Just One More Gripe

[eaphil]

With all due respect, if you knew Shostakovich or RC you would know them to be good and honest people...

Amen!

How does one escape this opinion thing?

Ed

[OperaTenor]

Well, you know that's just her opinion!

[RC]

Please see The Unnecessary War post 127 to see where I'm coming from.

[shostakovich]

I've just started to look over this thread I started. Here are some responses.

From Saxy: "Most locals can identify with a man who talks like them; with a man who doens't coat his language with slick pre-fabricated speeches meant to appease and to sedate the general public."

Both candidates have their speech writers and acting coaches. Pre-fab is all you get, aside from a few spontaneous comments during the debates. The George Bush of 2000-03 definitely favored the rich in all he did. Yet the pre-fab Bush of 2004 is appealing to one and all as their protector. That's politics. If elected we will see a continuation of Bush 2000-03 with no concern for the voters unless he can get the 2-term limit lifted. If you like the Bush of the first 3 years, vote for him. The 2004 Bush is fiction.

From Eaphil: "Nailed me. Delta of Mississippi (no urban pocket of rationality here). Attend a Southern Baptist church (really bad -- twice on Sunday). Can some rational, right-thinking soul rescue me from my closed-mind, closed-heart hypocrisy?:

Personally, I always thought you were the exception, that one-person pocket. If any other members of your congregation are rational as well, please let us know, so we can credit them also.
To be continued

<small>[ 10-14-2004, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: shostakovich ]</small>

[shostakovich]

Continuation

From Shapley: "How many times has John Kerry stated that he is a Catholic, just before telling us that his "beliefs" will not influence his vote.

This sounds hypocritical to me."

I think Kerry is saying that, as a Catholic, he has some personal religious views. Yet he will not use them in his presidency. "I approve of that message." (Yeah, I'm sick of that sentence, too.) I have written of Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley on the BBB before. He had personal abolitionist views, but the Union was more important. Rough quote: "If I could preserve the Union and free all the slaves, I would do it. If I could preserve the Union and free no slaves, I would do it." Kerry, who is no Lincoln, is saying that the presidency is more important than the president. Bush seems to feel they are one in the same.

From RC: "There is a greater threat to this country than radical Islamists and that is the fundamentalist Christian sitting in the White House."

I couldn't agree more.

RC, same post: "Haggis once told me that it would be impossible for Bush to do too much damage in 8 short years - I beg to differ. I don't lie awake at night worrying about terrorism anymore, I lie awake worrying George Bush will be in the White House this time next year."

I've lost a lot of sleep, too, worrying about exactly the same thing. This election is not politics as usual. George Bush, the self-proclaimed uniter, has been an incredible divider, of the country and our microcosm bulletin board.
To be continued

[shostakovich]

Continuation

From Shapley: "The term "seperation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, much to the dismay of those who wish it. The freedom to freely exercise religion, however, is supported by the Constitution."

You are correct, sir. The Constitution says the government may not impose a religion on the people nor infringe on the right to practice one's own religion. I believe a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is imposing Bush's form of Christianity on the country. Religious inspiration is only a little less obvious regarding his feelings on stem cell research and abortion. At least he is not (yet) planning to put those bans into the Constitution.

From Haggis:[minor hissy tirade] "Although you have to wonder if a Republican candidate who was a self confessed war criminal would have gotten as far in the electoral process, but I guess the Dems have to go with what they got" [/minor hissy tirade]

He-who-makes-no-mistakes is more of a war criminal for starting an unprovoked war. He is running again AND hiding behind flawed intelligence for his "correct" decision to invade Iraq. I believe he wanted to invade Iraq for personal (maybe even religious) reasons, and chose the intelligence that seemed to suggest a reason (in his mind) for it. He did not go as a last resort. He did not let the UN inspectors finish their work. If he had, there may have been a bigger coalition and our esteem in the world would have been higher. I would call Bush a war criminal. The fact that Saddam was scum does not mitigate that.

RC again: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As an aside, people who fear Christians, fundamental or otherwise, more than radical Islam perplexes me .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not fear Christians, fundamentalist or otherwise, I fear THE fundamentalist who weilds the power to impose his values on you and I and has stated quite openly that he is not concerned in doing so."

When I read RC's original comment I never thought it was about comparing religions, but rather about the powerful presidency being in the hands of a zealot.
To be continued

[shostakovich]

From odetojoy: "It is very sad to come to this forum and read the anti-Christian bigotry posted by Shostakovich, RC and NedewigVonB. Webster defines bigotry as intoerance or prejudice. It defines a prejudice as "suspicion, intolerance, or irrational hatred of ther races, creedss, regions, occupations, etc." Clearly these three posters have a prejudice against Christians because they address them as a broad group. Each of the three has make emotional unsupportable statements, painting with a broad brush the dangers of allowing the same to have a place in government. They disregard the individuals, and the right of the individuals to have an opinion and participate in the governmmental process. They work to create the very environment they argue against."

YOIKS!!! Let me assure you, odetojoy, I am not a bigot or anti-Christian. I think of true Christianity as following Christ's precepts. I respect that immensely. One doesn't come across it often. It's a tough world for true Christians. What we have to deal with is a wide variety of people who call themselves Christians and are associated with a church. Some of these people are terrific. I like terrific a lot. Some are rotten. I don't like them. My likes and dislikes have nothing to do with religion. Sometimes we come across a person who wraps himself in his "Christianity" without regard to Christ's teaching of tolerance, peace, understanding, and friendship. While this wicked world does not always allow us to practice Christ's philosophy, we can be pretty sure He would not approve of a bully (USA) picking on a shrimp (Iraq) using the name Christian: follower of Christ. I know I'm being too idealistic, but so was Christ. He paid for it. I will, too. But till then, I am not anti-Christian or anti any other religion. I am anti-Bush.
PHEW!

PS: Thanks to my defenders.

[OperaTenor]

What he said.


(You're welcome.)

[RC]

Once again Shos, I am so humbled by your easy wisdom and compassion that I am barely an inch tall.

[dai bread]

Makes 2 of us, RC. I'm also in awe of Haggis' erudition on historical matters.

[shostakovich]

That makes 3 of us. His fact-checking is awesome, as is his sense of history. I doubt I can flatter him into voting Kerry, but it's worth a shot.
Shos

[piqaboo]

Plus, da man rites well!

[OperaTenor]

Yeah, and he's sorta funny.........sometimes.

[barfle]

When it comes to religion, I generally describe myself as a recovering Catholic.

The teachings of Christ are generally good rules for decent behavior toward your fellow man. So are the teachings of Buddah.

I tend to fear the entire idea of fundamentalism, because is is so very, very closely associated with fanaticism.

Those of you who have read some of my posts know that I don't shy away from radical views, but one thing I fervently believe is that ones views ought not to be imposed on others, and many fundmentalists feel that it's their God-given duty to either save or imprison the infidel. We're still living with blue laws in Virginia (although they are on their way out), so don't go telling me that there aren't laws that are based only on a religious tenet. I can't speak for other states, but I do recall Washington had blue laws in the 1960s.

Also, I don't think it comes as a surprise that I feel this election is between two very poor choices. Haggis mentioned that he felt a poster thought Bush was evil. I'm not quite to that point, although I must admit I had to think about it for a while before I could make that statement. I believe he's done a great deal of evil through his own ignorance or disregard of the Constitution (my copy is inches away, too), although he feels he is doing good for the citizens of the US by "protecting" us from a country that only half of us are convinced is the source of our most violent threat. And that does concern me mightily.

I take what solace I can by noting that the United States of America has proven its resilience and strength by surviving, in rapid succession, the administrations of both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

I'm sure we'll get out of this mess, too. It's just that it's an expensive mess, with costs that are measured in dollars, lives, and liberties.

[Silver Gryphon]

I consider myself Christian, but I don't like how Bush is trying to push religion and his spirituality on all of America. It's things like that that make some non-Christians think of all Christians as preachy Bible-thumpers. >_<

I don't like the Bush administration's arrogance, I'm not particularly fond of Kerry either, and I'm certainly not voting for Nader...What's a very liberal conservative to do?

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
Yeah, and he's sorta funny.........sometimes.

He's also easy to caricature, since he looks rather like a monkey.

<small>[ 10-19-2004, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Silver Gryphon ]</small>

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Originally posted by Silver Gryphon:
...What's a very liberal conservative to do?

Wile E. Coyote has been proposed as a write-in candidate.

[Serenity]

How about Bugs Bunny?
Someone got arrested in Ohio (one of the battle states) for filling out 130 voter registration cards with made-up names and addresses, including Dick Tracy, Mary Poppins, Michael Jordan and George Forman. Someone had recruited him to do so in exchange for cash or crack.

[OperaTenor]

...or Charlie Brown.

Waddya say, Selma, can you be swayed to the Peanuts Party? I think if we're gonna write in a cartoon character, we ought to have a concensus.

[Silver Gryphon]

I'm wearing my "Gandalf for President" button on election day. (Got it for free at ComicCon...)

[GreatCarouser]

Speaking of comic book characters.....

Oppositeland