Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

macs and politics

thanks

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.
 
2nd Amendment

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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
just going by the show's name

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".
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
the search for the steak network

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.
 
Re: the search for the steak network

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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by krossfyter


i agree.



Hey you deleted it.
Click to expand...

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?
 
the sad truth

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:
 
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
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:
 
Re: the sad truth

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:
Click to expand...


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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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


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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
Click to expand...


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


:D
 
Originally posted by krossfyter



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


:D
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back