droolmaster0

One of my best friends at school was the "result" of a rape. Are you suggesting that she didn't deserve to live? That she should never have been born? She loved life and the world would've been poorer without her. Because of the nature of the argument, which includes such questions as to what is a human being, what are rights and to what kind of beings to they apply, can one apply these concerns retroactively, etc - sometimes these discussions can lapse into a kind of semantic incoherence. I would claim that: OF COURSE she deserved to live. However, and this is no contradiction - the mother had the ethical right to an abortion. the world very well might have been poorer without her. But this 'deserving of life' is something that we consider from the vantage point of years after this decision has been made. Before she was born, this wasn't the issue. Unless you are willing to say that there are no cases at all where abortion is an ethical course of action, you can point to instances where people have lived and enriched the world. You can also point to situations where both the mother's and the child's lives were terrible as a result. There are no sure things here - but I would still maintain that the choice should be up to the mother herself, regardless of these other truths, which coexist with each other.

The 64 Thousand Dollar Question. As is evident in this very thread, it depends on who you ask. SetAI will tell you it's not until the 3rd trimester. You probably believe it's at conception. Others might have other definitions or criteria. I personally believe that it's up to the parents to decide for themselves. I believe that it's up to the baby to decide. If it can't decide, well, then it's not a human being. Off with its head. If it can decide (presumably to live) then we congratulate it, and enroll it as a full fledged human.

Better yet, when is it a human being? Aren't all human beings worthy of the right to live? I think we both will agree that the state does make a decision on what you can or cannot do regarding certain subjects, like theft and murder. I classify abortion as murder, and that is the pro-life position. So, by your simplistic logic, you would also classify anyone who participates in an abortion - the doctor, the mother - as a murderer, and logically, they should go to jail for a long time, or be executed, right? If not, then you recognize that there are some issues that actually differentiate it from murder. So - take a stand here - should anyone who participates in an abortion be punished severely, or is it really not murder?

and actually implying that in other regions of the Universe/Multiverse intelligence has already developed far past human level and is already modulating events at a cosmic scale- so not only does religion have a place in human psyches- it also provides man with the proper perspective and AWE when contemplating the natures of whatever Alien AI network administrators out there have root access to our reality software atheists mistake god for the flying spaghetti monster- but god isn't an illusion- this is just a primitive way to see the nature of advanced intelligence in the universe which is in EVERY WAY equivalent to our concepts of deism/theism/demonology can we just get to the part where Vaz Modular is a thinking, feeling being?

Care to explain?? Guess you can't refute it... Yeah, that must be it.

I think this thread illustrates how so many people tend to make complete generalizations and paint everyone in a group with one stroke of the brush. First, I attend an Evangelical Free Church. I play all three services most weekends. When I don't, I attend. I have NOT ONCE heard our pastor make any reference to either candidate or that one is right or wrong. He has never mentioned either candidate by name or referrenced them in anyway. He HAS stated that it is important to pray for whoever leads this country and has acknowledged all the tough times in the coutry at this time. I'm afraid most of our viewing public has this distorted image that christians - whether you want to call them born again, Jesus freaks, evangelicals, whatever, all have the same EXTREME RIGHT viewpoints. This is simply not the case. How can you base your opinion, sometimes part or completely, by what you see on TV or read in the papers? Most of the "evengelicals" preaching on TV are a bit 'out there' in terms of what the majority of christians believe, etc. They are necassarily representative of the christian pastors out there. So, the pastor at my "extreme conservative" Evangelical Free Church is preaching about praying for all our leaders, we have Obama attending and being in some type of relationship with the pastor of his church for some 20 years, who spews lots of political talk into his messages. And that's okay? We're not concerned about this? We can only say it's better than the crazy extreme right evangelicals? Hmmm...something isn't right here... I am not totally a McCain supporter, though I will vote for him. I don't understand how so many can miss so much about Obama. How can one question the inexperience of Palin, who is running for VICE President, yet IGNORE the inexperience of Obama, who is running for PRESIDENT?? How long has Obama been in political office?? What has he really done?? What is his record? How do we really know where he stands on issues?? We certainly can't look at much of his voting record, because there is so LITTLE!! We are suppose to believe he will make such good choices and somehow make the USA this great country again?? Simply by believing in CHANGE?? What has he really said? Well, for one, spread the wealth. Do you all really understand what this means?? Look at other countries that are run with this idea. The GOVERNMENT takes money from people who have more and give it to the prople who don't have much. Then everyone is equal. Then you have people withdrawing from hard work because it doesn't matter anyway. Unfortuantely, we, or least some of us, see this in our present welfare system today in this country. What about his health care plan?? It would be similar to Canada's. How many know this? How many know that Canada's system has failed terribly. People have to wait MONTHS to get MRI's, surgeries, etc. Even if they can pay for it thenselves, they MUST WAIT. Go ahead and research it a bit. People come to the US from Canada to get medical services they can't get without waiting MONTHS in Canada. There is no easy way to deal with the health care issue, nor with any other issue facing this country. To be so shallow in thinking a "change" is all that's needed is naive and ignorant of history. JMHO, flame away! TFTF (too funny to flame)

Well I have a belief that people choose where they will go. And I have the hope that everybody I talk to will eventually reach out to God's extended hand, even if it's just before their last breath, and even if it's because they thought "well I guess I have absolutely nothing to lose". Still, if it's an opinion that doesn't get forced on anyone, I don't think anyone should be offended. All religion would have to be prohibited if that was the case (and people would be offended at that idea, too). btw - now that I really learned to appreciate your sense of humor underlined in your comments, between the points you make, I actually look forward to having a conversation with you. If I believed that *I* had to do you harm for whatever reason I believed you deserved it, then you would be completely right in saying I should have no right to express such belief. It's not the case though, I'm sure you can see that. According to the bible, I'm supposed to be nice and if possible serve and help those who are unbelievers, and be friends with them, so that they will see the love of Christ, and so that people won't have the wrong idea of who God is. If what I was saying was that I wish certain people to go to hell, that would be offensive too. But as I said above, I don't wish that anyone goes to hell. I know you'll say, "well but you say anyone who doesn't agree with you goes to hell and that's offensive". I'm not the originator of the belief, so it's not me or christians you'd be disagreeing with - I believe it's God in human form who gave us this doctrine. So he would be the one to come up to and say "hey, I don't agree that I have to agree with you to go to heaven". Who knows, it might be the start of a good conversation Look - I'm only trying to get you to understand why people such as myself would be offended if you tell us we are going to hell, whether this is cloaked in your religious beliefs or not, or whether you hope that jesus will find us one day or not. I've given up on arguing 'the facts' with you - but I'm just trying to explain to you that if you go through life expressing these beliefs of yours, people will be offended. I believe rightfully, but that's not the argument that I'm trying to have. You seem puzzled as to why this would be so, and I'm trying to get you to see your beliefs in the context of other beliefs that lump people in categories that are inferior/evil/etc. I don't accept your literal interpretation of the bible, so the fact that you protest your sincerity means nothing to me, except that you really believe as you do. And since I take great exception to your underlying religious beliefs, that plays no part in my reaction to what you say. Similarly, I don't care whether a nazi tells me that he has come to his beliefs through a great spiritual conviction. It doesn't matter. Note that I'm not comparing you to a nazi - I'm just trying to apply Occam's razor (which he has generously lent to me for this occasion) to all of this underlying jesus/bible/christian stuff that just complicates this. You believe stuff, and express stuff that others find offensive, and you should try harder to understand why this is so.

Yeah but it's a belief, not a sentence. I'm not sending anyone to hell. I'm not the one who determines whether people will go to hell or not, and I'm not even the one who determines whether there is a hell or not. Now here is where our conversations generally degenerate, because you don't listen. I'm not suggesting that you have a say in the matter (if so, we all appreciate that you post to this forum). I'm saying that you express your belief that we WILL burn in hell, which (last I looked) isn't generally the nicest way to spend eternity. So, you imply that you're not judgemental, and at the same time you say that we will be judged as evil and burn in hell. This is just offensive to many people - and the point really isn't whether you agree with that, but that you try to understand why this is so. Reality exists regardless of people's beliefs, and if hell does exist, it will exists regardless of whether you and I believe in it or not. So I can't see how you can be offended by someone else's belief. Well, someone might believe, for instance, that because I am of Jewish background, I am evil, and should be put in a concentration camp. They may have no ability to enforce this view, but in and of itself, the belief is offensive. Beliefs can be offensive to other people, and you don't seem to acknowledge that because yours has the disclaimer, 'I'm Jesus, and I approve of this message'. Throughout this thread I've identified myself as an evangelical christian for that reason. But I'm not sure why you're bringing this up. I'm only commenting on what you have said.

...yet. although in some cases, it would be nice if we could make them retroactive.

A lot of times, they also mean "you force your views on me when you vote according to them" - as if that wasn't exactly why democracy is needed - to vote on the candidate of the majority. That is basically what the complain about evangelicals and the 2004 elections can be summed up as. I'm not even sure why this is being debated. If Roe vs Wade is overturned, then one could reasonably say that evangelical christians have forced their beliefs on us.

LOL. This makes me seriously Jesus Camp was made by Nancy Pelosi's daughter. Surely she didn't have any bias I am an evangelical christian. I would have voted for Bush if I could. I would vote for McCain if I could. What are all the curse words people can throw at me for that? I'd do it for my conscience, too. I believe all who voted for pro-abortionist candidates will have to answer to murder one day before the throne of God. In other words, if democrats would not go for policies that go completely against christian moral and belief, maybe they could blame evangelicals for not voting for them. It's like the Bacon Party asking for the vegan vote, if I can use that as a comparison, and then getting mad when they don't get their vote. Most people believe that they are following their conscience. That, in itself, does not excuse one's actions. You express extremely intolerant views, and those that would restrict our rights - and you base these on an interpretation of religion that is totally unsophisticated - just a literal interpretation, which most educated people simply laugh at. But then you also feel insulted, because you feel that you should be some kind of an exception - that you're ok because you like synths? I think that basically you're a nice guy, but you really just don't get it.

It's always about "Jesus hatemongers", "pseudo-christian idiots" and all that stuff. Every leftist I know blames evangelical christians for 8 years of Bush administration, and thinks that literal bible belief is what makes Palin an abomination (I also believe the bible literally, am pro-life, etc). But go on, I guess my attempt to derail the thread has failed Well, yeah - you believe that the bible should be interpreted literally, AND you have expressed extremely conservative beliefs, bordering on intolerance, though I understand that you don't categorize them that way. Most people who have this kind of relationship with christianity have similar types of beliefs. You are smarter than Sarah Palin, however - she is incredibly stupid and also has these beliefs, and it makes her one scary candidate. But yeah - I would never vote for someone who has beliefs such as yours. I don't think that you, or someone like you, could differentiate church and state when it really came down to it, and I think that our liberties would be seriously endangered.

Well, as a bible-believing evangelical Christian I believe 95% of the people in this thread would probably like me to lie dead somewhere. At least from reading the 8 pages in this thread, it seems like there's a lot of gnashing of teeth going on against christianity here. (Might as well bring in the underlying theme of christianity which is present in the election, and make this whole thread implode ) Well, I hope that you stay healthy. the worst I would wish on you is that you would learn to think more analytically about some of the things that you say, and also what effect they might have on other people. No one really likes the implication that they are going to burn in hell....even if they are. You also should not equate born again, bible thumping, evangelical christianity with christianity in general. When someone says something negative about YOUR brand of christianity, they are not necessarily also imputing this to more nuanced versions of what it is to be a christian, or what it means to interpret the bible.

that makes 2 agreements we have. Pighood is a documented racist poster with numerous complaints filed here against his racist behavior on HC End of story I wasn't aware of the complaints. All I see is that he is obsessed with Obama's color, and brings it up repeatedly. Obviously, his connotation is negative, and I do find it offensive.

Choosing the "lesser of two evils" is still making a conscious choice for evil. I think it's great that so many people are willing to express their belief in and support of evil. This is not directed at you specifically and no animosity is intended. Well, I appreciate the no animosity part, however the sentiment is based on very bad logic. Under this logic, one should only ever vote for someone that is good in a very strong way, since ANY compromise would be voting for evil. So, even if there were much stronger differences between the candidates, anyone who vote for the 'lesser' side, would be voting for 'evil'. Voting for evil is a very vague concept, and you latch onto that as a way of slamming anyone who, in some instances, thinks that there are small differences that would help people. And that is what you miss - that unless a candidate is 100% good, you are voting for some evil, and consequently you'd really never be able to vote. There is always going to be a threshold in this system - at what point do I think that there is a difference that will matter to some people - enough to be worthwhile. So, what you're actually voting for is that slight bit of differential towards the good, and hoping that the evil will be lessened just a little. Posturing (as you are doing) doesn't really make your point. Logically, you have to articulate why it never accomplishes anything by voting for anything other than a perfect candidate....no animosity intended. I don't particularly care what Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have to say, but, thanks for sharing this: Well, I'd guess that you don't care what anyone has to say, but thanks for sharing this. And voting for McCain will make a difference for some other people. What is their point? That the people that Obama might help are more deserving than the people that McCain might help? Sounds rather judgmental to me. Ok. That's a ridiculous argument. First you JUDGE good/evil in the first part of your post (this is a judgement right, or is it 'written' somewhere?), and then you criticize people for differentiating good/evil in their choice. Makes no sense and is totally contradictory. Obviously we judge who it is better to help - the rich and powerful, or the middle class and poor people. This is not an objective matter - these are our values, and quite obviously, the whole point here is that the Obama ticket will make SOME difference on the side of what (some of us) regard as good. I read this as "it comes down to a choice of voting for evil or not." It seems to me that a lot of voters have an investment in casting a "winning" vote. That is, they want their vote to go to the candidate who ultimately has a chance of winning the election. Third party candidates who arguably represent positions that are more in line with the citizenry do not stand a chance, therefore, the "must win" voters choose evil. Every time. One of the most incoherent posts I've read in a long time. I believe that the only vote that is wasted is the one not cast. I disagree that Obama and McCain are legitimate choices insofar as they represent dueling marketing divisions of the dominant party in the US. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. The Hegelian dialectic played out in the public square, bald faced and most are unaware. Ah, I see - a failed philosophy student.

Whenever someone says "It doesn't matter", they should be locked in a room for 24 hours with eyelids propped a la Clockwork Orange, forced to watch video of George W Bush. It matters. Palin would be much worse than Bush, and he was the worst president in history. Bush is living proof that "It matters". It's amazing isn't it? After listening to Palin for a couple of minutes, you start thinking of GWB as smart....

Isn't China better than us anyway? That's what The One contends. Have you ever posted anything remotely truthful? He's not saying that they are 'better' - he's saying that we should spend more money on infrastructure, or we will be adversely affected in the long haul.

If Obama is going to be POTUS I think it is only fair that he also have a filibuster-proof majority in both house and senate. So that Obama, Pelosi and Reid can work together, unchecked, to institute what policies they see fit- 1) no new drilling closer than 100 miles offshore (in other words 80% of known reserves are off limits) 2) carbon taxes on coal plants for the purpose of driving them out of business (the San Francisco Chronicle to thank for revealing this) 3) raising the highest marginal tax rates to 39%- because redistributing wealth to remedy income equality (which is manifestly UNFAIR) is more important than stimulating the economy or bringing money into government coffers, even in a recession. 4) troops withdrawn from Iraq immediately, and removal from command (or at least, diluting his authority) of the General Who Betrayed Us (by winning) 5) re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine, so HC can have a government-appointed Fairness Enforcer (I nominate Chick) 6) unauthorized investigations and public humiliation of any private citizen who displays hostility to the new administration. 7) because I know I left something out All Change is Good Change. And the more Extreme the Change, the Better. Don't judge Obama by what he has ever done (or not done), judge him by what he SAYS he will do. Because you can rest assured he is not lying to you just to get elected. Obama "08! ? for instance, he is not saying that he will withdraw troops from Iraq immediately. He will leave quite a few there, and he will escalate the war in Afghanistan. He is not anti-war in any meaningful sense. And some of your other stuff is just paranoid garbage, probably pulled from Fox News, or worse.

Get with the program, or expect a New Chocolate Truth Squad at your door. Expect more racist posts by this poster.

This would be funny, if it just weren't so embarrassing, and so sad. Actually, it's still funny. hilarious. She deserves all of the ridicule that she gets, and more.

What, you actually expected something different this time? Why? Every single political thread here turns into this, each and every time. It makes me wonder why you started the thread in the first place, you knew what would happen! I think that in this case, there is only one person causing trouble, and he's trying as hard as he can to cause it. Everyone else is being civil, goddamit.

What does it matter if they are super powers (Russia was, once, and may be yet again, a super power). I thought people world-wide were sophisticated enough to realize that an individual is not their government, or their President. If they're not (which they aren't according to your arguement), then what does it matter who is in the office? They're going to always find ways to hate Americans. Mostly they hate our government, not Americans per se. And damn - if a country bombed and then took over my own, I'd probably find a way to hate them too. If you buy into droolmaster's reasoning (and some of the others here), Obama is not going "fix" our "image" enough to matter, so the point is moot in this election. I kind of agree with you on this one - it's kind of borderline. I think that Obama will be slightly less aggressive than Bush was, or McCain would be, but his stated policies are far from being antiwar. If he actually acts consistently with his statements, I suspect that he won't be loved for long.

What an ironic post. I wonder how many Obama voters know what he is really about. Or should I say understand what he is about. An ever-decreasing ceiling for the definition of "rich". Has he actually defined 'rich'? I don't think so. There is a threshold at which taxes will be raised - but it's my understanding that it's just retreating to about the level we had during the Clinton administration. Certainly not a radical proposition, despite the red baiting desperation of the right wing nut jobs. I'm not quite up on the entire history, but has it shifted much from the 250,000 mark? If so, has it shifted enough to be truly labeled as 'ever shifting'? Is he about something else than other people who believe in progressive taxation? Is it automatically insidious to want a slightly more progressive tax structure than George Bush? Taxing small businesses (let alone large companies), penalties for producers of energy (the recent story on killing the coal industry is telling), a "Civilian National Security Force" - WTF is that? (SS anyone?). Hiding details of his background like his birth certificate, his college record, his medical records, among many other things. "Punishing" media that disagrees or reports something negative. Instigating, and/or by silence, condoning the search of private records on civilians for political reasons. What the hell are you babbling about? It doesn't matter what you think of McCain, a vote against Obama is a vote against New Nazism. That is such an extremely irresponsible statement that it borders on hilarious. This goes beyond anything that you'd see on Fox News on its worst day. The man is a middle of the road Democrat, whom some have come to believe has progressive politics. You're a smart guy - why can't you argue real issues, rather than all of this ridiculous hate mongering? I mean, if you ever wondered how an "intelligent, sophisticated" electorate could allow someone like Hitler to ascend to power, wonder no more because you are witnessing it right here during election '08. History is clearly lost on the Obama Koolaid drinkers. I proudly reject your psychotic, delusional view of history.

The level of cynicism in this thread is astounding ... I can certainly understand it ... and probably share more of it than I'd rather admit ... But to wear it like some fashionable broach or practice it like a religion is just ... well, disheartening to say the least ... Congratulations on your disengagement ... !!! don't think that's quite fair....one could say that, for instance, that some people wear their susceptibility to propaganda the same way...

What does it matter what other countries think of our President? Do you like Putin? Do you like Chavez? What about Mubarak, Peres, Halonen, or Zapatero? What do those folks matter to you? Do think one day you will have tea with them? Chavez is cool. Smell the sulphur, Sizzlemeister....