OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[vigabrand]

So Clinton gets credit for the good things that happen in the 90's, but Bush doesn't get credit for anything because he's self righteous? Seems hardly fair. At the very least, he kicked alqaeda's booty and we haven't been attacked since. Any credit? Anyone? What about the economy? Whether he's responsible or not, shouldn't he get credit?

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by vigabrand:
So Clinton gets credit for the good things that happen in the 90's, but Bush doesn't get credit for anything because he's self righteous? Seems hardly fair. At the very least, he kicked alqaeda's booty and we haven't been attacked since. Any credit? Anyone? What about the economy? Whether he's responsible or not, shouldn't he get credit?

No, as I said I agree with certain Bush's decisions, including some controversial ones, such as his tax cuts program(mostly), invasion to Afganistan, several others. He deserve to take credit for it in my opinion. Hell, I even approve the invasion in IRAQ in principle (althouth I do NOT approve his reasons for it, no do I approve the way the occupation policy was conducted and his lying to the public about WMD, and I certanly don't approve him totally ruining USA image in the eyes of entire world because of his clumsy and very narrow-minded foreing policies) But I disagree with significantly more of his policies. And I simply do not trust him to lead USA for the next 4 years. The combination of extremely self-righteous attitude, with very low IQ(let's be frank about it) and with strong "religious right" positions would be very dangerious during 2nd term, when he will not longer have whatever little regard for public opinion he still had during his 1st term. As I said, this guy will be loose cannon if he gets reelected, and I think USA in its current position just can't afford it.


And Vigabrand, I have voted myself for the Bush in 2000, I think that should tell you something.

[vigabrand]

Stormbinder, it's too bad we'll lose your support this go around.

[Cheezeninja]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:


Frankly I think it is scary. This guy is loose cannon and I don't trust him and his extremely self-righteous attitude. I am not democrat. I share a lot of GOP's values. I don't like Kerry at all. But I think he is certanly a lesser of two evils here, and I don't want to live in the USA shaped acording to Bush's image for the next 4 years.

-Stormbinder

I couldn't agree more. I tend to straddle the fence along political lines, Pro Death Penalty, Pro Choice, more into old school republican minimization of government influence on individuals (although thats decidedly not the republican party of nowadays). But I believe Bush is absolutely horrendous, his administration has consistently misinformed and misled the public, taken an extremely aggresive and negative stance in the re-election war, while blatantly pandering to the rich over the common man. I'm not voting Kerry in this election, not at all. Im voting best chance to get rid of Bush and get Mccain in 4 years.

Furthermore, while i think Kerry's proposed "health care for everyone" is a absolutely horrible idea, i'd much rather flush my money away into a healthcare nightmare than pony it up to the oil company's and inflation like we are doing now.

And on the issue of people calling themselves catholic while dissagreing with the church. Its possible to like, aspect, and be part of an organization while not agreeing with its every directive. Do all republicans think the Patriot Bill was a good thing? This becomes even more prominent when you have a single group or individual telling everyone what line they should be toeing, as is the case with the pope and the papal hiarchy. In point of fact, according to the strictest of sexual guidelines, any form of sex other than straight missionary is taboo. But im willing to bet more than a few very catholic people out there that enjoy a hummer now and again. In point of fact, almost nobody can follow all the guidelines all the time, thats why we are humans and there has only ever been 1 Jesus Christ. And yes i recognize that there is a difference between succumbing to temptation and conciously differing in policy from the guidelines of the church, but if you think about it the guidlines of the church HAVE been wrong before (flat earth, anyone?) and could easily be wrong again. Thats no reason to cut all ties with the organization that you might respect and love deeply.

[ July 27, 2004, 22:39: Message edited by: Cheezeninja ]

[daesthai]

Yay! It took several edits, but I think I understand the quote system better now.

Its possible to like, aspect, and be part of an organization while not agreeing with its every directive. Do all republicans think the Patriot Bill was a good thing?

Keep in mind that the Catholic church is defined by a very specific set of beliefs and expectations. I think its a miscalculation to use the republican party as a parallel here. Republicanism is a broad Category with many subdivisions - not specific enough. Republicans can be subdivided into moderate and ultra-conservative beliefs just to name two - then there are special interests. Protestants could be Lutherans, Baptists, or any of several other belief systems (and yes, they're all Christian, but can be of very different dogmas - just compare Lutheranism to Mormonism.) Catholics, on the other hand have one set of beliefs. It's even recited at mass every week - "I believe in one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church." (Before someone gets upset - yes, there are Eastern and Western Rites Catholic churches, but the differences are in heirarchy of the bishops and the liturgy - not the beliefs and teachings. The dogma for both is the same.) So in answer to your question about if it's possible to respect and belong to a group but not hold all of its ideals (paraphrased), I have to say in the area of religion - no. You either believe in the religion's teachings, or you don't. Not good or bad, not right or wrong...just yes or no.

In point of fact, according to the strictest of sexual guidelines, any form of sex other than straight missionary is taboo. But im willing to bet more than a few very catholic people out there that enjoy a hummer now and again.

I can't speak on this one too much because I'm not familiar with who's guidelines these are. Evidently someone stricter than the Catholic church. Humanae Vitae spells out that the only specifically physical requirement of sexual relations is that all encounters "must be open to the transmission of life" (plus the stress on the couple being husband/wife, of course). As long as that requirement is met, the hummer you refer to is perfectly allowable. An appetizer, so to speak.

...nobody can follow all the guidelines all the time, thats why we are humans and there has only ever been 1 Jesus Christ. And yes i recognize that there is a difference between succumbing to temptation and conciously differing in policy from the guidelines of the church...

Agreed. It's impossible to be perfect. But as you stated, there is a difference between "slipping up" and outright defiance.

... but if you think about it the guidlines of the church HAVE been wrong before ...

Which brings me back full circle to my original point. If a person feels that a belief system is incorrect in one of its basic and heavily touted precepts, why would that person claim to share that belief system?

[ July 28, 2004, 00:26: Message edited by: daesthai ]

[Cheezeninja]

Because its not so much the belief system they are dissagreeing with as the way the issue has been interpreted by the pope. Catholisism was around way before abortion and already had all of its beliefs and rules defined and categorized. With the advent of abortion they had to go to a non-divine, humanly selected person to make the call (the pope), and its entirely possible he made the wrong call. Not being a catholic myself i dont know if divinity is attributed to the pope or not, so that entire argument might be moot.

In any event however, the person in question (John Kerry) does NOT believe in abortion. He simply believes other individuals (who may not be catholic) should have the ability to choose for themselves. I dont believe (but dont know for sure) the directive of the pope is that all Catholics should be required to restrict the rights of others by attempting to illegalize abortion. I believe they are only required to personally be against it, and he is. In any event, if the catholic church is indeed attempting to require its members to not only be against abortion, but see to it that others cannot do it either... well i think this would be yet another attempt of an organization (in this case a church) to interfere with state where i personally believe it has no business, and don't fault Kerry at all in that he doesnt think its his place to impose his beliefs on others. In the end it just gets right down to the bones of the abortion issue wherein Anti-Abortion people think you are killing a baby and should be stopped, and Pro-Choice people think you are destroying a zygote with the genetic complexity of a snail and feel the Anti-Abortion people are attempting to take away one of their rights.

[Boron]

Originally posted by daesthai:

quote:

---

... but if you think about it the guidlines of the church HAVE been wrong before ...

Which brings me back full circle to my original point. If a person feels that a belief system is incorrect in one of its basic and heavily touted precepts, why would that person claim to share that belief system?

---

i think you quoted that a bit bad and left out the main point :

Originally posted by Cheezeninja
:

but if you think about it the guidlines of the church HAVE been wrong before (flat earth, anyone?) and could easily be wrong again. Thats no reason to cut all ties with the organization that you might respect and love deeply.

so a question : galilei was the one who discovered that . i am pretty sure you know the story . the catholic church forced him to deny his ideas . he did .

but now some hundred years later the pope spoke galilei holy .

so even the catholic church recognizes severe mistakes and corrects them even if only slowly .
so if they change it themselfes it is good or what ?
while when luther did that 500 years ago he was a devil ?

and it is the best proof that the catholic church + the pope aren't inerrant as they always claim .
ihmo the catholic church is just hypocritical.
furthermore there is nothing in the bible that justifes the catholic worship of saints .
one of the 10 commandmends says you should have no other gods beside me .
but in the catholic church the worship for especially maria is more important than for jesus .

Originally posted by daesthai:
I believe in one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church.

the claiming of the catholic church that it is the one and only true belief is just offending to me . what about that :
the jews already believed in god thousands of years before the catholic church was founded . so their claiming to be the first true and only belief is historical legitimated .

furthermore jesus founded the catholic church but he has gotten pretty unimportant in the catholic belief .
luther had to recover that .

i am a protestant as you may have noticed perhaps

i just think the catholic church is the most hypocritical in the world ( expect perhaps some sects ) . they are more intolerant than every one else though they always claim moslems and protestants are .

the catholic church is the church which broke the rules of the 10 commandments frequently very serious :
examples :
-the inquisition
-the crusades
-the 30 years war
-selling of indulgences
-quite modern one : the catholic pope supported hitler

in the middle ages the pope was also a ruler of the popal states and waged endless wars to conquer whole italy .

so the pope is just blasphemy .

finally one Last argument for the hypocrisy of the catholic church :
the first popes like petrus were marriaged .
so why may now priests + the pope not marriage anymore ?

protestants don't have a pope because he is really just blasphemy and the priests may marry .

i think even the muslim priests which are the most inferior belief in catholic eyes may marry .

in my eyes the catholic faith is just a misinterpretation of the christian belief .
the popes abused their believers just for their own profit . especially the selling of indulgences is a good example for that .

if you can name me one other belief in the world which has done as many evil things as frequent as the catholics then i will excuse but if you can't i think that is enough that i am proven to be right .

edit : i excuse if my tone is too harsh but i hope you see that the catholic church just tries to blind you and the from the catholic church damned protestant and moslem beliefs are 1000 times more christian than the catholic one .

[ July 28, 2004, 04:09: Message edited by: Boron ]

[Huzurdaddi]

Sure they are evidence. They also happen to be useless in drawing conclusions about the actual state of something.

Geeze. Well no more empirical science. Graeme hath decreed that it is "useless." Too bad all sciences are emperical. Bummer for us.

So, like I said in one of my 1st Posts I'm an ex-pat and ths I have actually seen the health care on both sides of the fence. Since you are flapping your mouth off I have to assume that you are also an ex-pat with a differing experience. I mean, gosh I hope you have some actual experience in the matter. I mean, gosh I hope you are not just uselessly flapping your mouth off when you don't even have any idea what you are talking about. I *really* hope that is not the case.

Aggregate health statistics are the _only_ meaningful measurement

Phew. I am *so* glad that you continually define the terms of the argument to suit your purposes. Sadly it's not what I asserted. Which was *if* you can pay the US system is better. Sadly you seem incapable of understanding that.

You are a funny and sad at the same time. Congratulations!

[Zapmeister]

Oh goodie, a religious flamefest! Count me in

Originally posted by Boron:
the claiming of the catholic church that it is the one and only true belief is just offending to me .

On the other hand, there is at most one distinct religious belief that is true. And many Groups (not just the Catholic church) claim that theirs is it. If anyone finds this offensive, they can count on being offended rather a lot.

It's better, I think, to understand that religious belief is, by its nature, exclusive. Religious tolerance is a good thing, of course, but largely out of reach of heavily committed religious people.

what about that :
the jews already believed in god thousands of years before the catholic church was founded . so their claiming to be the first true and only belief is historical legitimated .

Catholicism is not defined and distinguished by a belief in one god. Both Judaism and Islam share this belief. It's the Catholic interpretation of scripture, most particularly around the person of Jesus and his mother, that defines the Catholic faith. And all of that could be true, even if all Jewish belief prior to Jesus was also true. The first 5 books of the Bible are, after all, Jewish scripture.

furthermore jesus founded the catholic church but he has gotten pretty unimportant in the catholic belief .

Actually, I think Peter founded the Catholic Church as a vehicle to facilitate the worship of Jesus. But yes, it's interesting to note the emphasis that has been placed on Mary at the expense, some would say, to Jesus himself.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
Oh goodie, a religious flamefest! Count me in

Me too!

Voodoo, astrology, palm-reading, numerology, Scientology, Unification, Judeo-Christianity-Islam, et cetera. It's all myth, superstition, and outright bunk. Pablum for the masses and power/wealth for the clerics.

Have I offended *everyone*? If not, I need to try harder. All of you take the above nonsense far too seriously.

-- Arryn, resident agnostic.