Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Smudge Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Who would you vote for?
Bush 3 (60%)
Kerry 1 (20%)
3rd Party 0 (0%)
Not into Politics 1 (20%)
Total Votes: 5
Bush or Kerry; What do you think?
Topic Started: Sep 25 2004, 06:53 PM (232 Views)
Smudge
Member Avatar
Supreme Administrator
Admin
Personally I'd go for Kerry. I really don't agree with a lot of what Bush is doing. What do you think? :lol:
Holy Crap!

www.homestarrunner.com
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikamikem
Member Avatar
Forum Moderator
[ * ]
I voted for Bush on the poll and if the election were today and I could vote it would be Bush. However this is not an easy choice they both are making me mad at the moment. Kerry I dislike in general because I feel it has been proven that he flip-flops on a lot of important decisions and whenever I listen to an interview with him I'm able to understand why he sounds smart but a lot of times he contradicts himself in his own statements. I also dislike Kerry because he has decided not to have his religion influence his political decisions because of the "Seperation of church and state we have in this country" which is total BS cause that was intended to keep the United States of America from becoming a Christian or Buddhist only country. If you look at just about every law today it is some how influenced by the bible and biblical values so if we got rid of every law directly related to the bible we would have total anarchy. But enough Kerry bashing time for some Bush bashing. First off Bush seems to be an idiot I mean every time he talks he discredits himself more and more. I often wonder who is actually making decisions in the white house. However Bush does read the bible on a regular basis and he lets it influence his decisions and there I agree with him. Now a lot of people have said that Bush rushed in to the war in Iraq. Here I will have to disagree again cause I believe that rushing in would have been Sept. 12th personally. Also while I believe now that going to Iraq to find Weapons o Mass Destruction was an incorrect goal getting rid of Saddam Hussien was not a bad thing at all. I also think that if the intelligence community said that there were Weapons o Mass Destruction in Iraq than that was a valid reason to go as well. Again hind sight is 20/20 and if the intelligence community the best people in the business said there were WMD's in Iraq than you need to believe them or else something like Sept. 11 will happen again. I feel the reason Sept. 11 happened was no one listened to certain people in the intelligence community. Anyway I like neither of them and feel that if these two candidates are the best america has to offer this is a sad day and I am full ready to move to Japan. However because I believe God should direct this country I would vote for Bush if I had the chance. So now that I have written this very long, boring, and negative post I will finish off with my current political stance. I am an undecided educated voter and will remain as such until someone proves to me that they will lead this country in the direction I would like it to go (in case you haven't guessed that would be back to God).

More Later,
Mikamikem
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Smudge
Member Avatar
Supreme Administrator
Admin
mikamikem
 
Kerry I dislike in general because I feel it has been proven that he flip-flops on a lot of important decisions and whenever I listen to an interview with him I'm able to understand why he sounds smart but a lot of times he contradicts himself in his own statements.


I actually don't mind too much that he flip-flops, because it shows that he's willing to change. What bugs me about it is that he's trying to stay on everyone's good side. Bush, on the other hand, has tended to stay solid on almost every platform. Although this is good sometimes, I feel he's a little to far the other way. In my opinion, what this country needs is someone more in the middle, and niether Bush or Kerry can fit that roll.

mikamikem
 
I also dislike Kerry because he has decided not to have his religion influence his political decisions because of the "Seperation of church and state we have in this country" which is total BS cause that was intended to keep the United States of America from becoming a Christian or Buddhist only country.


I think it's good for a president to be inspired by religion, but I don't agree with Bush when he says things like "God is on our side" because it doesn't appeal to everyone. You also have to remember that our "terrorists" consider themselves "freedom fighters", and fight in the name of their religion. If you start basing your moves on a religion it no longer is a war between countries, it's a war between religions. That's why I think seperation of church and state should apply to everything in the government. I'd prefer if this country acted less "Christian" in it's foreign affairs, and take more of an outside viewpoint.

mikamikem
 
If you look at just about every law today it is some how influenced by the bible and biblical values so if we got rid of every law directly related to the bible we would have total anarchy


You wouldn't have to get rid of laws directly related to the Bible. The laws directly related to the Bible are laws because they work, not because they're in the Bible.

mikamikem
 
First off Bush seems to be an idiot I mean every time he talks he discredits himself more and more.


At least that's the impression most of us get from all of the Bush-bashing websites and articles. I still respect him because he's still trying to be a good president.

mikamikem
 
Now a lot of people have said that Bush rushed in to the war in Iraq. Here I will have to disagree again cause I believe that rushing in would have been Sept. 12th personally.


The war in Iraq has nothing do to with September 11. Hussein was an enemy to Bin Laden, and Bush knows it. We did rush into Iraq because we never finished with the conflict in Afghanistan. There are plenty of other cruel dictators in the world, but I don't see us rushing to their countries. Maybe there's a reason for that.... *cough, cough*OIL*cough, cough*

mikamikem
 
Anyway I like neither of them and feel that if these two candidates are the best america has to offer this is a sad day and I am full ready to move to Japan.


Well, I would prefer to live in the heart of the gaming industry as well, but then I'd have to learn a whole new language :lol:


Hey sorry if I seemed to have bashed your "long, boring, and negative post". I respect your opinions as well. What makes this country so great is the multitude of opinions and a multitude of topics to have opinions on.

You know, Mike, if you keep posting stuff this detailed, I might be forced to make you a moderator, or at least give you a sweet title. :P

-Smudge :lol2:
Holy Crap!

www.homestarrunner.com
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maddness14005
Newbie
I shouldn't get involved in this cuz it's time better spent on homework, but i can't help getting involved in a political argument, and i'm certainly not going to be as detailed as the two previous postings.........

My vote is with Bush, and i'll admit he is not a "great" president, and in reality he has had a negative effect on the economy with the wars. But i'd like to remind everone that the highly contraversal war with Iraq was intended to help defend our country, and the war in Afganistan (more agreed with) falls under this too. Wars are expensive yet nessisary to defend against terrorism...

My main support for Bush is that i trust he can defend the country, i don't however trust kerry with that role, he is an attention seeker, he tries to win votes by making himself look like a war hero, and to be honest, whenever i look into what he says i get bored and pissed cuz he isn't talking about his plans, he just says he has one and bush doesn't, things like that.

i know this is a bit random, not all my thoughts are in proper order.....

i'm just trying to say that my main concern is the defense of the country, the economy is important, but it isn't about to collapse, and besides, the country wanted lower taxes, we get lower taxes, the depisit goes horribly wrong and now we blaim bush cuz he gave us the lower taxes we wanted??? seems a little funny to me, but thats politics i guess.


:ph43r: i'm a bank robber!!!!!!!!
Wierzbach
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikamikem
Member Avatar
Forum Moderator
[ * ]
I enjoyed reading the opinion on the opinion above Smudge although if I would have known it was coming I would have corrected some of those grammatical mistakes (whoops). Anyway I think I typed this a bit fast, however seeing some of your posts were very interesting and I do agree with you on all except one (I'm sure it would be best left alone but I'm in a strange mood today). The second paragraph about separation of church and state is the only one I disagree with you on (and I may need to just agree to disagree I'm not sure :D ). I think I will go sentence by sentence if that's ok.
Quote:
 
I think it's good for a president to be inspired by religion, but I don't agree with Bush when he says things like "God is on our side" because it doesn't appeal to everyone.

When Bush says "God is on our side" that statement can hold true for any religion that believes in a god. Also if someone is to take offense to that statement because they believe they have the right to not believe in a god then they are dangerously misguided. Anyone who does not believe in a god is ungovernable because if you have no higher power with which to respect or of whom demands authority you can not be governed by any rules or regulations as there would be no consequences for breaking them. Think for a moment about an atheist who commits a crime. What moral obligation not god based does that person have? None. If that person goes to court for the crime they are accused of and swears an oath to a god they do not believe exists what obligation do they have to fulfill that oath? None. So anyone who takes offense to the statement "God is on our side" is either unable to see how that statement applies to them or is ungodly and ungovernable.
Quote:
 
You also have to remember that our "terrorists" consider themselves "freedom fighters", and fight in the name of their religion.

This one is a bit harder to counter however my best answer is this. Their "religion" is against everything that people know to be good and right. Christianity however seems to define whats right as it is written inside me. To borrow a phrase from Lord of the Rings, "What does your heart tell you?". I believe that what it says in the bible (sorry don't know the verse I will find it if you are interested) about everyone knowing from birth what is right and wrong is true and that no matter what you tell yourself or the people around you, deep down you always know what is right and what is wrong. When you are asked the question of what is right and what is wrong you eventually have to make a decision and while you can say that Christianity is the same as any other religion in the world it is quite obvious to any truthful person that Christianity sets the boundaries where they should be set.
Quote:
 
If you start basing your moves on a religion it no longer is a war between countries, it's a war between religions.

There are two points I would like to make about this statement. First off basing your moves on a religion needs to be defined more clearly to fully understand where you are going. For instance if you mean the religion as a social group such as the pope etc. in the Roman Catholic church. If this is what you mean I would say that WOULD be a bad thing to have in the government as it would be external unelected people that decide the course of the country. If you mean the religion as a set of moral values and codes than I would say that yes it does belong in the government and that our moves should be based on it as it should define the way all of us live our lives so that we set good examples for the people and countries around us. Additionally if you would still like to say what morals and values based on a religion is using the religion to define what you do in the government. And then continue to say that this is a war between religions then the final conclusion is very clear! If there was ever a contest, as there has been in the past, the God I believe in has proven himself time and time again to be the one true God and He will do it again to protect His people and all who believe in Him.
Quote:
 
That's why I think seperation of church and state should apply to everything in the government.

As I stated very briefly in the last post the separation of church and state is not actually real! The statement was given in a letter to the Danbury Baptists by Thomas Jefferson when they heard a rumor that a different denomination was going to become the national denomination like the church of england. The separation of church and state was designed to keep the government from creating a required nation-wide religion, however this was within reason. If I were to say that I am starting the Michael worshipers religion tomorrow and everyone who follows me must kill three people to become a member, the government would shut me down and throw me and anyone who committed any crimes because of my religion in jail. Now under the current reasoning behind the separation of church and state I should not be thrown in jail because the laws of the government (the state) banning murder are interfering with my doctrine (the church) so I would be protected under the first amendment of the constitution. Obviously there are many things wrong with this and I would most definitely go to jail for killing someone. If you look at it from the perspective of the religious movement leader his rights are being violated because the first amendment says government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of a religion and my religion is being prohibited, however where do you set the boundaries and how much do you allow? I believe that the laws we have today ARE based on the bible because the founding fathers where Christians and believed in the same god that I believe in today. I also believe that the current course of the country, will soon end up at the point where there will be no Christianity as it will soon be interfering with new religions. Now you might say that the current groups using the separation of church and state are not trying to commit crimes under their religion however if you look at atheism for example they are against any religion in government because they believe that it is a violation of their right to practice atheism. If this is the case almost any law created today is somehow related to the ten commandments and is therefore a religious connection if you would like to be technical (which I believe they soon will). This means that any law can be deemed religious and could also be removed as a violation of the constitution under the first amendment. Just a thought. If you want more info about the separation of church and state I found a site here that has some good info otherwise a google search for separation of church and state pulls up some interesting sites on both sides of the issue.
Quote:
 
I'd prefer if this country acted less "Christian" in it's foreign affairs, and take more of an outside viewpoint.

While I understand the idea behind this statement reading it over a few times it just doesn't work for me. First off as I have discussed above that we are really a Christian nation at heart and the founding fathers started this relationship between christian values and government. The second thing I would like to mention is that the outside viewpoint you speak of can only be one of a few things. Christianity or Judaism which are one in the same when it comes to moral values and codes. Muslims who believe somewhat along the lines of Christians and Jews in the moral and ethical values. Pagans who believe in ungodly things and as such are ungovernable. Atheists who are ungodly and ungovernable. And extremists who have twisted good faith and religion into an evil thing for their own purposes. So of these options (please post any more if I have missed some) I think I am personally very glad that we do not take an outside viewpoint on foreign affairs as that would lead to even less Christianity than we have today and I might go so far as to say the downfall of this nation (you don't believe me now but wait 50 years and look me up in Japan B) ).

Anyway as far as the rest of the comments go I agree. I would also like to say that while oil might have been a big part in the war in Iraq I understand why that would be a horrible reason to go to war. Even as such it still ended up doing some good as a dictator has been removed from power. I would also like to congratulate you on some excellent posts and if it isn't already obvious I really want that moderator position or at least a special group :D . I welcome more dissection and input from Smudge as well as anyone else willing to have a go at me (I will reply you know so if you don't want to have your post dissected I would hold off B) ). I always love a good debate so keep it up. Hope this was a long enough post for you. I also hope this makes some sense as the final posting time is 12:46 so I'm not entirely awake any more.

More Later,
Mikamikem

P.S. I'm ready and waiting in the getaway car :ph43r: .
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Smudge
Member Avatar
Supreme Administrator
Admin
You've got a pretty solid opinion and back it up with solid statements. The only thing I'm gonna argue is:

mikamikem
 
Anyone who does not believe in a god is ungovernable because if you have no higher power with which to respect or of whom demands authority you can not be governed by any rules or regulations as there would be no consequences for breaking them.  Think for a moment about an atheist who commits a crime.  What moral obligation not god based does that person have?  None.  If that person goes to court for the crime they are accused of and swears an oath to a god they do not believe exists what obligation do they have to fulfill that oath?  None.  So anyone who takes offense to the statement "God is on our side" is either unable to see how that statement applies to them or is ungodly and ungovernable.


What moral obligation would an Atheist have? Well, the Atheists I know (and I know a few) value life and helping others over most anything. In general, the Atheistic point of view tends to see life as the most valuable thing a person owns, and the loss of a life is a terrible thing that no Atheist would ever bestow upon another. Although this may not always be the case, I think that the Atheistic viewpoint is quite possibly the most open and honest viewpoint. I'm not saying there is something wrong with putting faith into God, because there ABSOLUTELY isn't, but I'm also saying that you don't need the Bible to be a good, honest, and trustworthy person. Atheists aren't ungovernable. Atheists are possibly the most governable of us all. There are just as many (or maybe more) dishonest Christians, Muslims, and Jews as there are dishonest Atheists. It's not in the religion. It's in human nature.

That's just my opinion, and it's probably heavilly influenced by Atheist SciFi-Humor writer Douglas Adams, as I'm reading his book on endangered species and absolutely loving it. It's really insightful, and it shows that you don't have to believe in the God in the Bible to see the world in full color and it's full glory. Oh, and if you haven't already, read his book "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".

P.S. :ph43r: poor ninjas... no cultural identity... ;)
Holy Crap!

www.homestarrunner.com
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joe "The Plague Spreader&qu
Unregistered

First of all, claims that we are a "Christian Nation" continually incense me. The fact that a bunch of Puritans were among the first whites to flop onshore and start killing Indians in no way dictates what the Constitution is based on. The founding fathers explicitly excluded God from the Constitution. Most of them believed in God, but they believed that the government should concern itself with earthly matters. For Christsake, Jesus even said, "Render under to God those things which are God's, and unto Caesar those which are Casear's". (On a side note, many of the laws are not unique to the Bible; many are found inte Code of Hammurabi, and Siddhartha (the Buddha) came up with the Golden Rule 500 years before Jesus). Anyway, claims that the Abrahamic religions are somehow more moral are empirically false. Jihadists, the Janjaweed, Zionists, the government of Isreal with its Lebensraum policies toward Palestinians, Witch-burners, the Inquisition, and all other manner of atrocities all disprove the point that Christians somehow occupy the moral high ground in matters of public policy.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikamikem
Member Avatar
Forum Moderator
[ * ]
Very interesting posts from the both of you (I love debates). I understand your point about atheism smudge and it does make sense to me. While the founding fathers excluded god specifically from the constitution I believe God had a significant influence on the creation of this nation and I will have to argue that the things you talk about, while declared in the name of christianity, were most definately not christian, but really more along the lines of a christian extremist. Again just my thoughts and I'm really tired so I'm about done, but thanks for putting up with my long posts.

More later,
Mikamikem

P.S. Who said I wasn't a ninja waiting in the getaway car? Ninja bank robber :ph43r: .
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crest
Newbie
This is really interesting, and though this'll be dissected, I'd just like to say that I disagree with Mike on the fact that pagans and such whatnots are ungovernable. Just because you don't believe in god does not make you ungovernable. Everyone is still governed by their conscience and their morales.

Also, pagans are governable. Just because they don't believe in god means nothing. They still believe in certain gods and goddesses. Take the wiccan religion for example, they believe in a goddess that blesses them, as well as the three-fold law. Now that is a law of sorts. In all truth, your religion doesn't really affect whether you are governable or not. It's just something that can cause you to become persectuted.

I don't have anything about the Christian religion, cuz it is truly and intriguing religion. And it is true that it played a major part in the writing of the Constitution even if people claim it wasn't. I mean, if you'd thrown a group of pagans into a room and told them to write a constitution, it'll probably be a bit different from one we know today.

If anyone that's Christian takes offense at this post, well, not much I can do about it so I won't try.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FreshPrnce01 (Guest)
Unregistered

I personally would vote for GWB...the only reason i wouldn't really vote for him is because he supporsts the death penality..but other then that i think that he was and will continue to to be a good president. GO GWB
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Smudge
Member Avatar
Supreme Administrator
Admin
Well, it's gone to Bush. I predicted that it would, so I'm not disappointed, but what bugged be is that there was a huge majority of people who voted for him on one or more moral issues, like abortion. It seems to me that a president who goes into two wars on his term shouldn't be judged by values that will not affect his place in office. In other words, Bush cannot and will not change anything to do with abortion, etc... So I think that next time people vote I urge them to vote on more than one issue.
I also liked how the capital (D.C.) voted overwhelmingly Kerry. It kinda says something about the heart of the country.

Anyways, four more years, eh?

Hillary Clinton '08! :P

P.S. Actually, Bush could technically be in office for two more terms, because he wasn't elected the first time!!! ;)
Holy Crap!

www.homestarrunner.com
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Politics, Religion, etc... · Next Topic »
Add Reply