PDA

View Full Version : Elections Its your duty to vote


KCJohnny
09-13-2008, 06:15 AM
Its your duty to vote (http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2008/9/13/its-your-duty-to-vote.html)

Craig Ferguson (http://lateshow.cbs.com/latenight/latelate/) of the Late Late Show gave this great little rant about voting. Im no fan, but this was good.

BucEyedPea
09-13-2008, 06:23 AM
There is no "duty" to vote. That's authoritarian. Especially in a system that originally didn't allow everyone to vote.

There is such a thing as the principled non-voter, if they think the process is corrupt and/or evil.

KCJohnny
09-13-2008, 06:38 AM
There is no "duty" to vote. That's authoritarian. Especially in a system that originally didn't allow everyone to vote.

There is such a thing as the principled non-voter, if they think the process is corrupt and/or evil.

Have you considered travel abroad?

Programmer
09-13-2008, 08:29 AM
There is no "duty" to vote. That's authoritarian. Especially in a system that originally didn't allow everyone to vote.

There is such a thing as the principled non-voter, if they think the process is corrupt and/or evil.

So you are not voting?

OH, and he did say "duty" not obligation.

wazu
09-13-2008, 09:26 AM
I would rather put the priority on being educated on the issues. Our problem isn't that not enough people vote. It's that so many people wander into the polls completely ignorant. It's the same reason a light rail plan can pass in KC.

Fish
09-13-2008, 09:27 AM
he he..... "doody"......

HolmeZz
09-13-2008, 12:36 PM
It's my duty to please that booty.

alnorth
09-13-2008, 02:22 PM
If someone never pays attention to politics and knows nothing about the issues, I'd rather not see them vote.

irishjayhawk
09-13-2008, 02:31 PM
I would rather put the priority on being educated on the issues. Our problem isn't that not enough people vote. It's that so many people wander into the polls completely ignorant. It's the same reason a light rail plan can pass in KC.

Or so partisan, so party-line that it's equally stupid for them to vote.

penchief
09-13-2008, 05:00 PM
Have you considered travel abroad?

Stop it. Have you ever heard of exercising your right not to vote?

Logical
09-13-2008, 05:23 PM
It's my duty to please that booty.
Amen, now this is a statement Jesus Christ can get behind.

BucEyedPea
09-13-2008, 05:46 PM
Have you considered travel abroad?

Have you considered joining a youth group. http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/6282/brownshirtjackbootsea0.gif (http://imageshack.us)
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/6282/brownshirtjackbootsea0.0a8431759e.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=518&i=brownshirtjackbootsea0.gif)

BucEyedPea
09-13-2008, 05:48 PM
I would rather put the priority on being educated on the issues. Our problem isn't that not enough people vote. It's that so many people wander into the polls completely ignorant. It's the same reason a light rail plan can pass in KC.

Doing their duty.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7zsr0UpVjoE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7zsr0UpVjoE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
09-13-2008, 05:53 PM
So you are not voting?

OH, and he did say "duty" not obligation.

Duty involves meeting an obligation.

I never said I wasn't voting. I merely said that there is no duty/obligation to vote. I don't care what one wants to call it, but there is such a thing as the principled non-voter as a form of protest. And those too disinterested to be informed shouldn't bother...like the above You Tube. This IS a free country, not a fascist one they way Johnny imagines it in his wildest dreams.

As a Republican, I only know I am not voting for McCain.
Other than that, I am still undecided.

penchief
09-13-2008, 05:58 PM
So you are not voting?

OH, and he did say "duty" not obligation.

It is our right to speak out when our government is not acting in our best interests but a lot of people don't necessarily see it as a duty. In fact, some people feel that it is our obligation to keep our mouths shut even when we are being misrepresented.

J Diddy
09-13-2008, 06:03 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I6tyHDUZZ00&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I6tyHDUZZ00&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


you are right, this is good

Programmer
09-13-2008, 06:06 PM
Duty involves meeting an obligation.

I never said I wasn't voting. I merely said that there is no duty/obligation to vote. I don't care what one wants to call it, but there is such a thing as the principled non-voter as a form of protest. And those too disinterested to be informed shouldn't bother...like the above You Tube. This IS a free country, not a fascist one they way Johnny imagines it in his wildest dreams.

As a Republican, I only know I am not voting for McCain.
Other than that, I am still undecided.

It sure doesn't sound like you are undecided. There are two choices that are viable due to the system. No third party entrant will ever win an electon in the U.S. unless the system is abolished and we start over.

Thig Lyfe
09-13-2008, 06:24 PM
More like my DOODY to vote!

BucEyedPea
09-13-2008, 06:26 PM
It sure doesn't sound like you are undecided. There are two choices that are viable due to the system. No third party entrant will ever win an electon in the U.S. unless the system is abolished and we start over.

Look I am not going to get into one of your endless tit-for-tat arguments over who I am voting for. Nor am I in the mood for a lecture on it.

I am not crazy about either major candidate enough to vote for either one of them. There's parts of each that I like but not enough. I've posted what my strategy may be. It does not include any vote for McCain. The lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

I could give a rats ass if a 3rd party is winnable or not. It's a protest vote and it can eat into one more than the other without my actually having to vote for the other. It can prevent them thinking they have some clear mandate too. That's having some effect as opposed to none at all by not voting at all.

J Diddy
09-13-2008, 06:31 PM
Look I am not going to get into one of your endless tit-for-tat arguments over who I am voting for. Nor am I in the mood for a lecture on it.

I am not crazy about either major candidate enough to vote for either one of them. There's parts of each that I like but not enough. I've posted what my strategy may be. It does not include any vote for McCain. The lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

I could give a rats ass if a 3rd party is winnable or not. It's a protest vote and it can eat into one more than the other without my actually having to vote for the other. It can prevent them thinking they have some clear mandate too. That's having some effect as opposed to none at all by not voting at all.

he's trying to establish your a democrat, even if your not.

not voting for mccain=leftwing in his mind

that way he can have a silly argument with you

SNR
09-13-2008, 06:33 PM
It sure doesn't sound like you are undecided. There are two choices that are viable due to the system. No third party entrant will ever win an electon in the U.S. unless the system is abolished and we start over.So the fact that 20% of the nation voted for Ross Perot in 1992 didn't send a message to Republican candidates for the 1994 election?

Bullshit that 3rd parties aren't important.

Programmer
09-13-2008, 06:42 PM
So the fact that 20% of the nation voted for Ross Perot in 1992 didn't send a message to Republican candidates for the 1994 election?

Bullshit that 3rd parties aren't important.

Who did we vote for in 1994? It wasn't a presidential election.

You might be confusing the time with a presidential election year. And yes in that light it would make an impact, but that year all it did was put the more evil of the two people in office. In '96 he defeated Dole which allowed Clinton to get re-elected. Should his 8% all have gone to Dole (which is a stretch) Clinton would not have been re-elected.

Programmer
09-13-2008, 06:44 PM
Look I am not going to get into one of your endless tit-for-tat arguments over who I am voting for. Nor am I in the mood for a lecture on it.

I am not crazy about either major candidate enough to vote for either one of them. There's parts of each that I like but not enough. I've posted what my strategy may be. It does not include any vote for McCain. The lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

I could give a rats ass if a 3rd party is winnable or not. It's a protest vote and it can eat into one more than the other without my actually having to vote for the other. It can prevent them thinking they have some clear mandate too. That's having some effect as opposed to none at all by not voting at all.

Not a lecture. You said that you weren't voting for McCain. Who does that leave? If you want to protest just don't vote for president in the election. voting for someone else just gives them a false hope that someone actually wants them to be elected.

So you are assuming that anyone else is not evil?

SNR
09-13-2008, 06:47 PM
Who did we vote for in 1994? It wasn't a presidential election.

You might be confusing the time with a presidential election year. And yes in that light it would make an impact, but that year all it did was put the more evil of the two people in office. In '96 he defeated Dole which allowed Clinton to get re-elected. Should his 8% all have gone to Dole (which is a stretch) Clinton would not have been re-elected.So the "Republican revolution" wasn't important to the Republican cause? Dude, the Republicans are STILL running on fumes from the energy and excitement of that election

Programmer
09-13-2008, 06:50 PM
So the "Republican revolution" wasn't important to the Republican cause? Dude, the Republicans are STILL running on fumes from the energy and excitement of that election

I don't think so, but as you wish.

BucEyedPea
09-13-2008, 06:57 PM
Not a lecture. You said that you weren't voting for McCain. Who does that leave? If you want to protest just don't vote for president in the election. voting for someone else just gives them a false hope that someone actually wants them to be elected.

So you are assuming that anyone else is not evil?

Politicians, except for a handful, are evil and so is govt today.

Programmer
09-13-2008, 07:06 PM
Politicians, except for a handful, are evil and so is govt today.

Probably, but if you are not voting for McCain at least your protest vote won't be for Obama.

SNR
09-13-2008, 07:09 PM
I don't think so, but as you wish.You deny the importance of the 1994 election?

BucEyedPea
09-13-2008, 07:13 PM
he's trying to establish your a democrat, even if your not.

not voting for mccain=leftwing in his mind

that way he can have a silly argument with you

I call that 2-valued logic. If you're not voting Republican you're the opposite.
There's no shades in-between. Although, I am a registered Republican. Just a disaffected one.

Programmer
09-13-2008, 07:24 PM
I call that 2-valued logic. If you're not voting Republican you're the opposite.
There's no shades in-between. Although, I am a registered Republican. Just a disaffected one.

So you are buying his definition of what I said? Shame on you. He's an idiot, I thought better of you.

country_boy
09-13-2008, 09:19 PM
I wouldn't say it a deuty to vote but if you don't vote then you have no right to complain when things start not going your way. thats just my take on it.

J Diddy
09-13-2008, 09:25 PM
So you are buying his definition of what I said? Shame on you. He's an idiot, I thought better of you.

Lol. Your opinion around here isn't worth the paper that it's printed on.

KCJohnny
09-13-2008, 10:01 PM
Politicians, except for a handful, are evil and so is govt today.

:rolleyes:

Taco John
09-13-2008, 10:09 PM
As of today, I don't believe that I will vote in this election. I'll make it my duty to vote when I feel like there are more than superficial differences between the parties. I'll make it my duty to vote when I can feel like I'm invested in it.

McCain vs. Obama?

No. It's not my duty to vote for either one of these guys.

irishjayhawk
09-13-2008, 11:09 PM
As of today, I don't believe that I will vote in this election. I'll make it my duty to vote when I feel like there are more than superficial differences between the parties. I'll make it my duty to vote when I can feel like I'm invested in it.

McCain vs. Obama?

No. It's not my duty to vote for either one of these guys.

You should vote for Obama just to spite meme, Roy, Programmer, and KCJohnny.

:p

Taco John
09-13-2008, 11:42 PM
I like his foriegn policy ideas much better than I like my understanding of McCain's foriegn policy ideas. Of course, McCain doesn't use much of his time to actually highlight his positions, so I can only surmise that his foriegn policy reflects a continuation of the Bush Doctrine, which in my estimation is a failure - something that Bush himself admits every time he adopts Barack Obama's foriegn policies in action.

For me, it's much more complicated than that, though. Regardless of the electoral hype, the reality is that McCain is the type of "conservative" who will move the right towards the center on all the wrong issues. He'll hold his ground on the meaningless stuff like Gay Marraige and Abortion (both of which should be state, not federal issues - and the fact that it *is* a federal issue should be a clear signal at how big and bloated our federal government has become). But when it comes to issues like immigration, social security, healthcare, etc., McCain is the type of politician who wants to leave his mark. And from where I'm sitting, that mark will come in the form of a socialized health care bill that will hasten the bankruptcy of our nation. I think among McCain's legacy is that he would be the FDR of healthcare. And while I think it would be fitting to have socialized health care (or the newspeak politicized version of it which is a socialized shell game masquerading as free market) hanging around the necks of the Republican party, I'd rather not see it happen.

I don't believe Barack Obama could ever get enough bi-partisan support to pass a bloated health care bill. McCain, on the other hand - I believe he not only could get the support to pass it, but I think he desperately WANTS to pass that kind of legislation.

Further, I think a McCain presidency would be an unpopular one with his own base. In order to smoth over all the "compromising" that he would be doing with his base, he'll look towards militancy. He wants to be the great leader, and in McCain's mind, that means militancy.

But I personally find little to believe in with regards to Obama as well. It has been a great disappointment for me to witness this accomplished man, who happens to be a Harvard educated constitutional scholar, say absolutely nothing about the state of Constitutional disrepair in this nation.

irishjayhawk
09-13-2008, 11:44 PM
I like his foriegn policy ideas much better than I like my understanding of McCain's foriegn policy ideas. Of course, McCain doesn't use much of his time to actually highlight his positions, so I can only surmise that his foriegn policy reflects a continuation of the Bush Doctrine, which in my estimation is a failure - something that Bush himself admits every time he adopts Barack Obama's foriegn policies in action.

For me, it's much more complicated than that, though. Regardless of the electoral hype, the reality is that McCain is the type of "conservative" who will move the right towards the center on all the wrong issues. He'll hold his ground on the meaningless stuff like Gay Marraige and Abortion (both of which should be state, not federal issues - and the fact that it *is* a federal issue should be a clear signal at how big and bloated our federal government has become). But when it comes to issues like immigration, social security, healthcare, etc., McCain is the type of politician who wants to leave his mark. And from where I'm sitting, that mark will come in the form of a socialized health care bill that will hasten the bankruptcy of our nation. I think among McCain's legacy is that he would be the FDR of healthcare. And while I think it would be fitting to have socialized health care (or the newspeak politicized version of it which is a socialized shell game masquerading as free market) hanging around the necks of the Republican party, I'd rather not see it happen.

I don't believe Barack Obama could ever get enough bi-partisan support to pass a bloated health care bill. McCain, on the other hand - I believe he not only could get the support to pass it, but I think he desperately WANTS to pass that kind of legislation.

Further, I think a McCain presidency would be an unpopular one with his own base. In order to smoth over all the "compromising" that he would be doing with his base, he'll look towards militancy. He wants to be the great leader, and in McCain's mind, that means militancy.

But I personally find little to believe in with regards to Obama as well. It has been a great disappointment for me to witness this accomplished man, who happens to be a Harvard educated constitutional scholar, say absolutely nothing about the state of Constitutional disrepair in this nation.

Like what?

Taco John
09-13-2008, 11:48 PM
Just to add a note of incredulity at the notion that I'm a bad citizen if I choose not to vote... here I am with my insignificant issues of bankruptcy due to healthcare, war expansion, and the constitution; meanwhile, I'm mired from all directions by brainwashed kids arguing over whether or not Obama called Palin a pig that McCain was putting lipstick on, and credibility sapping defenses of Palin's ignorance in foriegn policy theory.

As far as I'm concerned, the people who should be ashamed are the ones participating in this pretend democracy that these two inadequate parties have forced on us.

KCJohnny
09-14-2008, 12:10 AM
Although it remains your duty to vote in a republic, its probably better for the country at large that some abstain.

Case in point: this thread.

There are no perfect governments, no perfect presidents, no perfect candidates, no perfect policies, no perfect solutions. We are imperfect people with a Constitution bequeathed to us by Founding Fathers who dissolved our bands with the English Crown over the assertion that rights come from God directly to men, and as such, are inalienable.
These men feared God, and cite God as the political, spiritual and theological justification for independence from the rule of the British. Concepts such as welfare, social security, the 'right' to an abortion, no-fault divorce, gay marriage, and wealth redistribution were nowhere supported in any of the founding documents of our nation.
Our Fathers believed that free people are to govern themselves under the watchful eye of Divine Providence.
With sovereignty squarely in the hands of We the People, we are responsible for type of government we choose. If one's conscience leads one to abstain from said duty, so be it.
Once you see how precious the right and duty to vote is the way me and my fellow servicemen and women did in Iraq in 2003, you never take it for granted. Not voting is for me not one of the options. Choosing the 'lesser of two evils' (not my choice of words, but a paraphrase of some ideas posted here) is still a moral, volitional committment. In a republic, that is the choice sometimes.

KCJ

Logical
09-14-2008, 12:11 AM
Just to add a note of incredulity at the notion that I'm a bad citizen if I choose not to vote... here I am with my insignificant issues of bankruptcy due to healthcare, war expansion, and the constitution; meanwhile, I'm mired from all directions by brainwashed kids arguing over whether or not Obama called Palin a pig that McCain was putting lipstick on, and credibility sapping defenses of Palin's ignorance in foriegn policy theory.

As far as I'm concerned, the people who should be ashamed are the ones participating in this pretend democracy that these two inadequate parties have forced on us.TJ you are starting to sound old, you get used to it because unfortunately as time goes by you realize it just isn't changing for the better.

irishjayhawk
09-14-2008, 12:14 AM
Although it remains your duty to vote in a republic, its probably better for the country at large that some abstain.

Case in point: this thread.

There are no perfect governments, no perfect presidents, no perfect candidates, no perfect policies, no perfect solutions. We are imperfect people with a Constitution bequeathed to us by Founding Fathers who dissolved our bands with the English Crown over the assertion that rights come from God directly to men, and as such, are inalienable.
These men feared God, and cite God as the political, spiritual and theological justification for independence from the rule of the British. Concepts such as welfare, social security, the 'right' to an abortion, no-fault divorce, gay marriage, and wealth redistribution were nowhere supported in any of the founding documents of our nation.
Our Fathers believed that free people are to govern themselves under the watchful eye of Divine Providence.
With sovereignty squarely in the hands of We the People, we are responsible for type of government we choose. If one's conscience leads one to abstain from said duty, so be it.
Once you see how precious the right and duty to vote is the way me and my fellow servicemen and women did in Iraq in 2003, you never take it for granted. Not voting is for me not one of the options. Choosing the 'lesser of two evils' (not my choice of words, but a paraphrase of some ideas posted here) is still a moral, volitional committment. In a republic, that is the choice sometimes.

KCJ

ROFL

Logical
09-14-2008, 12:15 AM
We are imperfect people with a Constitution bequeathed to us by Founding Fathers who dissolved our bands with the English Crown over the assertion that rights come from God directly to men, and as such, are inalienable.No doubt a few believed that but I seriously doubt that was really the main reason. I am betting the yoke of taxes to a crown that did not have the interests in Americans several hundred miles away had far more to do with it.

SNR
09-14-2008, 12:16 AM
Although it remains your duty to vote in a republic, its probably better for the country at large that some abstain.

Case in point: this thread.

There are no perfect governments, no perfect presidents, no perfect candidates, no perfect policies, no perfect solutions. We are imperfect people with a Constitution bequeathed to us by Founding Fathers who dissolved our bands with the English Crown over the assertion that rights come from God directly to men, and as such, are inalienable.
These men feared God, and cite God as the political, spiritual and theological justification for independence from the rule of the British. Concepts such as welfare, social security, the 'right' to an abortion, no-fault divorce, gay marriage, and wealth redistribution were nowhere supported in any of the founding documents of our nation.
Our Fathers believed that free people are to govern themselves under the watchful eye of Divine Providence.
With sovereignty squarely in the hands of We the People, we are responsible for type of government we choose. If one's conscience leads one to abstain from said duty, so be it.
Once you see how precious the right and duty to vote is the way me and my fellow servicemen and women did in Iraq in 2003, you never take it for granted. Not voting is for me not one of the options. Choosing the 'lesser of two evils' (not my choice of words, but a paraphrase of some ideas posted here) is still a moral, volitional committment. In a republic, that is the choice sometimes.

KCJPlease point to me a candidate that exemplifies what the founders would have wanted. I see Chuck Baldwin as the only option, and he's got waaaay too many problems with him.

Logical
09-14-2008, 12:17 AM
ROFLDon't laugh at the intellectually challenged, it is not nice. Unless I join you. Oh ROFL

SNR
09-14-2008, 12:23 AM
God, this was a fantastic mini-series. Here's the best explanation of the right of this country to exist. It was DESERVED that people had these natural rights. Independence came when blood was shed in skirmishes, and we decided that if the British were going to get violent, so should we.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t2FAAVPX-jg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t2FAAVPX-jg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Logical
09-14-2008, 12:35 AM
God, this was a fantastic mini-series. Here's the best explanation of the right of this country to exist. It was DESERVED that people had these natural rights. Independence came when blood was shed in skirmishes, and we decided that if the British were going to get violent, so should we.

<object height="344" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t2FAAVPX-jg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>Nice vid cap to illustrate your point and it was a good mini-series.

SNR
09-14-2008, 12:46 AM
Nice vid cap to illustrate your point and it was a good mini-series.I knew this, but I never really SAW it how much of a perfect storm of intellectuals our founding fathers were. To come from such radically different parts of the country with sparse communication, and EXTREME disagreement between them, and to sit down and work together to save this country and THEIR LIVES is perhaps something to world has never seen and never will see again. It brings to shame the kinds of politicians we have running this country today and how inefficient our government has become. Call it a bloated bureaucracy or just a collection of corrupt sociopaths or whatever, but it is clear that they don't hold a candle to these men.

That's why I love the argument people give. "Well, the founding fathers are dead now, and we shouldn't put so much stock in the words of men who owned slaves and believed women and blacks were inferior to themselves." Oh really? Then why haven't we drafted a new Constitution? In many ways we have by simply ignoring the original one we drafted, but that's not the point. If we asked today's group US government to meet on an island and construct a new nation, we'd never see it. It simply wouldn't happen. And if it did happen, the result would be far less desirable than the product of 1791.

KCJohnny
09-14-2008, 01:01 AM
No doubt a few believed that but I seriously doubt that was really the main reason. I am betting the yoke of taxes to a crown that did not have the interests in Americans several hundred miles away had far more to do with it.

Typical disregard for the importance of our heritage.

Sad.

Forgive me if I ascribe credulity to Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Hale, Paine, Washington and the other Framers and Fathers. When you are in the military, this kind of thing is more than just an academic opinion one can easily shruf off should one choose. The signers of the Declaration painted a big fat bull's eye on themselves risking "life, fortune, and sacred honor". I thank God their moral cause was just and that it was their primary consideration in declaring to the world the neccessity of the Revolution.

KCJohnny
09-14-2008, 01:04 AM
God, this was a fantastic mini-series. Here's the best explanation of the right of this country to exist. It was DESERVED that people had these natural rights. Independence came when blood was shed in skirmishes, and we decided that if the British were going to get violent, so should we.


<OBJECT height=344 width=425>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t2FAAVPX-jg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></OBJECT></P>
Thanks for posting that. Validates my point handily. That was a great series. Its sad that so much of our history is lost on the current generation. Notice how he makes the case (as I did below) that rights come from God? That was THE premise of the Revolution.

Logical
09-14-2008, 01:55 AM
Thanks for posting that. Validates my point handily. That was a great series. Its sad that so much of our history is lost on the current generation. Notice how he makes the case (as I did below) that rights come from God? That was THE premise of the Revolution.I heard nothing about God, maker yes, which is consistent with the fact that probably 3/4 of the founding fathers were Deists and only belonged to a Church because it was necessary then as being part of the 2 political parties unfortunately is now. Both are onerous burdens of an imperfect system.

DaneMcCloud
09-14-2008, 02:15 AM
The biggest threat to our country is not Al Qaeda or covert military groups.

It's people that vote based on Oprah, Fox News, MSNBC, US Magazine, USA Today and the like.

Ill-informed dumb-****s who want to APPEAR intelligent by quoting some talking-head on television.

Furthermore, questioning the choice of someone like BuceyedPea is tenuous at best.

She knows more about politics and policy than almost anyone in this forum.

KCJohnny
09-14-2008, 03:03 AM
I heard nothing about God, maker yes, which is consistent with the fact that probably 3/4 of the founding fathers were Deists and only belonged to a Church because it was necessary then as being part of the 2 political parties unfortunately is now. Both are onerous burdens of an imperfect system.

That's an unfortunate interpretation.

Its also wrong. Here's the truth (http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2007/10/signers-of-declaration-of-independence.html)without spin or revisionism. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were most certainly men of faith (http://www.adherents.com/people/pw/John_Witherspoon.html).


John Witherspoon was a Presbyterian clergyman. He was the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence. (Many other signers were the sons of clergymen, however, and essentially all of the signers were Christians, mostly devout.)

Taco John
09-14-2008, 03:37 AM
Although it remains your duty to vote in a republic, its probably better for the country at large that some abstain.

Case in point: this thread.

There are no perfect governments, no perfect presidents, no perfect candidates, no perfect policies, no perfect solutions. We are imperfect people with a Constitution bequeathed to us by Founding Fathers who dissolved our bands with the English Crown over the assertion that rights come from God directly to men, and as such, are inalienable.
These men feared God, and cite God as the political, spiritual and theological justification for independence from the rule of the British. Concepts such as welfare, social security, the 'right' to an abortion, no-fault divorce, gay marriage, and wealth redistribution were nowhere supported in any of the founding documents of our nation.
Our Fathers believed that free people are to govern themselves under the watchful eye of Divine Providence.
With sovereignty squarely in the hands of We the People, we are responsible for type of government we choose. If one's conscience leads one to abstain from said duty, so be it.
Once you see how precious the right and duty to vote is the way me and my fellow servicemen and women did in Iraq in 2003, you never take it for granted. Not voting is for me not one of the options. Choosing the 'lesser of two evils' (not my choice of words, but a paraphrase of some ideas posted here) is still a moral, volitional committment. In a republic, that is the choice sometimes.

KCJ



http://www.starkey-music.com/graphics2007/claptrap2FrontWeb.jpg

Someone forgot to set the knob on low...

Save me your self glorification. We get it. You're a Christian who feels his brand of religion is superior to us heathens... We get it. You are a serviceman who feels that your service makes you materially better than us heathens. We're lucky to be graced with your presence.

We get it.

BucEyedPea
09-14-2008, 05:07 AM
I wouldn't say it a deuty to vote but if you don't vote then you have no right to complain when things start not going your way. thats just my take on it.

There's no law on that either. In fact what you're saying is a person has lost their right to free speech because they didn't vote. Thank gawd, that's not in the US Constitution. One could argue that one has a right to criticize even more since they didn't support either side. Meanwhile, those who voted for one side, must be blindly partisan simply because they based their vote for one or the other. Silly.

This is a FREE country. Not a fascist one.

BucEyedPea
09-14-2008, 05:09 AM
You should vote for Obama just to spite meme, Roy, Programmer, and KCJohnny.

:p

I must admit it is tempting to po a fascist.
At least the black market will grow under Obama, which offers some hope of economic survival.

BucEyedPea
09-14-2008, 05:24 AM
Although it remains your duty to vote in a republic, its probably better for the country at large that some abstain.
Please tell me what law stipulates this, and where it is in the Constitution?
Any right, has a corresponding corollary, and that is to abstain from excercising said right. Example: Right to free speech/right not to speak if one chooses. The idea is that no one forces these things.

There are no perfect governments, no perfect presidents, no perfect candidates, no perfect policies, no perfect solutions.
You're stealing my lines. But some are too far out there or downright criminal.

We are imperfect people with a Constitution bequeathed to us by Founding Fathers who dissolved our bands with the English Crown over the assertion that rights come from God directly to men, and as such, are inalienable.
Certain rights are unalienable. There are different kinds of rights.
Right to a taxpayer funded education is not an inalienable right but one granted by the society and which can be taken away if enough vote for it. Right to life is inalienable, and cannot be taken away without due process.

Only men of property could vote based on our Founding Fathers original formula. Reconcile that fact with your current stand on saying we all have a "duty" to vote.

These men feared God, and cite God as the political, spiritual and theological justification for independence from the rule of the British.
Yet today, those on your side of the argument do not fear God but break his Commandments and violate Christian Just War Doctrine ( Remember the Pope spoke about against Iraq Johnny) so they can kill as many Ay-raaabs as they want because they hate them instead of going after the correct target who committed the horrific acts of 9/11. That is unjust, immoral and unethical.

Our Fathers believed that free people are to govern themselves under the watchful eye of Divine Providence.
Please quote where this is in our law. Sounds more like fascism wrapped in religion.

Once you see how precious the right and duty to vote is the way me and my fellow servicemen and women did in Iraq in 2003, you never take it for granted.
So you worship the state first, or democracy first (because we have elections) and God second, even third?

KCJohnny
09-14-2008, 07:19 AM
Yet today, those on your side of the argument do not fear God but break his Commandments and violate Christian Just War Doctrine ( Remember the Pope spoke about against Iraq Johnny) so they can kill as many Ay-raaabs as they want because they hate them instead of going after the correct target who committed the horrific acts of 9/11. That is unjust, immoral and unethical.


Please quote where this is in our law. Sounds more like fascism wrapped in religion.




Oh heavens, where do I begin?

First, here's a little Hallmark Card Ms. Pea left for me as neg rep:

Go 'eff yourself fascist. And learn how to read.

:eek:

Soldiers don't pick the wars. The Holy Father now says that withdrawal from Iraq before stable conditions are achieved would be a grave injustice. We also liberated 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan that had no hope of freedom before we came. And 90% of all the casualties in Iraq were caused by Iraqis or foreiegn terrorists, not American Soldiers and Marines.

Here, don't take my word, take John Adams':


http://bp2.blogger.com/_84ijlM83vuQ/SJFHkng1JeI/AAAAAAAAABo/YXVtJb5g6OE/s200/AdamsJohn.jpg (http://bp2.blogger.com/_84ijlM83vuQ/SJFHkng1JeI/AAAAAAAAABo/YXVtJb5g6OE/s1600-h/AdamsJohn.jpg)

In an address to military leaders, John Adams, our second president (who also served as chairman of the American Bible Society), said:


"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'"

Programmer
09-14-2008, 07:23 AM
You should vote for Obama just to spite meme, Roy, Programmer, and KCJohnny.



Now that shows the depth of your committment to voting.

Do you honestly think that your vote has any impact on any other individual?

Vote for someone to mount an attack against someone on a bulletin board.

You will respond - it was a joke, I think not. It shows your true mentality.

You really need to find a link to reality, as it stand you are living in a fairy tale world.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-14-2008, 08:26 AM
I wouldn't say it a deuty to vote but if you don't vote then you have no right to complain when things start not going your way. thats just my take on it.

Bovine Scatology, the point is it wouldn't matter if either of the 2 were elected the complaining would be warranted either way.

Programmer
09-14-2008, 08:34 AM
http://www.starkey-music.com/graphics2007/claptrap2FrontWeb.jpg

Someone forgot to set the knob on low...

Save me your self glorification. We get it. You're a Christian who feels his brand of religion is superior to us heathens... We get it. You are a serviceman who feels that your service makes you materially better than us heathens. We're lucky to be graced with your presence.

We get it.


Coming from someone that has never served a day in his life, this is impressive.

Why do you hate the military and those that serve so much?

There are members here that have served and you have attacked each one when ever they comment about their service.

I find it telling of your opinon of the military of the U.S. and what it stands for.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-14-2008, 08:44 AM
Oh heavens, where do I begin?

First, here's a little Hallmark Card Ms. Pea left for me as neg rep:



:eek:

Soldiers don't pick the wars. The Holy Father now says that withdrawal from Iraq before stable conditions are achieved would be a grave injustice. We also liberated 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan that had no hope of freedom before we came. And 90% of all the casualties in Iraq were caused by Iraqis or foreiegn terrorists, not American Soldiers and Marines.

Here, don't take my word, take John Adams':


http://bp2.blogger.com/_84ijlM83vuQ/SJFHkng1JeI/AAAAAAAAABo/YXVtJb5g6OE/s200/AdamsJohn.jpg (http://bp2.blogger.com/_84ijlM83vuQ/SJFHkng1JeI/AAAAAAAAABo/YXVtJb5g6OE/s1600-h/AdamsJohn.jpg)

In an address to military leaders, John Adams, our second president (who also served as chairman of the American Bible Society), said:


"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'"

the Angels are the reapers, we as Christians are strictly forbidden to pull up the tears.

KCJohnny
09-14-2008, 09:06 AM
the Angels are the reapers, we as Christians are strictly forbidden to pull up the tears.

That passage has to do with judging who is saved and lost, not armed conflict. Please see: Romans chapter 13.

penchief
09-14-2008, 09:35 AM
That's an unfortunate interpretation.

Its also wrong. Here's the truth (http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2007/10/signers-of-declaration-of-independence.html)without spin or revisionism. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were most certainly men of faith (http://www.adherents.com/people/pw/John_Witherspoon.html).

Their faith in a power greater than themselves (i.e. God)? I'll agree. But if you are going to suggest that they advocated Christianity, I believe you are wrong.

With all of your righteous declarations about the intent of our founding fathers it is clear that you missed the importance of their desire to keep religion and government separated.

KCJohnny
09-14-2008, 09:39 AM
Their faith in a power greater than themselves (i.e. God)? I'll agree. But if you are going to suggest that they advocated Christianity, I believe you are wrong.

With all of your righteous declarations about the intent of our founding fathers it is clear that you missed the importance of their desire to keep religion and government separated.

I didn't miss it. Your side is overemphasized in contemporary politics. The founders placed the First Amendment at the top of the Bill of Rights to protect religion from government, and not government from religion.

penchief
09-14-2008, 09:51 AM
I didn't miss it. Your side is overemphasized in contemporary politics. The founders placed the First Amendment at the top of the Bill of Rights to protect religion from government, and not government from religion.

That's your interpretation. And one that contradicts your own reasoning because you can't have one without the other. Why do you think the pilgrims came over here in the first place? State sponsored religion is a vehicle for tyranny.

Freedom of religion allows for the all religions to practice equally. On the same token, it insures that you can lead your life as you see fit without interference even if you don't adhere to a particular faith. That is something that has made this country truly free in the eyes of the world.

Once you have a particular sect, even Christianity, injecting its tenets into public policy you have a recipe for tyranny. Just take a look at the fundamentalist Islamic nations of the world. Fundamentalist Christians in this country behave in authoritarian ways, as well. The difference is that it doesn't manifest itself in public policy because our form of government buffers us from religous tyranny. History has documented that Christianity is not pure in this regard.

If you want to tout the ideals of our founding fathers you can't deny the ones that don't suit you.

KCJohnny
09-14-2008, 09:58 AM
That's your interpretation. And one that contradicts your own reasoning because you can't have one without the other. Why do you think the pilgrims came over here in the first place? State sponsored religion is a vehicle for tyranny.

Freedom of religion allows for the all religions to practice equally. On the same token, it insures that you can lead your life as you see fit without interference even if you don't adhere to a particular faith. That is something that has made this country truly free in the eyes of the world.

Once you have a particular sect, even Christianity, injecting its tenets into public policy you have a recipe for tyranny. Just take a look at the fundamentalist Islamic nations of the world. Fundamentalist Christians in this country behave in authoritarian ways, as well. The difference is that it doesn't manifest itself in public policy because our form of government buffers us from religous tyranny. History has documented that Christianity is not pure in this regard.

If you want to tout the ideals of our founding fathers you can't deny the ones that don't suit you.

I'm just going by the explicit stated intent of the founding fathers. You are adding interpretation.

In an address to military leaders, John Adams, our second president (who also served as chairman of the American Bible Society), said:

"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'"

The Fathers were not talking about Islam. And Christianity is a religion, not a sect. A sect might be the Wesleyan Church or Presbyterian church, USA. No one who looks at the demographics of the colonies would assume the Framers are talking about anything other than Christianity when they use the word religion. All faiths and sects are protected; not all occupy equal weight of influence, then or now.

penchief
09-14-2008, 10:12 AM
I'm just going by the explicit stated intent of the founding fathers. You are adding interpretation.

The Fathers were not talking about Islam. And Christianity is a religion, not a sect. A sect might be the Wesleyan Church or Presbyterian church, USA. No one who looks at the demographics of the colonies would assume the Framers are talking about anything other than Christianity when they use the word religion. All faiths and sects are protected; not all occupy equal weight of influence, then or now.

I assume you don't care much for Thomas Jefferson?

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21

BucEyedPea
09-14-2008, 10:13 AM
[

Oh heavens, where do I begin?

First, here's a little Hallmark Card Ms. Pea left for me as neg rep:
Whining about rep that you got for telling me to move out of the country because I defended the non-voter and held a different opinion than yours.

Uh huh!

In other words you can say things to others with no consequence and we must obey silently. You need to put that brownshirt on. Or you should get out of the country.


Soldiers don't pick the wars.

They also swear to uphold the US Constitution though and by doing that they can oppose ANY non-declared war and refuse to deploy. It's about time one did on those grounds and drive it up to the SC. Yes, after exhausting the military justice lines, one can then go to the SC. ( just like the states) It's time it get tested there.

The Holy Father now says that withdrawal from Iraq before stable conditions are achieved would be a grave injustice.

So. He was still against it at first.

We also liberated 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan that had no hope of freedom before we came. And 90% of all the casualties in Iraq were caused by Iraqis or foreiegn terrorists, not American Soldiers and Marines.
Doesn't matter who harmed who. That's exactly why it violates Christian Just War Doctrine. We're still responsible for actions that led to greater killing and maiming, that is if one accepts full responsibility for one's actions. You're not. Aren't conservatives about taking responsibility for one's actions?

Now, let's look at this closer: we liberated Shia's who now oppress Sunni and Christians. Who treat them like infidels by beating women who wear the wrong clothes and Chaldean Christians who left due to persecution—who have had their own torture chambers and seek revenge on the Sunni. That
s what was unleashed including the ethnic cleansing of Bagdhad. Meanwhile the Kurds still want their independence. Look what we liberated them into? Is that much better? Not in my view. And it ain't over yet either. That surge could become undone if wrong political moves get made...or even escalate into wider war.

You still support and waged an unConstitutional illegal war for progressive purposes instead of self-defense ( let's not change the goal posts now and say it was self-defense after you just claimed liberation). That idea is a Trotsykite tradition, not an Americanist tradition, that is if you're going by the Founding Fathers one of who warned of going abroad in "search of monsters to destroy." Don't forget the Japs thought they were liberating the Chinese and others, Napoleon thought he was liberating Europe ( also from the RCC and it's Inquistion) and so did the Soviets.


"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'"
So when are you going to follow all of the Ten Commandments?

Aren't you done using the psychological mechanism of justification, above, for the Iraq invasion? Did you know that justification is essentially an admission of guilt.

You're worshipping war for democracy-Commandment 2.
Worshipping the state over God and morality -Commandment 2
Worshipping the state -Commandment 2
Killing ( Respect for Human Life) -Commandment 6

Get in the confession box Johnny. Each justification you post is an admission of guilt

KCJohnny
09-14-2008, 10:22 AM
You don't know me (http://www.johnnyproctor.com/iraqichristians.html) at all. Ms. Pea.

BucEyedPea
09-14-2008, 10:22 AM
You don't know me (http://www.johnnyproctor.com/iraqichristians.html) at all. Ms. Pea.

I know what your posts say and what you're defending.

irishjayhawk
09-14-2008, 10:25 AM
People beat me to the punch.

KCJohnny continues to be stupid for god. Err, soldier for god.

penchief
09-14-2008, 10:26 AM
I assume you don't care much for Thomas Jefferson?

Or Benjamin Franklin?

"You desire to know something of my religion," Franklin went on. "It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it."

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render him is doing good to his other Children."

"That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting his Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them."

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble."

"I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the World with any peculiar Mark of his Displeasure."

"I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the Goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously thro' a long life, I have no doubt of its Continuance in the next, though without the the smallest Conceit of meriting such goodness."

"P.S. I confide, that you will not expose me to Criticism and censure by publishing any part of this Communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious Sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable or even absurd."

"All Sects here, and we have a great Variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with Subscriptions for building their new Places of Worship; and. as I have never opposed any of their Doctrines, I hope to go out of the World in Peace with them all."

-Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, shortly before his death.

Taco John
09-14-2008, 11:01 AM
Coming from someone that has never served a day in his life, this is impressive.

Why do you hate the military and those that serve so much?


I don't. I just lose repect for the ones who wear their service on their sleeve and expect that they can lord it over everyone else. Honestly, you and KC Johnny are the only ones on this forum who consistently do this. It's only natural that you two would have a low view of my opinion of service members. I have no problem with the military. My problem is with how you two (in your self-glorifying ways) represent it.

BucEyedPea
09-14-2008, 11:06 AM
People beat me to the punch.

KCJohnny continues to be stupid for god. Err, soldier for god.

Well, I don't think he's stupid. I just don't share his pov. And I don't think he is is following Christianity either. Just trying to bring the prodigals back into the fold. :D

BucEyedPea
09-14-2008, 11:07 AM
You don't know me (http://www.johnnyproctor.com/iraqichristians.html) at all. Ms. Pea.

I thought that was just an underline and didn't click on it. Very nice! :)

I also listened to your audio too. But I don't agree with your prayer that we need to free others in the world.
As for your sermon, you need to see the natives living in those lands as the David with the US as the Goliath as they don't want more incursions on their lands. And they are not all liars. The men around Bush are the liars. And you want want more sheep—to increase ten-fold?

Programmer
09-14-2008, 04:30 PM
I don't. I just lose repect for the ones who wear their service on their sleeve and expect that they can lord it over everyone else. Honestly, you and KC Johnny are the only ones on this forum who consistently do this. It's only natural that you two would have a low view of my opinion of service members. I have no problem with the military. My problem is with how you two (in your self-glorifying ways) represent it.

Yes Issac, you do hate the military. You just use two people here as an excuse to vent your hate.

When was the last time I said anyting significant about my service?

You tend to be a whiner that carries a grudge.

Simply Red
09-14-2008, 04:44 PM
Yes Issac, you do hate the military. You just use two people here as an excuse to vent your hate.

When was the last time I said anyting significant about my service?

You tend to be a whiner that carries a grudge.

:spock:

Programmer
09-14-2008, 05:51 PM
:spock:
I don't remember anyone asking your opinion, but since you chimed in....

What is wrong with a person that has served and served with honor and pride carrying that pride with them?

For you morons it seems that if you are proud of your service you are a warmonger or worse.

I served with pride, I was my annual performance marks were exemplary over the last 21 years of my service.

Am I supposed to be ashamed of my service?

If you believe so you are from the same mold as Isaac.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-14-2008, 08:45 PM
That passage has to do with judging who is saved and lost, not armed conflict. Please see: Romans chapter 13.

Oh right that must be in the book of KcJohnny, lets just use the scriptures that come close to supporting our viewpoints and ignore those that contradict our views. The whole point is you might accidentally pull up wheat and woe to those that do.

KCChiefsMan
09-14-2008, 08:48 PM
voting is for suckers

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-15-2008, 02:18 AM
Its your duty to vote (http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2008/9/13/its-your-duty-to-vote.html)

Craig Ferguson (http://lateshow.cbs.com/latenight/latelate/) of the Late Late Show gave this great little rant about voting. Im no fan, but this was good.

Like Saddam's Iraq, right?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-15-2008, 02:34 AM
The Pope? Who gives a shit what the Pope thinks? How many divisions does he have?

KCJohnny
09-15-2008, 03:33 AM
I thought that was just an underline and didn't click on it. Very nice! :)

I also listened to your audio too. But I don't agree with your prayer that we need to free others in the world.
As for your sermon, you need to see the natives living in those lands as the David with the US as the Goliath as they don't want more incursions on their lands. And they are not all liars. The men around Bush are the liars. And you want want more sheepto increase ten-fold?

Thank you for hearing me out. That is all I could hope to expect. You have earned my deep respect. We will not agree, but we can at least communicate amicably.
Peace,
KCJ

BucEyedPea
09-15-2008, 07:25 AM
The Pope? Who gives a shit what the Pope thinks? How many divisions does he have?

Here's a sales tip: not that you care about selling anything:

You use who you think might be an opinion leader when talking to someone.
I thought KCJohnny was a Catholic, knew he at least was a Christian. So the Pope who he referred to respectfully, and even used himself for back-up, was cited as the premier Christian leader who supports Christian Just War Theory.
I don't always put the word Christian on that theory, it's still works as a rational ethical standard for what is a just war. I've even seen atheistic Marxist use it.

Didn't you say you were for using logic?

BucEyedPea
09-15-2008, 07:25 AM
voting is for suckers

:LOL:

BucEyedPea
09-15-2008, 07:26 AM
Like Saddam's Iraq, right?

People forget he had elections. So technically was a democracy.
Just like America is. :p

kcvet
09-15-2008, 07:42 AM
Doing their duty.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7zsr0UpVjoE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7zsr0UpVjoE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

speaks volumes. good post. none mentioned anything about the war or national security. ive asked people in the past/present the same Q's. vote for the dog with the least fleas !!!!

phisherman
09-15-2008, 07:59 AM
this thread is hilarious, i'm telling you kcjohnny, if you worked on my team and laid these rants out regularly, you would have my whole team voting for anyone but your candidate.

KCJohnny
09-15-2008, 08:57 AM
Here's a sales tip: not that you care about selling anything:

You use who you think might be an opinion leader when talking to someone.
I thought KCJohnny was a Catholic, knew he at least was a Christian. So the Pope who he referred to respectfully, and even used himself for back-up, was cited as the premier Christian leader who supports Christian Just War Theory.
I don't always put the word Christian on that theory, it's still works as a rational ethical standard for what is a just war. I've even seen atheistic Marxist use it.

Didn't you say you were for using logic?
KCJohnny is a Roman Catholic Christian. Your respect for the office of the Holy Father is commendable.

KCJohnny
09-15-2008, 08:58 AM
this thread is hilarious, i'm telling you kcjohnny, if you worked on my team and laid these rants out regularly, you would have my whole team voting for anyone but your candidate.

And you are in charge of what?

That's what I thought.

:hmmm:

Programmer
09-15-2008, 09:02 AM
People forget he had elections. So technically was a democracy.
Just like America is. :p

Not quite. Do you remember hearing he was elected by unamious vote?

Did you ever consider the "against" votes?

I presume they were executed democratically, by vote and it was a single unamious vote.

Ok, they were democratic elections.

kcvet
09-15-2008, 09:04 AM
I wouldn't say it a deuty to vote but if you don't vote then you have no right to complain when things start not going your way. thats just my take on it.

seems those that don't vote complain the loudest. their thinking is their vote don't matter anyway so way waste the time

KCJohnny
09-15-2008, 09:08 AM
Like Saddam's Iraq, right?
Yeah. Right.
:rolleyes:

phisherman
09-15-2008, 09:34 AM
And you are in charge of what?

That's what I thought.

:hmmm:

i'm trying to let you know in a subtle manner that your constant trumpeting of your service and christianity chases people off.

i believe the technical term for this is "coming on a little too strong".

KCJohnny
09-15-2008, 09:39 AM
i'm trying to let you know in a subtle manner that your constant trumpeting of your service and christianity chases people off.

i believe the technical term for this is "coming on a little too strong".
Really? Subtle? Have you tried a PM?

I will never cease to promulgate the Christian Gospel. As to my military career, it is germaine to the discussion when certain posters call it into question.

Also, the demographics on Chiefs Planet reveal a population marginally engaged in political discourse and not likely to vote. That is not only corroborated by survey agencies but by the sampling of replies on this thread.

penchief
09-15-2008, 12:16 PM
Really? Subtle? Have you tried a PM?

I will never cease to promulgate the Christian Gospel. As to my military career, it is germaine to the discussion when certain posters call it into question.

Also, the demographics on Chiefs Planet reveal a population marginally engaged in political discourse and not likely to vote. That is not only corroborated by survey agencies but by the sampling of replies on this thread.

Neither your Christianity nor your service make you right about the issues but for some reason you behave as if it does. You believe that it earns your opinions special consideration because it automatically gives you some sort of insight that makes the rest of us wrong.

To you, your faith and your service are supposed to somehow convince the rest of us to ignore the facts or the truth. You believe that they reinforce your beliefs when in reality you attempt to use your service and your Christianity to validate your prejudices.

JMO.

phisherman
09-15-2008, 12:47 PM
Your Christianity nor your service make you right about the issues but for some reason you behave as if it does. You believe that it earns your opinions special consideration because it automatically gives you some sort of insight that makes the rest of us wrong.

To you, your faith and your service are supposed to somehow convince the rest of us to ignore the facts or the truth. You believe that it reinforce your beliefs when in reality you attempt to use your service and your Christianity to validate your prejudices.

JMO.
:clap:

hammer, meet head of nail.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-15-2008, 12:53 PM
Yeah. Right.
:rolleyes:

Thank you for proving my point.