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

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by vigabrand:
Meanwhile the bandaid it gave primed us for the 90's. I'm no fan of deficit spending, but the fix is not raising taxes. BTW please keep your arrogant personal comments to yourself. I'd like to keep this civil.

Your kidding right? I know its common to say the good things are because of my guy in office or my guy who just left office (depending on your party) and all bad things are because of their guy in office or their guy who just left office (whoever the other party is). And usually Id consider such things not worth commenting on. But thats with the 4 year thing.

Clinton had 2 terms and I remember first election of his. Much of it was all fear of communism and the horrible debt that looked like it would be with us forever. At then end of Clintons second term we had balanced budget, no debt, no russia, no job problem, no real wars, and the important topics of the day were things in tabloids and entertainment magazines. I got a tax refunds. I bought a house. I put kids thru school. Life was good.

Now I admit that I havent studied the subject but really are you STILL trying to say that ALL of the good stuff was from the guy BEFORE Clinton? And all the bad stuff now I guess was done by him? I didnt vote for him but still I have some problem swallowing that fish whole.

---

Well, actually USSR collapsed 1 year before Clinton took office Gandalf. But the rest of your comments are correct and I generally share your position. I am certanly not big fan of Kerry, but Bush irritates me too much with his self-righteuous attitude that he applys to each and every policy issue. "Consolidator" my arse! I mean, the guy who lost a popular vote should at least *try* to govern from the center and *try* to be somewhat moderate, as he humbly promised during his election compain. As it is, he is most radical USA president that I know since Nixon.


To be fair, I have to say that I do approve several of his major actions as a president, including even some controversial ones. However I disaprove significantly more of his deeds both in internal and external policies.


But what worries me most is that during his first term Bush had to always keep in mind the reelection year, and moderate his retoric and his urges somehow, to avoid alienating too many people with his policies. But it is scary to think what he may do during his 2nd term, if he gets reelected, since than he will likely to pull all breaks off, reshaping the America according to his vision during his future 4 years in the office. I mean, think about it - if during the Last 4 years we have seen "careful, compasionate, moderate" Bush, as he proclaimed himself, than what the hell he will do during his next 4 years, when he will no longer have any 2nd thoughts due to his need to be reelected?!? 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

[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.