[quote]btm62 wrote:
How is a pastor preaching to his congregation, espousing one candidate or issue any different from PAC’s that businesses use? Or lobbyists? My boss can suggest who to vote for based on what’s best for his business, but my pastor can’t? That’s a little assininie I think. [/quote]
Your pastor CAN, he’ll just have to start paying taxes just like your boss… (Religious institutions get tax deductions)
[quote]StrongrThanDeth wrote:
Wow, what a skillful and useless use of quoting. As though any serious world leader would criticize any US administration. And no, some pyscho from Hamas and some spanish political analyst don’t count as serious world leaders.
[/quote]
I think they’ve been quite active in their critiques previously – not all of those quoted, of course, but do go back and look at some of the serious world leaders, such as Jacques Chirac, Schroeder, and Kofi Annan (not, of course, elected, as the U.N. is NOT a representative democracy, but he likes people to think of him as a serious world leader…).
Perhaps you’ve not been paying attention, but a quick Google search should be enough to inform you.
ADDENDUM:
Australian blogger Arthur Chrenkoff had these thoughts on the positive quotes flowing in from world leaders:
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/11/bit-more-willing-this-time-around.html
EXCERPT:
Now, it’s easy to dismiss all these comments as polite diplomatic chatter; after all, hardly anyone in the international arena - arguably, with the occasional exception of French officials - ever says what they actually think, and elections, like funerals, always provide an opportunity for an obligatory kind word to be said.
But I think there’s more to it all than just rhetoric. Here is why:
For the past few years, the “international community” has built its policy vis-a-vis the United States on an assumption that Bush, that uncomfortable aberration from Texas, would be a one-termer. Walled in inside their own echo chamber, reinforced and amplified by the American mainstream media’s anti-Bush stance, foreign governments have managed to convince themselves that no incumbent could survive electoraly the “quagmire” of Iraq abroad and the groundswell of opposition at home. In other words, the leaders from Caracas to Paris, and from Cairo to Kuala Lumpur, made the assumption that since they wouldn’t vote for Bush, and the “New York Times” wouldn’t vote for Bush, the American people wouldn’t either - that is, for all the sophisticates’ sneering about America and the Americans, the “unwilling” governments around the world thought that in the end the US voters would behave as “rationally” as the Belgians or the Jordanians would in these circumstances.
It was not to be. George W Bush has been clearly and convincingly re-elected and his policies at home - and most importantly abroad - re-endorsed by the majority of the electorate. And France, Germany, the EU, the UN, and all others are stuck with W in the White House for the next four years. Going back to the good old days of doing nothing and doing it all together is no longer a possibility.
Whatever we might think of foreign leaders and their ideological preferences, these people also tend to be realists. Now the uncertainty is over and it’s time for plan B. Another few years of Cold War is not a productive option for anyone. The governments around the world are realizing, to use Lyndon B Johnson’s favorite formulation, that it’s better to be inside the tent pissing out than the other way around. As a mate of mine likes to say, even piss kills if from a a great enough height, but as the international community has discovered it’s difficult enough to achieve the necessary deadly height if you’re planning to urinate on a hegemon and a hyper-power.
The United States throughout the crisis of the last few years has generally tried to maintain good relations with everyone, including its many foreign detractors. I have a feeling that the second Bush term will see an even greater effort to reach out to international critics and skeptics - not to dilute the current policies of the Administration, but more on a symbolic level to help the Frances and Germanys of this world save some face.
So, one big happy multilateral family again? Non. But a detente, perhaps? Oui.
[quote]vroom wrote:
But tough shit - we proved Tuesday we are not a nation to give a shit what Europe thinks.
Yep, the US has certainly proven it doesn’t give a shit what anybody thinks, ever. It’s going to be an entire decade of poor global relations with Bush the great divider and escalator using his skills at brinksmanship to cause another war or two after God speaks to him in his sleep.
Heh, anyway, more reasonably, I was looking forward to criticizing someone other than Bush. It is so easy to criticize this adminstration there is almost no sport in it.
However, though I would have preferred to see Bush retire to his ranch, how much more damage can he do in four years? The democrats should just give the republicans lots of rope and learn from their playbook.[/quote]
And, speaking again of world reaction, I thought this op-ed column was interesting:
http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/33309.htm
A RUDE AWAKENING
BY AMIR TAHERI
November 4, 2004 – OOH la la! This was the first reaction of the French elite yesterday as they learned about President Bush’s re-election. Having spent much of Tuesday evening jubilating about what they believed would be a landslide win for Sen. John Kerry, the cr?me de la cr?me of chic Paris could not believe that Bush had been returned for four more years.
The European elites had spent much of Tuesday evening dreaming about how a President Kerry would ratify the Kyoto accords, sign on to the International Criminal Court, cut and run in Iraq, send flowers to Yasser Arafat and, perhaps, open a dialogue with Osama bin Laden. When it became clear that the American voters wanted none of that, the chattering classes in Europe were left speechless. One Paris TV anchor was literally struck dumb mometarily when, after hours of crowing over Kerry’s victory and the American people’s supposed liberation from Bushist tyranny, he had to admit that things had gone differently.
The shock felt in Europe was even greater because of the size of Bush’s victory. The president won more votes than any candidate in the entire history of America. Dubya also became the first to win the presidency with a majority of the popular vote, since his father in 1988.
People like French President Jacques Chirac, whose party has won just 16 per cent of the votes in a series of recent elections, or German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, whose party has lost every election in the past two years, would look with envy at the clean sweep made by Bush and his Republican Party on Tuesday.
Until Tuesday, the standard excuse by many Europeans who opposed key aspects of Bush’s policies was that they were only anti-Bush, not anti-American. They tried to justify that bit of sophistry with Michael Moore-esque lies about how Bush, having “stolen” the 2000 election, did not really represent the American people.
With Dubya’s victory, it will no longer be possible for the Hate-America international to pose as merely anti-Bush. Their claim that Bush and his gang of Likudniks had somehow hijacked the United States has been swept away by American voters.
So, what will “old Europe” do?
To start with, not much of it is left. Schroeder has been trying hard to compensate for the crass opportunism he showed in 2003 over the liberation of Iraq. He has sent more troops to Afghanistan to help relieve American forces there, and has assumed a major role in training Iraq’s new security forces with help from other NATO allies.
The new Spanish government, too, has tried to modify its initial anti-American posture by sending troops to a number of places, including Haiti, to relieve the Americans. Within the European Union only France, Belgium and Greece had been active on the anti-American front , at least until Tuesday’s election.
All three governments had made a strategic choice of systematically opposing Bush policies in the hope that a Kerry administration would adopt substantial parts of their foreign policies. Yesterday, however, all three were making noises about working with the new Bush administration.
The second Bush administration should give them a chance to prove that they have changed course. A first opportunity to do so comes at next month’s international conference on Iraq, to be held in Egypt. Chirac & Co. can prove their goodwill by endorsing the democratic process in Iraq and by writing off a substantial chunk of Iraq’s foreign debt. Chirac should also stop backing Arafat and his old guard in their opposition to the emergence of a new and moderate Palestinian leadership.
And Chirac should be invited to review his policies on a range of other issues, including Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A good part of Tehran’s current defiant stance on the issue of uranium enrichment is based on the assumption that Chirac will sabotage any U.S. attempt at taking the issue to the Security Council.
The Islamic Republic is not the only member of the “Axis of Evil” to have played the Europeans against America. Syria, too, has counted on support from Paris to escape punishment for its illegal military presence in Lebanon.
Bush’s massive victory strengthens the position of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who may now be persuaded to call an early general election, possibly by February, and is almost certain to win big. Another steadfast ally, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, won a landslide victory of his own last month.
Bush’s re-election is received differently in the Muslim world. Moderate and democratic forces ? from Indonesia through Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq to Morocco ? will be encouraged by the prospect of four more years the first U.S. administration to threaten a status quo dominated by despotic regimes. Bush’s victory, however, is bad news for reactionary despotic regimes, pan-Arabists and Islamo-fascists who had prayed for a Kerry victory.
Bush now has four full years in which to implement his ambitious plan for political and economic change in the greater Middle East.
The new Bush administration will now have ample opportunity to help the Palestinians develop a new leadership and return to the peace talks. The “road map for peace” that Bush introduced two years ago was sabotaged by Arafat and, to some extent, the Europeans on the assumption that Dubya would be a one-term president.
Tuesday’s message is clear: 9/11 changed America, and no one understands and represents that change better than George W. Bush.
The world will have four years in which to absorb that message.
And, back on the original topic of the thread, here are some predictions from the WSJ editorial board:
The Bush Mandate
November 4, 2004; Page A14
So the lawyers didn’t decide this election after all. The voters did – including millions of conservative first-timers whom the exit polls and media missed – emerging from the pews and exurban driveways to give President Bush what by any measure is a decisive mandate for a second term.
Never mind the closeness of the electoral vote, this time Mr. Bush easily won the popular vote, the first President to win more than 50% since his father in 1988. The Republican gains in both Houses of Congress mean Mr. Bush also had coattails, unlike Nixon in 1972 and even Reagan in 1984.
While holding his margins among white men and married women from 2000, Mr. Bush expanded his vote among Jews (24% from 19%), and notably among the key swing blocs of Hispanics (42% from 35%) and Catholics (51% from 47%). He also rolled up larger margins in his Southern and Western base, while improving his vote in such “blue states” as Pennsylvania and Iowa. Just because an election is close doesn’t mean it isn’t decisive.
The huge voter turnout of some 120 million – the largest as a share of the electorate since 1968 – adds to the mandate because it means the country was fully engaged in this national debate. No one can say he didn’t know what was at stake. The President’s opposition went all-in, as they say in poker, with the most relentlessly partisan performance by elite cultural institutions that we’ve ever witnessed. Hollywood, CBS, and the New York Times threw everything they had at Mr. Bush, and the country rejected their values and agenda, not his.
We trust that the President will not now let those same opponents interpret his mandate for him. The effort is already under way to diminish the victory by insisting that Mr. Bush “move to the center,” which is code for giving up the agenda that voters just endorsed. The country remains “deeply divided,” we are told, so Mr. Bush is obliged to make concessions to Nancy Pelosi and George Soros.
Yet it wasn’t Mr. Bush but Senate Democrats whose obstructionism was repudiated on Tuesday. South Dakota voters rejected Tom Daschle expressly on the grounds that he had made the Senate a “dead zone,” as we once put it, for the Bush agenda. Mr. Daschle responded by saying he could bring more pork back home, but by blocking so much legislation he undercut his own credibility as a politician who could deliver. The men who really defeated Tom Daschle were Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and the Filibuster Democrats, who also have other issues (see below).
Mr. Bush now has an opportunity to achieve much of what his opponents blocked in the first term. No doubt he will, and should, seek out coalitions of the willing among Democrats – on Social Security private accounts, tort and tax reform, and creating a larger private health-care marketplace, among the other things he campaigned on. But we hope he and the GOP majorities on Capitol Hill don’t flinch from large ambitions even if most Democrats rebuff their overtures. The center-right voters who just elected them are expecting progress on their priorities.
One of those is the federal courts, where voters sent a clear signal about the kind of judges they want. Referendums opposing gay marriage went 11 for 11 on Tuesday, winning even in Oregon where the 57% to 43% landslide was the smallest majority among the 11. This is not a message of intolerance toward gays; it is a rebuke to those liberals who insist that courts impose their values on venerable American institutions. Our guess is that the marriage referendums were partly responsible for driving pro-Bush turnout in Ohio, and for making the race as close as it was in Michigan.
Mr. Bush could send an early message here if Chief Justice William Rehnquist decides to retire soon due to illness. He could do worse than elevate Antonin Scalia to Chief Justice and nominate Miguel Estrada as an Associate Justice, even as a recess appointment if that becomes necessary. Mr. Estrada is a distinguished lawyer who had the support of enough Democrats to be confirmed for the federal bench but was filibustered by Mr. Daschle. Mr. Bush’s voters do not want another David Souter.
Above all, we think Mr. Bush can claim a mandate on his handling of the war on terror. Mr. Kerry and the media both tried to make the election a referendum on Iraq, and the bad news from Baghdad was relentlessly amplified. Voters were also asked to choose on the question of U.S. action with or without the United Nations, and whether state sponsors are as culpable as the terrorists themselves and must be confronted. A majority of voters (54%) judged the U.S. to be safer now from terrorism and approved (50% to 46%) of the decision to topple Saddam Hussein.
This shows the fortitude of the public and its willingness to bear a short-term burden for the sake of long-term security. We hope Mr. Bush and his advisers also recognize it as a chance – a second chance – to finish the job in Iraq. Voters clearly had their doubts that Mr. Kerry could have done better than the President in Iraq. But they will not support Mr. Bush for long if they see U.S. soldiers under attack without going on offense against the enemy sanctuaries in Fallujah and elsewhere.
We won’t know for years whether this really was “the most important election in our lifetime,” as John Kerry so often said. We do already know, however, that Mr. Bush has been given the kind of mandate that few politicians are ever fortunate enough to receive. The voters expect him to use it.
Folks…the draft is already is in place. What do you think the GI Bill is ?
More than ever a college education is being sought and required in many jobs. The GI Bill will pay for the lower and middle class to go to school, but they have to serve in return. Once you’re in…
Sure the GI Bill has been around , but demand for a college education on a national level across classes hasn’t been. That is changing quickly.
Predictions…we will enter into another conflict with another country in the middle east. Possibly Iran or Syria. This will require more troops, hence a possible draft, but it will unfortunately be in response to some form of attack on us. The public never supports retaliation until they’ve been affected directly. History does repeat itself.
Oh…and Hillary will the next president. She will run again Rudy or Arnold. His amendment will pass. People will be so sick of the economy tanking and the world population resenting us that they will “require” a change of parties in the white house.
Prof X - “People who are members of a church don’t go to church to be convinced that God exists, they go for rejuvenating what they believe in and for deeper understanding. I would put it more on the same level as your psychologist telling you who to vote for or your school counselor.”
I have seen you criticise people time and time again for generalizing, labeling and misrepresenting. Yet time and time again you do exactly that to make YOUR points seem more valid.
HOW do you know why people go to Church? Have you asked all of them? Generally this is a private matter and I bet you can’t even find me a poll as to why people go to church. You just made that up and that is why normal people cant argue with liberals. You constantly state things as fact that aren’t just to make your side of the coin look better. Basically It makes your argument look even worse because to people with common sense we can see that the only leg you have to stand on is with lies, therefore you must have a weak argument.
The seperation of church and state is to stop government in putting thier hand in reliogion and therefore avoiding possible persecution of religous minorities by the gov’t. None of this is happening and if I make my own religion up called the Bush is god worshopers of america, Certainly I have every right to support my god as also supporting him to be the president. (I know a silly example but you get the idea) Why do you care if a church decides one candidate more closely follows thier ideals as a group and therefore prcticing members should think of that similarity when choosing. It would be irresponsible in my mind if they did not do it.
Again, Religions are in fact a tool of society to make society a better place, They teach of botherhood, love compasion, all good things to make society flow more smoothly if all were practiced. Therefore they have a right to say what leaders have more of those characteristics they teach.
A psycologist is trying to help you better deal with society. They actually play the complete reverse role of a church. They try to help you “fit” into society whereas a church tries to get a base of people all acting a certain way to make society change for the better.
Another way to look at it is that a church teaches ideals to be strived for and a shrink teaches norms and acceptable behavior to make someone feel good about who they are.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Again, Religions are in fact a tool of society to make society a better place, They teach of botherhood, love compasion, all good things to make society flow more smoothly if all were practiced. Therefore they have a right to say what leaders have more of those characteristics they teach.
[/quote]
Using your own argument, which in my opinion was a poor one, how do you know what all religions teach? Have you researched every religion or been a part of every religion? That line of questioning makes about as much sense as asking how I know what people go to church for. The moment you find me a poll concerning what all religions teach is the moment I will get you a poll on why all people go to church.
[quote]StrongrThanDeth wrote:
btm62 wrote:
How is a pastor preaching to his congregation, espousing one candidate or issue any different from PAC’s that businesses use? Or lobbyists? My boss can suggest who to vote for based on what’s best for his business, but my pastor can’t? That’s a little assininie I think.
Your pastor CAN, he’ll just have to start paying taxes just like your boss… (Religious institutions get tax deductions)[/quote]
I’m from Nebraska. Business’ get way more tax breaks than churchs. It’s the property owners who get screwed. We all get tax deductions. We all make choices. My kids go to parochial school, I still have to pay taxes to support public schools. I can argue that all day long. I think we’re talking about a speech issue not a tax issue.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
btm62 wrote:
How is a pastor preaching to his congregation, espousing one candidate or issue any different from PAC’s that businesses use? Or lobbyists? My boss can suggest who to vote for based on what’s best for his business, but my pastor can’t? That’s a little assininie I think.
You can think whatever you want to. For now, it is a free country. I understand that many people are easily swayed if religion is brought into the context. If the same preacher who has been teaching the path to righteousness then goes on to praise a certain party system, I feel that this has introduced “state” right back into “church”. I do not put this on the same level as Snoop Dogg telling the kids watching 106 and Park to go vote. A lobbyist is not a preacher. People who are members of a church don’t go to church to be convinced that God exists, they go for rejuvenating what they believe in and for deeper understanding. I would put it more on the same level as your psychologist telling you who to vote for or your school counselor.[/quote]
So there’s one standard for Christians and another for everyone else when it comes to speech. I think it’s wholly appropriate for churchs to address issues such as abortion and gay marriage and perhaps even educate the population on who stands for what. My church focuses on forgiveness of sins not blanketly condemning a person for a particular sin. We all are guilty of that. Frankly I think the world would be better of listening to pastors as opposed to snoop dog. People go to church for a lot of different reasons. Most of them not so nearly noble as those you mentioned. I realize a lobbyist is not a preacher. The similarity is that the lobbyist is paid to advance a point of view per se. A preacher is paid to do the same thing, when it all comes down it. So in this case where exactly does the difference lie? I don’t know that I have ever heard a preacher hold up one party “system” over another. Although I suppose it happens. My experience is one of current issues. We pray for and will continue to pray for our leaders regardless of party affiliation.
Prof X - “Using your own argument, which in my opinion was a poor one, how do you know what all religions teach? Have you researched every religion or been a part of every religion? That line of questioning makes about as much sense as asking how I know what people go to church for. The moment you find me a poll concerning what all religions teach is the moment I will get you a poll on why all people go to church.”
It is not the same thing, How hard is this to understand. Religions are not secretive. They have books that tell what thier ideals are. People read these books and draw conclusions as to what those books mean. A very very very large majority of religions in this world teach peace and love. I am not saying that this is the only thing they teach or that this is thier only premise. But for the most part it is the main premise of all major religions. I do not need to provide a poll of what is widley viewed as common knowledge.
People minds however cannot be read like a book. Therefore my argument still stands. I made a valid argument and you did not. I am not even disagreeing with your argument so much as the method in which you supported it.
That is like saying people are afraid of clowns so you are stupid if you go to a circus. I just don’t see how your argument is validated or relevant. Sorry if I am just dumb, but I am trying to listen to your points.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
Actually,
Vroom is quite on the mark here. Bush pretty much ignored Canadians, that’s fine, we pretty much don’t give a shit about Bush as a person either.
Most if not all Canadians dislike Bush and think he’s a gunslinging bible thumper, with little to no intellect. Seriously, some of the shit I listened to him say boggled my mind…wow.
here’s a rediculus paraphrase: “Allowing drugs from CDN is like allowing drugs from a third world country…” What???
You kidding me, that’s laughable. What about the flu vaccination, well…I guess those may as well be from a third world country. Wow.
I also agree with ProfX on the majority or strip of red coming from North Dakota down to Texas. There are alot of people who vote for someone jsut through association. I think that the word democracy puts responsibility in the hands of the voters as well to best educate themselves with the issues.
I would agree that ignorance is the cause of much harm. That’s why we read supplement information UNBIASED, before we go putting things in our bodies, otherwise the ignorance would/could caue harm. Same shit with the supplements, they are ignorant to supplements and are banning them. Same thign with voting, if you don’t understand the issues you aren’t doing your part to hold up Democracy, don’t be a lazy and just vote for some person b/c you were always a republican or a democrat, come on, where is your independant thought??
The same thing happens here in Canada, people just vote for a party b/c that’s what their parents did, they don’t read the newspaper or watch the news, they just vote b/c that’s what they’ve always done, its just rediculus.
So before you are calling Vroom a hater or whatever, respect that fact that he’s got his own independant thought, and that he’s not hating anybody.
BTW, BUSH neglected trips from Washington to Ottawa, which could be done in a couple hours during his first trip[, but then asked for our help in IRAQ? He then stormed in during soft wood lumber and started throwing shit around, nice guy. Wonder why we all dislike him in Canada. It is very very evident that American’s don’t give a shit about anybody. Europe, CDN, Asia, doesn’t matter, its personal agenda with the money to do it. Well, here’s one thing to consider. Germany did the same thing, we don’t care what people think, we are going to take the world, have power etc. etc. What happened???
The rest of the world revolts causing a large catastrophe called the world wars. Yeah didn’t think you guys forgot about those… So, that’s fine if you have another 4 yrs, but seriously people take note to what the USA is doing. Sooner or later, the serfs revolt against the lords, and its a game of numbers. USA will lose. Not today, not tommorow, but its coming. So keep in mind your not in a microcausm here. What your new Pres does unilaterally has a large effect for many years. YOu think generations of middle eastern countries are going to forget about what happened in IRAQ, no dice. You’ve now planted a hate seed in their brains and that’s going to grow into more 9/11s. Isn’t that what we all want???
So, I respect that there are educated Republicans, making their points, don’t groupthink with others and downgrade someone elses opinion just b/c it doesn’t conform. I respect the democratic supporters that are educated, what I don’t respect is ignorant voting. That’s dangerous.
Best of luck in the ensuing shitstorm 4 yrs ahead. I was never more proud the day we decided to forget about helping in Iraq, and I didn’t vote for the current Canadian government liberals. I feel as a country our “Moral Fiber” saw what was going on, and decided to say " NO THANKS, EH"
End rant…here comes the flames…
T
regraphc,
You wrote:
“I apologize for my hyperbole; please do not take it literally. Some of the most intelligent people I know are Republicans, and I can respect their right to an informed opinion, BUT, my point was that there are a lot of idiots out there, and many of them are concentrated in the South and the BumFuckEgypt states. Having lived in more than 20 states (including Georgia, Florida, Alabama, New York, Michigan, California, etc.), I feel fairly qualified to say that there is a greater concentration of intelligence/education in the areas in which Kerry won. However, my point is this: I guarantee you that in the BFE states, the majority of people who voted for Bush do not vote on the basis of the issues and who is better-equipped to deal with them. They simply vote Republican because they’ve been taught from an early age that Republicans are good, Dems are bad. The bottom line is that Bush has made a complete mess of this country, and due to the blindness of people like this, he is not being held accountable for his actions. I hope all of you out there enjoy the next four years; it should be interesting, to say the least.”
What a special post!!!
Some of the most morally bankrupt people on the planet are described as “intelligent.” Remember: Clinton was a scholar of some note.
Most people disagree with your blanket assertions and bilious expressions.
Keep it up. The Good Guys will just keep on winning.
By the way, speaking of massive coercion of people, tell me about the Unions. Ever heard of the letters they send to their members prior to elections?
I’m one of those people that can smell hypocrisy from a mile away.
That was a warning to you, regraph.
Thanks for playing a losing hand and then trying to defend/rationalize it.
Good luck in the future,
JeffR
JD,
Your post was right on the mark.
I ignore Vroom always.
He is the prototypical sideline hero.
Don’t waste your formidable wit on him. It’s like pissing into the wind.
On a more important note, last time I checked, we give sixty percent of the FREE AID to the planet.
Most of the world leaders/thinkers have either been consulted on issues such as Iraq/Afghanistan. Some of their ideas (like France hiding behind the U.N. while they accept massive bribes/allowing Saddam to reconstitute their weapons) have been rejected.
Before the jealous Europeans/Canadians etc… get too worked up, please remember our power differential over you is so large that we trully COULD impose our will upon you if we so desired.
If we were guilty of this sort of thinking, why are we going to leave Iraq/Afghanistan? Why create a government? Why risk elections?
We could just keep all the oil and our oil prices would be twenty-five cents per gallon.
Sorry to have to point out the cold facts to you, but most of us are tired of your baseless charges against us.
There is a humanitarian aspect to our foreign policy that is unarguable.
That you argue against the obvious and level these baseless charges against us, illustrates your ignorance and jealous undercurrents.
Have a wonderful four years!!!
We will,
JeffR
greatgro wrote:
I couldn’t agree more with a,e,i,j, and k. I’d also add:
“l) We’ll be no closer to discovering cures or EFFECTIVE treaments for cancer or other horrid diseases than we are now. Also if he gets an amendment through against stem cell, our country will be woefully behind the Europeans in pharmacology and we’ll be stuck with a country full of expensive, ineffective medication. Oh and many more loved ones will die.”
Thanks for the irresponsible, uninformed drivel. Please go to www.google.com and find out the truth about adult/embryonic stem cells.
Then type in federal funding for medical research from 2000-2004.
If you can manage this, then come back and apologize for your prior ignorance.
JeffR
P.S. This poster proves that there are plenty of ignorant Democratic voters.
[quote]winfield wrote:
Folks…the draft is already is in place. What do you think the GI Bill is ?
More than ever a college education is being sought and required in many jobs. The GI Bill will pay for the lower and middle class to go to school, but they have to serve in return. Once you’re in…
Sure the GI Bill has been around , but demand for a college education on a national level across classes hasn’t been. That is changing quickly.
Predictions…we will enter into another conflict with another country in the middle east. Possibly Iran or Syria. This will require more troops, hence a possible draft, but it will unfortunately be in response to some form of attack on us. The public never supports retaliation until they’ve been affected directly. History does repeat itself.
Oh…and Hillary will the next president. She will run again Rudy or Arnold. His amendment will pass. People will be so sick of the economy tanking and the world population resenting us that they will “require” a change of parties in the white house.[/quote]
I love it when people with no clue about the economy comment on it. Take a look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics buddy, the economy has done quite well considering that 3000 people died in 2001 due to a terrorist attack. Unemployment is hovering around 5%, damn near the natural rate of unemployment. BTW, just in case you didn’t know it, 0% unemployment is impossible and so is unemployment that is too low, but that is linked to inflation, a subject much to complicated for the scope of this discussion. If you actually think that socialist, power hungry bitch would be a good president, you’ve got to be a few beers short of a six pack. If people would jsut take a step back and examine some of the qualities of a socialistic society and compare them to the ideologies of the Democratic party you would find that they hold a lot in common, including taking away personal freedoms. I’m not talking about abortion, which seems to be the Democrats cry about the Republicans, I’m talking about the second ammendment, and more importantly, how we can spend our money and how businesses are run indepedant of government intervention. Why do you think that a majority of economist vote Republican, because it lines there pockets…lol, heck no…its because they realize the consequences of government intervention with our capitalistic market place. Oh, and if you thought that the deaths of 3000 people in New York City hurt the economy, what about the deaths of 3 million people when a terrorists releases a nuclear explosive in the middle of a major city…and then claims to have 3 more nukes at there disposal. That is precisely the reason why I believe Iran, N.K, and Syrai should be taken care of, along with Iraq. Take them out before they ally and become strong enough to be a mjaor threat. Same principles we utililzed in the World Wars. America has become soft.
[quote]btm62 wrote:
I don’t know that I have ever heard a preacher hold up one party “system” over another. Although I suppose it happens. [/quote]
As I stated before, this was as much on MSNBC and other networks as any other commentary. I didn’t make up the fact that SOME churches were actually influencing the vote by presenting the issues as if Bush supported the views of the church therefore, you should not vote for Kerry. I didn’t write that YOUR church did this but that it was being done. There were actually some shown who had a “voting” van drive around during church services. The members of the church go outside and into the van and they read about how Kerry is against Christian beliefs. I found it extremely biased. Yes, I do have a problem with that. If you don’t simply because they voted Republican, that is your business. Don’t try to degrade my opinion as if it doesn’t matter or isn’t valid at all. I have explained my stance on it. Whether you agree or not is up to you.
Winfield wrote:
:Oh…and Hillary will the next president. She will run again Rudy or Arnold. His amendment will pass. People will be so sick of the economy tanking and the world population resenting us that they will “require” a change of parties in the white house."
Wrong.
Are you from Massachusets?
News flash: Dukakis/Kerry represented Massachusets as the head of the Democratic Party in recent National elections.
I say the political judgement of your state and your party is in serious doubt.
JeffR
TOTrev - "I would agree that ignorance is the cause of much harm. That’s why we read supplement information UNBIASED, before we go putting things in our bodies, otherwise the ignorance would/could caue harm. Same shit with the supplements, they are ignorant to supplements and are banning them. Same thign with voting, if you don’t understand the issues you aren’t doing your part to hold up Democracy, don’t be a lazy and just vote for some person b/c you were always a republican or a democrat, come on, where is your independant thought??
Wow great job saying both sides of the fence have ignorant constituants. Trouble is the tone of your post clearly wishes bush didn’t get elected and therefore we can deduce that your statementa were actually directed at the ignorants in the GOP. Do you think there are more of them? Are we t-nation members of the conservative side ignorant as well? We certainly aren’t about supplements. You have to give us that much. Did you know that zebs T-Nation election poll came out almost identical to the national popular vote?
What exactly are all you guys so mad about? The american people voted, they picked bush. If he takes this country down it is our responsibility not anyone elses. I am in a position in my work where I do the hiring and firing. I went through the same process of casting my vote as I do when I’m interviewing people to work for me. My business isn’t going under and neither will our country.
Even John F Kerry is ready to move on and work with the president to unite america. So far I have seen some of his followers do the same, but there are many of you who are bitter and still angry. Don’t be angry at us, look in the mirror.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
JD,
I didn’t see your post earlier, I think you need to lighten up man.
If you take a look, you’ll realize I was poking fun… this is evidenced by the later paragraphs in my post countering the first.
Breathe in, breathe out, breathe in, breathe out.
Ironically, I only noticed your post because Jeff, the great ignorer, actually referred to me. Priceless!
Anyway, in case it wasn’t clear, my first paragraph was completely meant to be over the top. Maybe that was lost because others say that type of thing and actually mean it?
Hmm, that might even be funnier!
[quote]Vegita wrote:
It is not the same thing, How hard is this to understand. …People minds however cannot be read like a book. Therefore my argument still stands. I made a valid argument and you did not. I am not even disagreeing with your argument so much as the method in which you supported it. [/quote]
I specifically wrote this before:
“People who are members of a church don’t go to church to be convinced that God exists, they go for rejuvenating what they believe in and for deeper understanding.”
I wrote what MEMBERS of a church go for. Like I wrote before, my father was a preacher. I was raised in the church. Like you apparently know what all religions teach, I know what members of a church go to church for. I didn’t write “visitors” of the church or “part time church goers”. I wrote MEMBERS which implies that they go to a church on a regular basis enough times to join that church because they agree with what is being taught. If you are arguing that people do NOT go to be taught more about God and that religion and that they do NOT go for rejuvenation of what they believe, then I don’t understand what your point is. I think you are arguing just for the sake of it.