R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Speaking of Jefferson  (Read 15333 times)

lucey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1043
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #45 on: November 11, 2004, 10:39:20 am »

Brent wrote on Mon, 08 November 2004 14:38

It blows me away that the same people that claim to be enlightened have not bothered to read the first and only text book used in the very first schools here in the US.

I am a republican, I did vote for Bush, but only because of the stance on abortion.  Kerry talks out of his crack.  He says that he has morals, is a Catholic, believes that birth starts at conception, but murder is ok?

If any of you doubt that abortion is "a mother's choice" and not murder, I will be happy to get you into see one in person the next time that you are out in CA.  My brother is a doctor.  We treat animals with better care.  Also, ask yourself why that stupid bastard in CA is being charged for dumping his wife and unborn child into the lake?  Is it only a child and murder if someone else does it?

I am not a freako republican that is afraid of things.  That statement was most uneducated.  That talk is what makes the democrats look like morons, which they all are not.  I am for all of the government that was originally intended...protection from foriegn aggression, promotion of longevity/well being.  


I've read that book, and I disagree with your interpretation.

As far as murder ... Bush killed over 150 death row inmates in Texas, the most by a Governor ever in American history i believe.

And the War in Iraq is killing Innocent people all the time.

So how do you justify that to yourself?




I'll help you out ... ALL of Gods creation is a miracle, the birds, the bees, the Terrorists, the dead murderers and the babies:  sexually abused as kids, emotionally abused by drunk fathers, Munchhausen by Proxy mothers and starving kids in Africa and in Ohio.

All of Gods creation is a miracle and YET there is death.  There are all kinds of deaths that God brings on his own creation.   Hurricanes, Tornadoes, starvation, traffic accidents.  Any death man chooses is also Gods choice as he created everything and he forsaw the possibilities.  Divination is all knowing and ALL ACCEPTING.

Then there are the deaths of the trees to make money for Republicans.  The deforestation of 1/4 of the forests.  And the death of the flowers defined by MAN as weeds in Suburban gardens, and the death of Cows for a steak dinner and the death of lettuce and corn for my table.

So it seems that not only does God allow death, he insists on it.  And as we are created in Gods image we are put in the challenging position of having to choose as God chooses with each tornado ... which prisoners of horrible crimes die, and which ones live at our tax expense ... while we also choose which children live and which ones die.

So what does this mean?  That man is evil because he chooses death in some instances?

My interpretation of the Bible says that man is challenged by God to be moral, he is not asked to be a dogmatic zombie.

So when I kill to eat I say thanks.

And when a Government kills a prisoner it does so at great lengths and it never laughs at the levity of it.

And when I accompany a woman to an abortion clinic, knowing she will have a lifetime of hardship if she goes, or keeps the baby, or gives it away ... I know that this is one of the decisions that is MOST like Gods decision to bring the tornado, or the famine, or the flood. Suffering brings us closer to God, and big moral decisions do too.  This is Gods will, that we shold learn through challenges and suffering.

Making a decision about life and death is as close to God as we humans get, and as we are made in his image, it's certainly our place to do so.  Although you're right, it would be easier to not have to think about it and just choose easy things like black or grey socks, public or private school for junior.

Catholics and many Christians do not have the character to make this decision, or the understanding of God to see it as properly theirs to make and learn from.  At least Bush can make it in Texas with one human after another on death row, but he won't let women make it with their own eggs and fertilized eggs.  Hypocrisy.

God wants us to take on the big things, and to respect life at ALL levels.  You want to de-prioritize much of the life and elevate the sperm and egg beyond the rest of Nature.

This is human arrogance and moral cowardice ... not moral superiority.


Only if the decision for death is not respected and taken with the greatest care by the individual responsible is there an immoral act in play in the eyes of God.





One might argue that the choice to invade secular Iraq and remove it's dictator and invoke 10s of thousands of innocent deaths was not necessary in the war against Islamofascists.

Gov. Bush laughing at the plea for her life from that psycho woman in Texas is one of those immoral moments for SURE.


Logged
Brian Lucey
Magic Garden Mastering

"the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ecology" - unknown

maarvold

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 853
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #46 on: November 11, 2004, 10:59:06 am »

This is to Brian Lucey:

Brian--in your response to me (on page 2) you accuse me of something that is completely untrue.  You just didn't pay attention to what I spent more time than you might imagine writing.  You are too reactive... too much 3k... partially blind to the needs and desires of others (why do I think I'm not the first one to tell you this?).      There are more kinds of passion than your 'hair on fire' kind.  
BTW, in "The Passion Of The Christ"  ("Oh, here we go," thinks Brian to himself), the Roman soldiers that were ripping the skin from Christ's back, bit by bit, with their metal-tipped cat-o-nine-tails whips also didn't seem hateful, but were definitely passionate.  Your kind of people?  
Logged
Michael Aarvold
Audio Engineer

barefoot

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 196
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #47 on: November 11, 2004, 11:07:25 am »

David Schober wrote on Thu, 11 November 2004 05:50


You're exactly correct.  Which is why the Vatican is opposed to both proceedures.  While you may think you validated abortion by equating it with IVF, you actually have shown both to be what they are.  At least IVF is an attempt to create life and give couples children who cannot otherwise have them.  Personally, I'd prefer to see them adopt, but I must admit, I've not walked in their shoes.

Hey, I’m perfectly happy to point out the parallels between common fertility methods and abortion.  And I hope everyone becomes aware of it.   Some might choose to oppose these practices, as they do abortion.   However, I think many more will realize that it’s easy to try and impose your ideological values on others, when it concerns something that you think you would never be involved with; but it’s a lot more difficult when you can relate to the issue, realizing the world isn’t so black and white.  

Of course, there will also always be a fair number of hypocrites who are quick to condemn other’s behavior while rationalizing their own.  

Logged
Thomas Barefoot
 Barefoot Recording Monitors

lucey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1043
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #48 on: November 11, 2004, 11:10:11 am »

If something is REALLY just to me ... PM is the way to go.

As far as your page 2 entry ...


maarvold wrote on Tue, 09 November 2004 11:12

My personal bottom line(s) for Democrats & Liberals:

1. "You will catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar".  If your agenda is anything more constructive than venting, you will be more persuasive to many if you abandon your doctrine of hate.  

2. Get over it: your candidate didn't "meet his burden".  Based on a lot of what I've read and heard, it is assumed that anyone who didn't vote for Kerry is in love with GWB.  Totally not true.  There were times (a few) where Kerry appeared 'presidential', but he never convinced me that he had a rudder; he was all over the place.  This was a problem I could not get past.  And--about 2 days before the election--I really wanted to.  But it's about hearts AND minds and he didn't meet his burden.  

3. While we're at it, doesn't 380 tons of EXTREMELY highly explosive material qualify as a "weapon of mass destruction?"  Or am I being too unreasonable?  



Your points seem clear.   How did I "disrespect" ?

1 I'm not "venting".  Anyway Flies and Honey is manipulative and a cowards credo, based on insecurity or commercial interest.  Standing up for what we see and being open to intelligent criticism without any interest in personal image is the honrorable way. Even Bush gets the last part of that.

2 Kerry was Bushwacked by a smear campaign with 40 years of steam that takes out even Republicans who jump ship.  His appearance of waffling was simply the application of intelligence to complex issues.

3 In fact, 380 Tons of CONVENTIONAL explosives is not WMD by the standard definition.  Nor was this the thread Bush evoked.  Anyway, Bush had them then lost them, so he's incompetent, again.


What's your other point?
Logged
Brian Lucey
Magic Garden Mastering

"the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ecology" - unknown

maarvold

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 853
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #49 on: November 11, 2004, 12:28:11 pm »

Brian,

Regarding Private Messaging, you really are, at least somewhat, clueless.  You didn't really fully comprehend what I wrote, but responded to it anyway.  

You accused me of: "looking for anything to justify the man"; yet 4 inches above your accusation, I say that (paraphrasing) I had very serious misgivings about voting for GWB and was looking to Kerry as a better alternative, but ultimately could not get past Kerry's lack of a clear, consistent course of action.  

Next, you--some of it by implication--call me:
unreasonable
a coward
a popularity seeker (btw, the election is absolutely a popularity contest... duh)

Then there is subtle insinuation that 'me and my kind' want to insure that America is "[the] land of the manipulated, the zealots, the bigots, and home of the ass kissers and bullies".  It seems, as long as their behavior doesn't get out of hand, that all of the above are constitutionally-protected groups.  I think the point of the USA is that you can belong to any (or all) of the above groups or not: the choice is yours.  

I could go on, but why bother?  

Why would I want to Private Message you when you launched your half-baked scud missiles at me in a public forum?  Don't think that your actions won't have consequences.  

On the positive side, there was less 3k in your most recent post.  I also find it noteworthy, but a bit eyebrow-raising that this was your response.  If somebody leveled accusations at me in a forum that I felt were false, I wouldn't calm down... I'd go after them.  But maybe the accusations are true... and maybe, like many of us, you're just trying to figure out what better place we can go to from here.  I know I am.  
Logged
Michael Aarvold
Audio Engineer

lucey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1043
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #50 on: November 11, 2004, 01:18:53 pm »

maarvold wrote on Thu, 11 November 2004 12:28


Why would I want to Private Message you when you launched your half-baked scud missiles at me in a public forum?  Don't think that your actions won't have consequences.


Wow ... I never attacked you personally. Can we criticize a persons ideas and not get so personal about it?  

I guess not.  But that's what Liberals can do .. is that so bad?



Here's the thing to all the Bush voters out there.  There are a few reasons to vote FOR Bush

#1 You believe his hype machine about making America safer
#2 You want his Christian values enforced nationally
#3 You fear change
#4 You make over $180,000/yr and you want your money


So stop telling us Kerry failed to do anything to win you over or the Liberals are arrogant.  Talk about sore winners.

Bush and Co. have had the reigns for 4 years and act like they have been shackled by Democrats?   Repressed victims of "liberalism"?    Get over it.  The New Right is not the American Negro circa 1965.


The policies of GWB are the main issue of any criticism, and his personality is linked to those policy decisions, as is the brainpower and understanding of what America IS within the electorate.

Why did this happen you ask?  Why did most metropolitan areas go for Kerry by a smidge, and most rural areas go for Bush by a landslide?

On the one hand Kerry could have done better. Any loser "could do better". But would it be enough when we had a strong smear machine for the incumbent in war times (a move to centralize power by Bush and Co.) and an ignorant electorate (Ignorant as to essence of tolerance and American Values, the proper place of Religion in a healthy Democracy, the larger History of violence and Imperialism in Iraq, and the Nature of these Terrorists).


In the final count, Soccer moms (or Security Moms as they are being called now) and the Religious Right (plus citizens and corporations looking to save money) voting against Gays in State initiatives turned this election.



The irony is that people voted AGAINST their beliefs on this marriage issue, as they were Bushwacked by misinformation.  Only 27% of the people believe in something 64% of them voted for!  



And speaking of 'final count' it's no shock that Diebold, a Bush supporter and maker of Voting Machines, who was "unable" to get a paper reciept out of their machines ... has some major descrepencies here in Ohio.  In Gahanna (pronounced: Ga Han Na) there were around 650 votes cast and around 4000 for Bush.

Every day Billions of dollars changes hands at retail stores and reciepts are exchanged, and a voting machine cannot get a paper trail?    Now I'm not saying Diebold and the Republicans in their company are stupid, but it's either incompetence or unEthical and unAmerican and unPatriotic.  Your call.

I guess the theory today on the right is that if the person is inept and we share their "values" ... everything is forgivable.
Logged
Brian Lucey
Magic Garden Mastering

"the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ecology" - unknown

David Schober

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #51 on: November 12, 2004, 10:18:42 am »

lucey wrote on Thu, 11 November 2004 12:18


And speaking of 'final count' it's no shock that Diebold, a Bush supporter and maker of Voting Machines, who was "unable" to get a paper reciept out of their machines ... has some major descrepencies here in Ohio.  In Gahanna (pronounced: Ga Han Na) there were around 650 votes cast and around 4000 for Bush.



Old news-and no news.  That was a misreported event where some provisional ballots that were supposed to be allocated statewide got put one county.  Besides, and don't you think that if there were any validity to this that you'd at least hear Al Gore and Terry McAuliffee screaming, much less the Kerry camp?
Logged
David Schober

lucey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1043
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #52 on: November 12, 2004, 02:04:40 pm »

David Schober wrote on Fri, 12 November 2004 10:18


Old news-and no news.  That was a misreported event where some provisional ballots that were supposed to be allocated statewide got put one county.  Besides, and don't you think that if there were any validity to this that you'd at least hear Al Gore and Terry McAuliffee screaming, much less the Kerry camp?


Democrats have more tact than to scream nationally about a moot point in this election.  Locally however, there have been remedies made after an investigation ... and in fact there WAS a mistake with the initial counts.  

Do you have something new in the last 2 days with this story?


    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap /

http://www.snponline.com/NEWS11-10/11-10_ghvote%2011-10.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6418513/

Google - Ohio Ballots Gahanna




Either way on this one incident, I'm certian that nothing has changed with the fact that the Republican Congress stopped the paper trail from happening in the first place, claiming it was technically too dificult, too expensive or unnecessay because of their high standards of professionalism.

Do you want to argue that point as well?

Do you have proof that in the year or two after Election 2000 this was not discusses and not atempted in Congress by justice loving liberals? So you have proof that it was not blocked from getting to a vote by Hastert and Delay?

Do I need to get national personalities or perhaps God to call your house and tell you how it went down in DC?

Do Republicans or Democrats, with control of all 3 houses of our government, EVER abuse their power in your wildest imagination?


From the Philly Inquirer "Rep. Rush Holt (D., N.J.) has sponsored a bill to mandate voter-verified paper trails. It has 150 co-sponsors, but Holt concedes it won't move this year because it lacks the support of the Republican leadership."
Logged
Brian Lucey
Magic Garden Mastering

"the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ecology" - unknown

Wyn Davis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #53 on: November 12, 2004, 02:32:13 pm »

Brian,

I admire your determination. Your energy and passion for your position is uncommon. You DO realize though, you will never get anyone to admit they were duped or Bushwacked into voting for the wrong person, right? That simply does not happen in public discussion. In a close and honest relationship with a friend or family member, where there is total trust, respect and intellectual honesty, SOMETIMES a person will admit they are wrong. But here, on an issue like this, there will not be one single person who voted for Bush who will ever admit they made the wrong decision. I mean seriously, if those folks were not convinced by what happened during the first four years, what makes you think they will EVER be influenced by anything you say? I am not faulting you, I am not telling you to go away. I do, however, find myself frustrated for you. As I watch these threads develop, I do not see the slightest inkling of a position change by you or your opponents. As far as I'm concerned you are fighting the good fight, but I fear you will find yourself in the same position as Sisyphus.

I think a large segment of Bush supporters are now or shortly will be experiencing cognitive dissonance. In the most classic sense, when the expectations of those who supported him and the reality of who he is as a leader does not jive, cognitive dissonance begins. That dissonance causes his supporters to redefine their expectations to match reality. This is why it is pointless to attempt to show how Bush's words and actions did and do not add up. Successful compensation for cognitive dissonance does not allow the sufferer to acknowledge the disconnect. Remember, only about one quarter of voting age Americans chose Bush as their president. If you break that 25 percent down into sub groups, I don't think it is hard to imagine some significant number of those people are literally cognitively dissonant.

Don't let anything I say stop you, just don't let it get you down. Remember to keep your arguments rational and to look after your own spirit.

Logged
Wyn Davis
Total Access Recording Studios
Redondo Beach, California

t(h)ik

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 998
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #54 on: November 12, 2004, 07:42:56 pm »

Hey Brian,

Wyn is absolutely right, it's all about subgroups bro....

In fact cognitive dissonance could even be considered grunge voting....but with even more distortion....

Let's say you divided the Bush camp down the middle....

And everyone on the left side has to yell "AH"

And everyone on the right has to yell "ZIE"

AH

ZIE


AH


ZIE


And then Zack comes out and starts playing "Over the Mountain"

That would be one fukken great Republican Rally!

Right Bro?


Let's Start a Fukken Riot!!!!



Love yas


TIK
Logged
I used to be self effacing, but I couldn't even do that right....
www.pmtstudios.com

David Schober

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #55 on: November 13, 2004, 11:52:44 am »

Hi Brian,

I found it funny that in the stories you linked, if you bothered to read them, you'd see that the errors were corrected.  Furthermore, the errors had no change in the outcome because of the margin of victory.  It seems you just did a quick search and found headlines, and not bothering to read the substance of the story.

No one that I'm aware of has ever claimed that the election process is now, or has ever been foolproof.  2000 was an issue because of the small margin.  This election thankfully didn't suffer the same fate.  Again, if what you say is true, where's the NYT, CBS, CNN etc making the claims you are?  Note the significant difference in what the articles you listed say, vs. what you're saying.  It's not a matter of a perfect election.  As in all of history, the question is, does the margin of victory significant enough to not call for recounts.  The Kerry camp said this was exactly the case in OH, and therefore showed class in a quick concession.

You said the "Republican Congress stopped the paper trail from happening in the first place"  Care to back up that one?  If you're making the charge, then show the goods.  

I have no idea what that next bit of yours meant.  Sounds like you're again making a charge, but requiring me to prove it false.  If you have point, please make it.  Otherwise it sounds like a nonsensical rhetorical statement.

As for the 3 houses of govt being in control by one party....are you putting forward the idea that there should be a Constitutional amdenment forbidding such a thing?  If the citizens vote that way, who are you to tell them it can't or shouldn't happen?  After all, maybe you've forgotten, but until 1994 the Democrats had majority of both houses.  The fifty-plus years before that they had complete control of both houses and during most of that time there were Democrat presidents.  In your way of thinking, am I to presume should that have not been allowed?
Logged
David Schober

analog Tom

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 84
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #56 on: November 13, 2004, 09:27:22 pm »

Quote
"The fifty-plus years before that they had complete control of both houses and during most of that time there were Democrat presidents."  

Ah, yes, more Republican math:  

Eisenhower: 8 years;  
Nixon/Ford: 8 years;  
Reagan:     8 years;  
Bush #1:    4 years.  

Total:     28 years.  It certainly looks like Republican math to make 28 less than "most of that" fifty years.  

Of course, a different way to look at it would be to consider the Republican mantra of fiscal responsibility:  

Nixon/Ford:  Rising deficits;  
Reagan:      Skyrocketing deficits;  
Bush #1:     Rising deficits;  
Bush #2:     Skyrocketing deficits.  

Cordially,  
Tom
Logged

David Schober

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #57 on: November 14, 2004, 08:54:11 am »

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the math lesson.  Maybe a little history would do well for you.  The modern Democrat model was....FDR.  I guess you forgot about him.

So let's add again...

FDR 1933-1945
Truman 1945-1953
JFK 1961-1963
Johnson 1963-1969
Carter 1977-1981
Clinton 1993-2001

That brings us to 40 years that the Democrats held all powers of govt.

Logged
David Schober

t(h)ik

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 998
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #58 on: November 14, 2004, 10:24:32 am »

1994-50= 1944

You did say 50 plus years however, so we could include the bronze age technically because it is 50 plus years ago....

Not that I agree with these godless communists sympathizers....

Love Yas

TIK

Incidentally, the fact that the argument is now focused on arithmetic makes it much more thought provoking.  I find it stimulating and intellectually vibrant and intoxicating.  I count myself lucky to be here to take part.  Some feel existence of all matter is circular, others contend that the omnipresence is closer to a lumpy sack shape however this thread has now returned to the intellectual level of it's premise....

Logged
I used to be self effacing, but I couldn't even do that right....
www.pmtstudios.com

analog Tom

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 84
Re: Speaking of Jefferson
« Reply #59 on: November 14, 2004, 11:36:17 am »

Thank you for pointing out another feature of Republican argument strategies.  

You set the 50 year model, presumably because you wanted to focus on the Republican presidents' record.  Then, as soon as someone points out the FACTS in the time period YOU set, you simply shift the time period, shift the issue focus, and evade dealing with the FACTS you originally put into focus.  

Sort of like creating a war based on intentionally fabricated claims about WMDs, and then completely shifting the excuse, and denying the original reason, when the truth came out.  All the while, standing by the policy of shovelling billions of tax dollars to businesses in no-bid contracts, for services they don't provide.  

FACTs are completely irrelevant, so long as the money pipeline stays open, right?  

Cordially,
Tom
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up