Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by chanoc, Nov 1, 2004.
I read the news today, oh boy.
Interesting that the next sentence was not included.
Something about being invisible, isn't it?
Only your ballot if you voted for the other guy.
And look how we're under God. Who is of course under Bush. Underlined.
God is probably a subsidiary of Halliburton.
It must be the low resolution, but I can't make out the "right-wing fundamentalist Christian" that must be in front of the word "God".
That's the bit that looks like an underline: the small print's always difficult to read.
Oh, I see it now. It says "the control of a few power-hungry, uncaring, money-grubbing godless megalomaniacs who manipulate those who believe in a right-wing fundamentalist Christian God and who also believe that they, themselves, are". I just needed to zoom in with Preview. Thanks for the tip!
Everyone, vote for Bush. Maybe you'll also get a piece of the government toilet paper also known as the US Constitution
Hmmm... You know, not all conservatives and Bush-backers are "right-wing fundamentalist christians". I haven't been to church in 4 years.
Anyway, what about Kerry going to black churches 5 sundays in a row to ask for votes. Churches only get tax exemption if they remain politically ambiguous. A preacher can say "don't vote for people who support abortion" but not "don't vote for Kerry".
Kerry Amendment #1: Church and state shall be separate, except in the case of democratic candidates in an election year, in which they may go to minority churches to pander for votes. This shall only be permitted if the proper grievances against republican's and their religious pandering are filed via payrolled pundits on live TV. Print media may also be accepted as a medium in which to file said grievances, but only on page one in the form of a news story.
As well, any republican attempt to revoke tax exemption for minority churches used as photo ops must be squelched by calling said republican(s) racist panderer's. Also, all democratic candidates must remain religiously anti-religious in less a publicly staged faux prayer and/or spiritual experience proves to gain said candidate political ground.
Well, I didn't say "who manipulate only..."
Well, at least he believes in separating them most of the time, as opposed to, say, never.
Kuyu, first of all, it is nice to see you posting here more often...I have always enjoyed your POV and your manner of expressing them.
Now, I agree with your post at least in the sense that I find it equally disingenious for either Party to co-opt Religion as a vote-getting tool and/or selectively enforcing church/state separation as suits their interests.
You are correct (I hope) in saying that many Conservatives and/or Bush-backers are not "right-wing fundamentalists". I happen to appreciate, if not admire traditional Conservative thought/priorities. Which is while I am so saddened by the fact that Bush is your Candidate. I feel that he is, or at least caters to the more extreme elements of Conservatism, while at the same time not being very Conservative in many of his policies, despite any lip-service to the contrary. I feel that many conservatives are either duped by rhetoric or bound by party-loyalty.
You may feel that Kerry is not a decent option, and that is your perogative, but I feel much of the criticism he gets is merely a reflection of the fact that he is a long-time Politician, and operates like one. Still, in matters of policy, Kerry will be more likely to be the truly conservative Candidate. I tend to look at this in terms of true conservatism and as adhering somewhat close-to-center. Yes, he may have some "liberal" policy ideas, but in working with a GOP Congress, it is likely that any Legislation or Judicial Nominees will be Centrist in Nature. In foreign policy, he will likely be similar to Bush's father. It is interesting to compare the elder Bush to his son, as the former would probably not fare well against the latter in a Campaign. He raised taxes, he insisted on UN approval and real coalitions in going into Iraq. He could be hit with many of the same attacks that are now used on Kerry. Nevertheless, on Bush sr's watch, the Soviet Union crumbled as did the Berlin wall. No mass deployment of troops was necessary.
Political candidates canvassing for votes in churches is absolutely nothing new and certainly not a church-state violation. If a church is obviously partisan in who they allow to visit their churches, or if they engage in political campaigning as an institution, or endorse a candidate, then this might be an issue. A politician visiting a church is not.
Excellent points. On this quote in particular, you're right. Many are "duped" by the talking points and so forth. I think this is true on both sides. For every ignorant old republican loyalist there is always one person who learned everything they know about politics on acid.
So in the spirit of political rhetoric here's why I support the guy (remember, I voted for Gore in 2000)...
1) National Security: Both candidates are competent in this regard. The scale is tipped toward Bush because, according to polls, Bush has the allegiance of the military by 4 to 1 over Kerry. Talking to my friends serving in Iraq confirms this for me.
2) Economy: Again, both show a prowess for spending money. However, we are at war and so such spending is necessary. I'm a finance student, and we joke in class about how mis-led everyone is about the economy. It's not perfect, but it's SOOO much better than the news tells us it is.
3) Jobs: I'm in the job market, and currently work a minimum wage job. Kerry's plan sounds great, but the math doesn't work out. $8 an hour is tempting, but all that it will do is cause unemployment and inflation. Owner's will lay people off and/or raise prices to cover their payroll expense. So some of us have more money, but everything costs more...
I could go on, but these are my main reasons for supporting Bush. I don't hate Kerry, I don't think we're all screwed if he wins. He has some good ideas too.
Kuyu, I would refer you to this thread for a better explanation of my concerns as attempted in my last post:
This primarily relates to the National Security point you made.
As far as Economy goes, I would only say one word "deficits". Eight Presidents have mentioned the severe danger of deficits and our latest one is primarily the result of tax policy, not war-spending. Even you must raise an eyebrow when Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill while in Office.
Besides, as you probably know, the Economy operates somewhat divorced from Politics. As does job-creation.
Here is an NYT editorial which speaks more eloquently about my earlier points about the Elder Bush:
Perhaps it is all too late...but last-minute food for thought.
Sorry kuyu, but this can backfire on white-majority Christian churches that have invited Republican candidates to speak to their congregations.
Sounds as if some out there aren't ready for positive change, rather than negative words and further dividing the nation.
The US military owes its allegiance to the civilian government, no matter who runs it. Voting for someone because he's favored by the military is pure banana republic reasoning. I have to say I am shocked and dismayed to hear an American make a statement like this.
It's about as reliable a way to the truth as any other...
We put Guys on top of bonfires in this country. Remember, remember the 5th of November.
The allegiance of the military to a warmonger is not surprising. Bush has shown extraordinary INcompetence: little useful preparation at home, and a complete shambles abroad.
No excuse. It's a war of choice, and with all the money spent, it has not achieved its primary objective.
Moot point at best. It didn't happen here.
He certainly has less BAD ideas.
And that's before you mention that even having a standing army during peacetime is unconstitutional.
Or that the military is likely to vote for whomever keeps them working (their job is killing).
Yes, that's true in theory. But in practice, our troops overwhelmingly (more than ANY state) support Bush in this election. This may not fit the definition of "service" but it's a fact! They get the news over there. They heard Kerry say "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time".
If Kerry wins today, 4 out of 5 military servicemen will have voted against him. They don't trust the guy. Expect to see a wave of retirees in the middle to high ranks. This will in turn cause a wave of promotions, and leave the lower ranks decimated. What recruit wants to voluntarily join the "wrong war"?
I do not think that Kerry is incompetent on international politics or national defense. I'm not gullible enough to believe that we will be attacked because he is president. However, I contend that a Kerry presidency is far more likely to spur a draft. Kerry has already said that Iran is next, and possibly N Korea. With what army??? Again, our military is the most Pro-Bush population in the world! 80% pro Bush.
Doesn't that scare the hell out of you? He is responsible for the deaths and serious injuries of thousands of Americans in a war that shouldn't have been. Does the US military have a death with? Might doesn't equal right and their belief in someone who jumped ship during a war is sadly misplaced.
Here's hoping that Kerry wins and the US no longer needs to make up for its internal inadequacies by waging senseless wars.
It's not just true in "theory," it's true in factual reality. I'll say it again: you are making a banana republic argument. And I'm not talking about the clothing store. It does not matter one bent dime who the military prefers to be commander in chief. Beyond voting like every other American, under our system the military is not entitled to express a preference in this matter.
I understand that most everyone here opposes this war. But, the troops fighting on the ground in Iraq, overwhelmingly, do not oppose the war. It's funny that the last people asked about whether the war is a good or bad idea are the ones fighting it. The fact that they support the war and the presidents decision in this matter is a reason, I feel, to vote for the guy.
This may be "banana republic" logic, but I fail to see how our troops opinion in the matter is irrelevant. It seems like you're saying "If John Kerry wins, you'd better like him." A close friend of mine is being deployed Dec. 5. He's certainly not going to fight "the wrong war"... Hopefully he won't be under the command of the wrong president. ***But, that's his view, which is apparantly irrelevant. Why should his opinion matter, he's only the one actually fighting instead of staying home and complaining about a war.
I think the point is that you join the military to serve your country, not to serve a political party or the particular person who happens to be sitting in the whitehouse.