McCains running partner.

[dragon wench]

Yes galraen I am sure you have quite a strong argument going that the world is not religious. I bow to you.

Oh come on Claudius...surely you can do better than that..

Galraen is 100% right, that figure equals the total sum of nothing, and anybody who attempts to use it in order to make such claims is truly grasping at straws.
If I do an internet search on "fascism" does that make me a fascist?

Not that any of this even pertains to the original topic... *shrug*

[Claudius]

hmmm maybe you two don't realize that I wasn't being serious with that CNN news report.

I think I caught two gullible rubes!

I am just asking...do you know any religious people? Maharlika is religious. Do you believe that he has personally tortured anyone? Do you believe that he endorses that? Maybe you two are in little enclaves of (closed minded) atheists. I have no clue. Anyhow most people in my area are religious which does not equal chanak's assessment of religion.

[Chanak]

hmmm maybe you two don't realize that I wasn't being serious with that CNN news report.

I think I caught two gullible rubes!

I see that you have resorted to intellectual dishonesty in order to appear as if you occupy a defensible position. Being flippant doesn't help your cause. Sadly, you only fool yourself. Again...look at human history and show us all how religion has not caused a great deal of suffering and death. All in the name of?

It's not past tense either. It's not limited to the inquisitions and witch hunts of 900 years ago. It's genocide and mass murder happening right now.

In any event...one person's belief in the supernatural + acceptance of scientific fact - not embracing the dogma of an organized religion = spirituality, which is something else entirely than what I have been speaking of. Your inability (or refusal) to grasp that is your loss, not mine. Don't attempt to muddy the waters here by confusing religion and spirituality. Spirituality is subjective and personal. Religion is anything but personal and subjective. Anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty understands the difference between the two. Your lack of honesty is only too apparent in your recent posting activity in this thread.

[Xandax]

Keep it somewhat on track please, lest we'll have to start removing posts etc.

__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules

[rmemmett84]

Are you suggesting that the terrorists who blow up abortion clinics are liberals? They are terrorists by definition (a fact that the Bush administration always overlooks), but I always thought they were conservatives.

You are correct. Although I would consider myself conservative I am pro-choice and I think this caused my fauxpaux. I had things a little switched but the idea still holds true. You can't hold the conservative movement responsible for the actions of a few wackos. I don't believe if you asked the Bush administration their feelings on this action you would find anyone that would call it anything other than what it is...terroristic. Although that term seems to have become taboo.

[rmemmett84]

You're right as ever VonDondu, they are indeed terrorists, and I think it's a very safe bet that they would all be Palin supporters!

So? I'm sure Obama isn't turning away any votes from militant black power organizations. That doesn't make him one of them. I'm sure all the members of the KKK are voting for McCain...maybe we should hold that against him too.

[rmemmett84]

Huh? "Liberals" blowing up abortion clinics?

You mean "religious zealots" blowing up abortion clinics. Oh...and murdering physicians. That would be religious right-wingers doing that stuff, not liberals. Might want to get your facts straight.

(pssst...a little hint for you. "Liberals" are the godless heathens people like Palin want to destroy for being against apple pie and the nuclear family. Oh...and for supporting the legality of abortion)

Other issues:

No, I'm not oversimplifying a single thing. Summing it up in a nutshell: yes. Simplifying it: not by a long shot. The road has been long, secretive, and scandalous. The Republican Party has become the mouthpiece and organ for the Neo-Con movement and their bedfellows, the Religious Right. Like I said, some intelligence and integrity sheds alot of light on the subject. Courage required.

Yes I had it backwards...sue me. It doesn't change my point. Once again let me reiterate...I do not classify myself as Republican...I am a conservative. I do not blindly follow the party line. I vote for who I think is the best candidate regardless of party. Although lately it seems like all I get to do is vote for the lesser of two evils.

There is alot wrong with the Republican party the way I see it. It has gotten away from its roots. This is exactly the reason they lost control of congress. They lost site of the reasons they were put there. That being said if you mean to sit here and tell me the democratic party is perfect and does not have its share of fringe cuckoos then I would say you lack that same courage and integrity.

[rmemmett84]

Nononono! Terrorism isn't terrorism when it's for the "right cause." That's why you can get locked up in Guantanamo for being "anti-american" while zealots who publicly claims pro-choice people must burn in hell and AIDS is Gawd's revenge can run free to do their thing. Freedom & Democracy and all that...

Seriously? You honestly think people blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors are let free? I know you guys are desperate to prove some sort of vast right wing conspiracy but even you can't possibly believe this. If they are caught they are tried the same as any other criminal.

[rmemmett84]

In any case....someone like Palin is merely a tool of the movement to manipulate opinions and capture more hearts and minds. Let us all place our hand over our hearts while thousands die worldwide and our freedoms get taken away.

Welcome to politics my friend. Both sides have done it, are doing it , and will do it.

[rmemmett84]

Which is why a remarkably large group of Americans seems to think it is perfectly okay to put a bible-thumping, gun-toting hockey-mom who's only qualification for the job is running a one-moose town at the arse-end of the world one heart attack away from the most important position on the planet. @Lady Dragonfly: I'm sorry, but the more I find out about this woman, the more I think this is the worst idea in US political history. My mom, with her 1960s degree in economy, is more qualified than Sarah Palin to be VP.

I ask again what qualifies here competition? He has never run anything. We all seem to lose site of the fact that she was also a governor although I'm sure this was an honest oversite. Historically speaking almost all presidents have come from governorships. If you recall at least the last four (which takes me back as far as I can remember...or at least back to 1980) have been governors first. What made the governor of a little state we like to call Arkansas qualified for "the most important position on the planet". Which incidentally is quite an arrogant statement in and of itself.

[rmemmett84]

Nonsense, most of the world don't give a toss about religion they're too busy trying to keep body and soul together to care about any mythical afterlife.

I disagree with an awful lot of Karl Marx's writing, but when he referred to religion as being the opiate of the masses he hit the nail right on the head!

I find that quite hard to believe. If you mean Christianity when you use the term "religion" then you are probably right. If you lump are sects together then I believe the world is overwhelmingly religious. I notice you point out others lack of evidence but offer none of your own. That is a pretty bold statement with no facts of your own to back it up. Let me also say that I agree the aforementioned link is hardly a honest indicator...but I think it was obviously offered in jest.

P.S. I apologize for the many posts bit I am computerally challenged and could not figure out how to put them in one post. Plus I have missed a few days and fell way behind the discussion.

[Nightmare]

I ask again what qualifies here competition? He has never run anything. We all seem to lose site of the fact that she was also a governor although I'm sure this was an honest oversite. Historically speaking almost all presidents have come from governorships. If you recall at least the last four (which takes me back as far as I can remember...or at least back to 1980) have been governors first. What made the governor of a little state we like to call Arkansas qualified for "the most important position on the planet". Which incidentally is quite an arrogant statement in and of itself.

An open question (which I honestly don't know the answer to)...what has McCain ever run himself? If that's the sole qualifying quality to be at or close to the top position in the United States, then we have more serious problems than an election. Being qualified to be President isn't just having been in charge of something, its a great mix of different knowledges, experiences, and ideas. Sarah Palin was Governor to one of the smallest states for under two years; before that, she was Mayor to a town under 10,000. How does THAT give her the necessary qualifications to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

I think a question should still be raised about McCain's judgment. He needed a VP candidate that panders to a group of voters he himself was weak with (nothing wrong with that, mind you); but he picked a candidate that is dangerously unprepared to be President should the worst happen. In all relevant matters, Palin would potentially be far worse than Bush.

On a side note, below is a rather interesting article about the VP debate that will happen. I'm honestly looking forward to it more than the presidential debates.

[url="http://www.slate.com/id/2199363/"]Slate - How To Debate a Girl, and Win[/url]

[Xandax]

<snip>
On a side note, below is a rather interesting article about the VP debate that will happen. I'm honestly looking forward to it more than the presidential debates.

[url="http://www.slate.com/id/2199363/"]Slate - How To Debate a Girl, and Win[/url]

I think many are.

[Vicsun]

Hey hey hey has anyone seen this? Can someone explain to me how this is possible? If I - a non-American that's not running for VP - can have a pretty good idea that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are privately run by virtue of turning CNN on while I eat breakfast, how can Palin make a mistake as horrifying as that? I was under the impression that those two entities are important enough for a vice-presidential candidate to... well, at least skim through the wikipedia pages about them.

edit: couple this with McCain's gaffe from a few months ago confusing Shiite / Sunni and the exact geographical location of Iraq, and I really want to see a justification for voting republican that's not based on identity politics. I mean, sure, campaigning is hard, and people make mistakes, but neither one of those was a slip of the tongue.

So? I'm sure Obama isn't turning away any votes from militant black power organizations. That doesn't make him one of them. I'm sure all the members of the KKK are voting for McCain...maybe we should hold that against him too.

The issue was that someone called the abortion-bombing lunatics 'liberals' a few posts ago, which is pretty

edit^2:
I'm of the opinion that celebrity opinions mean jack but Matt Damon said something that's been rattling in my own head for a while, so I thought I'd share mostly because I find it humorous not because it's a valid argument or anything like that so please don't rip me apart for this

source[/size]

[VonDondu]

The New York Times has an interesting article about Sarah Palin--specifically, her style of governing and fitness to be in the White House, as seen through the eyes of her fellow Alaskans. It might be worth a look if you're actually undecided about her even after what we've seen of her already:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/po ... ref=slogin

[VonDondu]

I present to you the most insightful political ad I have seen all season:

Hockey Moms for Truth

Could it get any better than this?

[Xandax]

Hehe @VonDondu - a little funny

But seriously seems to be many things surfacing about Palin, but it doesn't seem to have much effect from what is reported (over here, anyway)

[VonDondu]

Actually, the tide is turning against Sarah Palin. When nobody knew anything about her, she seemed like she might be able to live up to her promise to be a "reformer" (although she never could explain what she intended to reform), and her small-town background seemed like a breath of fresh air to people who are tired of politics as usual. But the more people find about her, the more it becomes clear that she's just a typical two-faced politician who puts her own interests ahead of the country's. It's clear that she lies all the time and abuses her power, and she's starting to take a lot of heat for it. Her response, naturally, is to stonewall and to be evasive, like any other politician who gets caught with his or her hand in the cookie jar. Typical, typical. Her "freshness" will soon wear off.

I'm not sure why so many people have been obsessing about Sarah Palin. I haven't lost sight of the fact that she's a lot less dangerous than John McCain (he's the candidate for President, and she's just the candidate for Vice President, after all), but I realize that a lot of people are afraid of her. For example, she might help McCain win the election, she could do irreparable harm (real or imagined) if she made it to the White House, she could "set back women's rights thirty years" by proving that it's a very bad idea to have a woman LIKE HER in the White House, etc., etc. I think people are afraid of what OTHER people think of her--OTHER people can be influenced by manipulative ads, speeches, and images and consequently make bad choices, you see--and they're afraid that OTHER people are stupid enough to vote for McCain just because he picked a "hockey mom" who knows how to field-dress a moose to be his running mate. Until this week, Sarah Palin was talked about all the time.

Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I think that's about to change. I think the American financial collapse might actually start to get people's attention this week. Things are getting so bad, it *might* even push Palin off the front page, so to speak. Besides, given the attention span of the average American, most stories don't stay "hot" for more than about three weeks, and it has been almost three weeks since John McCain announced that he had chosen Sarah Palin to be his running mate, so it's getting to the point where it's "old news". (Yawn. Where's the remote? There must be something else on TV.) Maybe the story will run out of steam on its own, or be trumped by other, more important matters. I guess we'll see.

[strjms72]

McCain/Palin = Bush/Cheney?

The McCain campaign announced Palin and everyone else involved in troopergate will not respond to subpoenas in the investigation. This is a tactic perfected by the Bush administration.

Is this legal? Will there be consequences both legally and electorally because of this? To me it reminds me to much of the politicization of the justice department and Bushes contempt for any sort of oversight.

[galraen]

Wow, Republicans showing contempt for the law, now there's a novelty!