|
|
Post by shin on Aug 17, 2004 15:05:37 GMT -5
It's kinda sad that that proved your point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 17, 2004 21:58:08 GMT -5
Hang on maybe I'm confused here...are you seriously suggesting that we should file all independent messages into the "crap" file because someone with a baised agenda funded them? Shouldn't there be alittle more thought put into it then that?
I'm afraid Shin didn't prove any point for you...if you can point out where some of MoveOn's ads blatantly lie you might have something but for now you're just hanging yourself with your own words...
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 18, 2004 7:14:32 GMT -5
Hang on maybe I'm confused here...are you seriously suggesting that we should file all independent messages into the "crap" file because someone with a baised agenda funded them? Shouldn't there be alittle more thought put into it then that? I'm afraid Shin didn't prove any point for you...if you can point out where some of MoveOn's ads blatantly lie you might have something but for now you're just hanging yourself with your own words... I'm not going through this for another full day. No, I'm not suggesting that all independent messages should be put into the "crap" file. I'm saying that messages that are based on lies, half-truths, and semantical circle jerks should be put in the crap file, because they really don't do anything to contribute to the democratic process. Those groups absolutely have a right to get their messages out there ... just as I have a right to dismiss them. As I've said over and over again, I just find it disappointing that so much of the discussion and coverage of the campaigns is based on discussing crap ads, and not things that truly matter. I have outlined how MoveOn has lied. I've demonstrated how the swift boat ads are not the "blatant" lies that you've claimed they are (although they are crap that I dismiss). You will never agree with me, and I will never agree with you. So what is the point in continuing to hash this out forever? |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 18, 2004 7:46:01 GMT -5
I have outlined how MoveOn has lied. I must've missed that...anyway same subject, different side. On Foxnews.com there is a On The Record poll about negative campaign ads. Your chocies are a) Only democrates run them b) only republicans run them c) both run them d) We've reached a new low in presidential debates e) both c&d Somehow a) is pretty far out in the lead and b) has the least...I just can't figure this out. I know Fox News has a largely conservative fan base but are (and I know no one here speaks for all the pubs, nor do I mean ALL when I say...) all republicans that dissillusioned? I mean do all conservatives have that "just sayin' " mentallity? I mean you've accused shin of it and truthfully everyone falls prey to it to certain extent...but do the majority of conservatives really think the dems are the only ones being negative? I realize that I'm looking at the poll alittle off too...c) is second so it really says is the nobody thinks the republicans are the only ones. Seriously help me understand this. This thinking makes no sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 18, 2004 7:58:15 GMT -5
I know this may come as a shock to you DED, but the rumors that all conservatives share just one brain, and that we're some sort of stepford wife society are actually false. I can't speak for all conservatives, and i can't tell you what they all think. I can tell you what I think on various subjects, but I don't pretend to speak for all conservatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 18, 2004 8:05:38 GMT -5
(and I know no one here speaks for all the pubs, nor do I mean ALL when I say...) Maybe you missed this line. Anyway If you don't want to talk about it fine say so...I don't need the snotty though. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 18, 2004 8:16:09 GMT -5
Yes, I did miss that line. But that still doesn't take away from the fact that I don't understand why you or anyone else poses questions along the lines of "Hey ____(Specific person) ____ why do all of the people in this very large group of people think X?" How is one person supposed to know whether thousands of people think something, or why they all think it ... or even if they all think it for the same reason?
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 18, 2004 8:27:09 GMT -5
Well, first it wasn't posed specifically to you. Part of it was becuase it was subject we were already talking about. Second I thought you might have something to say about it...it was purely for the purpose of discussion. We both know these discussions on these boards aren't going to really change anything. Why then? Well, becuase I enjoy these debates. To really understand my posistion I must also understand where and why others stand where they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Aug 18, 2004 9:38:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Aug 18, 2004 13:50:01 GMT -5
People of faith ask: How would Jesus vote?
By BOBBY ROSS JR.
AP Religion Writer
AUSTIN — Just a few miles from George W. Bush's former office at the state Capitol, a panel of religious experts Tuesday weighed a question with relevance to many people of faith: How would Jesus vote?
It's a complex question that can't be boiled down to simple political terms, say religious leaders who attended a Texas Faith Network conference in Austin.
But at least one conference speaker — James C. Moore, co-author of "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George Bush Presidential" — said he knew exactly how Jesus would vote.
"If ever there were a bleeding-heart liberal, it was Jesus Christ," Moore said. "I think the carpenter from Galilee was the original Democrat."[/i]
Moore drew laughter and applause from a moderate to left-leaning crowd of about 250 clergy and lay leaders who met at Congregation Agudas Achim synagogue.
Many at the conference voiced concerns that the religious right dominates discussions of faith and morality in politics. They complained that issues such as abortion and gay marriage seem to take priority over hunger, corporate crime and even the war in Iraq.
Some research has found that white Christians who attend worship services at least once a week are far more likely to vote Republican, while less frequent worshippers and those who are not religious tend to lean Democratic. Many analysts have criticized Democrats for failing to more effectively reach religious voters.
"The sound bites and the headlines have co-opted people of faith," said the Rev. Tom Heger, pastor of St. John's Presbyterian Church in Manchaca, south of Austin. "It would be a surprise to a lot of folks to discover that there are some very faithful, regular church attendees who aren't going to vote for Bush."
Conservative pastors such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "would have us believe that morality is all about where you stand on abortion, how you treat homosexuals. I think that is simply wrong," said John D. Moyers, senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for American Progress.
The presidential race pits President Bush, a Republican who openly professes his evangelical Christian beliefs, against Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a Roman Catholic who is more hesitant to discuss his faith publicly.
The Rev. Timothy Tutt, pastor of United Christian Church in Austin, declined to say whom he will support in November.
But Tutt, board president of Austin Area Interreligious Ministries, which includes Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Christians, balked at the perception that Bush is the only choice for people of faith.
"As I read the Scriptures and as I understand faith, God's side is the group that's feeding the poor, caring about children, making sure that people have enough food to eat — not killing others," said Tutt, who opposes the war in Iraq.[/i]
Juan Galvan, Texas president of the Latino American Dawah Organization, a group of Hispanic Muslims, said he's certain Jesus would not vote strictly for Republicans or Democrats.
"Prophet Jesus, or Isa as Muslims call him, would look at the stance of politicians on various issues before voting," Galvan said. "He would weigh in the good and bad of each individual."
Michael Jinkins, a pastoral theology professor at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, said: "Based on my reading of the gospels, I think Jesus might surprise us all on his voting record. He was far less 'religious' than the people who criticized him most."
In fact, Jesus might not support Bush or Kerry — or anyone else, for that matter.
"Jesus was not one to take sides on political issues," said Derek Davis, director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University in Waco.
Of course, the Republicans and Democrats were not campaigning on faith issues in Jesus' time.
But the fundamentalist Pharisees, the aristocratic Sadducees, the spiritually devout Essenes and the revolutionist Zealots were prominent.
"Interestingly, Jesus never sided with any of these groups but remained above such earthly disputes," Davis said. "This does not mean we should do the same. He was God. We are mere humans."
|
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Aug 18, 2004 20:35:55 GMT -5
At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution,in
the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The
University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior.
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning
of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From Bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."
So now is the time to stop the cycle by voting for the candidate who doesn't "promise the most benefits from the public treasury."
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 18, 2004 21:48:13 GMT -5
Methinks the "all misleading ads goes in the crap file" is a bit of political dancing and shuffling...distancing yourself without having to fully declare contempt. It's quite clever. DED: www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/18/211631/756All you really need to know about that Fox News poll. And those who voted in it. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 19, 2004 6:22:17 GMT -5
Methinks the "all misleading ads goes in the crap file" is a bit of political dancing and shuffling...distancing yourself without having to fully declare contempt. It's quite clever. But given that I have fully declared contempt and it appears you can't comprehend that, after a day and a half of rehashing it, I'm not so sure you should be placing yourself on the "clever" pedestal. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 19, 2004 6:30:45 GMT -5
Chrisfan, are you going to boycott Springsteen?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 19, 2004 6:36:07 GMT -5
Chrisfan, are you going to boycott Springsteen? No. I"m not going to boycot the Dixie Chicks either. I can still enjoy music from people I don't agree with politically. I don't see their thinking differently from me as any sort of threat to me, or anything I should dislike them for. I simply disagree with them on politics, and agree with them on what good music is. |
|
