U.S. Presidential Election 2008

Wow.

So, democrats are well-informed free-thinkers on the cutting edge of all the latest scientific discoveries continuously and dynamically synthysized into that party platform, and republicans are brainwashed automotons?

So, all animals are created equal, but some animals are clearly more equal than others ... and the thoughts, feelings and desires of the bunch I don't like should be completely ignored. ... in a democracy.

Hypothetically, if a 900-foot jesus straight out of central casting appeared tomorrow, maybe we'd be wishing for a few more god-bothers in the government. As I read somewhere on this thread before, no scientist would state with 100% clarity that this couldn't conceivably not happen. But you're stating with 100% certainty that literal religious belief is so completely wrong-headed as to be a criterion for disenfranchisement from the political process.


?
I'm afraid you've just described hedonism ... an overwhelmingly democratic character trait.

Signed, a registered democrat agnostic.

And if a 900 foot marshmellow man started tearing up New York city we would be wishing for the ghost busters, fortunately neither are going to happen.

This democrat-smart/republican-dumb argument is typical of an outsider. Surprisingly there are many non bible beater republicans and there are many religious nutter democrats. Similarly - political ignorance and selfishness are not limited to one side of the political 'spectrum' (I use that term with democrats and repubs very tentatively), they are universal human traits found everywhere. There are idiots and intelligent people in both parties. Just far more of the latter are independents

Why must everything be a superlative in the US? I believe YOU are attempting to state 100% certainty on my behalf, which I never said. Thanks for twisting my words. Ever hang out with Conquistador?

@sanwald So, if personal responsibility isn't a person's strong suit, then I guess you're screwed, huh? Thank god there's no requirement in the US to be thin, as much as you imply there is one to be completely responsible if you ever hope to be successful / happy with life. Because requiring responsible people is making a demand that all people possess a specific trait. I only make reference to fat people to show how arbitary "personal responsibility" is. I haven't illustrated this as well as I would like, and I'm putting the coffee pot on right now. :-)

This whole Dem-Rep debate for me is really centered around whether people want to help the down and out, who are down and out for various reasons, via improved social systems, taxes, etc. or if you wanna say "Well, I'm not responsible for them."

I can understand one's desire to not throw their money away, as they see it, but as citizens who presumably form a cultural bond that hopefully goes beyond waving a flag and saying "America... fuck yeah!", I don't see why your work helping the down and out is a bad thing - even if such as system is occasionally abused. We have the same welfare freeloaders in Canada, but I just accept that as a system "less than 100% efficient", which is reasonable to me.

If a 900-foot Jesus showed up in NYC, the Knicks would sign him and he'd quickly end up injured, with a sexual harassment suit.

Like these guys?

i think what really makes the u.s. look bad is still having the death penalty. how dare we criticize china or anyone else on human rights abuses when we still carry out something so harsh and barbaric? every other civilized country in the world has abolished the death penalty. but look at the majority of both democrats and republicans. when it comes to the death penalty they are bloodthirsty dictators.

Nice to see your skills at hyperbole surpass your ability to press the shift key.

wrong, they're god fearing christians, wanting to take a load off god's plate so they can look better to him. Sorry, to Him. silly.

Capital punishment isn't a spectator sport as it is in China and people are not put to death because of their sexual orientation, for example, as is the case in some places. At worst, the US is only thirty years behind France, which executed its last convict and subsequently abolished the death penalty thirty years ago.

And let's not forget who had widespread slavery a mere 60 years ago.

horseshoe, feel free to clarify your own incoherent (and off-topic) ramblings if you feel the need to do so, but there is no need to attack anyone else (personally). Got it?

Got it. I assume you will do the same from here on in. Freut Mich. No matter what you say about the content of my posts, I should point out it got a bit of discussion going.

That's nice (looked like it was primarily people correcting you) however your repeated personal attacks on me earlier in this thread did nothing for the thread. In case you have not noticed, attacking someone comments is quite a bit different than attacking them personally. The first is permissible, the second violates forum rules.

god do you ever stop? i never attacked you at all. you must have perceived an attack because i related someone's word twisting to yours, which has been previously stated by more than just me. I'm perfectly happy to have the matter dropped or moderated, because I'm personally tired of you and would rather have some fun here.

You weren't complimenting him, horseshoe, particularly within the context of previous personal attacks you have made. As for the claims of others to whom you refer, that is a favorite talking point of some Obama supporters who have policy differences with me. I can show you plenty of examples of "word twisting" by Obama supporters, yet I don't see much evidence put forward by them in support of their claims. Anyhow, perhaps this "twisting" is in many cases a matter of having a different perspective or interpretation. Let's move on.

What? The only thing I understand from this is that you're making coffee. Are you saying that only thin people are happy? Do you think that fat people aren't responsible?

But since you bring up fat people let me clarify my position with two statements:

1. I'm fat because McDonalds fries their foods in saturated fats, urge me to supersize, and serve unhealthy food.

or

B. I'm fat because I enjoy drinking Hefe Weizen and don't exercise enough.

In one statement I'm taking responsibilty for my condition, in another I'm saying someone else is responsible. Can you tell which one is which?

Just skin color and social standing...


At worst only thirty years behind France? Thirty years in this day and age are like three hundred a century ago. And should not the US, as forerunner of Democratic values and free opportunity for all, be leading the way in a World of the Brave and the Free instead of hanging on to yesteryear barbarism?

Kids with guns
Kids with guns
Easy does it, easy does it, they got something to say no to...

@Sanwald Sorry about before. I mean to say, by your stated reasoning, that you are asking all people to have personal responsibility over their life situation, so that really to the logical extent of that, you are the master of your own destiny. BUT, if you for whatever reason (be it mild mental disorder, mild disability that doesn't easily warrant compensation/benefits) are unable to be at all times responsible, then you're out of luck, and republican-minded thinking is OK with that? Have I understood this viewpoint?

I tried to state that demanding people be any which way is completely arbitrary, and it's not encompassing humanity from a pragmatic viewpoint - people are so diverse it's not realistic to demand that people have any particular trait so to have a good quality of life. My whole reasoning is to have a social system that allows for the diversity - the strengths and more importantly, the weaknesses - of all its people. From your statements in the past, I get the impression that if you are not so good with "personal responsibility" (the fighting spirit to get ahead, for example) then your quality of life will not be guaranteed. My point is, with a somewhat more social system, it won't have to exclude people who are excluded now.

Just forget the fat thing - that wasn't tied in very well. Or pounce on it if you want to, whatever.

Dude, how old are you? It's not unfair or arbitrary to expect that people take responsibility for their own lives and actions. (Excepting of course those who suffer mental or physical handicaps that preclude this, that is another situation, we're talking about healthy adults).

My boss demands that I show up for work at 7:30 each morning, he demands that I be punctual. Punctuality is not my stroing point, should I be allowed to choose my own hours? He's not encompassing the diversuty of my humanity by demanding I be a certain way. Should I then be allowed to stop working and live off of society because I'm not punctual, or should society demand that I get my lazy ass up when the alarm clock rings and go to work on time like responsible people do! If I choose not to do this then I can expect my quality of life to be below that of others. It's my choice.

Edit: and get of this Repiblican thinking idea, democrats, libertarians and independents also think this way.

sanwald, maybe it's nitpicking, but this kind of black and white thinking about overweight is pretty outdated, no matter how popular it still is with the general public and people selling weight-loss remedies. The biggest reason that a person might be overweight (or thin) is because s/he comes from an overweight (or thin) family and has a tendency to overweight (or thinness) in his/her genes. The new research shows that every adult person has a set point for weight which doesn't shift much except through unusual conditions (extreme exercise or dieting.) This research is pretty popular with people developing gene therapies.

Anyway, this fact doesn't absolve you from any personal responsibility you might feel towards yourself to be as healthy as it's possible for you to be. I do feel that whether you do choose to take care of yourself isn't really anyone else's business, though.

Since we've been discussing the involvement of Christianity in the current political climate and electoral process, any thoughts about the Saddleback Church forum with the candidates?

I am uncomfortable with political candidates spouting on about/defending their religious beliefs, whatever they are, in a church forum with a megachurch pastor, so I was pretty appalled at the whole idea to begin with.

You have to reach the nutjobs voters somehow and mega churches aren't mega cause nobody is watching them.

I actually have small respect for megachurch pastors. Most religions con and extort the poor and oppressed. Mega-pastors make their living getting money from middle and upper middle class people. If you are going to be a fraud and steal, at least steal from people who can afford it.

That scumbag joel osteen has a nice racket, I should have gotten into that game... Just work on Sundays..

I have prayer cloths for sale. Personally used by Peter Popoff, but I won't say what for.

So Obama is just another phony politician who says things he doesn't mean just to get elected.

With a name like that I think we can guess what they were used for

Cinzia, you're right, it is nitpicking.

The genetic make up of a person is completely irrelevant to the two statements made. In a general discussion of health, body type, fitness and nutrition your points would be relevant.

Whether someone takes car of themselves is not my concern until they blame someone else and begin pressing the government to take action.

So you are just another Conky that puts words into people's mouths?

Obama is a Christian (I am not by the way and hold no animosity against those that are). Obama has the right to express his Christian views and credentials like any other American! Our Constitution guarantees it and I served my Country in the US Navy to defend the Constitution and our rights. One thing that is not guaranteed is the right to be stupid and therefore I have the right to freely express that stupidity is in my world a sin against humanity. Grow up already. In the immortal words of Dean Wormer, "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

Slowcal... like it or not, and I don't, the majority of the American voting public demands to know where the candidates stand on these issues. Obama wasn't lying, or trying to appeal to a particular base. As a presidential candidate he's pretty much required to make his beliefs known. And he did.

His recent statements on his recreational use of hard drugs didn't sound phony, nor did they sound like something he would say but not mean just to get elected!

Grow up, eurovol. The man is entitled to his own perspective on what you post. As for "putting words in peoples' mouth" you manage to libel others quite well all by yourself.

But doing it in a church forum, with both candidates present, is something new. Is it a new precedent? And if so, is that a good thing?

cinzia, although I am personally much more concerned about where the candidates stand on economic and foreign policy issues (as well as the sorts of judges they would appoint to the federal bench) to the extent that we have an emphasis on things such as the candidates' religious beliefs, it is a matter of the exercise of free speech. People will focus on what is of interest to them, both individually and as a member of a group or groups insofar as it affects public policy. Of course, this focus on religion obscures the real election battle, which is not between the candidates, rather it is between special interest groups.

cinzia, I personally don't think it's a good thing. But that's me. But if Obama had chosen not to participate (not saying he had any inclination to not participate) it would have been a mess with all the weird stuff floating around about his background and religious beliefs. Safer to just participate.

What the hell is a "Conky"? I don't know but I think I've been insulted here. Thems fightin' words eurovol.

By the way dough boy, who the fuck put a you in charge of determining who is or isn't "smart"? And if being stupid is a sin against humanity then you better get your prayer rug out and start asking for forgiveness. What an arrogant fuck you are. I don't like using profanity in my posts by in his case I actually feel compelled to.

I honestly haven't met anyone as partisan as you in a really long time. I think if the DNC came to you and said, "eruvol, may we call you eurovol? eurovol, we've hatched a plan that will guarantee that Obama will be elected president in November but there's a little catch, it requires that you die in the process." I think eurovol's response would be, "Go on, I'm still listening."

SlowCal, you're well on your way to a warning from the mods. "Conky" is an affectionate nickname for Conquistador.

Anyway, I guess we'll have to wait for the election to see if the Saddleback forum will have any effect on the election. I understand that Obama wanted to try (again) to dispel any rumors that he is Muslim or is pretending to be Christian, and I don't blame him for that.

But I do have a concern about the broad issue that non-Christians will feel themselves more and more marginalized, and as a result, not properly represented in government, in this kind of overtly pro-Christian political climate. I think Obama is probably honest when he promises to be inclusive in his administration, but I don't think you could say the same of other politicians at the national, state, and local levels.

Grow up Conky and have a taste of your own medicine for a change. As you say, he is entitled to his opinion but not to misrepresenting the facts. Those are your own words, now eat them!


Yes, by calling you Conky you were insulted. Meet you out back of the internet tonight at 9pm. Bring your whoop ass with you cause you will need it.

I'm trembling

You want red or blue block heads?

Why would I be on my way to a warning from the "mods"? Have I threatened anyone like eurovol just did?

Since I am a Dem, I will take blue.

eurovol, not only are you a partisan, you're a sick and twisted one.

Thanks.

eurovol, where are you from in the world? I'm guessing Wisconsin or maybe a state bordering it? Am I right?

yanksavage and SlowCal vs. eurovol and Bell the Cat, now that's a fair fight!

I believe eurovol is from TN. (saw a post once) Not so sure the people of TN would agree to the recent post

I am from Tennessee! Euro because I am in Europe and Vol because I am a Volunteer! I am a Molecular Biotechnologist (UT and Johns Hopkins trained) and before you get any ideas I am married to a beautiful German girl and have a son going on 7. I have lived all over the States from north, south, east and west and before moving here lived in Germantown, Md. I volunteered to serve my Country in the Navy and was a Corpsman from '83 to '87 under Reagan and a few Admirals that I don't remember.

Sorry, I'm off to the dentist. Root canal, can't join in the fun sorry

They don't generally take kindly to people calling other forum members "arrogant fucks."

Why did you guess eurovol is from Wisconsin, btw?

Didn't want your whole resume, but I am curious why it matters who was president at the time you served.