or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Regrouping after the election....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Regrouping after the election.... - Page 2

post #41 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
For what purpose? Oh wait...I know! We have to educate Christians!

Some of them clearly need it.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #42 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by rok
um, no. remember in 2000, when bush actually lost the popular vote, but still won? he called THAT a "mandate." by your logic, this constitutes a shut-out. hell, in an alternate universe where kerry won ohio, bush would have "pulled a gore" by winning the popular vote but still lost.

You must be thinking about 2002 when the GOP won the senate. So I guess the rest of your post is pointless.
post #43 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
So incredibly wrong. "If only they could comprehend what we stand for, they'd aghree with us".

The American people heard and comprehended the message. They just rejected it.


Yes and now they'll get what's coming to them.

Too bad because the next 4 years will be interesting to say the least. Let's see where the economy is say oh a year from now. I'm betting true to form we'll right back where we were 4 years ago only this time you won't be able to blame it on Clinton.

Bush is a shill and the americans who voted for him are in for a rude awakening.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #44 of 166
How could they possible be in for a rude awakening? He's been in office for 4 years. Just what do you think Bush is going to do that will be a "rude awakening"?
post #45 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
How could they possible be in for a rude awakening? He's been in office for 4 years. Just what do you think Bush is going to do that will be a "rude awakening"?

1) Now that the democrats can't filibuster, Bush is able to pass any damned thing he wants.

2) Up to 3 justices on the SC

3) All the federal justices currently being held up for confirmation will now be installed

That's just for starters.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #46 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001

quote:Is it bigotry to restrict gays (what about blacks) from civil unions and marriage? Is it bigotry to restrict gays (what about blacks) from the various rights of hospital visitations, inheritence, tax benifits, etc?

Question 1: No.
Question 2: No.

It is exactly this kind of thinking that makes you and every member of the Christian right look like an ass.

Of course it's bigotry!!!! It couldn't be more blatant!!!!

To say gays can't enjoy medical right of attorney over their lifetime partners is ASOFUCKINGGODDAMNLUTELY the same level of bigotry that it would be to say that blacks can't enjoy medical right of attorney over their lifetime partners.

It's the same fucking thing. IT'S THE SAME FUCKING THING.

If you disagree because of church beliefs, and you think we should legislate on a federal level based on those beliefs alone, then you have no concept of the meaning of "separation of church and state". Are you able to think logically or not?
post #47 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
1) Now that the democrats can't filibuster, Bush is able to pass any damned thing he wants.

2) Up to 3 justices on the SC

3) All the federal justices currently being held up for confirmation will now be installed

That's just for starters.

Voters knew that before the election. It's what they voted for. Besides the Senate is 55 to 44 and 1 which is not filibuster busting numbers (forgetting for the moment that the Senate does not even do real filibusters these days).


So where's the rude awakening?
post #48 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Hey! some of your posts have scared me!

Democracy and america is all about the freedom to think how you want. Something your group doesn't practice.

Please tell me that you don't believe that. I support your right to think whatever you want, even if it's stupid.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #49 of 166
midwinter:
Quote:
Some of them clearly need it.

True.

jimmac:

Quote:
Yes and now they'll get what's coming to them.

Too bad because the next 4 years will be interesting to say the least. Let's see where the economy is say oh a year from now. I'm betting true to form we'll right back where we were 4 years ago only this time you won't be able to blame it on Clinton.

Bush is a shill and the americans who voted for him are in for a rude awakening.

Vague predications of the future. I guess time will tell. Oh, and one more thing about the election that I've been dying to say to you. I can't resist this:

I TOLD YOU SO. NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH!

tonton:



Quote:
It is exactly this kind of thinking that makes you and every member of the Christian right look like an ass.

Of course it's bigotry!!!! It couldn't be more blatant!!!!

To say gays can't enjoy medical right of attorney over their lifetime partners is ASOFUCKINGGODDAMNLUTELY the same level of bigotry that it would be to say that blacks can't enjoy medical right of attorney over their lifetime partners.

It's the same fucking thing. IT'S THE SAME FUCKING THING.

If you disagree because of church beliefs, and you think we should legislate on a federal level based on those beliefs alone, then you have no concept of the meaning of "separation of church and state". Are you able to think logically or not?

Not the same thing. It's the same thing because you feel it's not a choice. That's a valid opinion, but there are many who disagree. I for one feel that homosexuality is usually NOT a choice, but there are times when people DO choose to live a certain way. It's not as clear cut for me as it is for you. I don't feel it's the same as being black, for example.

To call Christians bigots is pretty extreme. The Christians I know are tolerant and accepting. Don't scream "bigot" just because you disagree with them. It all comes back to what I was saying: You can either delude yourself into thinking that there is something wrong with the PEOPLE, or change the party's platform to meet it. Your choice.

As for separation of church and state: First, I do not support a Federal Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. I do support such State amendments. My argument is not religious. My argument is that I believe marriage is between a man and woman. To me, it's more of a law of nature. Moreover, I think states should not be forced to recognize other state's gay marriages. That is exactly what was about to happen.

Finally, let's make sure you realize something here. It is not George Bush and the Republicans that brought the gay marriage debate to the forefront (well, they did, but with provocation). It was broguht to the front burner by liberal justices and officials that were performing and sanctioning marriages in direct violation of EXISTING sate law, sometimes CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. that is why the federal marriage amendment came to the front. That, and of course the fact that Bush wanted to solidify his base.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #50 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
midwinter:


True.

jimmac:



Vague predications of the future. I guess time will tell. Oh, and one more thing about the election that I've been dying to say to you. I can't resist this:

I TOLD YOU SO. NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH!

tonton:





Not the same thing. It's the same thing because you feel it's not a choice. That's a valid opinion, but there are many who disagree. I for one feel that homosexuality is usually NOT a choice, but there are times when people DO choose to live a certain way. It's not as clear cut for me as it is for you. I don't feel it's the same as being black, for example.

To call Christians bigots is pretty extreme. The Christians I know are tolerant and accepting. Don't scream "bigot" just because you disagree with them. It all comes back to what I was saying: You can either delude yourself into thinking that there is something wrong with the PEOPLE, or change the party's platform to meet it. Your choice.

As for separation of church and state: First, I do not support a Federal Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. I do support such State amendments. My argument is not religious. My argument is that I believe marriage is between a man and woman. To me, it's more of a law of nature. Moreover, I think states should not be forced to recognize other state's gay marriages. That is exactly what was about to happen.

Finally, let's make sure you realize something here. It is not George Bush and the Republicans that brought the gay marriage debate to the forefront (well, they did, but with provocation). It was broguht to the front burner by liberal justices and officials that were performing and sanctioning marriages in direct violation of EXISTING sate law, sometimes CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. that is why the federal marriage amendment came to the front. That, and of course the fact that Bush wanted to solidify his base.


Look almost nothing you've told me in the last 4 years has come to pass. No WOMD, Bush didn't win all 50 states, the economy still has trouble spots after all this time in the supposed recovery, there still is no proven connection between Iraq and Al-Queda. And by the way we're still in Iraq after all this time and still no end in sight.

Bush did win the election but not by much.

My predictions weren't that vague. Just watch the economy will be in the toilet soon. As for what other trouble Bush may cause? The mind boggles!


This unfortunately will be a very tough 4 years.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #51 of 166
some of the above is true, but what about a flawed primary process. that has to be redone,Now all over the place pundits do the 20/20 hindsight parkbench quarterbacking. hey if they knew this some time ago, maybe hilliary could have been drafted, maybe dean was a better candidate. Kerry was viewed as elitist, arrogant, and out of touch, a spectator tothe electorate, not a participant. The primary process should have dug deeper into his past and shown what he truly was, and maybe a better candidate could be chosen..maybe the smoke filled room wasn't a bad way because as long as the primary process doen't change candidates will be weak.

or good candidate, good campaign, just bush and his team just out positioned him. carvell said someone wins power someone has to lose power, it was kerry's turn.

you have to have a candidate to support, not elect because to don't like someone else.

the interesting thing is kerry is chosen and a huge future rides with this candidate, can't be taken lightly hmmmmm, because it will set democrats back longer than 4 years. Can this huge loss be corrected in 2-4 years. i'm not so sure
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #52 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by NOFEER
some of the above is true, but what about a flawed primary process. that has to be redone,Now all over the place pundits do the 20/20 hindsight parkbench quarterbacking. hey if they knew this some time ago, maybe hilliary could have been drafted, maybe dean was a better candidate. Kerry was viewed as elitist, arrogant, and out of touch, a spectator tothe electorate, not a participant. The primary process should have dug deeper into his past and shown what he truly was, and maybe a better candidate could be chosen..maybe the smoke filled room wasn't a bad way because as long as the primary process doen't change candidates will be weak.

or good candidate, good campaign, just bush and his team just out positioned him. carvell said someone wins power someone has to lose power, it was kerry's turn.

you have to have a candidate to support, not elect because to don't like someone else.

the interesting thing is kerry is chosen and a huge future rides with this candidate, can't be taken lightly hmmmmm, because it will set democrats back longer than 4 years. Can this huge loss be corrected in 2-4 years. i'm not so sure


If what I suspect is true about the next 4 years after that america will have had more than enough of Bush and the republicans.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #53 of 166
For those still not getting it Dean was 10 times worse than Kerry and Hillary 10 times worse than Dean.
post #54 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
For those still not getting it Dean was 10 times worse than Kerry and Hillary 10 times worse than Dean.


Oh Scott!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #55 of 166
Okay? Go with either of the two in four years but don't complain when you lose.
post #56 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Okay? Go with either of the two in four years but don't complain when you lose.


Oh Scott!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #57 of 166
Some might find this interesting.


Baffled in Loss, Democrats Seek Road Forward
post #58 of 166
great post, the dems are baffled, peripheral, and anti everything but not for anything
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #59 of 166
This was amusing too.

The Election's Over. Are You Still Losing It?


Group hug everyone.
post #60 of 166
Nagourney is such a tool. With the help of find and replace, I've been able to recover what was most likely his initial draft:

Quote:
crazy people Baffled in Loss, crazy people Seek Road Forward
By ADAM NAGOURNEY


ASHINGTON, Nov. 6 - crazy people emerged from this week's election struggling over what it stood for, anxious about its political future, and bewildered about how to compete with a party of god that some crazy people say may be headed for a period of electoral dominance.

crazy people said President Bush's defeat of Senator John Kerry by three million votes had left the party facing its most difficult time in at least 20 years. Some crazy people said the situation was particularly worrisome because of the absence of any compelling crazy people leader prepared to steer the party back to power or carry its banner in 2008.

"We really need to work on the question of what we are for," said Walter F. Mondale, the former vice president whose 1984 loss to Ronald Reagan was invoked by some crazy people in assessing the party's spirits now. "Unless we have a vision and the arguments to match, I don't think we're going to truly connect with the American people."

Gov. Janet Napolitano, crazy person of Arizona, a state that Mr. Kerry failed to grasp from the godly people column, said: "We need a fresh reassessment of how we communicate with people. How did a party that has been out of power in Washington, D.C., become tagged with the problems of Washington, D.C.? How did a party that is filled with people with values - and I am a person with values - get tagged as the party without values?"

And Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana said: "We need to be a party that stands for more than the sum of our resentments. In the heartland, where I am from, there are doubts. Too often, we're caricatured as a bicoastal cultural elite that is condescending at best and contemptuous at worst to the values that Americans hold in their daily lives."

Mr. Kerry's loss has, inevitably, created recriminations about a candidate that many crazy people had always viewed as stiff, and a campaign that was often criticized as slow-moving and unfocused. crazy people said that Mr. Kerry had failed to provide a compelling message, coasting on the belief that Mr. Bush would defeat himself, and that the campaign had been slow to respond to attacks on his war record by Vietnam veterans.

And some crazy people, especially flip-floppers ones, expressed concern that crazy people would draw a mistaken lesson from the loss: that crazy people needed to swing back to the left to energize crazy people base voters to counter the upsurge of conservative base voters on the right.

"That's not a recipe for winning," said Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, a crazy person frequently mentioned by party officials as a possible presidential contender in 2008. "That's a recipe for disaster."

But the criticisms of Mr. Kerry were slight when compared with the scorn offered for Al Gore after he lost in 2000, or for Michael S. Dukakis after his defeat in 1988. And there was little sign, at least so far, of the kind of intraparty warring that typically grips losing political parties.

Instead, in interviews with elected officials and party leaders across the country, crazy people were much more interested in talking about the future than this past year, reflecting what Stanley Greenberg, the crazy people pollster who advised Mr. Kerry and worked for the great satan in 1992, sardonically described as the unifying power Mr. Bush has wielded over the typically fractious crazy people Party.

"People are determined to get this right," Mr. Greenberg said.

Several party officials said what they were most concerned about was the extent to which godly peoples had succeeded in presenting crazy people as out of the cultural mainstream.

"I'm not saying that Kerry did anything wrong on this, but I think that we ignored in large measure the three big cultural issues of this election: guns, abortion and gay rights, epitomized by gay marriage," said Harold M. Ickes, a former senior adviser to the great satan who ran an independent political committee that sought to unseat Mr. Bush, adding. "These are very, very big issues. They really, really motivate people."

Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, crazy person of Michigan, said that in order to be competitive with godly peoples, crazy people had to have a message that was ''strong and strongly pro-work, pro-responsibility, pro-duty, pro-service, pro-child, pro-seniors."

"And not to be afraid of saying God," Ms. Granholm said. "And not to be afraid of saying that this is a country that is based upon faith.''

Party officials said they were concerned about evidence of a cultural gap between crazy people and much of the country. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said that his dealings with Mr. Kerry and his advisers had vividly demonstrated to him the problems the party faces.

"I remember being on a trip with him in New Mexico: I put a cowboy hat on Senator Kerry and someone on his staff shuddered and asked me to stop," he said. "This is I think an example of the East Coast not connecting with the West Coast and with the rest of the country."

crazy people said their immediate concern was the 2006 Senate elections, when 17 crazy people incumbents are up, compared with 15 godly peoples, giving godly peoples an automatic upper-hand from the outset. Several of the crazy people are in nominally crazy people states where Mr. Bush made a strong showing, like New Mexico and Minnesota. The godly peoples picked up four Senate seats on Tuesday, expanding their hold on the Senate to 55-45.

The problem, some crazy people said, will be even more vexing in 2008, when there will be no incumbent president , leaving the race open on both sides. At this very early date, party officials said Hillary Rodham satan, the New York senator, is best positioned to win the presidential nomination. But crazy people and some godly peoples said Mrs. satan was open to caricature by godly peoples as the type of candidate that this election suggested was so damaging to crazy people: a Northeastern, secular liberal.

In addition to Mrs. satan, two crazy people from this year - Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who was Mr. Kerry's running mate, and Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor - are likely to move to wield influence, and perhaps run for president themselves.

Both men are burdened by their own losses this year. And in one disadvantage for Mr. Edwards, several party officials said there would likely be renewed hesitancy to run a member of Congress for the presidency, given the success the White House had undercutting Mr. Kerry's credibility with votes he had cast.

So the other crazy people mentioned as either high-profile leaders and possible presidential candidates are all governors; Mr. Warner, Mr. Richardson, Ms. Napolitano, as well as Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, Michael F. Easley of North Carolina and Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois.

Party officials said that the results of this election underscored what had appeared to be the case in 2002. godly peoples have now surpassed the crazy people in registering and turning out the voters.

Coming off this election, crazy people officials said they were concerned that the party's ideological and geographical appeal is shrinking after looking at an election night map blazing with red states. They said that Mr. Kerry might have been technically right in saying that a presidential candidate could win without competing in the South, but that the party would stumble unless it broadened its support.

"We must be a 50-state national party," the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson said. "We must take on the South, reach more working poor people."

Ms. Napolitano, who in an interview over the summer expressed confidence that Mr. Kerry would win her state (he lost it by 11 percentage points), said: "You can't write off everything from Atlanta to California. You've got to find some beachheads there. Obviously it's going to be more uphill than we thought."

Some party leaders cautioned against glumness, noting that Mr. Kerry had come within three percentage points of defeating Mr. Bush, a wartime president. But other crazy people argued that the party had as strong a chance for victory as it could have hoped for, and argued that the loss presaged a period of godly people domination.

"We are in a tremendous amount of trouble," said Gordon Fischer, the Iowa crazy people chairman. "There are fundamental problems not only with the candidates, but also our tactics and the message: Who crazy people are and what we believe."

Andrei Cherny, who worked as a special policy adviser to Mr. Kerry through the spring, said: "Look, we lost in 2000 during a period of peace and prosperity in American history. In 2004, we lost as challengers with huge job losses and a failed war launched on false pretenses. We should have won."

Most of all, though, party leaders said the main challenge now was coming up with a compelling case to make to voters, to counter what they acknowledged was the clear message Mr. Bush had made. Mr. Warner, reflecting what has been a theme of his governorship in Virginia, said crazy people should seek to present themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility by attacking godly peoples for growing deficits.

"It would help in a host of ways in terms of just ending the notion of crazy people as free-wheeling spenders, 'government solves all your problems,' " he said. "Because that leads right into the slippery slope of crazy people being lax on moral issues, faith issues. Fiscal issues are a huge opportunity for crazy people."

Al From, the head of the crazy people Leadership Council, a group of moderate crazy people, said that the party made a mistake by spending too much time on getting out the vote and that the way to win an election was to come up with a message, the way Mr. satan did in 1992.

"This is the second election in a row where they got a majority of the popular vote, because they did in 2002," he said. "A mobilization strategy, while important, is clearly not the most important thing. We need to persuade people who would otherwise vote for them to vote for us. And you do that with good ideas.''

No Time for Whining, satan Says

Associated Press

Former President the great satan, in his first public remarks since the election, said on Friday that crazy people "shouldn't be all that discouraged" by Senator John Kerry's defeat and warned the party not to "sit around and whine."

"This election presents a great opportunity for President Bush and a great opportunity for crazy people, and the two are not necessarily in conflict," he said in a speech in New York before the Urban Land Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

The biggest opportunity he mentioned was the prospect of a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, made all the more likely because of the failing health of the Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #61 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Most Christians are not Democrats because most Christians do not share Democratic beliefs. I don't see a way to put it more simply.

90% of the American people are Christians and %90 of Democrats are Christians. Liberal leaning Christians have to stop being passive and lead their Churches, especially in the South.

Quote:
The Republicans simply represent their beliefs more closely. What don't you understand? It's not about changing the nature of the church or its people. It;s about figuring out what they want and are, and representing them accordingly.

Life is a feedback mechanism. I believe Republicans such as Ralph Reed, Falwell, Robertson, Buaer, and the Church leaders below them have shaped opinion within the Churches towards Republican politics too much. Their needs to be counterbalance.

Quote:
OMG. I simply cannot get through to you. The Democratic leadership must change, not everyone else. People vote based on their beliefs and desires, not because someone reeducates them and tells them what to believe in. I literally cannot believe that you are advocating changing people's opinions instead of your platform. It's the worst form of denial on your part. It's not a complex question at all, btw.

I said Democrats have to change their leaders, their platform, and most of all their message-making. Message-making is all important in convincing people of the platform and changing people's opinion. They have to do that at all levels from nationally elected officials, state elected officials, city elected officials, community associations, all the way down to the Churchs.

Quote:
What public money? Examples please.

The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives have been giving grants for a while now. Just on the front page alone, it says it has giving out 200+ million in grants.

Evidence of favoritism for Christian organisations?

According to reports by The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, last year Downings shelter was denied a $415,000 grant renewal from the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) because preference was given to faith-based providers. However, this year Downing decided to register his charity as a faith-based organization with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which made him eligible for technical assistance and information about grants opportunities. After registering, Downing contacted his representatives in Congress, whose staff helped with the preparation for grant applications. He also testified before Congress to explain the level of veteran homelessness in his community and his organizations loss of funds. A year later, Downing and his newly registered faith-based organization, United Veterans of America Inc.(UVA), had a influx of federal funds. UVA received grants and loans from the VA, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Federal Home Loan Bank.

UVA never changed its name, nor changed the programs offered at the shelter. Yet after registering as a faith-based group they received almost $2 million in federal funds one year after it was denied $415,000. Both the VA and HUD claim that UVAs faith-based status had nothing to do with their decisions.


Some more examples:

Florida's new approach to inmate reform: a 'faith-based' prison
The Texas Faith-Based Initiative at Five Years

Sure sounds like a Christian recruitment program using public money to me. To my eyes, supporters of this program, namely Bushes, Rove et al, are abusing Christianity to get more conservatives voters with this program, and they are doing it on taxpayer money.

Quote:
Please, please listen. We've DONE those things. The NK nuke framework was a prime example. The problem is that these regimes are not negotiating in good faith. They cannot be trusted. And really, do you honestly advocate making a deal with with someone like Kim jong-ill or Saddam Hussein?

We're are negotiating with Gaddafi. We are in fact negotiating with Kim Jong-Il. We would have been fine with negotiating with Hussein. We should even be negotiating with the most evil of men, Fidel Castro, for some cheap labor and nice beach fronts. All negotiations should be about market freedoms and getting as much money into the hands of the people as possible.

Quote:
For what purpose? Oh wait...I know! We have to educate Christians!

Educate is a word. Persuade is another.

Quote:
Why should Christians become more liberal in thought? Why would this happen, when to do so in most churches involves a renunication of the church's teachings?

Christains should become more liberal in thought because I think it would be better for them if they were. My conservative Christian evangelical friend thinks life is a punishment. It shouldn't be. I think it is necessary to be as educated as possible, to be as ethical as possible, to be as knowledgeable as possible, to be as diverse as possible. With increasing technological levels in our society comes tremendous power. We all have to learn quicker, adjust quicker to the happenings in the world and the neighborhood.

And Christianity has gone through a few changes in its life already. It hasn't stayed constant in a very long time.

Quote:
True, and they are also disregarding the bible.

They are interpreting it a different way. The are no less Christian than you are.

Quote:
Why does there need to be a balance?

Because I don't want the world to become unhinged.
post #62 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Christianity forbids homosexuality, at least most denominations do. You picked the wrong issue to make a biblical argument on.

Just as an aside: Christianity also forbids touching the skin of a pig on the sabbath. Hell, Leviticus alone forbids all kinds of things.

Ever wonder why evangelicals focus on one thing and ignore so much of the other stuff?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #63 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Just as an aside: Christianity also forbids touching the skin of a pig on the sabbath. Hell, Leviticus alone forbids all kinds of things.

Ever wonder why evangelicals focus on one thing and ignore so much of the other stuff?

It's because they don't like homosexuals. They are bigoted.

Like the Dutch Reform Church of South Africa waited until the 1930s before it declared that black people had souls. Yes, folks, the Church isn't all Desmond Tutu, Dr King and Mother Theresa.
post #64 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Look almost nothing you've told me in the last 4 years has come to pass. No WOMD, Bush didn't win all 50 states, the economy still has trouble spots after all this time in the supposed recovery, there still is no proven connection between Iraq and Al-Queda. And by the way we're still in Iraq after all this time and still no end in sight.

Bush did win the election but not by much.

My predictions weren't that vague. Just watch the economy will be in the toilet soon. As for what other trouble Bush may cause? The mind boggles!


This unfortunately will be a very tough 4 years.

No, not even you. Not even you could make those kind fo statements.

Many of the things I have told you have come to pass. Some have not. For example, I said the economy would recover and it has. Of course it has problem spots...every economy does. Unemployment is low and we added over 300,000 jobs to the payrolls last month. The markets are stable and now seem to be in a rally phase. This is certainly not the same economy we saw two years ago...not even close. Please, be reasonable and just admit that we are in recovery.

Now, WMD: It is true that we have not found any. I certainly thought they were there. So, if it makes you feel better to gloat about it, then go ahead. I'm not really sure what the point is. Bush and his team certainly didn't lie. We thought they were there, as did the Russians, Brits, French Israelis and Germans. Turns out we were all wrong. That's a problem and it needs to be dealt with. But running around screaming "no WMD"? I just don't see the point.

As far as Al-Queda: There were not only ties, but ties to other terrorists as well. Some of them are very well documented, such as Saddam's payments to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Of course we're still in Iraq. Why would we NOT still be there?

All of this is besides the point. Bush DID win by alot. Of course he didn't win all 50 states. You're so fucking petty with that QUESTION I posed two years ago. I said shortly thereafter that there was no way it would happen. The thread was posted before we went into Iraq. I said it was POSSIBLE. Nixon won 49 states, and at the time Bush's poll numbers were consistently astronomical. Get over it.

Coupled with the seats gained in Congress and the popular vote margin, the election was a total repudiation of everything the modern Democratic party stands for. People like you still make excuses and cannot accept it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #65 of 166
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
As far as Al-Queda: There were not only ties, but ties to other terrorists as well. Some of them are very well documented, such as Saddam's payments to Palestinian suicide bombers



ok...must pull myself together....no wait....

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #66 of 166
Thread Starter 
Oops sorry. I'm allright now.

What I meant was....uh-oh....no.....hold on.....

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #67 of 166
Segovius, man, pull yourself together. What's wrong with you?

What?



He said what?

post #68 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Rant rant rant

Nope. Bush won by the smallest margin of any incumbent president in 150 years. So no, he didn't win by a lot...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #69 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Please tell me that you don't believe that. I support your right to think whatever you want, even if it's stupid.


Please tell me as a U.S. citizen that you don't!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #70 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
No, not even you. Not even you could make those kind fo statements.

Many of the things I have told you have come to pass. Some have not. For example, I said the economy would recover and it has. Of course it has problem spots...every economy does. Unemployment is low and we added over 300,000 jobs to the payrolls last month. The markets are stable and now seem to be in a rally phase. This is certainly not the same economy we saw two years ago...not even close. Please, be reasonable and just admit that we are in recovery.

Now, WMD: It is true that we have not found any. I certainly thought they were there. So, if it makes you feel better to gloat about it, then go ahead. I'm not really sure what the point is. Bush and his team certainly didn't lie. We thought they were there, as did the Russians, Brits, French Israelis and Germans. Turns out we were all wrong. That's a problem and it needs to be dealt with. But running around screaming "no WMD"? I just don't see the point.

As far as Al-Queda: There were not only ties, but ties to other terrorists as well. Some of them are very well documented, such as Saddam's payments to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Of course we're still in Iraq. Why would we NOT still be there?

All of this is besides the point. Bush DID win by alot. Of course he didn't win all 50 states. You're so fucking petty with that QUESTION I posed two years ago. I said shortly thereafter that there was no way it would happen. The thread was posted before we went into Iraq. I said it was POSSIBLE. Nixon won 49 states, and at the time Bush's poll numbers were consistently astronomical. Get over it.

Coupled with the seats gained in Congress and the popular vote margin, the election was a total repudiation of everything the modern Democratic party stands for. People like you still make excuses and cannot accept it.


I'm tempted to say like Scott: " You can stop spinning the election's over ". However Everyone will be watching now to take a swing at the Bush pinata. As to my bringing up your prediction from 2 years ago? Don't you stand behind what you say? I made a prediction Bush would lose. I was wrong and I'm willing to face up to that. What's with you?

No matter how you slice ( or spin it ) Bush won by a slim margin. The other almost half of the country doesn't like him. Get over it!

As far as us still in Iraq? Well this was billed by every supporter as a quick operation. In and out. No Vietnam like quagmire. Well?

As far as the WOMD well you're still off in la, la land about that.


http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/02/news...nger/index.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/02/news...reut/index.htm

If the economy's so good how come we still get stuff like this......?


After all this time ( as you painted we've been in recovery for years now ) shouldn't we be just about recovered by now?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #71 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Nope. Bush won by the smallest margin of any incumbent president in 150 years. So no, he didn't win by a lot...

You do realize that Clinton never got more than 50% of the vote? In '92 he got 43% and in '96 he got 49%.
post #72 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
You do realize that Clinton never got more than 50% of the vote? In '92 he got 43% and in '96 he got 49%.

Yes, but his margin was larger than Bush's...

Reading comprehension, people.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #73 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Yes, but his margin was larger than Bush's...

Reading comprehension, people.

Yes I understood that and didn't contradict you. Maybe you could use some of that there "reading comprehension" yourself?
post #74 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Yes I understood that and didn't contradict you. Maybe you could use some of that there "reading comprehension" yourself?

Superfluous facts drown out the real arguments...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #75 of 166
THT:

Quote:
90% of the American people are Christians and %90 of Democrats are Christians. Liberal leaning Christians have to stop being passive and lead their Churches, especially in the South.

First of all, I'd like to see the backing for the 90% of Democrats claim. I'm not sure that's true. Even if it is, the point is that the leadership of the party is not representing the ideals of the mainstream Dems in the nation. That's the real reason they are losing everything they can lose. The party is now controlled by the extreme left wing, and the nation is simply not going to vote for that.

Quote:
Life is a feedback mechanism. I believe Republicans such as Ralph Reed, Falwell, Robertson, Buaer, and the Church leaders below them have shaped opinion within the Churches towards Republican politics too much. Their needs to be counterbalance.

I completely disagree.



Quote:
I said Democrats have to change their leaders, their platform, and most of all their message-making. Message-making is all important in convincing people of the platform and changing people's opinion. They have to do that at all levels from nationally elected officials, state elected officials, city elected officials, community associations, all the way down to the Churchs.

But that's not what you're saying at all. You keep coming back to "gettin into the churches" to "educate" the masses about liberal beliefs. That's been your position.

As far as faith-based programs go, well if your position is that no public monye should be spent on them, I can accept that. I tend to agree, though I'm not up in arms about it.





Quote:
We're are negotiating with Gaddafi. We are in fact negotiating with Kim Jong-Il. We would have been fine with negotiating with Hussein. We should even be negotiating with the most evil of men, Fidel Castro, for some cheap labor and nice beach fronts. All negotiations should be about market freedoms and getting as much money into the hands of the people as possible.

We're not "negotiating" at all. It's more like we threatended him, which is exactly what we should have done. The only thing we're negotiating with NK is the format of the talks. I doubt we'll be making anymore nukes for peace deasl with the. As far as Fidel goes, I disagree.



Quote:
Christains should become more liberal in thought because I think it would be better for them if they were. My conservative Christian evangelical friend thinks life is a punishment. It shouldn't be. I think it is necessary to be as educated as possible, to be as ethical as possible, to be as knowledgeable as possible, to be as diverse as possible. With increasing technological levels in our society comes tremendous power. We all have to learn quicker, adjust quicker to the happenings in the world and the neighborhood.

And Christianity has gone through a few changes in its life already. It hasn't stayed constant in a very long time.

I still don't think you hear what you are saying. You are saying that Christians should change. In other words, the people that are electing the government need to change. No matter how many ways you state it, it's just wrong. The government represents its people, not the other way around. Any statements you make on how churches should change are invalid, because your motivation is clearly to obtain that vote. If liberals start taking over the churches, then it will happen on its own. It won't happen because of some grand effort to transfer the voting block to the Democratic party.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #76 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Nope. Bush won by the smallest margin of any incumbent president in 150 years. So no, he didn't win by a lot...

Keep deluding yourself.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #77 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Keep deluding yourself.

I cited a fact that implies Bush didn't win by a lot, do you have any facts to base your assertions on?

I won't hold my breath.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #78 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
I'm tempted to say like Scott: " You can stop spinning the election's over ". However Everyone will be watching now to take a swing at the Bush pinata. As to my bringing up your prediction from 2 years ago? Don't you stand behind what you say? I made a prediction Bush would lose. I was wrong and I'm willing to face up to that. What's with you?

No matter how you slice ( or spin it ) Bush won by a slim margin. The other almost half of the country doesn't like him. Get over it!

As far as us still in Iraq? Well this was billed by every supporter as a quick operation. In and out. No Vietnam like quagmire. Well?

As far as the WOMD well you're still off in la, la land about that.


http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/02/news...nger/index.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/02/news...reut/index.htm

If the economy's so good how come we still get stuff like this......?


After all this time ( as you painted we've been in recovery for years now ) shouldn't we be just about recovered by now?

I posed a question. A question! I said it was possible based on his approval ratings at the time and the fact that Nixon had once won 49 states. I also listed some other reasons it could happen. I never claimed it "would" happen. Never. In fact, once things became more divided again, I quickly stated that it most certainly wouldn't happen. You only bring it up to try and discredit me as some kind of loon, when in reality it is you who saw your predictions of Bush and the Republicans losing go up in a puff of smoke. Moveon.org, ACT, Sorros, Hollywood, vitrolic Democratic leaders screaming that Bush betrayed the country...none of it mattered. Bush won just as I said he would. Stop trying to change the subject. You were wrong.

And now, I can see that even though Bush won, you're STILL claiming that the economy is not good. It is good, and it doesn't matter how mnay CNN money links you post to the contrary. You've been doing this for years. You present one statisitic or interpretation of a statistic, and then claim that it represents the state of entire US economy. You follow it up with a snide comment liek "uh-oh", like you hope that the economy actually does go downhill for your own personal ego and political gain.

GDP=Good Growth
Unemployment=Low
2,000,000 jobs created in just over a year
Markets=stable and on the rise
Homeownership=record levels

Tell me how that's bad. We ARE in recovery. Recovery DOES take years. If you had any understanding of economic policy you would know that. BTW, CNN is not exactly a non-partisan media source.

Oh, and as far as Iraq goes: I didn't see ANYONE bill it as a quick operation, except for the anti-war left who used it as a strawman.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #79 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I cited a fact that implies Bush didn't win by a lot, do you have any facts to base your assertions on?

I won't hold my breath.

Yes.

Bush won by more than 3 1/2 million votes in the popular vote.

More people voted for him than for any other President in history

Bush won key states like Florida by fairly large margins. FL was 52-47

Republicans control the House, Senate and White House.

Bush won 30 States, Kerry won 20


If you can't even admit that this was a disaster for your party, you have a long road ahead. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to getting help.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #80 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
GDP=Good Growth
Unemployment=Low
2,000,000 jobs created in just over a year
Markets=stable and on the rise
Homeownership=record levels

You're as bad as trumptman. Do me a favor and adjust these for the record deficit levels Bush is creating. When you factor in the excess government subsidies into the growth, how negative of a situation are we really talking about?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Regrouping after the election....