Good job Bush.

[KidRock]

Bush I applaud your victory.. you won the popular vote and the electoral vote. Instead of all the flaming going on this vote I would just like to say welcome back Bush good job. :cheers:

[mortiz]

Did this really need a new thread?

[K e r b e r o s]

Yes. Because you guys have yours. Go post in your own threads.

Welcome back, KidRock. You've got some catching up to do. :D

[KidRock]

I think so. Since all the other threads are I HATE BUSH.. I like bush why not have a thread for his honest victory?

[K e r b e r o s]

True. Dont worry, the Canadians and Euro's are very busy trying to chase us out.

Not like the moderators care...or do they?

[Vigilante]

OOOOOOO YEAH..I like bush...GO BUSH! I do hope he tries to get some of our allies back, though.

[K e r b e r o s]

Allies? If they act like half the people on the forums are now, I just say, screw it. We were better off alone anyways.

[Alec_85]

I wonder how much money Bush has left. I could use some too ;)

[neptuneuk]

shoot me...

[Phraxtion]

Finally, a positive thread. Go BUSH!!! :cheers:

[Vigilante]

Allies? If they act like half the people on the forums are now, I just say, screw it. We were better off alone anyways.
I mean that hopefully we can get to be friendly with nations that did not support the iraq war such as germany and france. I just want bush to apologize.

[KidRock]

I think bush is going to make great strides in the next 4 years.

[K e r b e r o s]

I think he will too. I have faith in whoever my President is. I cant loose that, because if I do, he'll loose faith in the right direction.

[neptuneuk]

have all the bush haters died or something? like, where are they?

i predicted this thread to die long ago!
good for you guys!

[K e r b e r o s]

Thanks Neptune. Least, you support forum diversity. :D

[KidRock]

have all the bush haters died or something? like, where are they?

i predicted this thread to die long ago!
good for you guys!

Hiding thier heads in shame
:laugh:

[falconwind]

Bush I applaud your victory.. you won the popular vote and the electoral vote. Instead of all the flaming going on this vote I would just like to say welcome back Bush good job. :cheers:


Proving that Bush has successfully manipulated the hearts and minds of the American people, about half of which are too busy praising Bush to see four inches in from of them.

So when are you going to burn down the Reichstag... er, I mean Capitol Hill?

[burner69]

Why should you celebrate bush being president?

I'm not flaming, I'm asking. Why?

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?p=926729#post926729
check out my last post, and someone please respond. I'm interested

[CptStern]

you've sealed your fate, america

[Recoil]

I mean that hopefully we can get to be friendly with nations that did not support the iraq war such as germany and france. I just want bush to apologize.

:cheers:

[Dedalus]

hooray for bush :cheers:
please note the EXTREME sarcasm in this post.

[burner69]

Hiding thier heads in shame
:laugh:

Ok, so where's your comeback when faced with facts?
Why should we celebrate bush being elected?

Nobody seems capable of answering. I'm not suggesting you're stupid, I'm suggesting there are few ways of answering the question.

[Absinthe]

Nobody seems capable of answering. I'm not suggesting you're stupid, I'm suggesting there are few ways of answering the question.

I've seen a stunning lack of supporting arguments from those that supported Bush. They are either nonexistant or downright stupid (i.e. He removed Saddam).

If you ask me, it's just people being partisan for their party.

[DiSTuRbEd]

you've sealed your fate, america

We can seal yours too, if you want.

*still waiting for someone to attack us because bush got elected, then we act and the world hates us even more*

Its a lose, lose situation CptStern. We are going to be attacked supposedly, threatening the US=the US on high alert. I wouldn't mess with us right now.

EDIT: Bush>Kerry.

[burner69]

We can seal yours too, if you want.

*still waiting for someone to attack us because bush got elected, then we act and the world hates us even more*

Its a lose, lose situation CptStern. We are going to be attacked supposedly, threatening the US=the US on high alert. I wouldn't mess with us right now.

EDIT: Bush>Kerry.

Dya know why America was attacked in the first place?
And do you really think invading Afgan and Iraq helped things?

And if the only way you can defend your president is by saying "Hey, we're hard, we can take you" then I am indeed concerned about the morals you carry with you.

[CptStern]

We can seal yours too, if you want.

no, actually a win for bush is a win for canada. There is no way we will join the coalition with bush in office ...we might have under Kerry

*still waiting for someone to attack us because bush got elected, then we act and the world hates us even more*

Its a lose, lose situation CptStern. We are going to be attacked supposedly, threatening the US=the US on high alert. I wouldn't mess with us right now.

EDIT: Bush>Kerry.



you've made a pact with the neo-cons ...you've opened the door to radical fundamentalism, you've opened the pandora's box on civil liberties ...you'll feel the reprecusions of this election for decades to come

[DiSTuRbEd]

you've made a pact with the neo-cons ...you've opened the door to radical fundamentalism, you've opened the pandora's box on civil liberties ...you'll feel the reprecusions of this election for decades to come

I'm not afraid, we're not backing down either.

[Griz]

I think bush is going to make great strides in the next 4 years.

Do you think that will involve illegally invading another country then?

Can anyone say "Iran" or "Syria" perhaps?

I think the front page of todays Daily Mirror here in the UK just about sums it all up...

"How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb"

[burner69]

I'm not afraid, we're not backing down either.

You're saying that like you had reason to start attacking countries in the first place.
"I'm not afraid" as if this is a big game. It's not, you may not be afraid, but millions of people, in both your country and abroad, are. Thousands are getting killed because of the way ur president is running things. And back home, your countries power is dwindling. Economy is down, and they reckon at the rate it's going Japan will take over as the new world super power in less than 12 years time.
Hurry up and find a suitable candidate for president, vote him in, and stop this "We are such a big strong country" BS.

I'm just glad to know that most Americans I've met aren't like that.

[burner69]

Do you think that will involve illegally invading another country then?

Can anyone say "Iran" or "Syria" perhaps?

I think the front page of todays Daily Mirror here in the UK just about sums it all up...

"How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb"

I agree with what you're saying Griz.
Although the Mirrors choice of words reveals how simple minded WE can be sometimes. They aren't dumb, they have an opinion that I believe is greatly flawed. And as proven by Absinthe in an earlier thread, many do not even know the truth of what's happening in the world, and so stand by their leader because they think he's done things he hasn't.
Iraq had WMDs indeed.
Saddam was helping Terrorists.
BS

[DiSTuRbEd]

Hurry up and find a suitable candidate for president, vote him in, and stop this "We are such a big strong country" BS.

Now I am betting you aren't american, we don't say we are the most powerful country right now at all. We protect our interests.

[burner69]

I'm from the UK.
America IS the largest power in the world at the moment.
And bush protects his interests, yes he does. At the expense of others, including his fellow countrymen.

[DiSTuRbEd]

At the expense of others, including his fellow countrymen.

No one said anyone else had to get into it. But Allies usually help out each other.

[burner69]

I'm pretty sure the Afgan and Iraqi people didn't want to be involved when they had bombs dropped on them.

America forces people to be involved, whether they want to or not.

Allies should help eachother out when help is needed. Help is needed at the moment. The world is being thrown into disorder with the president of the world's super power doing whatever the hell he wants.

[KidRock]

Dya know why America was attacked in the first place?
And do you really think invading Afgan and Iraq helped things?

And if the only way you can defend your president is by saying "Hey, we're hard, we can take you" then I am indeed concerned about the morals you carry with you.


Do I think invading Afgan and Iraq helped? Of course it did.. proof? There hasnt been a terrorist attack since the war...

[DiSTuRbEd]

Allies should help eachother out when help is needed. Help is needed at the moment. The world is being thrown into disorder with the president of the world's super power doing whatever the hell he wants.

I guess you people don't understand some things, before the president can do anything it has to pass congress...But alas, you know it all! :rolleyes:

[CptStern]

Do I think invading Afgan and Iraq helped? Of course it did.. proof? There hasnt been a terrorist attack since the war...


what are you talking about? there's an average of 83 attacks a day on american troops

[CptStern]

I'm not afraid, we're not backing down either.

ya well too bad the real victems will be innocent americans and iraqi civilians ...the people in power love throwing sheep into the fire

[No Limit]

I am extremely pissed that Bush won but since I can't do anything about that it's time to get this country going again, even if Bush is our leader :(.

What's important now is uniting everyone. Republicans now have even more control so that will be a huge problem, but we will have to deal with it. Deep down inside I have hope that Bush will change. He needs to keep the American people inside the loop, if he doesn't do that this country will become more divided than it was before and it will cause nothing but problems. I pray that Bush admits his mistakes (which he hasn't done and has been extremely stuborn about this), once he admits them we can work on solving them.

[KidRock]

what are you talking about? there's an average of 83 attacks a day on american troops

Not in America..or on inoccent people in the states..

[CptStern]

Not in America..or on inoccent people in the states..

so the soldiers in iraq are not american?

[KidRock]

so the soldiers in iraq are not american?

Are you an idiot? do you even read posts? I said not in AMERICA.. as in a country.. a piece of land.. and I said not on innocent people in the states..

[Death.Trap]

so the soldiers in iraq are not american?


He didn't say that. He said that attacks are not occuring in America, aka on american soil, or on innocent american civilians.

[CptStern]

let me spell this out for you

83 attacks a day on american soldiers = dead americans


btw: why do I have to spell everything out for you? why cant you read between the lines? Why must you be so literal? seriously, why do you even get into political discussions if you cant think laterally? (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=laterally)

[KidRock]

let me spell this out for you

83 attacks a day on american soldiers = dead americans


yeah american SOLDIERs..who are FIGHTING in iraq..not innocent people in the states going about there daily buisness. What do you expect during a war? Let me spell it out for you sterny boy.. no terrorist attack has happened in the states since the war.

Also those soldiers know the risk they take going to iraq.. a janitor going to work in a skyscraper shouldnt be taking the risk of getting killed in a terrorist act.

[neptuneuk]

ya well too bad the real victems will be innocent americans and iraqi civilians ...the people in power love throwing sheep into the fire

of course, the completely innocent american INVADERS!
seriously though, you would be pissed if the russians came and 'liberated you from bush' think about it

[CptStern]

yeah american SOLDIERs..who are FIGHTING in iraq..not innocent people in the states going about there daily buisness. What do you expect during a war? Let me spell it out for you sterny boy.. no terrorist attack has happened in the states since the war.

that has little to no bearing on the security of the US ..how many attacks on american soil happened before 9/11? half a dozen, maybe, in the last century . Do you want me to dig up the quote where collin powell apologises for lying about the fact that the US is safer since the war in iraq?

Also those soldiers know the risk they take going to iraq.. a janitor going to work in a skyscraper shouldnt be taking the risk of getting killed in a terrorist act.

ahhhh but they went under false pretenses didnt they? they were lied to

[KidRock]

I still see no proof why the US isnt safer? Throw all the facts you want out.. There hasnt been a terrorist attack since the war..why should I worry about facts

[Steelwind]

Some of you guys make it out like re-electing Bush has started the apocolypse. Not everything the man has done is completely horrible. He has benefited this country, otherwise more than half of the votes wouldn't have gone his way. Here's some examples:

1. Turned a post 9/11 recession around in to one of the strongest economies we've ever had.
2. Cut taxes for most people who actually pay them (which is arguably the reason for #1).
3. Disabled and/or captured 70% of al Qaeda leadership.
4. Removed one of the most despotic dictators in history from power.
5. Disrupted the Taliban, and brought democratic elections to Afghanistan.

Now granted not all of his actions have been recieved with smiling faces. He has also:

1. Increased the national deficit
2. Expanded government faster than Clinton did
3. Created one of the biggest and most nebulous govt entities in Homeland Security
4. Funded faith-based substance-abuse programs

However, IMHO, this is a one-issue campaign: who will be tougher on terrorism. And I think Bush is the obvious choice there. Apparently the rest of the country felt the same way.

[qckbeam]

I still see no proof why the US isnt safer? Throw all the facts you want out.. There hasnt been a terrorist attack since the war..why should I worry about facts


You make it sound as if we were being attacked on a daily basis before Bush and now everything is perfectly fine and peaceful. From what I can gather, there are simply not enough al Qaeda operatives in the United States to carry out suicide bombings on a daily basis; so they wait, gather their strength, and carry out one really large attack when they're ready. You're making an incredibly premature statement saying we're safer now than in the past, not to mention common sense would say our presence as invaders in a Middle Eastern country would only strengthen enemy resolve and numbers.

[DiSTuRbEd]

Steelwind, I love all of your post, I agree 100% with it. Bush was/is needed right now.

[CptStern]

Steelwind, I love all of your post, I agree 100% with it. Bush was/is needed right now.

bush is responsible for the invasion ..he should bear the brunt of responsibility ..I say you guys impeach him for lying :)

[KidRock]

bush is responsible for the invasion ..he should bear the brunt of responsibility ..I say you guys impeach him for lying :)


heh if only you had a say in American affairs eh canadian? :E

[DiSTuRbEd]

I say you guys impeach him for lying :)

I say we segregate the internet by countries.

[CptStern]

heh if only you had a say in American affairs eh canadian? :E


I'm confident history will see this period in a negative light ..it's already happening ..the backlash may be permanent

[neptuneuk]

nah, we should make "the internet" a country

immigration may be a problem.....

[CptStern]

I say we segregate the internet by countries.



fine by me, I dont want your fundamentalist moral values polluting my home

btw the best critics of US foreign policy are americans

[hasan]

"terrorist" attacks don't happen overnight. They take a long time to plan and excute.
There hasn't been one since 9/11, this doesn't mean the planning stopped. There is DEFINETLY a plot for a next attack in the works, or it might have entered excution phase.

We won't know untill it happens. then , try to tell me you bush made you safer. ok?

edit:

I don't give a whit about what Iraq has to do with america's security.
a Q for all you liberals: If everything in Iraq stays the same .. EXACTLY the same as it is now, except for one thing: it indeed makes america safer.
will you support it then?

[ShinRa]

I hate bush...i like it shaved.

oh....yea i hate him too.

[DiSTuRbEd]

fine by me, I dont want your fundamentalist moral values polluting my home

Why view american owned sites then?

[neptuneuk]

Why view american owned sites then?
where is this fictional american owned site i hear of?

[DiSTuRbEd]

On the server located somewhere in the US.

[Steelwind]

bush is responsible for the invasion ..he should bear the brunt of responsibility ..I say you guys impeach him for lying :)

What about Britian, Denmark, Australia, and the other countries who provided troops and supplies to the Iraq war effort? Should their leaders be impeached as well? Do you honestly think Bush single handedly invaded Iraq with no support or evidence what-so-ever? He recieved information from his advisors, intelligence communities, and allied nations. He inturpretation of that data showed reason to remove Hussein from power. How do you know Gore or Kerry wouldn't have done the exact same thing, based on the exact same intelligence?

[Absinthe]

What about Britian, Denmark, Australia, and the other countries who provided troops and supplies to the Iraq war effort? Should their leaders be impeached as well? Do you honestly think Bush single handedly invaded Iraq with no support or evidence what-so-ever? He recieved information from his advisors, intelligence communities, and allied nations. He inturpretation of that data showed reason to remove Hussein from power. How do you know Gore or Kerry wouldn't have done the exact same thing, based on the exact same intelligence?

The difference is that Bush wanted his people to find any connection to Iraq after 9/11 took place. Usually, you're supposed to follow the evidence until you reach a conclusion. Bush started with a conclusion and then tried to stuff it with evidence afterwards. That is majorly unreliable. Even still, the evidence was considered to be very questionable by A LOT of people. Even Colin Powell was quoted as saying "This is bullshit" when it came to the documents regarding Iraq.

[Absinthe]

I still see no proof why the US isnt safer? Throw all the facts you want out.. There hasnt been a terrorist attack since the war..why should I worry about facts

KidRock, you're pretty ignorant. You have no proof that America is safer due to Bush being in office.

"BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH THERE HASN'T BEEN A TERRORIST ATTACK SINCE..." could have been the same case with Gore, so I suggest you shut your trap and quit making a mockery of not only politics, but yourself as well.

[Absinthe]

However, IMHO, this is a one-issue campaign: who will be tougher on terrorism. And I think Bush is the obvious choice there. Apparently the rest of the country felt the same way.

In case you didn't catch this before:

Bush did not win due to his stance on terrorism nor his plans for the economy. The large percentage of votes that went to him were from voters concerned with moral issues, such as gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion.

The safety of America was not at the forefront of most peoples' minds on election day.

[Steelwind]

The difference is that Bush wanted his people to find any connection to Iraq after 9/11 took place. Usually, you're supposed to follow the evidence until you reach a conclusion. Bush started with a conclusion and then tried to stuff it with evidence afterwards. That is majorly unreliable. Even still, the evidence was considered to be very questionable by A LOT of people. Even Colin Powell was quoted as saying "This is bullshit" when it came to the documents regarding Iraq.

I don't ever remember hearing that Bush tried to connect Iraq to 9/11. The only connection that I could see made, was probably taken out of context by those who feel Bushed lied to go to war with Iraq. I was under the assumption that Al Queda was responsible, which was why we were in Afghanistan and hunting down Osama Bin Laden. My understanding for Iraq was that Hussein was a theat to not only our nation, but the rest of the world as well. The actions he took against his own people and country were only second to another dictator that was overthrown so many years ago. Action was taken against a man who had the power and desire to strike at America just like Al Queda did. He needed to be put down before something like 9/11 happend again. Bush was the man for the job, and he's the man to finish the job. The only connection there is that he was capable and more than willing to attack us on our home soil. After 9/11 the major focus in the US become Homeland Security. However, I never felt that we as a nation were led to believe that Hussein was linked to Al Queda themsevles.

[Steelwind]

In case you didn't catch this before:

Bush did not win due to his stance on terrorism nor his plans for the economy. The large percentage of votes that went to him were from voters concerned with moral issues, such as gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion.

The safety of America was not at the forefront of most peoples' minds on election day.

I didn't catch this before. Care to provide some information and supportive documentation?

[burner69]

Why didn't he overthrow Saddam earlier?
It seems to me and many people that the only reason he invaded when he did was that he needed some kind of trophey on this 'war on terror'. There is no proof of this, because for this he would need to admit it, which he never will, but answer me this. Why didn't he overthrow him before?

KidRock, you SHOULD be worrying about the facts. You do know how much money is now being put into anti-terrorism? That's because you now have A LOT more terrorists targetting your country than there were before. Innocent people never deserve to get killed by terrorists, nobody does, but by pissing them off Bush has got many of them who were previously quite happy to steer clear, targetting you. It's costing you money to keep the attacks at bay, which is hammering Federal spending up, and it means you're more likely to be attacked.
Also I found it sick that you disregarded the attacks on American troops. Those are attacks, by terrorists, on Americans.

And don't say bush had a 'right' to invade iraq because of terrorists. He didn't. He had a right to capture OBL, what he did was evil, he did not need to invade the entire country of Afgan.
He had no luck there so he moved on to Iraq with the emphasis on making the world a safer place. As it turns out they were NOT a threat, and the world is now a much more DANGEROUS place.
Although it would be stupid to say removing Saddam from power (who America put there in the first place) was not beneficial to the country, by doing it WHEN they did it proves they have other agendas.

9/11 was a backlash from previous American policies which involved pissing off other countries, all that's happening now is that Bush is doing it again. Why couldn't he just hunt down OBL and have done with it? And by the way if you think the war on Iraq was to get terrorists either you are wrong or Bush went about it the wrong way. Saddam would not tolerate terrorists in his country, they were a threat to his power, he would have happily helped America get rid of them.

Your economy is dwindling. Where are you people hearing that your economy is booming? It's not! You've spent $400bn that you don't have. Your minimum wage is sliding down, down, down. Unemployment is up. The number of people below the poverty line has increased substantially. And it is predicted that at the rate it is falling Japan will over take the US as the world super power.
How is this a booming economy?

To cope with this 'war on terrorism', rightly phrased as a war on a concept, Bush, and indeed Kerry, were having to take seriously the idea of a draft. Don't you find that scary? He's thrown you into unnessesary wars which he can't get out of, so he has to strip what I believe to be basic human rights and thrust you into the army. Okay so it may not happen, but he wants it to.

And on the matter of congress. yes, it must be passed through there. But don't you know how much influence Bush and his friends have there? If a member of congress votes for what Bush wants they are likely to get little 'extras'. You did read what I said about Bush giving certain of his buddies $145bn this year alone. To put that in perspective that could pay a years minimum wage to all Americas unemployed almost 6 times over. And also there is immense pressure on congressmen and women who are in his party to vote for what he wants.

And on the subject of the countries who are fighting in Iraq now, my own included. I do NOT agree with the war. But Blair and other countries have both a duty to help - which you should be grateful for, considering America tossed aside pleas for help in WW2 until Pearl harbour - but also Blair can gain a lot from being friendly with the (soon to be ex) world's super power.
And in helping you fight the war, which you were going to do anyway, it means it can be over with quicker - I hope.

Steelwind - thank you for being pretty much the only person in opposition to my views with some evidence for your case.

Many of you seem to base your pro-bush argument on slagging off others for not believing what you do, laughing because we actually DON'T have much of a say, and baseing arguments around personal experience: "My boss has had more recruits = unemployment is down" "There have been no terrorist attacks in the US so the terrorists have gone away." Do what Steelwind has done, try and lay some foundation to your argument.

[Absinthe]

I didn't catch this before. Care to provide some information and supportive documentation?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/03/politics/main653592.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

[burner69]

Steelwind:
Taken from New York Times - CNN exit polls:

Most important issues for the voter (in 2004 american elections)
Taxes: 5%
Education: 4%
Health Care: 8%
Iraq: 15%
Terrorism: 19%
Economy: 20%
Moral Values: 22%

[burner69]

I don't ever remember hearing that Bush tried to connect Iraq to 9/11. ... However, I never felt that we as a nation were led to believe that Hussein was linked to Al Queda themsevles.

From Washington Bureau: "WASHINGTON - The Bush administration pressed the CIA in the run-up to the war on Iraq to look for evidence of close cooperation between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein"

From BBC news: "Mr Bush did however repeat his belief that the former Iraqi president had ties to al-Qaeda - the group widely regarded as responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington"

[Steelwind]

Thanks for the links, and the numbers. I find it interesting that so many people voted on moral issues. That wasn't the case for myself and many of the people I am associated with here in Texas. But to each his own. However, I did notice that in the percentages that Burner posted 19% noted terrorism and 15% noted Iraq. If we're going on the assumption that Bush led the US to believe we were in Iraq because of their link with terrorists, then those numbers should be combined. Now you have terrorism/Iraq as the number one issue in this election. So which is it? Did we vote on them based as seperate issues or were we led to believe Iraq had a connection with terrorism? Just an observation.

Why didn't he overthrow Saddam earlier?

Hindsight is 20/20.

[Steelwind]

From Washington Bureau: "WASHINGTON - The Bush administration pressed the CIA in the run-up to the war on Iraq to look for evidence of close cooperation between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein"

From BBC news: "Mr Bush did however repeat his belief that the former Iraqi president had ties to al-Qaeda - the group widely regarded as responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington"

Again, thanks for the quotes. I'd like to see what dates those were taken. Looking for evidence doesn't mean we didn't find any, or that it become the sole reason we invaded Iraq. As well, just because Bush believed they had connections, doesn't mean it was the sole basis for the attack itself. If intelligence was gathered showing no link, there must have been something else that came to light that would garner support for Bush to go to war.

[burner69]

Good point.

This is a year old but still important.
"a recent (Sept 2003) opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks"

See what he did? Tricked his people, who rightly wanted revenge for 9/11, into believing Saddam was behind it.

It's sick.

[DiSTuRbEd]

Your economy is dwindling. Where are you people hearing that your economy is booming? It's not! You've spent $400bn that you don't have. Your minimum wage is sliding down, down, down. Unemployment is up. The number of people below the poverty line has increased substantially. And it is predicted that at the rate it is falling Japan will over take the US as the world super power.
How is this a booming economy?


Yet again, you seem like you know everything. We're in debt, so about every other country, nothing new. Minimum wage sliding? HA then why is it still $5.50 and 3 years ago it was $5.25, there goes your facts. Unemployment isn't up, infact recently all around NC there has been new jobs opening, I am sure around the company, Dell is building a facility down here in the triad. So obviously that will get more jobs. Yet again we don't care who is the world super power, quit bringing it up. You people from other countries know very little about our economy, I suggest you quit trying to prove the people that live here wrong, because you won't.

[Absinthe]

I don't ever remember hearing that Bush tried to connect Iraq to 9/11. The only connection that I could see made, was probably taken out of context by those who feel Bushed lied to go to war with Iraq. I was under the assumption that Al Queda was responsible, which was why we were in Afghanistan and hunting down Osama Bin Laden. My understanding for Iraq was that Hussein was a theat to not only our nation, but the rest of the world as well. The actions he took against his own people and country were only second to another dictator that was overthrown so many years ago. Action was taken against a man who had the power and desire to strike at America just like Al Queda did. He needed to be put down before something like 9/11 happend again. Bush was the man for the job, and he's the man to finish the job. The only connection there is that he was capable and more than willing to attack us on our home soil. After 9/11 the major focus in the US become Homeland Security. However, I never felt that we as a nation were led to believe that Hussein was linked to Al Queda themsevles.

If you believe Richard Clarke (which I doubt you do), he claimed that Rummy and pals had their sights set on Iraq the day after 9/11. If you don't believe Richard Clarke, then okay. Plans for Iraq still did, however, begin very soon. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-20-bushwar-usat_x.htm)

Bush had stressed time and time again that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda.

And yes, Saddam was a bad man. But we should have priorities. As bad as he was, the US military still exists for the safety of America. Iraq was not a threat. Even if he was, we still had bigger fish to fry. Osama bin Laden? North Korea? Well, screw that. Bush has already stated that he couldn't care any more about Osama. And North Korea? Psh! We're gonna negotioate with those guys! They actually DO pose a threat!

Take care of your own problems before attempting to be a global cop once more.

[DiSTuRbEd]

See what he did? Tricked his people, who rightly wanted revenge for 9/11, into believing Saddam was behind it.

It's sick.

He didn't do that, its called people read between the lines. They made their own assumptions, we cannot help the retards that cannot comprehend such simple things.

[CptStern]

What about Britian, Denmark, Australia, and the other countries who provided troops and supplies to the Iraq war effort? Should their leaders be impeached as well? Do you honestly think Bush single handedly invaded Iraq with no support or evidence what-so-ever? He recieved information from his advisors, intelligence communities, and allied nations. He inturpretation of that data showed reason to remove Hussein from power. How do you know Gore or Kerry wouldn't have done the exact same thing, based on the exact same intelligence?


bush knew saddam had no wmd ...why else draw up plans to invade iraq before 9/11 look up Project for the new American century: an organization whose members include: Rumsfeld, cheney. jeb bush, ari fleischer etc ...they have been pushing to invade iraq since the mid 90's ...blame the neo-cons they were the ones that "manufactured consent

[Steelwind]

Good point.

This is a year old but still important.
"a recent (Sept 2003) opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks"

See what he did? Tricked his people, who rightly wanted revenge for 9/11, into believing Saddam was behind it.

It's sick.

Fair enough, but where's the documentation, quotes, or actions that would lead people to believe this? We were told Osama was responsible, Osama himself took responsibility, yet 70% of America belives it was Hussein? I have a hard time believing that. I haven't personally seen or heard anything from the Bush administration that would lead me to think Hussein had his hand in 9/11. As I stated earlier, that's not why I feel we are over there.

[Absinthe]

Fair enough, but where's the documentation, quotes, or actions that would lead people to believe this? We were told Osama was responsible, Osama himself took responsibility, yet 70% of America belives it was Hussein? I have a hard time believing that. I haven't personally seen or heard anything from the Bush administration that would lead me to think Hussein had his hand in 9/11. As I stated earlier, that's not why I feel we are over there.

Here's another link.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-16-al-qaeda-comments-by-bush_x.htm

And another one that may interest you.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/10/21/bush_reality/

[Steelwind]

Take care of your own problems before attempting to be a global cop once more.

Who else is going to do it?

[burner69]

Again, thanks for the quotes. I'd like to see what dates those were taken. Looking for evidence doesn't mean we didn't find any, or that it become the sole reason we invaded Iraq. As well, just because Bush believed they had connections, doesn't mean it was the sole basis for the attack itself. If intelligence was gathered showing no link, there must have been something else that came to light that would garner support for Bush to go to war.

The quotes were about a year old. I admit they aren't the best, but similar one's can be found that are much more recent.

Agreed, Bush did not go into Iraq based soley on the idea that Saddam was a terrorist, or a friend of. But even if it was billed as a soley "WMD" war, the evidence, as shown, was not substantial. It was lacking to say the least. I appreciate there would have been grave concern from bush if he was told Iraq might have WMDs. But let's be honest, despite being reluctant at the start, he let UN inspecters in. And then when the war started and we could openly search everywhere, no trace was found.
This is war. One of the most serious things that can happen in our world. Going to war based around poor intelligence is stupid. Saddam also had no reason to attack any of us. Why would he? He knew we had far more resources than him, the last thing he'd want would be America invading.

But it must be remembered we were taken to war on the premise of terrorism and WMDs. We've come out the other side saying "Thank God that evil bastard has gone." We've not been let in on everthing here.

[Element Alpha]

Many of you seem to base your pro-bush argument on slagging off others for not believing what you do, laughing because we actually DON'T have much of a say...

I read most of what you said, but this part made me want to say:

What if americans had a different view than Bush? Would Bush listen? Isn't half your population against the war, and pro-abortion, also pro-homosexual wedding?(who are you to tell two people they can't vow to love each other forever anyway?) They have nothing to say either. Funny thing you call democracy. Protests were met with police violence and neglected, so don't mention those. The truth is, you are in the same camp as non-americans: the US governament doesn't listen to you either. But I don't blame you for not understanding. I blame you for not thinking for yourself and believing everything you hear without consideration or second thought.

"If your president tells a lie, there will always be people who'll believe him, sometimes they'll even be the majority. So why should he tell the truth when he can just lie?" (This is not a question, just something I felt like mentioning)

[Absinthe]

Who else is going to do it?

Be global cop? In the end, America probably will. But Bush still has a country to run and he has citizens to protect. I don't think isolationism is a good idea, but the US President is in charge of running the United States, and his priorities lie in the interest of the homeland.

Other countries do have to come second.

[Steelwind]

Here's another link.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-16-al-qaeda-comments-by-bush_x.htm

And another one that may interest you.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/10/21/bush_reality/

Again, thank you for the links. Perhaps they had documented proof that Iraq had links to Al Queda. Perhaps they didn't. I don't think we'll ever know. But that doesn't automatically mean we were lied to. Information and sources showing links could very well exist. I promise you that everything that goes on up in Washington is not presented to the American people, good or bad. I personally don't see enough supportive evidence that no documentation, sources, intelligence, etc were provdied. For all we know they may have a filing cabinet full of it.

bush knew saddam had no wmd ...why else draw up plans to invade iraq before 9/11 look up Project for the new American century: an organization whose members include: Rumsfeld, cheney. jeb bush, ari fleischer etc ...they have been pushing to invade iraq since the mid 90's ...blame the neo-cons they were the ones that "manufactured consent

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories. I think too many people let their imaginations be the foundation for their reasoning. I think this fits right up there with the 9/11 consipracy, Roswell, JFK, etc.

[Steelwind]

Be global cop? In the end, America probably will. But Bush still has a country to run and he has citizens to protect. I don't think isolationism is a good idea, but the US President is in charge of running the United States, and his priorities lie in the interest of the homeland.

Other countries do have to come second.

I agree, his interests do lie in the homeland. I think he's more than capable of handling both sitations at once. Just because he is running the country and protecting the citizens doesn't mean he can't take part in global issues as well. If anyone has the resources to do it, it is the United States. As well, I personally feel his hand in the Iraq issue IS an act towards protecting our citizens. It is possible to chew bubble gum and talk at the same time.

[AntiAnto]

Do you remember that Bush lied to you? Yes you, americans that you are.

[Steelwind]

Do you remember that Bush lied to you? Yes you, americans that you are.

If you don't have anything to add to this conversation, why are you posting here? And people wonder why they get called trollers or spammers.

[burner69]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

Check out the video as well.

And reading between the lines and "assuming" should not come into starting a bloody war. You need proof. And again, I ask, even if Saddam COULD have launced WMD, which there was little evidence to support, the fact remains he had no reason to do so. When you 'read between the lines' of what bush was up 2, you see that clearly he had other agendas in mind.

Minimum wage?
http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/minimum_wage02.shtml

[DiSTuRbEd]

If you don't have anything to add to this conversation, why are you posting here? And people wonder why they get called trollers or spammers.

So true, and speaking of lying, everyone does it at least once in their life. No human can go without lying at least once. So I don't see what the big deal is.

[Steelwind]

Minimum wage?
http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/minimum_wage02.shtml

Minimum wage hasn't changed in years, at least not in Texas. When it does change, it goes up. I'm not following.

After looking it over, I see what they are saying. It's not that minimum wage has decreased, but that costs have risen and minimum wage isn't keeping up. It's been like that since the inception of minimum wage though, I don't see how you could link this to Bush and his administration. Besides, his plan to further educate works so they can find better jobs or start buisness they create jobs, will help deter this problem related to minimum wage.

[DiSTuRbEd]

Minimum wage hasn't changed in years, at least not in Texas. When it does change, it goes up. I'm not following.

Does the same thing here in North Carolina.

[Steelwind]

So true, and speaking of lying, everyone does it at least once in their life. No human can go without lying at least once. So I don't see what the big deal is.

I think the big deal is that he is the leader of the most powerful country in the world. He is held to higher standards than anyone else. Whether that is fair or not remains to be determined, but he does have expectations placed upon him that no one else does. A white lie from you or me doesn't effect millions of people.

[Absinthe]

I agree, his interests do lie in the homeland. I think he's more than capable of handling both sitations at once. Just because he is running the country and protecting the citizens doesn't mean he can't take part in global issues as well. If anyone has the resources to do it, it is the United States. As well, I personally feel his hand in the Iraq issue IS an act towards protecting our citizens. It is possible to chew bubble gum and talk at the same time.

He's not just running the country, protecting its citizens, and engaging in global issues. He's doing all that after America just had an economic breakdown and our security was threatened. Before that, we were relatively freed up when it came to the globe. After 9/11, priorities need to change. It's hard enough to maintain your current position in the world, but then Bush goes ahead and decides to invade a country.

Now, if the invasion of this country is directly beneficial to the United States, then okay. I supported the war in Afghanistan because the Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda terrorists. Since it was those people that attacked us, I believed that we'd be safer due to that war.
Iraq is a different issue. Maybe it was with the US in mind. Maybe it wasn't. The fact is that the intelligence shoddy, no WMD's have been found, no links to Al Qaeda have been found, Iraq has turned into a congregation center for insurgents and terrorists, and anti-American sentiments have risen (possibly putting us in even more danger). Furthermore, due to a series of chain reactions stemming from Iraq, we have a problem with North Korea.
An act towards ensuring the well-being of the USA, IMO, would have been a consistent attack against Al Qaeda, or an increased effort at bettering the economy. Deposing a dictator could have waited.

[DiSTuRbEd]

Kerry would've lied too, so I don't see why everyone is jumping down Bush's throat.

[Absinthe]

So true, and speaking of lying, everyone does it at least once in their life. No human can go without lying at least once. So I don't see what the big deal is.

A) Lying to your girlfriend about having sex with her friend.

B) Lying to your parents about going out and drinking alcohol.

C) Lying to your teacher about not doing your homework.

D) Lying to your country about going to a war that has resulted in 14,000 Iraqi deaths and 1,000 US troop deaths.

Please pick the worst one. If the answer isn't obvious, then I can't help you.

[Steelwind]

He's not just running the country, protecting its citizens, and engaging in global issues. He's doing all that after America just had an economic breakdown and our security was threatened. Before that, we were relatively freed up when it came to the globe. After 9/11, priorities need to change. It's hard enough to maintain your current position in the world, but then Bush goes ahead and decides to invade a country.

Now, if the invasion of this country is directly beneficial to the United States, then okay. I supported the war in Afghanistan because the Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda terrorists. Since it was those people that attacked us, I believed that we'd be safer due to that war.
Iraq is a different issue. Maybe it was with the US in mind. Maybe it wasn't. The fact is that the intelligence shoddy, no WMD's have been found, no links to Al Qaeda have been found, Iraq has turned into a congregation center for insurgents and terrorists, and anti-American sentiments have risen (possibly putting us in even more danger). Furthermore, due to a series of chain reactions stemming from Iraq, we have a problem with North Korea.
An act towards ensuring the well-being of the USA, IMO, would have been a consistent attack against Al Qaeda, or an increased effort at bettering the economy. Deposing a dictator could have waited.

Apparently from the links you supplied earlier about voter motivation, the Iraq ordeal isn't a main concern for them. They voted for Bush based on numerous other issues that are directly related to the issues at home. Whatever the reason Bush had for going over to Iraq, good or bad, America obviously doesn't find it to be that important of an issue. Otherwise more Americans would have voted against Bush, to allow Kerry to withdrawl from other countries and continue to focus on homeland issues. So again I ask, if Bush lied to his country to allow us to go to war and everyone is so upset about it, why didn't more people vote against him? It is either because he didn't lie, people didn't feel he lied, or the issue isn't important enough to warrent a vote based on that one issue alone.

[Absinthe]

Apparently from the links you supplied earlier about voter motivation, the Iraq ordeal isn't a main concern for them. They voted for Bush based on numerous other issues that are directly related to the issues at home. Whatever the reason Bush had for going over to Iraq, good or bad, America obviously doesn't find it to be that important of an issue. Otherwise more Americans would have voted against Bush, to allow Kerry to withdrawl from other countries and continue to focus on homeland issues. So again I ask, if Bush lied to his country to allow us to go to war and everyone is so upset about it, why didn't more people vote against him? It is either because he didn't lie, people didn't feel he lied, or the issue isn't important enough to warrent a vote based on that one issue alone.

I wasn't criticizing the US voters. I was criticizing the government.

But it is your last sentence that strikes me as very true. And that's what scares me. I remember reading a poll once, where the majority of Americans thought that the government had lied about something or was witholding a good deal of information regarding Iraq. I would like to supply a link to it, but I simply can't remember where I saw it.
I'm convinced that the Bush administration lied or skewed the information they gave to the American people.

If people don't feel they've been lied to, then I think they've done a good job of being duped, as seen in the article I supplied earlier.
If people think that crap like gay marriage is more important than an unnecessary war that has killed thousands, then the American people have priority issues.

These are just my views.

Maybe this will continue tomorrow. I'm tired. Oh yeah, and I want to thank you, Steelwind. You're actually quite fun to argue with. :)

[Steelwind]

I agree with you. If people really were voting mainly on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc and ignoring the immense conflict at hand then they need to reconsider voting in the first place. The problem is all of these issues are lumped together, the way the bipartisian government works. People aren't always for or against every single issue their party is aligned with. I know I myself am not, and many others I know. However, they look at all the issues as a whole and don't prioritize them. So if they agree with more issues on the left than the right, they'll vote left. That's how the system is setup, and that's how it will continue to work. It's unfortunate that some higher priority issues get lost in the flood of smaller ones. But in my opinion that doesn't make Bush the bad guy.

[burner69]

Kerry would've lied too, so I don't see why everyone is jumping down Bush's throat.

Erm... because he lied?
Stop bringing things down to personal levels, this is politics, not soap operas.
"Everyone lies" is not an excuse for Bush to lie to his people to get them to support a war I'm sure he knew was unfounded.

This attitude frightens me. Clinton lost incredible popularity over lying about a BJ. Bush lies about matters that drags you into a war and you're quite happy to go with it.

[Steelwind]

Maybe this will continue tomorrow. I'm tired. Oh yeah, and I want to thank you, Steelwind. You're actually quite fun to argue with. :)

Haha. Your welcome. No arguing intended, just a good old discussion on politics. I think too many people get wrapped up in being "right" or "winning". That's not what it is about. It's about seeing things from a different light, getting another point of view, and possibly learning something along the way. Just because you're having a discussion on something doesn't mean you have to abandon your views or accept defeat. That's not the point.

Sleep well, and I look forward to discussing some more later on.

[burner69]

I agree with you. If people really were voting mainly on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc and ignoring the immense conflict at hand then they need to reconsider voting in the first place. The problem is all of these issues are lumped together, the way the bipartisian government works. People aren't always for or against every single issue their party is aligned with. I know I myself am not, and many others I know. However, they look at all the issues as a whole and don't prioritize them. So if they agree with more issues on the left than the right, they'll vote left. That's how the system is setup, and that's how it will continue to work. It's unfortunate that some higher priority issues get lost in the flood of smaller ones. But in my opinion that doesn't make Bush the bad guy.

The system is flawed, and I don't have answers for it. It's very refreshing that you can argue a case for your side, you seem one of the only ones in this forum capable of doing it .

The reason Bush is bad is because of what he has done, not how he was voted in.
He is bad because he is bad at running his country. He is bad because he lies to take you into war. He is dam near evil for starting a war he knew didn't have a solid foundation - now it is revealed his pretenses were wrong, people still support him. I don't get it.

[KidRock]

To many ungrateful people in this world..tsk tsk.

[Steelwind]

He is bad because he is bad at running his country. He is bad because he lies to take you into war. He is dam near evil for starting a war he knew didn't have a solid foundation - now it is revealed his pretenses were wrong, people still support him. I don't get it.

You say he's bad at running the country, but we're not that much worse off than before. Sure we've got a much larger deficit now, but we would have had that reguardless who was president. The American people demanded action after 9/11, had Gore been president he would have received the same information and been under the same public pressures. We would still have the deficit we had now.

Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't. We don't have all the facts and we never will. But again, apparently the issue wasn't of great concern for the majority of the American people. Obviously not enough proof has been given to the people that Bush did infact lie. Otherwise I think we would have seen Bush been kicked out of office or not re-elected. Clinton blatently lied in court and to the American people, directly to their face. We've shown nothing that Bush has done the same. Perhaps he was misinformed, but nothing has shown out right lies.

[seinfeldrules]

Perhaps he was misinformed, but nothing has shown out right lies.

Exactly.

[Ennui]

Does the same thing here in North Carolina.
Where in NC?

[burner69]

You say he's bad at running the country, but we're not that much worse off than before. Sure we've got a much larger deficit now, but we would have had that reguardless who was president. The American people demanded action after 9/11, had Gore been president he would have received the same information and been under the same public pressures. We would still have the deficit we had now.

Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't. We don't have all the facts and we never will. But again, apparently the issue wasn't of great concern for the majority of the American people. Obviously not enough proof has been given to the people that Bush did infact lie. Otherwise I think we would have seen Bush been kicked out of office or not re-elected. Clinton blatently lied in court and to the American people, directly to their face. We've shown nothing that Bush has done the same. Perhaps he was misinformed, but nothing has shown out right lies.

Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Would Gore have invaded Afgan?
It is possible to capture terrorists operating in a country without declaring war on them.

And true enough, we will never know if he lied to us. But we do know he made some very serious mistakes that undoubtably cost lives and affected people's judgment towards the US.

Politicians are slippery animals, Clinton never had "sexual relations". I think that includes BJs, he says he didnt. But let's be honest, the people should not give a shit whether he's getting his wicked end away, they should worry whether or not their troops are possibily being killed unesesarily. And if through the war they've been taken into, the world has been made more dangerous.

[seinfeldrules]

Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Would Gore have invaded Afgan?

1. Unknown
2. Yes

[burner69]

To many ungrateful people in this world..tsk tsk.

What do we have to be grateful for?
You seem to miss the point of our argument time and time again. You're making a mockery out of the pro-bush people here without realising it.

Come back when you have something of relevence to say.

[Steelwind]

Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Would Gore have invaded Afgan?
It is possible to capture terrorists operating in a country without declaring war on them.

I'm curious as to how you'd go about it? If we didn't invade Afgan to capture Al Queda and their leadership, how would we have?

But we do know he made some very serious mistakes that undoubtably cost lives and affected people's judgment towards the US.

Those "mistakes" are subjective.

[burner69]

1. Unknown
2. Yes

If Gore didn't invade Iraq, that would, IMO, make him better at handling the situation.
Do you not think there are other ways to get at terrorists within a country without the aid of airstrikes? Remember Al Queda is a small group. declaring war on the entire country was a little rash.

[burner69]

I'm curious as to how you'd go about it? If we didn't invade Afgan to capture Al Queda and their leadership, how would we have?
Those "mistakes" are subjective.

Through intelligence. Finding out where they were hiding. Targetting those specific areas with black-ops, SAS, whatever.

When it comes to war subjectivity should not come into it, at least not in the scale it has with Iraq. And the fact that he thought there were WMDs, or said he thought there were, and there weren't - IS a mistake. The fact is he told his people Saddam had links to Al Queda, that was wrong, that was a mistake.

[burner69]

Through intelligence. Finding out where they were hiding. Targetting those specific areas with black-ops, SAS, whatever.

Btw I don't think that is the only way, or even the best way at all. It was just another possibility. I just thought the "charge right in" approach was just done to show the american people revenge was being taken, regardless of risk towards innocent afgans.

It worked, because, I'm sad to say, I spoke with people who were quite happy that Afgans were being killed "They deserve it." I was told :angry:

[merc]

ya everyone on here just hates bush because tey are damn liberal ******s... clueless liberals i tell ya, u just cant do much about them other than laugh

-merc

[KidRock]

ya everyone on here just hates bush because tey are damn liberal ******s... clueless liberals i tell ya, u just cant do much about them other than laugh

-merc


I agree... they are just angry :E

[burner69]

ya everyone on here just hates bush because tey are damn liberal ******s... clueless liberals i tell ya, u just cant do much about them other than laugh

-merc

I don't hate bush because of that. I hate him because of the evidence I've seen.
Clueless? I've been showing people news articles, facts, figures, even videos of Bush admitting to his mistakes. People who come on here and make generalisations that suit are the only one's being clueless, pro-bush or not.
And kidrock, you're ability to add nothing to a debate astounds me. Stop just agreeing with people and make a point for yourself.

EDIT: Oh, and am I a liberal ****** for disliking the killing of innocent people?

[Johan_Tayn]

God Bless Our President!
God Bless Our Country!

..as he ever has.

[Johan_Tayn]

something negitive
give liberals a better face by allowing happy people to be happy instead of complaining that people who disagree with you are morons. please.

[burner69]

God Bless Our President!
God Bless Our Country!

..as he ever has.

Church and state should be seperate. God bless nothing. Your country has many people who don't believe in God. And now, with same sex marriage being banned because of outdated religious views, it seems many homosexuals will also dislike your dollar bills "In God we trust" is it?

[burner69]

give liberals a better face by allowing happy people to be happy instead of complaining that people who disagree with you are morons. please.

Kindly quote me ever saying people who disagree with me are morons, or indeed anything of the sort.

And I apologise, when it comes to people (not all of you at all, just some) laughing off the war and other importany issues I find it hard to come back with a smile.

[CptStern]

'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'


- in reference to the nazi regime ...but holds true today

[burner69]

On a serious note I apologise to anyone who took offense to my "God bless nothing" quote. I was making a point that linking church with state can be damaging - and making posts like "God bless America" in the middle of a debate does not help issues.

[burner69]

'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'


- in reference to the nazi regime ...but holds true today

Thank you!
Btw I'm not a liberal, it just seems that some of my views are liberal.
I'm me.
I hate politicians, and don't like to lump myself into their categories.

Don't lump me into any group, it might offend them what with me being so grumpy :hmph:

[CptStern]

I dont go by labels. the quote is fitting because of the same sex issue

[cronholio]

I dont go by labels. the quote is fitting because of the same sex issue


Please don't be ignorant. They are not talking about rounding up same sex couples into concentration camps here. The thing you fail to understand is that many people in the US are deeply rooted in one religion or another, most of which do not condone same sex partnerships and hold marriage as a sacrament. They view the government allowing same sex marriage as a direct attack on their religion(s) and an institution they hold sacred. It's the flip side of the separation of church and state issue. Both sides have an honest gripe with the government legislating morality whichever way the issue goes. Recently, radical liberals have completely twisted seperation of church and state into their own little agenda to erradicate all forms of religion from public life, but the fact is that the ammendment was created in order to protect people who practice any religion from government interference, not to protect people from religion. There are moderate liberals who obviously understand they are treading on the first ammendment with this which is why you see them referring to these marriages as "civil unions".

People who are against same sex marriages aren't necessarily homophobic and deffinitely should not be lumped in with racist and genocidal regimes like the Nazi's. Many of them are good people who want to protect wht they preceive are their rights in the same way that homosexuals feel they are fighting for their rights.

[burner69]

People who are against same sex marriages aren't necessarily homophobic and deffinitely should not be lumped in with racist and genocidal regimes like the Nazi's. Many of them are good people who want to protect wht they preceive are their rights in the same way that homosexuals feel they are fighting for their rights.

Nazis were racist, dosen't mean that all racists are Nazis. I don't think that people against same sex marriage are Nazis at all.
I just disagree with preventing same sex marriage when it has no REAL effect on people, other than the homosexuals.

Good point though.

[cronholio]

Nazis were racist, dosen't mean that all racists are Nazis. I don't think that people against same sex marriage are Nazis at all.
I just disagree with preventing same sex marriage when it has no REAL effect on people, other than the homosexuals.

Good point though.

Well, no worries, my response wasn't directed at you. It was in response to that original quote from Pastor Niemöller which was in regard to Nazis. Earlier today on Canadian talk radio they were associating this issue with segregation. The thing is I'm a married Catholic, and while I really don't have much of a problem with the governement performing civil unions for same sex couples, I fully understand why people like my father (an old school Irish Catholic) do, and I don't think they're wrong or bad people for it. My dad's a great man, better than me, and I'm sure better than anyone on this board, very thoughtful, and when I see people write stuff like this it aggravates me a bit because they are talking about people like him.

[CptStern]

Please don't be ignorant. They are not talking about rounding up same sex couples into concentration camps here. The thing you fail to understand is that many people in the US are deeply rooted in one religion or another, most of which do not condone same sex partnerships and hold marriage as a sacrament. They view the government allowing same sex marriage as a direct attack on their religion(s) and an institution they hold sacred. It's the flip side of the separation of church and state issue. Both sides have an honest gripe with the government legislating morality whichever way the issue goes. Recently, radical liberals have completely twisted seperation of church and state into their own little agenda to erradicate all forms of religion from public life, but the fact is that the ammendment was created in order to protect people who practice any religion from government interference, not to protect people from religion. There are moderate liberals who obviously understand they are treading on the first ammendment with this which is why you see them referring to these marriages as "civil unions".

People who are against same sex marriages aren't necessarily homophobic and deffinitely should not be lumped in with racist and genocidal regimes like the Nazi's. Many of them are good people who want to protect wht they preceive are their rights in the same way that homosexuals feel they are fighting for their rights.


stop taking it so literally.. my intent has nothing to do with the nazi regime and concentration camps. The meaning is clear if you think a little outside the box: it's about being singled out because you are different, it's about not making a stand when a certain segment of societies rights are trampled on

[burner69]

Could some one please tell me why homosexuals don't have the same rights as others? Please!

[cronholio]

it's about being singled out because you are different, it's about not making a stand when a certain segment of societies rights are trampled on


And if you though outside the box you'd see that a very large segment of the population feels they've been singled out and their rights trampled on by PC do-gooders and the radical left, so they've spoken up in this election.

[CptStern]

And if you though outside the box you'd see that a very large segment of the population feels they've been singled out and their rights trampled on by PC do-gooders and the radical left, so they've spoken up in this election.

how are their rights being trampled? because gay people want marriages? how is that trampling on your rights? ...dont give me marriage is a religious institution because I'm married and it wasnt in front of the eyes of god

[burner69]

And if you though outside the box you'd see that a very large segment of the population feels they've been singled out and their rights trampled on by PC do-gooders and the radical left, so they've spoken up in this election.

What right? The right not to see homosexuals get married?
And why use the term 'do-gooder' as an insult. Would you prefer "evil-doers"?

[Javert]

shoot me...
Oho, don't worry, I'm here, and I'm reading...

Bush won fair and square. But with the House and Senate on his side, he'll have the blank check again to do as he pleases. Once again, in the name of tax relief he will burden our deficits. In the name of security he will invade other nations, alone. And in the name of society, he will curb our human rights to choose and be who we are as individuals.
If he truly wishes to bridge the gap that has now divided America, he must cross his own party ideology and acknowledge the patriotism and ideologies of other Americans. He must be the President of the United States of America, not United States of evangelists and warhawks.

Could some one please tell me why homosexuals don't have the same rights as others? Please!
Because according to them, the Bible doesn't say so. The Bible chastises them, so they must therefore be chastised.

[cronholio]

Could some one please tell me why homosexuals don't have the same rights as others? Please!

That's the thing, homosexuals do have all the same rights as everyone else and then some. This issue isn't about homosexuals at all for many of the people who oppose it. It's about the governement legislating morality and the separation of church and state. Many of them fear that once same sex civil unions are allowed their respective churches and religions will then come under attack, and it has infact already begun. We have gay and lesbian activists showing up at Sunday service in silent protest wearing rainbow sashes at many Catholic churches.

[burner69]

That's the thing, homosexuals do have all the same rights as everyone else and then some. This issue isn't about homosexuals at all for many of the people who oppose it. It's about the governement legislating morality and the separation of church and state. Many of them fear that once same sex civil unions are allowed their respective churches and religions will then come under attack, and it has infact already begun. We have gay and lesbian activists showing up at Sunday service in silent protest wearing rainbow sashes at many Catholic churches.

So if you protest on an issue you should be banned from marriage? Is that it?
I think there are better ways to oppose the seperation of Church and State than by dropping all the shit right on top of homosexuals.
Don't let your country fall back into the 60s

[CptStern]

That's the thing, homosexuals do have all the same rights as everyone else and then some. This issue isn't about homosexuals at all for many of the people who oppose it. It's about the governement legislating morality and the separation of church and state. Many of them fear that once same sex civil unions are allowed their respective churches and religions will then come under attack, and it has infact already begun.

so now they dont even want civil unions? ..why dont we just outlaw them from society like lepers or better still round them up and send them to san francisco :upstare:


We have gay and lesbian activists showing up at Sunday service in silent protest wearing rainbow sashes at many Catholic churches.

OMG lets burn them at the stake!!!! why do you care what someone else does? ...do you allow unmarried coupled into the church? what about adulters? ...can carl the car saleman go to sunday service with his family even though he's had some nookie on the side on his last business trip?

[MadHatter]

I think gay marriage should be legalized. I don't see why not.

[Neutrino]

That's the thing, homosexuals do have all the same rights as everyone else and then some. This issue isn't about homosexuals at all for many of the people who oppose it. It's about the governement legislating morality and the separation of church and state. Many of them fear that once same sex civil unions are allowed their respective churches and religions will then come under attack, and it has infact already begun. We have gay and lesbian activists showing up at Sunday service in silent protest wearing rainbow sashes at many Catholic churches.

Yes, the government is suppose to legistale seperation of church and state. Do you have a problem with that? Because that's what the constitution said. Also, people's rights in general benefit directly from this seperation. If you care about your own religious freedom you should care equally about the seperation of church and state.

Your under attack from people wearing bright clothing to church? Oh noes! What is this world coming to?

[Death.Trap]

That's the thing, homosexuals do have all the same rights as everyone else and then some. This issue isn't about homosexuals at all for many of the people who oppose it. It's about the governement legislating morality and the separation of church and state. Many of them fear that once same sex civil unions are allowed their respective churches and religions will then come under attack, and it has infact already begun. We have gay and lesbian activists showing up at Sunday service in silent protest wearing rainbow sashes at many Catholic churches.


Are you serious? Wow. A church isn't a town hall(At least, a Catholic church isn't). You don't stand around inside a church protesting against one of the fundamental beliefs of the church. You will never change anyones mind that way. And if Gays really think that the Church is going to turn around and support gay marriage because of protest, they have no idea what they are getting into.

The church's teachings are based on those of Christ and no HUMAN can modify those teachings. The Pope can add to them, and he only does that when he declares a Dogma. Which for those of you who don't know.

dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.

[Neutrino]

The church's teachings are based on those of Christ and no HUMAN can modify those teachings.

Um...they've been modified by humans all throughout history.

Also people seem to have no problem interpreting those teaching in a million different ways.

[Death.Trap]

so now they dont even want civil unions? ..why dont we just outlaw them from society like lepers or better still round them up and send them to san francisco :upstare:




OMG lets burn them at the stake!!!! why do you care what someone else does? ...do you allow unmarried coupled into the church? what about adulters? ...can carl the car saleman go to sunday service with his family even though he's had some nookie on the side on his last business trip?


Sure, anyone can go to Mass. But it's not the place to hold a protest, even a silent one.

[cronholio]

so now they dont even want civil unions ..why dont we just outlaw them from society like lepers or better still round them up and send them to san francisco




OMG lets burn them at the stake!!!! why do you care what someone else does? ...do you allow unmarried coupled into the church? what about adulters? ...can carl the car saleman go to sunday service with his family even though he's had some nookie on the side on his last business trip?


See you're just being completely ridiculous now. You weren't married in a church and obviously don't hold it in the same regard as many of these other people do. That's fine. Many people out there, unfortunately for some, believe that marriage is a covenant before their God, and they don't want the government telling them they have to embrace something that goes against everything they hold sacred and in their view marginalizes what they consider to be a sacrament, a special gift from God.

As for your remarks about Church... Yeah Sunday mass is full of self righteous people and sinners of all sorts. The difference is Carl the Carl Salesman doesn't bring it into the church. He doesn't wear it on his sleeve and he doesn't use Mass as a place to stage a political protest. I think the issue is worthy of debate and protest on both sides, but in Church during Sunday mass isn't the place for it.

Like I said earlier anyway, it's a non-issue for me, I vote very selfishly. I only jumped into this because I can see both sides of it pretty clearly.

[CptStern]

didnt rosa parks sit in the white section of the bus in silent protest?

[burner69]

Are you serious? Wow. A church isn't a town hall(At least, a Catholic church isn't). You don't stand around inside a church protesting against one of the fundamental beliefs of the church. You will never change anyones mind that way. And if Gays really think that the Church is going to turn around and support gay marriage because of protest, they have no idea what they are getting into.

The church's teachings are based on those of Christ and no HUMAN can modify those teachings. The Pope can add to them, and he only does that when he declares a Dogma. Which for those of you who don't know.

Hey I agree. It's so sick that they dare wear rainbow t-shirts in church.
Gays can be Christians too y'know. Love thy neighbour and all that, let them marry.

Yeah, Christianity is such a popular religion because it can be interpreted to suit the situation. Have you ever worked on Sunday? If you have you should never show your face in church again!

[Death.Trap]

Um...they've been modified by humans all throughout history.

Also people seem to have no problem interpreting those teaching in a million different ways.


Exactly. People take what they want and leave the rest. That's one of the main problems with protestant religions. You can go to different methodist(just an example) churches across the US and each preacher will interpret scripture the way he thinks it should be interpreted. If you go to catholic church's-ones that don't have corrupt preist-accross the US you will find that each priest uses the standard Catholic interpretation of scripture.

[burner69]

Sure, anyone can go to Mass. But it's not the place to hold a protest, even a silent one.

Well considering they want to get married, and that's what they seem to be protesting about - think of somewhere else.

The bus maybe! Yes, they could wear colourful tops on the bus, that'd make people sit up and listen.

[Neutrino]

Exactly. People take what they want and leave the rest. That's one of the main problems with protestant religions. You can go to different methodist(just an example) churches across the US and each preacher will interpret scripture the way he thinks it should be interpreted. If you go to catholic church's-ones that don't have corrupt preist-accross the US you will find that each priest uses the standard Catholic interpretation of scripture.

True. So how do you know your interpretation is the right one?


they have to embrace something that goes against everything they hold sacred and in their view marginalizes what they consider to be a sacrament, a special gift from God.

Which I find kind of funny because nobody is trying to do that. Gay marriage doesn't even affect them.

[Death.Trap]

Hey I agree. It's so sick that they dare wear rainbow t-shirts in church.
Gays can be Christians too y'know. Love thy neighbour and all that, let them marry.

Yeah, Christianity is such a popular religion because it can be interpreted to suit the situation. Have you ever worked on Sunday? If you have you should never show your face in church again!

Working on sabath is perfectly acceptable. You are prohibited from doing unnessecary work on sabath. I don't know about you but I would say that working so you can pay the bills is definitely nessecary. Read my above post for the problem with people interpreting scripture to fit their own needs.

[MadHatter]

Are you serious? Wow. A church isn't a town hall(At least, a Catholic church isn't). You don't stand around inside a church protesting against one of the fundamental beliefs of the church. You will never change anyones mind that way. And if Gays really think that the Church is going to turn around and support gay marriage because of protest, they have no idea what they are getting into.

The church's teachings are based on those of Christ and no HUMAN can modify those teachings. The Pope can add to them, and he only does that when he declares a Dogma. Which for those of you who don't know.


You know what I find ironic about this post? I sometimes see or hear schtuff like this proclaiming that the church, or any religious text or ideology, cannot be false or modified because only mankind can be false and the church is always true. The church's teaching are based on those of Christ and no human can modify them... Hmmmm. Well, has it ever occured to you that religion and the church are inventions of mankind?

[Death.Trap]

True. So how do you know your interpretation is the right one?


Have you ever read up on the history of the Catholic church? Just curious.

Well considering that the Catholic church was begun by the son of God I would have to say that I'm pretty confident that the church's-not my-interpretation is correct.

[burner69]

Working on sabath is perfectly acceptable. You are prohibited from doing unnessecary work on sabath. I don't know about you but I would say that working so you can pay the bills is definitely nessecary. Read my above post for the problem with people interpreting scripture to fit their own needs.

I'm an athiest, so I admit my viewpoint in this situation is not necesarily as important as urs, but didn't God say: "Six days thou shall work, but on the seventh day thou shall rest"
He said that, right? So I hope everyone who opposes gay marriage works Mon-Sat.
The bible is interpreted differently to suit society - that's why Christianity is great. Don't assume it will never, and should never change again.

I would not like to be a homosexual in America now, seeing as I can now never marry. It dosen't make sense. It's outdated to say it does.

[Neutrino]

Have you ever read up on the history of the Catholic church? Just curious.

Some. I should probably read up on it more if I have the time.

Well considering that the Catholic church was begun by the son of God I would have to say that I'm pretty confident that the church's-not my-interpretation is correct.

It's still all based on human interpretation. You say the "church's" interpretation, but that is just avoiding the issue. That church is made up of humans. They are the ones interpreting things.

For example, I've researched what the Bible says about gay marriage. If you look at the english translations it does appear to condemn homosexual acts between men. However, if you look at the original Hebrew it is not nearly so clear. In fact, some Bibles have completly misinterpreted some passages in order to make their case against gays stronger.

[MadHatter]

I'm an athiest, so I admit my viewpoint in this situation is not necesarily as important as urs, but didn't God say: "Six days thou shall work, but on the seventh day thou shall rest"
He said that, right? So I hope everyone who opposes gay marriage works Mon-Sat.
The bible is interpreted differently to suit society - that's why Christianity is great. Don't assume it will never, and should never change again.

I would not like to be a homosexual in America now, seeing as I can now never marry. It dosen't make sense. It's outdated to say it does.

Concurs. The dilemma with religion and modern society is that religion is not evolving or new religions simply need to be formed.

Bah, you're an atheist. I don't like atheism, too arrogant for me. But, whatever plucks your chicken, I suppose. :cheers:

[Death.Trap]

I'm an athiest, so I admit my viewpoint in this situation is not necesarily as important as urs, but didn't God say: "Six days thou shall work, but on the seventh day thou shall rest"
He said that, right? So I hope everyone who opposes gay marriage works Mon-Sat.
The bible is interpreted differently to suit society - that's why Christianity is great. Don't assume it will never, and should never change again.

I would not like to be a homosexual in America now, seeing as I can now never marry. It dosen't make sense. It's outdated to say it does.

Yes he basically said that. But like I said, the Church, mainly the Pope intepret the word of God. In modern society how long do you think you would be able to hold a job if you stayed home every sunday? And yes, it's open to change. I'm not an expert in Catholic theology, I'm just sharing the small amount of info that I know of.



Also I wan't to thank you guys for not flaming me about my beliefs, tiz ggz
:cheers:

[Neutrino]

Bah, you're an atheist. I don't like atheism, too arrogant for me. But, whatever plucks your chicken, I suppose. :cheers:

Just curious, do you consider religion to be less arrogant than atheism?

[Death.Trap]

Some. I should probably read up on it more if I have the time.



It's still all based on human interpretation. You say the "church's" interpretation, but that is just avoiding the issue. That church is made up of humans. They are the ones interpreting things.

For example, I've researched what the Bible says about gay marriage. If you look at the english translations it does appear to condemn homosexual acts between men. However, if you look at the original Hebrew it is not nearly so clear. In fact, some Bibles have completly misinterpreted some passages in order to make their case against gays stronger.


The Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit when he makes official intepretations of scripture. Otherwise, like you said, it would be prone to human error.

[oldagerocker]

yeah american SOLDIERs..who are FIGHTING in iraq..not innocent people in the states going about there daily buisness. What do you expect during a war? Let me spell it out for you sterny boy.. no terrorist attack has happened in the states since the war.

Also those soldiers know the risk they take going to iraq.. a janitor going to work in a skyscraper shouldnt be taking the risk of getting killed in a terrorist act.

you forgot that aisde from 9/11... which could have been prevented by the Bush admistration anyway... there were no terror attacks on US Soil before or after.
The Wars have only made terrorists more persistant in attacking american soil, because of the wars, innocent iraqi's killed, arrested and generally put down by the US troops occupying their country.

Name 3 things Bush has done and 3 he will do for the American people that means he's worth your vote. :rolleyes:

[MadHatter]

Also I wan't to thank you guys for not flaming me about my beliefs, tiz ggz
:cheers:

Oh no, you don't have to worry about being flamed here. The flame-tards all in the Half-Life 2 general discussion forums still arguing about Halo 2 vs. Half-Life 2. I guess these forums are too intimidating for them.

[Neutrino]

The Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit when he makes official intepretations of scripture. Otherwise, like you said, it would be prone to human error.

How do you know that? Would you believe me if I said I was guided by the holy spirit?

[Death.Trap]

How do you know that? Would you believe me if I said I was guided by the holy spirit?


Because it's one of the Dogmas of the Catholic Church. As for your second question, probably not considering that you support gay marriage/sex. But other than that, who knows, you might be. You would probably have to be examined and observed by a bishop or cardinal, maybe the pope himself.

[MadHatter]

Just curious, do you consider religion to be less arrogant than atheism?

Just as arrogant. I tend to poke my stick at atheists who proclaim other religions to be arrogant as if they've been given some omniscient knowledge about life though. It's like a pet peeve of mine because being an atheist has all the sudden become an 'in thing' for some social groups and areas and I think it's just as silly. I don't like haughty atheists, is what I'm saying. I'm also not saying religious people can't be haugty and arrogant, I just don't.... 'get' the appeal of atheism. I think agnosticism is a much better choice. But hey, like I always, whatever milks your cow.

[burner69]

Also I wan't to thank you guys for not flaming me about my beliefs, tiz ggz
:cheers:

No worries. :cheers:

But don't you think that gays are being "flamed" at the moment, because of their sexual preferences?
And if the pope said that homosexuals should be able to get married - which I'll be honest I can see happening one day soon, would you accept it?

[MadHatter]

While an atheist can easily say, "You have no proof that God exists", I could just as easily say, "You have no proof that God doesn't exist".

God is a very elusive word in terms of specific definitions. It can be so many things, beliefs, ideas, etc.

That's basically what I was trying to say, Neutrino. Atheism is some what of a religion itself and many atheists doesn't even realize it.

[Death.Trap]

No worries. :cheers:

But don't you think that gays are being "flamed" at the moment, because of their sexual preferences?
And if the pope said that homosexuals should be able to get married - which I'll be honest I can see happening one day soon, would you accept it?


I would have no choice. I havn't seen anyone actually attack gays yet, but I havn't read the whole thread. Gays are people too, as a matter of fact I have two gay cousins. Both are decent guys. Only one actually goes for guys though. The other one used to, but he doesn't anymore because he believes it's wrong.

[Death.Trap]

While an atheist can easily say, "You have no proof that God exists", I could just as easily say, "You have no proof that God doesn't exist".

God is a very elusive word in terms of specific definitions. It can be so many things, beliefs, ideas, etc.

That's basically what I was trying to say, Neutrino. Atheism is some what of a religion itself and many atheists doesn't even realize it.



Damn, I need to copy down some stuff out of a book I have for you to read...just a sec.

[Mr-Fusion]

What i don't understand is this. At the very core of Jesus' teachings is to treat others like you want to be treated. Would Jesus have ostricized a gay person? He treated prostitutes, blind men and cripples like everyone else....yet a gay person he would discard and spread word that gays are to be kept out of society.

It's this hypocrisy and "pick and choose" attitude of religious people that confuses and annoys me.

[Neutrino]

Because it's one of the Dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Would you mind explaining that a bit to me? Sorry, I know I should be more familiar with it, but I can't keep up with the details of all the different religions. There's too many to learn about.

As for your second question, probably not considering that you support gay marriage/sex. But other than that, who knows, you might be. You would probably have to be examined and observed by a bishop or cardinal, maybe the pope himself.

Ok, so if I was observed/examined by a bishop, cardinal, or the Pope and they agreed that I was guided by the Holy Spirit then it would be true?

So who observed/examined them, etc, etc?

Heck, I even have the same name as the Pope. :p

[MadHatter]

Damn, I need to copy down some stuff out of a book I have for you to read...just a sec.


.... Why?

[burner69]

Just as arrogant. I tend to poke my stick at atheists who proclaim other religions to be arrogant as if they've been given some omniscient knowledge about life though. It's like a pet peeve of mine because being an atheist has all the sudden become an 'in thing' for some social groups and areas and I think it's just as silly. I don't like haughty atheists, is what I'm saying. I'm also not saying religious people can't be haugty and arrogant, I just don't.... 'get' the appeal of atheism. I think agnosticism is a much better choice. But hey, like I always, whatever milks your cow.

I don't think any religion is arrogant. I just don't believe in it. Religion does a lot of good, and, unfortuatly, quite a bit of bad on the Earth.
I'm an athiest because of my beliefs. I never believed in the idea that when I die I'll go to heaven, or hell. Don't mean to piss any one off, but I find the notion a little mythological, and it easy for those in power to get people to do what they want if they believe in that.
I was Christened, my parents married in a church, but since I can remember I've never believed in God. I'd feel like I was fooling myself and others if I said I did.
But I like to think I'm a nice guy - I carry with me the same set of morals that all major religions are founded on. :D

[MadHatter]

I don't think any religion is arrogant. I just don't believe in it. Religion does a lot of good, and, unfortuatly, quite a bit of bad on the Earth.
I'm an athiest because of my beliefs. I never believed in the idea that when I die I'll go to heaven, or hell. Don't mean to piss any one off, but I find the notion a little mythological, and it easy for those in power to get people to do what they want if they believe in that.
I was Christened, my parents married in a church, but since I can remember I've never believed in God. I'd feel like I was fooling myself and others if I said I did.
But I like to think I'm a nice guy - I carry with me the same set of morals that all major religions are founded on. :D


Wait, wait, I never meant I detest atheists or poke all of them. It's the ones that act arrogant about it.

[Neutrino]

While an atheist can easily say, "You have no proof that God exists", I could just as easily say, "You have no proof that God doesn't exist".

God is a very elusive word in terms of specific definitions. It can be so many things, beliefs, ideas, etc.

That's basically what I was trying to say, Neutrino. Atheism is some what of a religion itself and many atheists doesn't even realize it.

Technically, I can understand what you are saying. However, that argument can be used for numerous things. I can easily say, "you have no proof that a pink elephant behind the sun exists," and you can say "you have no proof that it doesn't exist."

So do you think that the belief that their is no pink elephant behind the sun is arrogant as well?

[Death.Trap]

Would you mind explaining that a bit to me? Sorry, I know I should be more familiar with it, but I can't keep up with the details of all the different religions. There's too many to learn about.


I'm gonna edit this in a couple of minutes once I find something for ya...

EDIT- This looks like a good explanation, if you need me to look up anything else just say so =)

http://www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/dogma.htm



Ok, so if I was observed/examined by a bishop, cardinal, or the Pope and they agreed that I was guided by the Holy Spirit then it would be true?

So who observed/examined them, etc, etc?

Heck, I even have the same name as the Pope. :p

If the Pope announced to the world that you were guided by the Holy Spirit I would believe it. Neutrino for pope!
:D

[Death.Trap]

.... Why?



I think I quoted the wrong guy.




EDIT-Neutrino if you wan't to learn the basic principles behind Christianity in general I suggest a book called Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. He was originally atheist, converted to Christianity.

He has a really good way of speaking and getting his point across. Does it in a really down to earth way. You should look into it =)

[MadHatter]

Technically, I can understand what you are saying. However, that argument can be used for numerous things. I can easily say, "you have no proof that a pink elephant behind the sun exists," and you can say "you have no proof that it doesn't exist."

So do you think that the belief that their is no pink elephant behind the sun is arrogant as well?

Yup, because we simply don't know, now do we? Same thing applies to religion and God. We simply don't know and to act or assume as if we know what or who God is or whether he even exists is arrogant to me. God could be a pink elephan