anyone who belived in abortion was not a true Catholic. The religion is about being with God - as are all religions. It should not be a 'cliche' - everyone is entitled to belive what they want. No religion should ever shun someone due to what they belive. Religion is a safe haven in this world where we cannot understand a lot of things - how sad is it to be denied your spirtual side because of your thinking? Not bashing religion. I just...I feel that is very, very sad. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Nov 5, 2004 11:55:50 GMT -5
On something like abortion, Linny, I must disagree with you. There are clear expectations shown in the Bible about such things. God isn't just going to take kindly to you saying you are a true Christian yet not keeping the way of life, values, and standards that are clearly shown. On things that don't matter (i.e. voting, believe in only two or three ressurections, etc), then I agree, but the other more important issues? No.
And the thing is, if he disagrees with that, then there's always finding the religion that agrees with his beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kikala on Nov 5, 2004 20:07:29 GMT -5
What I find funny (Nothing honestly against Bush, since to be completely honest, I'm glad it was him.) is that when polled who was smarter, 91% said Kerry, so... er... we basically chose the less intellegent?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2004 1:47:01 GMT -5
I think religion and politics should be separate. I don't think it is right to tell someone they can't do something because your religion says its wrong, especially if you base it on religion (which is against the constitution, since the government is not allowed to recognize or dismiss any religion. Basically, the government is supposed to be agnostic).
Bush is a good friend of Pat Robertson, the most bigoted christian in the world. He tries to force everyone to be his religion (and even blames many protestant groups for what he calls the "demoralization" of the United States).
I can't stand it when people tell others that they can't do something because they don't believe its right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patjade on Nov 6, 2004 3:07:07 GMT -5
www.homle.com/aer/2004election_by_iq.pngVoting results according to the population IQ averages. There is a disclaimer on the bottom of the chart. As for religion. We got into that before, what with the "religious" leaders and thought processes. Let's not get into another cat fight with it, please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Nov 6, 2004 9:52:48 GMT -5
*laughs* Nice find there, Pat. Very interesting. Of course I don't believe what it's implying, which is dumb people vote for Bush. Last time I had my IQ tested I came in at 154. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Nov 6, 2004 9:54:55 GMT -5
Bush is a good friend of Pat Robertson, the most bigoted christian in the world. He tries to force everyone to be his religion (and even blames many protestant groups for what he calls the "demoralization" of the United States). I'll say what I said about that before...I think you were misconstruing and misinterperting his words. He's never come out and said, exactly the way you have, that's the reason why. After all, it wouldn't make sense. Think about it, I do believe Robertson himself is "Protestant" in the fact that the majority of mainstream Christianity can be divided up at "Catholic" or "Protestant." Which is to say that Baptists, so and so forth are "Protestant" because they all come from that original split. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Nov 6, 2004 12:49:02 GMT -5
On something like abortion, Linny, I must disagree with you. There are clear expectations shown in the Bible about such things. God isn't just going to take kindly to you saying you are a true Christian yet not keeping the way of life, values, and standards that are clearly shown. On things that don't matter (i.e. voting, believe in only two or three ressurections, etc), then I agree, but the other more important issues? No. And the thing is, if he disagrees with that, then there's always finding the religion that agrees with his beliefs. Yes, but there is not just one form of Christianity. You can interpret the Bible to explain why the dinosaurs aren't mentioned. That's your interpretation. Other Christians can interpret things to show that God now doesn't oppose gay marriage or abortion. My friend's mother is a Church of England vicar who believes in things like gay marriage. For some extremely liberal people, Christianity is the religion that agrees with their beliefs, as it promotes tolerance, love and equality. Remember that  Ah well, Bush won. Now, he'll just have to sort out Iraq ^^ |
|
) about politics, and she commented that personal/spiritual life should not come into play during an election. But I can't believe that. If a man cannot control his personal life or be totally honest and sincere about the way that he views God and the community with which he most intimately shares his beliefs about God, then how can you expect him to run a country? I'm not so much condemning non-Christian leaders as leaders who don't have a faith strong enough about anything - even disbelief or doubt in God - to proclaim it.
