macs and politics

[jefhatfield]

around where i live, the political landscape is 50/50 conservative/liberal...california is the land of diane feinstein and barbara boxer who are both democrats but is also the land of ronald reagan and richard nixon, the former governor and senator of the state, respectively

but among the mac users i have met, they are left of center almost all of the time

i am also left of center having voted for al gore but my immaculate tan volvo station wagon and short hair and clean shaven face do make me look like someone who should have sat on nixon's cabinet;)

when i go to santa cruz or berkeley, i always get dirty looks...sorry, i don't have a vw van and a tied dyed t-shirt

[eyelikeart]

I'm somewhere on that fine line in between...not very conservative....not competely liberal....

when it came time for me to vote for president I took a test to see where my views stood...and I just tipped over to the Republican side...so I voted for Bush....thank god I did....can u imagine what we'd be going through right now in the Mid-East if Gore were in charge?! :rolleyes:

[Mr. Anderson]

Actually, politics discusts me sometimes. A fair number of the people who get in power are there because thats what they want, power. They're more often than not selfserving or worried about interests based on personal reasons. If you look at all the mud slinging and controversy that surrounds pretty much every election these days - from local townships to the president, its getting a little out of hand. Don't get me started about the Gush and Bore campaigns...

But if pressed to answer I'd have to say I'm liberal with conservative tendencies.

There's a quote, and I don't know who said it, but it went something like this

'The man who wants to be king, shouldn't and the man who doesn't want to be king, should'

Don't get me wrong, not everyone falls into this catagory, its more like a few bad seeds ruin the whole thing.

[krossfyter]

yet another cool arse thread by jethatfield....saweet!


i side with eyelikeart here ...as far as my political views and who i voted for and why.

sorta in the middle, more on the right. i believe both sides have good points to them and both have faults. im against the death penalty but im conservative on morals. i guess im a pragmatic idealist but i welcome change.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by krossfyter
yet another cool arse thread by jethatfield....saweet!

Yeah, I just noticed the 'macs and politics', 'macs and fashion'
great idea

Some others

'macs and food'
'macs and music'
'macs and art'

but its all working up for the uber thread

'macs and jefhatfield'

:D

[macstudent]

I guess I am fairly liberal, but I am not far left. I tend to be near the middle of some issues as well. I just have always been a very open person and I like to listen to both sides of the story before I make a decision. I never vote all for one party since both have idiots.

[LethalWolfe]

I think I'm pretty middle of the road, but I call myself Republican 'cause I don't believe in big government. But usually I'm on a case-by-case basis. Some things things I kick a bit to the left on, some things I kick a bit to the right on. So I figure after it's all said and done I "center" myself out by the end of the day. :)

Personally, I'd love to see Jessi Ventura run for Pres. :D

Lethal

[Dunepilot]

How about Macs and sexuality.

I'm a student, and obviously most people I know are fairly left-wing, but then I started to think about the people I know in my college who use Macs.

I then thought about the two friends of mine who both use iMacs, and whilst being left-wing, they're both gay also.

I'm straight, and centre-right and a Mac user, but it strange how the types attracted to Macintosh are often slightly unusual within society

Just an observation for you to chew on...

[mcrain]

I'm a Christian, Militant-Hindu, Liberal with a highly conservative tax stance that most conservatives would think was crazy liberal. I'm just weird I guess.

[krossfyter]

hey no fair!!!!! ....you cant be christian and hindu at the same time!:D

[cleo]

It's not easy to say this, but...

My name is Cleo, I live in Florida, and I voted Nader. :D

Green and damned proud of it!

[Rower_CPU]

Left of center here...

I was raised liberal, believe liberal...but, godammit, I hate taxes!

I hope we survive the next couple year's of Bush v.2 and get someone who knows what the heck they're doing...:rolleyes:

[teabgs]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


I hope we survive the next couple year's of Bush v.2 and get someone who knows what the heck they're doing...:rolleyes:

Amen to that!

Im independant...cause I dont like to take sides. Though I dislike republicans. I'm more of a conservative anarchist/socialist. Hmm...I think its about time for a Mac World Revolution!

[me hate windows]

I'm a Unhappy/renegade/govt has to be reconstructed type of person. I can't stand governments and all of their anti-gun ****. We have rights to carry guns, and other weapons. If nobody in the U.S. had a gun or some other weapon we would be dead. Reasons:

1. There will always be criminals with guns, and you can't stop that. The criminals would break in and kill us and we wouldn't be able to stop it, unless we threw a chair at them.
2. We would all technically be slaves to the govt., they could order us around, and we couldn't do anything. the only people with guns would be our Police(which half of are brain-dead slob holes) and the military.
3. yadayadayada........ you get the point.

Don't flame me, or say that I am a dumbnut. I am just expressing my opinion.

[3rdpath]

we're already slaves to the government.

most of us spend the first 100-120 days of the year working for the govt-its called taxes. most of that money is squandered on pork-barrel do nothing projects. ( can you tell i just got my tax returns from my cpa?) i don't buy into any of the political parties-thats too easy and too myopic. i'll judge their merits individually just like i do with every other person i encounter in this lifetime.

and don't even get me started on the gun rhetoric. this is not a flame -just a response-i respectfully disagree with you. i'm not against personal gun ownership but can't some sort of IQ/mental stability test be factored into the equation?

[jermsmingy]

I am as conservative as Rush Limbaugh is, and we both use macs. I hate taxes even though I am getting money back. I claimed myself as a 0 to make sure I didn't owe anything and would probably get something back. I wish the government would let me plan my own retirement and not make me pay into social security since we all know that it is going bankrupt. Oh yeah, as soon as I am 21 I am getting my concealed handgun permit.

[jefhatfield]

if we had absolutely no guns, what if america became communist like china and decided to take advantage of us in a military police state? not now, but maybe 100 or 200 years from now?

in texas, or a county in texas, concealed weapons were allowed and ordinary citizens started carrying guns...within weeks, there were 91 bank robberies...but it gets better...91 bank robberies done by adults who had no prior criminal record

what if you gave 100 compltely sane people in your city a thermonuclear bomb? what if none of those people had violent tendencies? what if all people were also catholic priests? and what if all anyone of these people had to do was press a button and kaboom? would you continue to stay in town?

there are no simple answers to the gun issue, or weapons in general, but i am lucky we live in a democracy and not a dictatorship or communist state and we have a right to choose to bear arms, have an abortion, be gay, be religious, join a secret society, hate bush or gore, or even own a...mac:D

[krossfyter]

the catholic priest is not a moral symbol in our culture anymore.

[jefhatfield]

if a person is a christian, they should follow christ as an example

when people follow christian leaders like jim jones who was one of the top protestant ministers in the us and once invited to the white house, problems could arise

what about the pope in ww2 who had ties to hitler?

and then there is jimmy swaggart, jim bakker, and those two tele-evangelists who said the 9/11 bombing was indirectly our fault, etc...

and of course, the thing with child molesting prists popping up everywhere

personally, i like christ as a christian and if i were of another religion, i would follow that original spiritual leader and not an "institution"

[jefhatfield]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jermsmingy
[B]I am as conservative as Rush Limbaugh is, and we both use macs. I hate taxes even though I am getting money back. I claimed myself as a 0 to make sure I didn't owe anything and would probably get something back.


taxes...yuck!!!

and i am more liberal and hate them as much or more than you

this year i got something back, but come tax time, with 1,000s of pages of tax law, i never know if i will get shafted for doing the same job i have been doing year after year

so far, i have gone 25 years without getting heavily taxed, but then again, i have never made huge money;)

i wonder what bill gates paid in taxes this month?

[krossfyter]

at the risk of this turning into a religious thread (for those that hate that sorta thing) ......

exactly jethatfield.....follow Christ not the suppose disciple.

[krossfyter]

everyone should pay 20% of thier income to the government...

yea!! nah!! whadya think?

[jefhatfield]

in a cynical view, we are all too stupid, ignorant, and prone to sin, so the government should take all our money and dole it back out to us in their infinite wisdom

in a idealistic view, we should not get taxed at all and the good nature within us all will help the poor, build the roads, and we won't need a military, since we are just nice people deep down and there will never be another war again

of course, the truth lies somewhere in between and as much as i hate taxes, i have not heard of a better solution and in all our imperfect ways, america is the best country on earth

[jermsmingy]

hey if you hate taxes read this article.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020409/ap_to_po/taxes_who_pays_5

anyways, I think the rate of Federal taxes for the bracket that bill gates is in is 39% no more not more than 2% less though. figured what bill gates made this year. not how much he is worth. Figure what he makes and take 39% of that and you have what he paid in federal taxes, but don't forget that he has state taxes, sales tax, and property taxes.

I find it interesting how many of you say that you are liberal but hate big government and taxes. I do not know of any liberal that has voted for a tax cut. I know of democrats, but I do not know of any liberal that has supported a tax cut. That does not mean that I could not be wrong.

Anyway, I want taxes on income to be made unconstitutonal and there be a consumption tax. That way people pay their fair share. If you buy 10 2,00dollar macs you pay more in taxes than the one who buys 1 2,000 dollar mac.

I don't care what your political view points are as long as we all agree that macs rule!

[Dunepilot]

Originally posted by krossfyter
the catholic priest is not a moral symbol in our culture anymore.

I would go as far as to say that nothing is a moral symbol in our culture any more.

We are in an age of decay, no two ways about it...:(

[spuncan]

First Amen to me hate windows. Next I was raised Republican, Firearms since I was 5 (I have great respect for firearms). Because of this I have many Republican veiws. But my main beef with both parties is that both have their "wonderful ideas" but neither do jack **** about them. So on a Political Spectrum thing im in the "Radical" zone. But as for Party Im a very strong republican (on most issues). So Im a Radical Republican hey that sounds cool.

btw- I didn't mention religion because if parties are based on relgion then well have the same problems as N.Ireland, or the Israel confict.

[iGav]

Well we have World President Blair, I mean Prime Minister Blair as Leader of our country, And I'm pretty happy with our Government, and what they are tying to do for our country etc etc....... Although like any Government they have pretty seismic problems occasionally........ But a big improvement on what we had before though!!!

Must say though, the US elections a couple of years ago, the UK were very bemused to say the least..........

So what do you guys think of Mr Dubya anyway???

[Mr. Anderson]

I'm not really sure where I stand on this. I dispise people who abuse laws for their own good. The controversy surrounding the 2nd Amendment is huge. Look at the circumstances and the times during which the 2nd Amendment came to pass: we were gearing up for war against an imperialist oppressor. Damn right I'm going to grab my musket!

But today, things are a little different. Weapons are much more deadly, threats are different, internal, but with Sept. 11th the global issue is much more dangerous.

I don't personally own a gun, and unless things change drastically (for the worse) I won't ever have one. But if I need to I will protect myself and my familly.

The link below has some really interesting stuff, its worth the read

http://secondamendmentstuff.com/quotation.htm

[mcrain]

Originally posted by jermsmingy
anyways, I think the rate of Federal taxes for the bracket that bill gates is in is 39% no more not more than 2% less though. figured what bill gates made this year. not how much he is worth. Figure what he makes and take 39% of that and you have what he paid in federal taxes, but don't forget that he has state taxes, sales tax, and property taxes.

I find it interesting how many of you say that you are liberal but hate big government and taxes. I do not know of any liberal that has voted for a tax cut. I know of democrats, but I do not know of any liberal that has supported a tax cut. That does not mean that I could not be wrong.

Anyway, I want taxes on income to be made unconstitutonal and there be a consumption tax. That way people pay their fair share. If you buy 10 2,00dollar macs you pay more in taxes than the one who buys 1 2,000 dollar mac.

No offense meant by the following, and I'm not trying to start a fight, but you have absolutely no clue how the taxation system works in this country. A consumption tax is not a fair system by itself. The federal tax rates are progressive for that very reason. They help to flatten out the regressive tax systems that states impose.

If you are genuinely interested in a "fair" system, you need to really spend a lot of time actually reading the various tax codes, and should spend some time on the working end of it before you either pass judgment on the current system or suggest we change it to something else.

I'm not defending the tax system because that's what I do, in fact, I am a big advocate of changing it, but you must understand it if you really want to make changes that are helpful rather than damaging.

As for liberal versus conservative and taxes, it is a specious argument to say that liberals always vote for tax increases and conservatives always vote against them. If that were true, you could thank liberals for every service you make use of (roads, interstates, housing, food stamps, welfare, military, etc...) and must blame the conservatives for everything wrong with the country that the government could, but does not fix.

Of course, that is not the case. The difference between liberals and conservatives is ONLY their priorties when it comes to what they want to spend money on, and how much.

One other thing, Hindu's are accepting of other religions and typically adopt and incorporate those other religions into their beliefs. I am a Christian who accepts other religions, and I refuse to impose my beliefs on any other person, and as a militant hindu, I believe that anyone who attempts to impose their religion on another, or their moral views on another, or in any way attacks anothers religion or moral views should be taken out and publicly spanked. (or worse)

Finally, macs rule.

[mcrain]

Oh, don't forget that the second amendment does not say that everybody has a right to bear arms, it says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That single sentence can easily be read to mean that the Constitution favors the existance of a "well regulated Militia" consisting of members of the general population. Furthermore, that well regulated militia must be "well regulated" and must be designed for the sole purpose of protecting the security of a free State. Finally, that sentence could be read to mean that those members of the well regulated militia are allowed to bear Arms.

Assuming that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" can be cut out and read alone to mean that I can keep a tank in my backyard and carry an Uzi around, is absurd, and in no way fits in with the way in which the rest of the US Constitution is read.

That being said, I like the way in which the Supreme Court has read the constition to date, but I can't agree with anyone who says I have a "right" to own or carry a gun unless I am a member of a well regulated militia designed to protect the USA.

[3rdpath]

he's a goofball who's been raised with a silver spoon. i used to see him around dallas and grew to really dislike his "do you know who my daddy is" smirk. his business ventures have been marked with failure after failure( he even named his oil company el busto). true it means "bush" in spanish but ,man, have the common sense not to leave yourself open to ridicule. he made a boatload of money off of the texas ranger's baseball franchise which he got into without any capital-one of the best sweetheart deals i've seen....

he's done ok with the problems we've had since september 11th but you don't have to be einstein to organize a retaliation. though you do have to be smart to prevent one.....

here's my main beef with him and his dad: bush sr left saddam in place saying he was no longer a threat-now jr's doing the same thing with osama. saddam and osama will always be a threat and they need to be taken out while we have the troops there and a smattering of world support.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by iGAV
Must say though, the US elections a couple of years ago, the UK were very bemused to say the least..........

So what do you guys think of Mr Dubya anyway???

The election mess was just that, a mess. Election contests are provided for in every local, state and federal election, but rather than just follow the rules and find out who won, we got a winner based on the best "guestimate."

Who won is only a temporary issue, and after 9/11, I'm happy it was Bush. From a legal standpoint, the US Supreme Court created new precedent when it overturned the Florida Supreme Court. That precedent is now the law in this country, and who knows what nasty problems that decision will cause. I'm sure that will be something we have to deal with long after Bush Jr. is gone.

As for the election, Dubya is our president, and I support him fully. I just wish he wouldn't be quite so uncooth when it comes to stepping on foreign government's toes. I mean, you can exert pressure without calling someone an "evil empire."

I hope he keeps the pressure up, but don't paint us into any more corners than we need to be in.

[3rdpath]

the us supreme court has set a worrisome precedent for the us election process. time will tell how soon this ugliness rears it's head again.

my main complaint with us politics( both parties...) is that we keep telling the world that we are the keepers of all things good, wholesome, fair, peaceful, moral and ethical. lets face it our interests (based upon our actions) are for self preservation thru exports/ imports and oil. no matter how you dress it up thats what you get.

the u.s. really needs to address WHY so many other countries are angry and resentful of us. ( and it's not our prosperity-no ones yelling death to sweden...)

[mcrain]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
no ones yelling death to sweden...

The US mentality is, "Sweden, who cares about Sweden. What's a Sweden?"

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by Dunepilot
How about Macs and sexuality.

OK, your question first, then this thread. Gay as the day is long. I used to see a lot of gay people using macs, being the "alternative" and all, but in the past few years, I've become the only queer i know that loves Macs. Kind of sad. But in the high-style home magazines i get, there are a lot of gay couples that use Macs, because Macs go well with contemporary decor.

i realize the whole sexual orientation thing gets on peoples nerves sometimes, and i don't like to make a big deal out of it, but it's far easier to outmyself once like this, than confuse people when i say "my partner this" or "that"... Happily married to a wonderful guy :)

On the topic of political orientation ;) i'm a centrist, Libertarian to be precise. The idea that the political spectrum is 1 dimentional is shortsighted. Off of the center, branch Libertarians on top, and down from the center are communists, so I'm the opposite of those commie bastards ;) it's lots of fun, i'm the only sane Libertarian alive. Most of them live in bunkers under Montana, still thinking Y2K was apocolyptic ;)

my2¢ as always :)
paul

[krossfyter]

everyone loves to pick on America and Isreal.

how unfortunate.

[sturm375]

First, I would have to say that Rush Limbaugh is one of the most liberal talk show hosts. That would be the dictionary definition of liberal, being of open mind. I don't know who decided to change the popular definition to something different.

Next, we don't have a Liberal v. Conservitave parties, they are Democrats v. Republicans. Personally I side with the Libratarians. They favor a much smaller government than the Republicans. That is my economic stance, but I have a very "liberal" social stance.

I am very happily suprised that someone actually quoted the exact 2nd Amendment. Very few people realize that the 2nd Amendment does not say "We have the right to bear arms". I personally dispise the current gun laws. If you are any citizen in good standing, you can legally go to the Army Surplus store and buy an anti-tank rifle. Accurate to 5 miles, and capible of taking out modern tanks in a few shots. Also the fact that gun shows are exempt from the 3-day waiting period. Absolutly ridiculous.:mad:

On the other hand, I am getting fed up with all the jerks out there, I am not speaking of anyone here that I know of, who are crying over their taxes. I work in the poverty level where I live, and have no pity for someone who makes $1,000,000.00 and has to pay Uncle Sam half. I am tired of hearing it, just shut up, and live within your means which is still 20 times better than mine after taxes. Do I like taxes, no! So why not come up with some solutions to sociatal problems, rather than complain that you can barely afford your new BMW.

We as Americans, started out with no class system, but have gradually adopted one. It is my firm belief that the Republicans, not conservitaves, that are draging us down that road.

As far as the 9/11 stuff, it doesn't take a genius to respond to that terrorism, so that by itself doesn't make me like Bush Jr. any more than before 9/11. However since being in office, his choice for Att. General: Ashcroft(Hitler), as well as the 40% steel tariffs show me that "W" is just as stupid as advertised. Also the kangaroo court system set up for the POWs that are not called POWs from Afganistan, also developed by Bush and Friends, is ridiculous. Let's see, we went to war. We captured soldiers in the process of fighting this war. But they are not POWs?:confused:

Alright, Flame On! Give me your best shot!

[krossfyter]

i sure as hell know that Gore (the bore) wouldnt have done any better in office.

clinton should of taken care of osama bin laden in the first place so we wouldnt have to be in this mess. he was so pre occupied with preserving his legacy that he forgot about the important things to do in his position to help America. Sure Bush aint the brightest motha out there but he at leasts cares for America........Clinton only cared for himself.

[jefhatfield]

nothing to flame really

i think george bush chose ashcroft (a member of a cult) and to the right of center more than most americans to counterbalance pro-choice colin powell and middle of the roader (slightly right) condoleeza rice

he had to do it to please all aspects of his party to stay in office

don't be so hard on w

bill clinton had to appease the right wing of the democratic party (the so called blue dogs), the centrists where he stood slightly to the right of, and the far left like the naders and jesse jacksons

it is called politics and it is a dirty game

nixon, ford, and reagan did not exactly like born again christians like me, but they needed the vote of born agains to win in 2000

in the united states, two out of every three born again christians are registered republicans so of course, bush has to cater to them or lose to gore

gore does not side with the born agains, but his wife is kind of a hero in those religious circles and i am not sure about lieberman if he really is religious or that was a ploy to get some religious conservatives on his side

anyway, i voted for gore, but i think w is doing a good job with the terrorists...i take that back...i think colin powell and **** cheney are the experts here

well, politics makes strange bedfellows and i am so middle of the road for 2004 and a flip of a coin could almost determine my choice for president

if bin laden is caught and sadaam taken out of power, i will go for w but if neither is caught and the economy is still in the dumps, i will go for the democratic candidate

[mcrain]

To say that Clinton was too busy worrying about his legacy to do anything about Osama just shows that you are brainwashed by conservative talk show hosts. Oh, and Limbaugh isn't entertainment, or news media

Clinton, on half a dozen occassions, attempted to take out Osama Bin Laden, but, as W has seen, he's not that easy to find.

Furthermore, any blame on Clinton for being pre-occupied has to fall squarely on those who decided to hound him for Whitewater, Jones, Filegate, FBIgate, travelgate, haircutgate, Lewinsky and finally, impeachment.

Memo to any Republican running for office: You better be damn sure you don't have any skelatins in your closet, because your party set the new tone for politics in this country. That new tone is best described as: "If we don't like who was elected, we'll castrate and crucify them until we dig up something and then pound them with it to humiliate and distract them from their job in an attempt to influence the voting public."

You know, come to think of it, I don't remember seeing character assasination against the American president in the contract with America.

Can you imagine what the Republicans would have done to Clinton if he was the President during Iran-Contra?

I used to be interested in politics, but now with the way in which the Republicans have spoiled the political landscape, I'll never do that. If I were president and someone said the things they said about Hillary, but instead about my wife, I'd end up in jail for assault or worse.

For all the high and mighty moral preaching that the Republicans do, it is very surprising how they believe the golden rule doesn't apply to them and that it is ok to bash other people for what they do and believe.

[jermsmingy]

Ok don't give me that crap that just because someone earns 1,000,000 dollars that it is ok to give half of their income up. the top 10 percent in this country are those who make over 120,000. So if a wife makes 40,000 and a husband makes 80,000 they have to pay half of their income (including state taxes) to the government. People make money generally based on their skills. A programmer makes more money than a person that works at McDonalds's because he has taught himself a skill that not many people have. Should we make him pay half of what he has earned to the government because he has taught himself or taken classes to gain knowledge. I don't think so. Doing that just punishes hard work. Besides that if you give a tax cut to people it helps everyone. People with money hire people without money (Yes I know that this is a generalization). Anyway, If you give a small business owner an extra 20,000 back in taxes, he will probably expand his business in which case he will have to hire someone and that way 2 people make more money. It is called trickle-down economics and it works. Remember that the founding fathers got upset over a 3% tax. Taxes are well over that.

on the gun issue, the bill of rights only applies to the federal government and not the state governments. I know that the Supreme court has applied the bill of rights to state governments but that is not how the founding fathers set it up. so don't give me this well organized militia. Every American has the right to own a gun, but I do believe that you can give up that right.

[jefhatfield]

two thirds of the rich inherit it (the millionaire next door...a good book)

of the other one third, most are self employed and have special writeoffs many who are employees don't

i am not worried about the ten percent but w's special help to the upper 1 percent so that the middle class has to get higher taxes

i thought the republicans were going to help the middle class, not the upper one percent!

but on the foreign policy front, w is doing as good as a job as anyone could...his dad knows mideast politics as does powell and cheney

overall, i am happy with w but like any prez, i have my gripes




with clinton, he didn't push the medical care thing enough to completion and of course (non-politically), monica lewinsky and the others

with george bush...lying about taxes

with reagan...not keeping an eye on voodoo economics and bringing on the recession which perot brilliantly pointed out in the 92 debates (though george bush got blamed unfairly for reagan's bad voodoo economics and incorrect trickle down theory crap)

with carter...bad domestic policy but good spiritual man

with ford...i liked him and still do

with nixon...watergate

with johnson...vietnam

kennedy i liked but was too young to remember anything

so like i said before, i am middle of the road liking ford and carter for different reasons...time will tell if i decide i like clinton and george w

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by krossfyter
i sure as hell know that Gore (the bore) wouldnt have done any better in office.

clinton should of taken care of osama bin laden in the first place so we wouldnt have to be in this mess. he was so pre occupied with preserving his legacy that he forgot about the important things to do in his position to help America. Sure Bush aint the brightest motha out there but he at leasts cares for America........Clinton only cared for himself.

Now now, I hated Clinton as much as the next moralist, and perhaps he didn't do everything he could have to get rid of Bin Laden, but hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? We could spend all day shifting the blame around on the past 4 presidents, but it's beside the point. Point is, Bush's isolationist stance following 9/11 hasn't helped anything... this 90% or whatever approval rating he has, is a rediculous show of patriotism, and I think in the grand scheme, Bush has done a poor job of handling things. Bush has himself in quite a situation on this middle east thing, doesn't he? The man has no foresight. It's not difficult to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, but beyond that, Bush is rather worthless without his trustworthy Powell at his side. I don't think Bush cares about anything but himself, and his image... And of course his military. Reminds me of a kid playing with a gun. Forgive me for not using that to segway into the 2nd Amendment crap... I don't favor one political party over the other, because they balance each other nicely, but I hope we get a liberal in office soon to fix our foreign relations a bit...

Forgive me krossfyter, because much of this isn't in reply to you, just the thread in particular...

[britboy]

Could someone please explain this though?

Cuba was named by George W as a member of the 'axis of evil', in that now infamous speech of his. However, the POW's from afghanistan are being kept at the american military base in cuba, as it's supposedly the safest place to keep them. Where's logic there?

[jefhatfield]

taking out the taliban and effectively rooting them out and most of the al-qaeda is not an easy job

anaconda reduced any mountain dwellers to insignificance

i am sure sadaam will get out of power within a few years

like i said before, i am just scared at the republican's domestic policy


my best answer is if we have a republican prez, a democratic congress or senate is a good thing

and on the other side if there is a democrat in office, a republican senate or congress is a good thing

this is called check and balance...only the truly ignorant would call that gridlock...i don't want to start a flame on gridlock so if you are curious, just do a search on google or go to the library because of all the recent posts i started, macs and dc gridlock theory is not what i really want to bring up:D :D :D

[krossfyter]

Mc rain.....


I do not listen to Rush....I havent heard the guy since 4 years ago. He was to much "SPIN" for me. I side with O'REILLY on most of the issues. THE NO SPIN ZONE! dig it!

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by paulwhannel


Now now, I hated Clinton as much as the next moralist, and perhaps he didn't do everything he could have to get rid of Bin Laden, but hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? We could spend all day shifting the blame around on the past 4 presidents, but it's beside the point. Point is, Bush's isolationist stance following 9/11 hasn't helped anything... this 90% or whatever approval rating he has, is a rediculous show of patriotism, and I think in the grand scheme, Bush has done a poor job of handling things. Bush has himself in quite a situation on this middle east thing, doesn't he? The man has no foresight. It's not difficult to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, but beyond that, Bush is rather worthless without his trustworthy Powell at his side. I don't think Bush cares about anything but himself, and his image... And of course his military. Reminds me of a kid playing with a gun. Forgive me for not using that to segway into the 2nd Amendment crap... I don't favor one political party over the other, because they balance each other nicely, but I hope we get a liberal in office soon to fix our foreign relations a bit...

Forgive me krossfyter, because much of this isn't in reply to you, just the thread in particular...



understood. i was just making a point that not ALL the blame is on Bush. Some of the crap we are in is a result of Clinton....and some of it is the result of Regan....BUSH sr....etc.etc. you see my point.

now i humbly disagree with you about bush only caring about himself.
he is a christian and i know he is a TRUE christian.....from his fruits. So from that i deduct that he really cares about the nation as GOd would want anyone in that postion to. Now clintin.....well from his fruits im not sure if he really cares about following God...but rather following man related standards.

[mischief]

Originally posted by britboy
Could someone please explain this though?

Cuba was named by George W as a member of the 'axis of evil', in that now infamous speech of his. However, the POW's from afghanistan are being kept at the american military base in cuba, as it's supposedly the safest place to keep them. Where's logic there?

Happy to:

Because the Taliban was never recognized as a national government and it's millitary was made up primarily of mercenary extra-national Zealots prisoners taken were not considered POW's under the Laws of War as established by the Haig.

Guantanamo bay was annexed by the US millitary and is disputed territory.....it is not reguarded as part of ANY nation by the US and is therefore perfect for isolating "Illegal combatants" while the US figures out what to do with them.

The issue of POWs is as misquoted as the issue of cloning. A POW has a distinct definition in the Laws of War. Despite what the humanitarians among us might want to believe on the subject these individuals are.....technically not POW's.

As much as all of this may suck it is all technically kosher.

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by krossfyter
I do not listen to Rush....I havent heard the guy since 4 years ago. He was to much "SPIN" for me. I side with O'REILLY on most of the issues. THE NO SPIN ZONE! dig it!

Don't confuse "no spin" with being rude, which O'Reilly most certainly is... because he uses confrontationalism to put his own spin on everything, while stifling the views of his guests, even if they're the same as his...

Tho I suppose this is the definition of "opinion" show.

As for Rush, well I'm not a huge fan (He's disgusting in person, if you ever get the honor) but he does seem to use logic rather than defending archaic values of his party, and he is willing to listen and change his own opinion... so that makes me like him a little :) Plus of course, he plugs Macs whenever he gets the chance, which made my dad convert, and eventually got me my first iMac...

pnw

[britboy]

Originally posted by mischief

Guantanamo bay was annexed by the US millitary and is disputed territory.....it is not reguarded as part of ANY nation by the US and is therefore perfect for isolating "Illegal combatants" while the US figures out what to do with them.


now that i didn't know. Thanks :)

As for the pow thing, i just called them that for lack of another word at hand. I guess 'prisoners' might have been a better description.

[3rdpath]

i was always unsure of how we had a base in cuba...

now to the technicalities of POW's:

technically they may not be POW's
technically the supreme court thought bush won
technically clinton thought he wasn't perjuring himself
technically reagan was unaware of the iran-contra shananigans
and technically , many of nixon's allies "did not recall" specific information about watergate...

once our actions are ruled by the technicalities of law, what follows isn't very pretty.

and don't blame the lawyers-the law has a funny way of reflecting the moral and ethical leanings of society.

[nicely]

The Second Amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The people of United States that own firearms are the well regulated Militia. There are many, many state and federal laws specifically "regulating" the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms. I am very familiar with many of these.

sturm375
Very few people realize that the 2nd Amendment does not say "We have the right to bear arms". I personally dispise the current gun laws. If you are any citizen in good standing, you can legally go to the Army Surplus store and buy an anti-tank rifle. Accurate to 5 miles, and capible of taking out modern tanks in a few shots. Also the fact that gun shows are exempt from the 3-day waiting period. Absolutly ridiculous.

We do have the right to bear arms for the security of our lives, our familys' lives, and our "State." Also, if you would take the time to read the numerous other writings of our founding fathers (who I am not saying were infallible; they were hypocritical at best in reguards to who they considered "people"), you would see that the main purpose for the Second Amendment was to arm the people so that our own government does not become oppressive.

ex. One of Hitler's first moves was to disarm the people.

Also, a few years ago, England made it clear that people do not have the right to own guns there and I bet that some of the people on this forum could tell you how crime rates have risen since. Criminals aren't scared of the defensless.

Army surplus places don't sell firearms. Only Federally licenced gun dealers do. There is no legally obtained rifle that is either accurate up to 5 miles or can take out a modern tank. Not even a .50 cal. There is no 3 day waiting period at gun shows because there is a Federal instant backgroud check for all sales. The FBI has to aprove each sale at the time of purchase.

By this kind of mentality, we shouldn't have Power Macs because they are supercomputers.

I guess you guys can tell what I'm passionate about besides Macs...

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by krossfyter
now i humbly disagree with you about bush only caring about himself.
he is a christian and i know he is a TRUE christian.....from his fruits. So from that i deduct that he really cares about the nation as GOd would want anyone in that postion to. Now clintin.....well from his fruits im not sure if he really cares about following God...but rather following man related standards.

A couple of points:

If by fruits you mean deeds and actions, I would have to disagree. His deeds and actions as a father leave much to be desired. His daughters make Clinton look inhibited.

I'm a BIG separation of church and state person, so I think ANY discussion of how well a President follows Christian morals to be completely beside the point. A good leader leads his country IN SPITE OF his faith, not because of it.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by paulwhannel


Don't confuse "no spin" with being rude, which O'Reilly most certainly is... because he uses confrontationalism to put his own spin on everything, while stifling the views of his guests, even if they're the same as his...

Tho I suppose this is the definition of "opinion" show.




his own spin? dont confuse "his own spin" with the spin of a rebuplican and or democrate. He gives his opinion....right....but when its all said and done he tries to weed through all the BS and get down to the truth of the matter. Yes he can be biligerant or rude however you want to put it but thats his style....while trying to put the truth with FACTS as oppose to just spin.

He puts the smack down man. Its funny how gore, hillary and jesse jackson are afraid of him.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


A couple of points:

If by fruits you mean deeds and actions, I would have to disagree. His deeds and actions as a father leave much to be desired. His daughters make Clinton look inhibited.

I'm a BIG separation of church and state person, so I think ANY discussion of how well a President follows Christian morals to be completely beside the point. A good leader leads his country IN SPITE OF his faith, not because of it.


but its more dangerous for a president to only have to answer to himself and not belief in a GOd because they can be selfish and think its fine.....as oppose to fearing God. The "true" good leaders were humble enough to lead a nation. A persons walk with God directly seeps in to EVERY aspect of thier life.....one who truely does this does not leave that to lead a nation

[3rdpath]

hey if bill o' calls it "no spin", then it should be no spin. the fact is the guy needs some sort of laxative for his mouth cuz he just can't stop it once it gets going.

that he's on the fox network really says it all---all sizzle and no steak.

or as we texans might say--" he's all hat and no cattle".

[krossfyter]

heh yeah...get a lot of that down here in texas.

but I really beileve bill o is trying to stand up for the truth and facts as oppose to just sticking with a certain view.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by 3rdpath


that he's on the fox network really says it all---all sizzle and no steak.



so what network is all steak in your opinion?

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by krossfyter
but its more dangerous for a president to only have to answer to himself and not belief in a GOd because they can be selfish and think its fine.....as oppose to fearing God. The "true" good leaders were humble enough to lead a nation. A persons walk with God directly seeps in to EVERY aspect of thier life.....one who truely does this does not leave that to lead a nation

As we saw when the impeachment trials took place, the president answers to those who elected him and the country he represents. Would you say a Bhuddist president would be inherently bad, since he didn't answer to God, but Buddha instead?

Since when do Christians have the monopoly on humility? I would say that at times they can be just the opposite...:rolleyes:

I do not condone or approve of Clinton's actions while in office. He is a poor role-model for appropriate moral behavior. But he wasn't elected for his pristine personal life. He was well known to be a "horn-dog" while governor of Arkansas. He was elected to lead our country and to perform the duties of president, not be the moral example for all of us to follow.

It is of the utmost importance that we distinguish between the moral and political duties of that office. As long as his personal affairs do not interfere with his fulfillment of his duties, he is free to do as he pleases. The only reason his indiscretions came to light was that he had a team of people trying to trip him up.

Most other countries in the world understand the separation between a leader's performance of his job and his private life, why can't we?

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


As we saw when the impeachment trials took place, the president answers to those who elected him and the country he represents. Would you say a Bhuddist president would be inherently bad, since he didn't answer to God, but Buddha instead?

Since when do Christians have the monopoly on humility? I would say that at times they can be just the opposite...:rolleyes:

I do not condone or approve of Clinton's actions while in office. He is a poor role-model for appropriate moral behavior. But he wasn't elected for his pristine personal life. He was well known to be a "horn-dog" while governor of Arkansas. He was elected to lead our country and to perform the duties of president, not be the moral example for all of us to follow.

It is of the utmost importance that we distinguish between the moral and political duties of that office. As long as his personal affairs do not interfere with his fulfillment of his duties, he is free to do as he pleases. The only reason his indiscretions came to light was that he had a team of people trying to trip him up.

Most other countries in the world understand the separation between a leader's performance of his job and his private life, why can't we?


true ...i agree to an extent. i mean we are not electing a priest or a rev.
but those that are truely christians should be un selfish caring humble and servants. if they fail its because no one is perfect...its thier own fault.
in my view.... i hold a persons spiritual life above all else in deciding on who runs the country.....because from expierence in being a christian myself.... i know that when you give your life to GOd..... you begin to be less selfish and care more for people. I know .....that happened to me. I never thought it could. So to me.....someone who genuinly cares for people and is less selfish will best lead the country.....when you move all political views and or platform issues aside.

true we are not electing for MORAL presidents but TO ME it is important in whom I decide should be president.

[3rdpath]

c-span is the obvious first choice but if you want a news network-watch the BBC world news. an outside view of our politics is refreshing ( and sometimes truly horrifying). no " shoulda/coulda/woulda" armchair quarterbacks like on most of the u.s infotainment networks...and you can always stick around for "changing rooms" for a good laugh to pull you out of the gloom.

if i must watch a u.s. network then i'll take cnn. its not perfect but it seems the least biased. i also like npr radio-less news but more indepth stories. they don't focus on the soundbites.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
c-span is the obvious first choice but if you want a news network-watch the BBC world news. an outside view of our politics is refreshing ( and sometimes truly horrifying). no " shoulda/coulda/woulda" armchair quarterbacks like on most of the u.s infotainment networks...and you can always stick around for "changing rooms" for a good laugh to pull you out of the gloom.

if i must watch a u.s. network then i'll take cnn. its not perfect but it seems the least biased. i also like npr radio-less news but more indepth stories. they don't focus on the soundbites.


i agree with you about cspan.

but i HEAVLY disagree with you on CNN. to me that network is straight left.

not as bad as ABC, NBC or CBS.... though.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
:)

i agree.



Hey you deleted it.

[Rower_CPU]

Grrrr.....my last posts freaked out on me...:mad:

krossfyter:

I would suggest the recent Dalai Lama's books on selflessness and compassion. His teachings are quite motivational and trancend religion.

I believe that there are certain universal truths that all humans understand. I just don't believe that there is one "true" religion that applies to everyone.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by krossfyter


i agree.



Hey you deleted it.

Sorry, looks like the server is weirding out tonight...my posts got mangled, and then I kept getting "Server too busy" messages...arn, you tinkering back there?

[3rdpath]

morals & ethics and presidential candidates are mutually exclusive.

i'm not saying all politicians are unethical BUT by the time someone runs for president their morals and ethics have been subleased by corporations and lobbyists. its just the sad state of our politics. campaigns are expensive and somebodys gonna foot the bill-for a price. what i might call "loansharking" is just big business.

and if you think there is anything humble and selfless about the bush family...
daddy bush has been obsessed with establishing a "kennedy" legacy for years. and the funny(sad!) thing is it will never happen. he'll always be remembered for his"read my lips- no new taxes" gaff and leaving saddam in power. and dubya and his ham-fisted rhetoric and foreign policy will only make things worse. the only bush i have faith in is jeb-he's smart and a free-thinker( which is why he wasn't chosen to run for pres):eek:

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Grrrr.....my last posts freaked out on me...:mad:

krossfyter:

I would suggest the recent Dalai Lama's books on selflessness and compassion. His teachings are quite motivational and trancend religion.

I believe that there are certain universal truths that all humans understand. I just don't believe that there is one "true" religion that applies to everyone.


okay. thanks for the suggestion but i dont need dalai lama..... im learning from Jesus Christ.... he too transcends religion and much much more. i would rather learn from someone who is sinless.

but really i appreciate the suggestion.

:D

[Rower_CPU]

Can you say "Big Oil"?

The Bush administration is so rife with former/current oil company employees/managers/owners that it's not even funny. No wonder they're so hot to go drill in Alaska...:rolleyes:

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
morals & ethics and presidential candidates are mutually exclusive.

i'm not saying all politicians are unethical BUT by the time someone runs for president their morals and ethics have been subleased by corporations and lobbyists. its just the sad state of our politics. campaigns are expensive and somebodys gonna foot the bill-for a price. what i might call "loansharking" is just big business.

and if you think there is anything humble and selfless about the bush family...
daddy bush has been obsessed with establishing a "kennedy" legacy for years. and the funny(sad!) thing is it will never happen. he'll always be remembered for his"read my lips- no new taxes" gaff and leaving saddam in power. and dubya and his ham-fisted rhetoric and foreign policy will only make things worse. the only bush i have faith in is jeb-he's smart and a free-thinker( which is why he wasn't chosen to run for pres):eek:


well if you want to go that route... we can list all the negatives of bill too.

anyways.... im just saying.... that in my opinion Clintion is more selfish then Bush.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by krossfyter



okay. thanks for the suggestion but i dont need dalai lama..... im learning from Jesus Christ.... he too transcends religion and much much more. i would rather learn from someone who is sinless.

but really i appreciate the suggestion.

:D

Wait, man. Are you calling the Dalai Lama a sinner? (which he's not)
Or are you saying Jesus never sinned? (which he did)

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Can you say "Big Oil"?

The Bush administration is so rife with former/current oil company employees/managers/owners that it's not even funny. No wonder they're so hot to go drill in Alaska...:rolleyes:


true dat. but the clintions have more offensive bed fellows.... aye?!!!!?!!;)

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Wait, man. Are you calling the Dalai Lama a sinner? (which he's not)
Or are you saying Jesus never sinned? (which he did)

well ...since i follow the Bible as truth... yes mr dali is a sinner too.

everyone is...some are just forgiven because they asked for it.

And no Jesus never sinned. I believe he never did. Others will argue against it of course....but you wont see someone who "Truely" knows him doing that.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by krossfyter


well ...since i follow the Bible as truth... yes mr dali is a sinner too.

everyone is...some are just forgiven because they asked for it.

And no Jesus never sinned. I believe he never did. Others will argue against it of course....but you wont see someone who "Truely" knows him doing that.

Allright, we're getting into the gray area here of Bible interpretation...so let's just leave it at that.

It's been an interesting discussion krossfyter...:D

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Allright, we're getting into the gray area here of Bible interpretation...so let's just leave it at that.

It's been an interesting discussion krossfyter...:D


yep. we will only go in circles since our beliefs are different. thanks for being cool about it.


:D

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by krossfyter



yep. we will only go in circles since our beliefs are different. thanks for being cool about it.


:D

We're here for open discussion, and your beliefs/opinions are just as valid as mine...

PS. You're only 2 shy of 1000...so let me congratulate you prematurely...:D

[3rdpath]

daddy bush did well in the oil biz but dubya and el busto didn't. dubya's better at saying "subliminal" than he is at wildcatting....cheney got the big golden parachute from haliburton ( $33million) who he " worked" for while somehow maintaining his residence in wyoming...guess that house in highland park was for those romantic getaways to dallas....i love that he won't voluntarily release any info about whom he met with to create our nation's energy policy. funny, i thought he was in public office to represent us; he should be happy to share how he crafted a national policy that i'm sure represents our best interests.

no need to craft a policy for prudent use of energy and developing alternative energy sources. lets just drill in alaska to get a six month's supply of fuel for our fat-butted suburban drivers.

most of the posters here are too young to remember standing in line for hours to get gas in 1979. the price of oil ( like diamonds) has always been a scam.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


We're here for open discussion, and your beliefs/opinions are just as valid as mine...

PS. You're only 2 shy of 1000...so let me congratulate you prematurely...:D



very true very true. it takes a mature person to say that.

thanks for the congrats. man.

[krossfyter]

yes its all about oil aye 3rd path?!?!?!


some say that if Hitler went for the mideast oil as oppose to all of russia they would have won the second world war.

[krossfyter]

i want to thank jethatfield for putting out a post that allowed me to respond enough to go over the 1000 mark. thanks man.:D

[3rdpath]

an author named stephen mitchell has written very interesting books on both the Tao Te Ching and the life of Jesus Christ. they're both excellent if you're open to very literal translations that may be a departure from the norm.

[sturm375]

Frist let me list a few of the so called true christians:

Bush, Jr.
Ashcroft
Pat Roberts


Now ask yourselves are these people truly following in Christ's footsteps?

Bush condones the death peanilty, Christ would never.

Pat Roberts hates the Jews, and all who are not "Christians", Christ hated nobody.

Ashcroft forces his morals on all he can, Christ never forced anything.


As a true Christian we endever to follow Christs path. We should ask ourselves in every situation, what would Christ do. After all according to our belief, He is watching all of us, at all times. Would Christ condone the torture of another human to reveal possible hidden terrorist cells? NO! Would Christ put anyone to death, or stand idle while another is put to death, when he had the power to stop it? NO!

If it is the Christian Coalition that defines Christianaty, then I don't want to be called a Christian.

By the way, I bet Christ wouldn't have either Mac or Windows, probably Linux.:)

[jefhatfield]

thanks krossfyter, for mentioning me when you hit 1000

politics is one thing, religion is another

the christian coalition is a political organization for the well being of the republican party...that is not a bad thing...we need two parties with constituents

christianity is a religion with christ at its head

please do not get the two mixed up anybody

i am a born again christian, but actually i am simply a christian and i am a democrat

christianity is not determined by which political party you belong to but answering the call of john 3:16, "for god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever belives in him shall not perish but have everlasting life"

and from the last time i remember from my text or notes from bible college, there was never once a mention of the christian coalition, the democrats, or the republicans

so who were the christian presidents? only god knows the answer to that...it is not in deed, but in belief, and even though there are fruits, they cannot always be seen

the greatest work done by christians in the world is thru prayer, not thru some "action" as many of the cults believe as john ashcroft's cult is into

for respect of the people in cults, my employee is a minister in a cult but a very holy man, i won't mention what cult ashcroft belongs to...you can look that up (they are not allowed to dance...it is considered wrong)

[mcrain]

Most of us who read these pages have science or math backgrounds. Granted, computer science is a very functional form of science as opposed to the more theory oriented fields of pure physics, chemistry, or math, but anyone with any type of science background has to be familiar with the rules regarding when a theory becomes a law.

That being said, there is no way to prove or disprove most religious tenants. As such, there is no way to argue that one religions teachings are true as opposed to any others. What we have are opposing, differing theories.

As there is no way of proving any one religious theory, any argument is merely an argument that boils down to nothing more than I like my theory more than yours.

In a political setting, our Constitution explicitly requires the separation of church and state. Therefore, any candidate who actively campaigns on the basis that he or she will make their decisions based on their religious beliefs, is a candidate who is campaining that they are against the Constitution.

That being said, the foremost quality of a candidate is their decision making abilities, and strong morale fiber is a good quality to have, so long as the decision maker understands that it is improper to impose religious or moral beliefs on others.

To anyone who argues that we need to have handguns to protect us from Government oppression, I need to point out just how effective untrained people with rifles and handguns are against our nation's military. For examples, look to Somolia, Iraq, Afganistan, etc... If the Government wanted to oppress us, no amount of guns owned by the population is going to protect us. Because that argument (protect us against the government) really is pure fantasy, the only real reason to keep guns around is to kill each other, protect or homes/family, or to hunt.

I certainly don't need an assault rifle or uzi to hunt or protect my home or family, but it certainly makes it easier for some wacko to kill me or my family.

Gun control and common sense restrictions on gun ownership, purchasing, and use don't interfere with anyones ability to hunt or protect their family. Those types of laws only make it harder for wack-jobs to buy and use guns, and those laws try to prevent those same wack-jobs from obtaining far deadlier weapons.

Now, if you want to argue that eliminating all guns and making them all illegal is wrong, I'll support that argument. But, if you argue that any gun control is morally wrong and that you have a "right" to carry an assault weapon, then I'll outright call you a brainwashed nutcase and, to keep me and my family safe, I'll be sure to steer clear of you and your hair-trigger.

Anecdote: Brother in law was walking from one row of cars to another to get to his car. He was in the middle of the drive when a car came flying around the corner and honked at him. Rather than going back the way he had come, he proceeded as quickly as possible to the other side. The car pulled up, rolled down its window and yelled profanities. When he turned around, guess what he saw. The barrel of a gun. What state you ask? Texas! I'll admit that an armed populous makes certain crimes less likely, but that just scares the cr*p out of me.

[eyelikeart]

I couldn't honestly begin to guess which presidents were Christian...for that matter...there are few (I imagine) potiliticians with high religious morals...

I was born Catholic...and quit going to church once I was old enough to decide whether or not I wanted to go. Personally (and I am not meaning to offend anyone who feels differently!) I don't find anything spiritually satisfying with what the Catholic Church has to offer. I feel it's more of a ritual than something meant to get inside of one's heart. Sitting...standing...kneeling...chanting the same words over and over...it just doesn't make me feel any closer to God than I feel by myself. Plus I don't agree with the simple fact that one can go & do whatever they want...but once they "confess" their sins to a higher authority they pay pennance & are forgiven....only to do it all over again at some point after. Again, I do not intend to offend anyone here...just my thoughts and feelings.

I've tried other forms of prayer & church in the past few years...Christian fellowship was the one with which I actually felt something. However, I just didn't feel comfortable with all of the singing & such...it faded for me as well and as of the past 2 years I haven't stepped foot into a service. I feel that for most people it takes a life-changing experience of some sort to get there. I did have somewhat of a near-death experience 3 years ago and it did open my eyes to the fact that there is a God and that there is a time for all of us at some point...obviously mine had yet to come. But I am aware that I need to be the best person I can be in my time on this earth.

I believe in God...and I believe there is an afterlife. I believe in ghost, angels, guardian angels, spirits...I believe the dead can communicate with the living...and I believe there are signs given to us each day from all of these. I don't believe in purgatory...but I do believe there are lost souls which don't know where to go.

I commend with great respect those who have strong faith and have found something that works for them...I honestly do. I just haven't gotten to that part of my life as of yet. I have more to say, but I feel like this is turning into a book so I shall cut it here. I am sure I'll get some feedback here...so maybe I'll continue from there??

oh...and congrats on 1000 krossfyter!!! :p

[eyelikeart]

I suppose I went a tad off subject there...

should have been in the earlier thread titled "Macs & Religion"...

oh well...guess I look like the @ss now :eek:

[jefhatfield]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mcrain
[B]Most of us who read these pages have science or math backgrounds. Granted, computer science is a very functional form of science as opposed to the more theory oriented fields of pure physics, chemistry, or math, but anyone with any type of science background has to be familiar with the rules regarding when a theory becomes a law.



i am an mcp and plan to get my master's of science in computer engineering and hopefully the new mcse certification...and i will tell you, i am not a scientist in any way shape or form...and to respect to the real engineers, i am not a real engineer nor will ever be in that sense

so i have the freedom to believe in the cookie monster without hurting my reputation or my career

now if i was going for my doctor of medicine and hoping to get certified as a private physician, spouting out something like creationist beliefs would destroy my reputation and career...would you go to a brain surgeon, that for argument's sake, believed you got a tumor because your chakras were wrong or that the planets were not aligned

not me

but if i met a phd in computer engineering with his mcse and ccie who belived in planetary alignment, i would not care as long as my network was up and running

the scientific method is important, but i am yet to run into in in grad level books about game thoery as it relates to operations management as it relates to setting up a cisco router wiring closet in a pop enabled building with three different grounds and water pipes:D

[jefhatfield]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by eyelikeart
[B]
I was born Catholic...and quit going to church once I was old enough to decide whether or not I wanted to go. Personally (and I am not meaning to offend anyone who feels differently!) I don't find anything spiritually satisfying with what the Catholic Church has to offer. I feel it's more of a ritual than something meant to get inside of one's heart. Sitting...standing...kneeling...chanting the same words over and over...it just doesn't make me feel any closer to God than I feel by myself.



i hope not to take this out of context since it is of a religious matter and a partial quote...he he

that chanting and ritual is in every church whether it is a catholic church with the chanting, the presbyterian with the same old hymns (kind of like chanting after the 700th time), or a newer protestant or catholic born again church singing the same song "i will celebrate" until the words become a drone and a chant also

ritual and chant takes on meaning when you start thinking that it it is to a god who loves you...then latin chants in a traditional catholic church or dancing with the preacher who is holidng an electric guitar in a black baptist church is all the same when done in love

i used to hate the ritual of a presbyterian or anglican church...i though it was all fluff and circumstance...but now it takes on a spiritual meaning with a personal relationship to god...after a life changing experience, christmas carols become really special

outside of the bible, the common christmas carol has the most powerful religious wording i have ever seen in my whole life...and i just though it was all christmas trees, santa claus, and presents

notice that a lot of older mature christians go to church a lot more than the young these days...it sometimes takes a whole lifetime to grasp god and his mysterious ways

god is a hands off manager and to many, that seems hypocritical and uncaring, but in any religion, that's the way the higher power is

the higher power is always there, but we simply don't always see that power

my 2 cents

[jefhatfield]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jefhatfield
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by mcrain
[B]Most of us who read these pages have science or math backgrounds. Granted, computer science is a very functional form of science as opposed to the more theory oriented fields of pure physics, chemistry, or math, but anyone with any type of science background has to be familiar with the rules regarding when a theory becomes a law.



i am an mcp and plan to get my master's of science in computer engineering and hopefully the new mcse certification...and i will tell you, i am not a scientist in any way shape or form...and to respect to the real engineers, i am not a real engineer nor will ever be in that sense





disclaimer:

i am not cutting down us computer students or graduates saying we are not engineers...engineer is an extremely broad term indeed

my best friend has 4 degrees

BS in electonic engineering from MIT
MS in computer science from MIT
MS in aritificial intelligence from MIT
PhD in computer science from Stanford

he only considers the BS degree an engineering degree and has mentioned that they, along with chenical, metallurgical, civil, electrical, structural, and other engineers will not accept computer engineers (non ciruitboard) or programmers (like my buddy) as real engineers and this standard is held within the college community in the united states

but to be fair, computer engineers and programmers as every bit as important as doctors, dentists, electricians, architects, anthropologists, bridge builders, and other scientists and engineers in society

and to put all of us college educated and trained trades people into perspective, someone asked the mayor of new york city, "among all the people who work in this most powerful city in the world, who do you consider the most important?"

the mayor answered, " that is obvious, the garbage collectors"

[3rdpath]

Desiderata



Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly: and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser person than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in you own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time. Exercise caution in your business affaires; for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be your self. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceiver Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy.

[jefhatfield]

does that apply to us democrats and republicans or is that some green party saying

just kidding...that's a really good saying and i wish you were there during our month long dragged out "macs and religion" shindig

anyway, thanks for the quote...it is great to have sane people among all of us zealots;)

[3rdpath]

my late father gave me a framed version of that quote many years ago. i keep it on the wall of my studio and try to remember to read it from time to time. i've found that most of my clients who read it tend to lighten-up and slow down a little bit-the sessions tend to go smoothly. some even ask for copies( its on my hard drive). every once in awhile a client will read it and give a cynical " yea, right...", those people tend to not be long term clients.

kind of a subtle personality screening process. and if the screening doesn't work i can always use the frame to thwack someone upside the head....

[krossfyter]

thanks eyelikeart and jethatfield.


congrats to you jethatfield on 1000.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
and if the screening doesn't work i can always use the frame to thwack someone upside the head....

too ironic...:D

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by krossfyter
thanks eyelikeart and jethatfield.


congrats to you jethatfield on 1000.




i ususally don't post threads, but i put up a half a dozen or so, some controversial, so i could finally reach 1000 after two years

and the good thing is, it will help alphatech reach the 1000 club very soon

i know i know, this isn't a frat...i hate frats...this is a 12 step mac addicts group

wait, i can't use that term...macaddict is a magazine...oh oh, gocyrus will sue me:p


ps - at cal poly, slo, my old school, the term fraternity was not used too often in the 80s, it was frat from what my frat friends said

but now, two generations later in the post y2k era, i think the term frat is deragatory...so goes the world of political correctness

when i was a kid, i was oriental, then asian, then japanese american...i prefer mac user, thank you:p

and in my circles, network techies, mac is a bad bad word;)

[Ifeelbloated]

Politics is a strange game indeed. Lately, I've learned to keep my opinions to myself. I tend to be conservative and when I was a graphics arts student I felt like I was in "Indian country" if you know what I mean. Man, biting that tongue does hurt. I remember mostly feeling a dull disgust with some of the people there. I'm a person that can't stand pretense. Yes, politeness has it's place but I feel political correctness is killing this countrys sense of humor.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Ifeelbloated
Politics is a strange game indeed. Lately, I've learned to keep my opinions to myself. I tend to be conservative and when I was a graphics arts student I felt like I was in "Indian country" if you know what I mean. Man, biting that tongue does hurt. I remember mostly feeling a dull disgust with some of the people there. I'm a person that can't stand pretense. Yes, politeness has it's place but I feel political correctness is killing this countrys sense of humor.

i know what you mean, buddy

i was in mba school with a democratic leaning...i kept my mouth shut

[krossfyter]

hmmmm.... im wondering...

are thier any conservatives, christians and or rebuplicans at Berkley?

[krossfyter]

do you see bill?

http://www.webdeveloper.com/animations/latest/gifs/billyap.gif

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by krossfyter
hmmmm.... im wondering...

are thier any conservatives, christians and or rebuplicans at Berkley?


yes, there are...he he

ie...(my wife's friend and her husband...but their son has a cushy job working for george w), two friends on mine who are in the highest tax bracket and self employed and rely on gop small business tax writeoffs, and an old lady i know who thinks ronald reagan is sexy/rico suave sexy!...all of whom went to uc berkeley

funny thing is, how did i meet every conservative who ever went to berkeley since 1930? he he

cal is probably the most liberal school in the us and one of my mba firends, who smokes pot and hates republicans, was blown away by their mba school when he was found to be the most conservative person there!

[krossfyter]

wow. thats intersting jet. i wonder how much of the population makes up conservatives at berkley or cal.


is there any really conservative universities that you can spit out for me? i cant think of any. ...maybe the baptist or catholic ones...right?

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by krossfyter
wow. thats intersting jet. i wonder how much of the population makes up conservatives at berkley or cal.


is there any really conservative universities that you can spit out for me? i cant think of any. ...maybe the baptist or catholic ones...right?



besides the seminary schools, the catholic universities like notre dame and georgetown, and protestant univerities like regents university, i know of only two (in california) where i live not affiliated to a church (directly)

cal poly san luis obispo (who bought land from the church or latter day saints), where i did my first two years, was and may still be the only state or uc univerity that is conservative (but slightly conservative at most)

...and the private business university where i finished up, golden gate university (affiliated with ymca at one time), is definitely conservative and has tons of CEOs that graduated from there (former CEO of silicon graphics, former CEO of bank of america, and current president of microsoft rick belluzo and the likely replacement for bill gates as kind of windows)

but i still think berkeley and uc santa cruz are finer institutions ;-) and we know where they lean

college, in general, as you know being a college grad yourself, is not a hotbed for conservatism

but small business owners and their associations are the focal point of old guard, pro business, secular, dollars and cents republicanism

new guard religious conservatives tend to be a lot more generous towards the poor and may not have a business school bone in their body

things are changing with the gop and w's nephew, who is half mexican, is the most likely successor to w for the white house...thus securing a kennedy like fame or legacy for the bush family

the kennedy's had john, robert, and edward (all harvard) and i am sure the bush clan (yalies) have george, george jr, and george jr jr (that's what i call him)

being a democrat and minority, i may actually go out and vote for him since we need a president that could have good relations with mexico (our number one trading partner)

california is becoming hispanic and there is a racial backlash going on and someone like w's nephew would be a peace maker and make it a smooth transition

colin powell has done this already for the black community and the asians have had daniel inoye, d-hawaii, as a major role model

could you imagine, yet another george bush for president? and for you girls, like jfk jr, this bush is extremely handsome and will at least get the female vote under 30..he he

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
colin powell has done this already for the black community and the asians have had daniel inoye, d-hawaii, as a major role model

Small spelling correction...it's Inouye, with a U...
I lived in Hawaii for a total of 7 years, and he was always one of the most popular/respected political figures in the state.