Ralph Sevush, all around good guy, wrote the following short essay which he calls “The Cultural Divide.” I thought it was an interesting take on the current status of things and decided to close out political blog entries for a bit with it:
Regarding the cultural divide
This morning, I woke up thinking…
… that, as Spalding Gray observed, I live on an island off the coast
of America;
… that we should have just let the south secede when they wanted to;
… that perhaps we could consider a new form of secession, a Northern
secession;
… that if Canada could just give up a strip of land along the northern
border of North Dakota and Montana, we could build a “Freedom Trail”
with an “underground railroad” that connected the northwestern corner of
Minnesota to the northeastern corner of Washington state, thus creating
an independent, contiguous nation consisting of the Northeast, the Great
Lake region, the northern midwest, and the westcoast (plus Hawaii) with
full autonomy from the United States;
… that we could then forge a union with Canada, and become the
Federation of North American States (FONAS);
… that we would then be Fonasians, with access to Canada’s national
health care, with religious and ethnic diversity and tolerance,
relationships with the rest of the world, economic justice, individual
freedoms, and great hockey teams;
… that we would then have a nation composed of the cultural, financial
and industrial centers of the former US, and have Canada as our farmland
and ranch, and still have great vacation spots in the south pacific;
… that we could learn a lesson from Israel and build a massive wall
along our southern border that would separate us from the belligerent,
imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped
in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;
… that I should just roll over and go back to sleep. Perhaps I’ll
dream of Fonasia, in repose on my island off the coast of America.
But when I wake up, I’ll still be here.
Shìŧ.
Did you ever have one of those mornings?
– by Ralph Sevush, Esq.
(a card-carrying member of the ACLU and the MMMS)
• 
Right after the left-wingers realize how much DISDAIN they show for conservative Christians and anyone else who doesn’t agree with their God-excluding “philosophies.”
Yeah, dámņ those left-winger Founding Fathers of ours.
You want to preach? Do it from an altar, not a press podium.
“Personally, I think everyone between the ages of 18 and 27 who didn’t bother to vote should be immediately drafted and shipped out to Iraq. Maybe they’ll take their right to vote seriously next time.”
You know…that’s an intriguing notion. Reinstitute the draft, from ages 18 to 35, except voting in a national election earns you an exemption. Watch the voting rate skyrocket.
And Jim…just an observation: The liberal left believes the country is metaphorically going to hëll because we don’t believe in Bush. The religious right believes I, and others like me, are literally going to hëll because we don’t believe in Jesus. When it comes to arrogance and disdain, we can’t come close to you guys.
And for anyone who wonders why I have political discussions here…look at the response rate to just about any other blog entry, as opposed to this one.
PAD
Makes me wonder, why just 18 and 27?
Because that’s the age of registration for selective service and the age of the coveted “youth vote” that Puff Daddy (who apparently didn’t vote himself) and the media hyped as being key to this election, but turned out to be nothing.
I am so sick and tired of the “waa waa, my vote doesn’t count,” bûllšhìŧ. If you’d pull your ášš away from the X-box and actually vote, it would count.
As for sending the Bush supporters off to Iraq: Absolutely, let them put their money where their mouth is. Let’s start with the Bush twins. Sending them both to Iraq should make up for daddy ditching out on Vietnam.
“As for sending the Bush supporters off to Iraq: Absolutely, let them put their money where their mouth is. Let’s start with the Bush twins. Sending them both to Iraq should make up for daddy ditching out on Vietnam.”
I’ve heard this sentiment expressed any number of times. While it’s an entertaining notion, I think we all know it’s simply not feasible. First, not only would you be sending them, you’d have to send about two dozen secret service guys with them. And even then, it’s simply not worth the risk, because if one or both of them gets captured, then–to paraphrase Jed Bartlet–we no longer have a commander in chief. We have a father who’s out of his mind with worry because his little girl is in a hut somewhere in Iraq with a gun to her head. No one needs that.
PAD
Will do. Right after the left-wingers realize how much DISDAIN they show for conservative Christians and anyone else who doesn’t agree with their God-excluding “philosophies.”
Um….you DO realize that many left wingers ARE Christians? And, in fact, base their philosophies on Christian doctrines?
It may not be the same doctrines that you count as important, but’s let’s not show the disdain for their principles that you claim to dislike.
And for anyone who wonders why I have political discussions here…look at the response rate to just about any other blog entry, as opposed to this one.
Maybe this theory can apply to your books as well? Maybe people will buy your books just so they can vehemently disagree with them. You certainly seem to have an audience for your political thoughts. I say you put them in a comic and charge us $2.95 for it!
Mark L.
Great minds think alike and all. Also, I have no short term memory.
I also have no short term memory.
We have a father who’s out of his mind with worry because his little girl is in a hut somewhere in Iraq with a gun to her head. No one needs that.
And yet, it makes you wonder how many families are going through exactly this, PAD.
I’ve heard this sentiment expressed any number of times. While it’s an entertaining notion, I think we all know it’s simply not feasible. First, not only would you be sending them, you’d have to send about two dozen secret service guys with them.
No way. Send them out with nothing but the standard equipment every other GI gets. Let them tool around Fallujah in a Humvee with no body armor with the common grunts. Bush can afford to buy them nightvision goggles. He’s forced many other families to buy them for their sons.
And even then, it’s simply not worth the risk, because if one or both of them gets captured, then–to paraphrase Jed Bartlet–we no longer have a commander in chief. We have a father who’s out of his mind with worry because his little girl is in a hut somewhere in Iraq with a gun to her head. No one needs that.
That’s exactly what we do need. If Bush is too wussy to make the sacrifices he’s demanding of every other family in America, then he can just tell Ðìçk to swallow a couple of nitroglycerin tablets and make the tough decisions. After all, Ðìçk’s daughter is safe. She’s already passed the “don’t ask, don’t tell” stage.
And yet, it makes you wonder how many families are going through exactly this, PAD.
Those families don’t have access to the nuclear codes, though.
Den said: “I am so sick and tired of the “waa waa, my vote doesn’t count,” bûllšhìŧ. If you’d pull your ášš away from the X-box and actually vote, it would count.”
Wow, there goes the point, whizzing right by you.
I made no reference to folks who, through apathy or laziness, fail to vote. I mentioned people who choose not to vote. Some of these folks think that, when presented with the choice of a punch to the jaw or a knee to the groin, choose “none of the above.”
Keep you religion to your self! Not everybody believes all that garbage.
Not everyone believes your ideology, either. I don’t think it’s fair to ask other people to shut up unless you’re willing to do the same.
Although I know that in many cases, the right and left can be divided along lines of religious and non-religious…as a religious Democrat, I don’t feel that the label is an oxymoron, or that the terms have to be mutually exclusive. There is a lot more grey in this world then people seem to be painting…
kingbobb said As to your drafting idea, I’d much rather put the people who voted for Bush in line for the draft before anyone else. In fact, anyone who supported Bush and his attack on Iraq that’s not already contributed a body to the military should volunteer to do so. I mean, if they so clearly support the idea that we should go around attacking nations that we think are going to be threats some time in the future, there’s a recruiter near you that’d be delighted to see you.
How about all of the Kerry supporters get their girls pregnant and have them get a partial birth abortion. Fair’s fair right?
Craig wrote: Yeah, dámņ those left-winger Founding Fathers of ours.
You want to preach? Do it from an altar, not a press podium
Say what? The very foundation of freedom of religion came from a country that was predominantly Christian. This was not a concept that was imposed by a “left winger” Thomas Jefferson, but was a concept that a large number of pastors preached from the pulpit (we don’t preach from an altar at my church 😉 ).
Name me a single country that has as much freedom as we do that did not have Christian roots? Greece was not free. Only the wealthy men could vote. Muslim countries are not free. The very ideas of enlightenment came in the context of a Christian world view. It was Christian nations and Christian leaders who were at the forefront of liberating slaves (there were others who favored freeing slaves, but they never had the organization or moral zeal that the Christians had in this effort). I am not saying that Christians have a monopoly on ideas of freedom, etc., nor that there have not been times of abuses, but historically Christian nations and cultures have allowed some of the biggest advances in human rights this world has ever seen.
I believe in the freedom of religion. That means I can be free to base my views in a religious worldview, and you are free to base yours in one that is not, or one that is a different religious worldview. We then compete for the minds and votes of others. Freedom of religion means I cannot simply write laws because the Bible says something is right or wrong apart from a vote of the people. Freedom of religion does not mean that just because the Bible agrees with my view (whether that murder is wrong, gay marriage is wrong, adultery is wrong, or slander is wrong), it cannot be made into law. Law, and the rule of law, is based ultimately on the will of the people. That is the beauty — and the danger — of democracy. If 70% believe gay marriage is ok, then that will become the law of the land. If 70% believe it is not, the same is true. If 70% believe slavery, or racism, is right, then you battle for their minds and try to convince them why they are wrong.
Bottom line, we ALL are allowed to preach, whether from the Press Podium or the Pulpit. That is freedom. What we are not allowed to do is to impose our will on others without going through the democratic process–as happened with making abortion legal, and as has been tried with gay marriage by judges and others.
PAD wrote: And Jim…just an observation: The liberal left believes the country is metaphorically going to hëll because we don’t believe in Bush. The religious right believes I, and others like me, are literally going to hëll because we don’t believe in Jesus. When it comes to arrogance and disdain, we can’t come close to you guys.
PAD, is it disdain if I tell someone he is infected with AIDS but he refuses to accept the diagnosis? Since you believe I am wrong, then I understand you will see it as arrogance and disdain. Since I believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, then it is not disdain to tell you that you are going the wrong way and headed towards a canyon where the bridge is out (to change the metaphor), but an act of compassion.
I would point out that it was you, not I, who brought up this issue of salvation. I have not treated you with disdain, nor have I used your site as a place to “proselytize” for my faith. I have tried to understand why you and others believe as you do, and have sought to explain why I believe as I do.
I was under the impression that this was a place that was interested in the exchange of ideas, even if we disagreed. Do you consider it an act of disdian for me to simply say I disagree and why I disagree? I have found the exchanges quite challenging and helped me to think through why I hold to my positions.
I find it interesting that I answered a comment in almost the same tone and manner in which it was given. I did not attack or call names, but merely pointed out the view from the other side. I find the level of response quite enlightening.
Roger wrote: >B>Um….you DO realize that many left wingers ARE Christians? And, in fact, base their philosophies on Christian doctrines?
Um… you do realize that I specifically wrote CONSERVATIVE Christian in my response? Which would, by definition, not include a left-wing Christian?
(For those of you who seem to not understand when I use sarcasm, that was being mildly sarcastic. Hopefully not disdainful, but just answering the comment in the manner it was given.)
It may not be the same doctrines that you count as important, but’s let’s not show the disdain for their principles that you claim to dislike.
How, exactly, did I show disdain? I was simply mirroring a comment that was aimed at my political and religious point of view.
PAD wrote: And for anyone who wonders why I have political discussions here…look at the response rate to just about any other blog entry, as opposed to this one.
PAD, I confess, I have complained about the political nature of this site. I repent of such comments. I have found the opportunity to be challenged and to challenge others quite helpful. As much as I appreciate your views on other issues, the only other blog entry I go to first before ones like this is your “Cowboy Pete” roundup. So I retract my complaint.
I don’t feel it is my perogative to bring up these issues on your site when they are not the point of the blog, so your initiating them allows me the chance to interact. So continue your political blogs–it is enlightening. (And no, I am not trying to use reverse psychology to actually get you to stop writing them! I am sincere about this!!)
Jim in Iowa
Den W. said No way. Send them out with nothing but the standard equipment every other GI gets. Let them tool around Fallujah in a Humvee with no body armor with the common grunts. Bush can afford to buy them nightvision goggles. He’s forced many other families to buy them for their sons.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but didn’t Kerry vote against additional funding for the troops.
I don’t see Kerry’s daughters volunteering to go to Iraq either. If they did, they would take a camcorder with them to get some good shots of themselves in while other people are there fighting a war. Sounds like Kerry doesn’t it. Maybe they’ll go to an anti-war party afterwards, jot down some information from people who say they committed war attrocities, meet with Saddam in jail, then petition Congress that all vets are War criminals and this war needs to stop now. Then they will insist to Congress that all insurgent attacks will stop as soon as we meet Saddam’s demands.
Craig said Now I’ll make an assumption of my own: Do you have the iq of a Bush or a monkey? Oh, wait, those are the same thing. Maybe they need to stop letting you out of the zoo.
That’s really funny Craig — Not. Don’t run out and quit your day job. You need a lot of work.
Have you checked out that immigration site yet? They are looking for a few good men.
Wait, you don’t qualify for that do you? See, now that was funny.
Maybe you can move to Mexico instead? Do you speak Spanish? No hable English?
I don’t think they like liberals very much in Mexico though. You can still give it a try.
kingbobb said Now, I’m not so sure there’s going to be anything left to fix…
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
This post isn’t directed solely at you kingbobb, but at liberals in general.
How can you liberals stand living like this? Everything is negative. Everything is broken. Good grief, would you take a look at yourselves. Grow up a little bit. Why, for goodness sakes, why don’t you for once hope that things will turn out ok. Why don’t you hope that our President, no matter who he is, will lead our nation into greatness. Is that too much to ask?
Why do you have this fixation on the negative? Is it really that difficult for you to wish our President well? Don’t you think that if he succeeds that our Country succeeds?
If you don’t want every President we have, regardless if you voted for him or not, to succeed, then there’s something fundamentally wrong with you. You need to take a long hard look at yourself if you want the leader of our country to fail.
ok, so nobody shoot me for putting this up, cuz i really don’t use this kind of language…well, ever,and maybe i don’t agree with all the rants it makes… but since it sort of followed the theme of the original post, i thought i would just throw it out there
http://www.fûçkŧhëšøûŧh.com
and again, yes, its probably offensive to a lot of ppl, but isn’t everything these days?
Novafan wrote…
If you don’t want every President we have, regardless if you voted for him or not, to succeed, then there’s something fundamentally wrong with you.
I’m sure they do want the president to succeed; however their opinions on what he should succeed at are very different from the goals he is pursuing.
Nobody’s obligated to hope someone succeeds at something when they fundamentally disagree with what that person is doing. I’m going to get all kinds of grief for this extreme example, but German citizens in the late 30s were not obligated to root for Hitler’s “policies.”
Let me hit this off at the pass.
Here come the … Conservatives attacked Clinton … argument, so if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander right?
Wrong. For one, I didn’t attack Clinton when he was in office. And two, two wrongs don’t make a right.
What argument can you use besides the one I just mentioned?
Even if you didn’t vote for Bush, at least you can support him now while he’s still in office. Or is that too much to ask?
Jeff said I’m sure they do want the president to succeed
I think you’re wrong here Jeff. Let one of these liberals speak up and say they want Bush to succeed at anything. I can’t see them doing it.
Greece was not free. Only the wealthy men could vote.
Wow, somebody needs a history lesson.
Who could vote when this country was founded? It wasn’t women, it wasn’t non-whites.
Yep, it was wealthy, land owning white men.
So much for your Christian roots – gone to hëll in a blaze of prejudice and bigotry.
Why don’t you hope that our President, no matter who he is, will lead our nation into greatness.
Oh please, he’s already had four years in office, and he’s fûçkëd things up pretty badly as it is, yet people reward him with another four years to fûçk things up even further.
Yeah, I’m supposed to hope what exactly? That Bush quits screwing everything up and everybody over?
That he won’t discriminate against gays? That he won’t continue to let technological jobs get shipped overseas?
That we won’t have another 9/11 when he can’t even find the original target of the War on Terror in the first place? That he won’t find another convenient target to invade because, again, he can’t get his hands on bin Laden? Or worse, that he continues to NOT EVEN MENTION bin Laden?
I’d take another 8 years and listening to details of Clinton getting his jollies than deal with this crap from Bush.
Let one of these liberals speak up and say they want Bush to succeed at anything. I can’t see them doing it.
Bush may succeed at never admitting to making any mistakes.
Novafan, I think Jeff explained it somewhat, but I think everyone on some level wants the president to succeed, just not neccessarily at the specific things he might be doing. You can want a presidency to be successful because you don’t want the country to go to hëll, and you don’t want your own life to be hëll, but that doesn’t mean you just keep your complaints to yourself and support the man for doing whatever he might choose to do. When he does something you agree with, you stand by and support him. If he decides to invade China by land, well, you don’t have support that too.
Slightly related, but mostly not, I am reminded of Bush’s acceptance speach a few weeks back, when he said he was going to reach out to those who share his goals (in reference to the country being so partisan and divided). Well, if they already share your goals, you’re not really reaching out to anyone, are you?
Alright, I’m realizing I’m over tired and in babble mode, so I’ll quit now.
Monkeys.
More from Novafan: “Why do you have this fixation on the negative? Is it really that difficult for you to wish our President well? Don’t you think that if he succeeds that our Country succeeds?
If you don’t want every President we have, regardless if you voted for him or not, to succeed, then there’s something fundamentally wrong with you. You need to take a long hard look at yourself if you want the leader of our country to fail.”
Looking around in my posts…hmm, don’t see anything about WANTING Bush to fail. Nope, mostly just stuff about how I don’t care for the job he’s doing.
Beleive me, now that he’s go the job (again) I hope he proves himself to be a good leader for America. I don’t WANT him to fail. I WANT him to lead this country safely and prosperously. I’m still looking for that.
Oh, and hey, would you say some guy named Hitler was successful? I mean, before the world united against him and he committed suicide?
So, I guess the answer is, no, I don’t think that just because someone has a position of power, I’m obligated to support everything they do.
This, also from Novafan: “How about all of the Kerry supporters get their girls pregnant and have them get a partial birth abortion. Fair’s fair right?”
Heh, there’s logic for you. I could go into how this is just SO not a logical application of wanting the Bush supporters to enlist…I COULD, but I have to make myself stupider to do so…
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but didn’t Kerry vote against additional funding for the troops.
Yes, you are wrong. He supported a version of the bill that included funding mechanisms for the Iraq venture. That he voted against a version he did not like should not be construed that he was against proper funding of troops in Iraq.
Um… you do realize that I specifically wrote CONSERVATIVE Christian in my response? Which would, by definition, not include a left-wing Christian?
Then please give more credit for the Christian values in the left wing. Citing it for the right wing gives the mistaken impression that Christian values are not associated with the left wing. Particularly when you term them “God excluding.” (After all, they do not consider their philosophy exclusive of God).
Let one of these liberals speak up and say they want Bush to succeed at anything. I can’t see them doing it.
You know, I desperately wanted the Iraq venture to succeed. To have taken down Saddam and worked with the mass population of Iraq to establish a democracy would have been a masterstroke.
But the bungling that followed, allowing the looting of the museums, the lack of attention paid to infrastructure, the wrong minded purge of the Baathists social structure (in the name of being politically correct), the severely undermanning of the military police which allowed outside terrorist elements to infiltrate, the incompetent campaign to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqui people, the lack of even bad case scenario construction….all of this, to my mind, deserves nothing but contempt and a termination of services.
I will hope for the best, but this record of incompetency is not inspiring.
Wow, somebody needs a history lesson.
Who could vote when this country was founded? It wasn’t women, it wasn’t non-whites.
Yep, it was wealthy, land owning white men.
So much for your Christian roots – gone to hëll in a blaze of prejudice and bigotry.
I don’t need a history lesson, I just need to explain my thoughts better. I agree that is where we started. But we did not stay there. Why? Because the principles used when we started laid the groundwork for women and blacks to later vote.
Christianity has not been perfect in its practice. But it has allowed a lot of movement in the right direction. Things like slavery, racism, denying women the right to vote, were concepts that were not practiced in most countries at the time. In many regards, we led the way of reformation.
Name for me a major philosophy or religion in the 1700’s that actively promoted the right of blacks or women? The bigotry of the time was the standard practice. My point is that Christianity both allowed for this reformation and in fact was often the moral foundation for such a reformation. The liberation of slaves owes much to Christianity. As I said the first time, Christianity has been used to justify abuses, as has virtually any other religion or philosophy over time. But it has also been the source of charities, hospitals, caring for the poor, liberating of slaves, accepting the equality of women, etc., over time. You must understand the evolution of cultural change that happened before judging Christians as bigots by a standard that only exists today.
Jim in Iowa
Then please give more credit for the Christian values in the left wing. Citing it for the right wing gives the mistaken impression that Christian values are not associated with the left wing. Particularly when you term them “God excluding.” (After all, they do not consider their philosophy exclusive of God).
Fair enough. The God excluding referred to many on the left who do actively exclude God from anything more than a nice moral tale or fairy tale. I agree that some on the left are Christian, and even evangelical Christian (Tony Campolo would somewhat fall on that side).
If you read many of the posts on this site, you will find a strong and real disdain for Christian values. Just go back and read the disdain for my belief in prayer on this site. I have been told that I am an idiot because I believe the Bible is true. So while I have no problem agreeing that some on the left do not exclude God, there is at least a very vocal group on this site who do.
Jim in Iowa
“Since I believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, then it is not disdain to tell you that you are going the wrong way and headed towards a canyon where the bridge is out (to change the metaphor), but an act of compassion.”
See, whereas I see it as an act of supreme arrogance, of self-righteous, holier-than-thou, snot-faced, wrong-headed, purblind, where-the-hëll-do-you-get-off-you-Bible-thumping-yahoo, biased, prejudiced, anti-Semitic chowder-headed, lame-brained jáçkášš intolerance.
But I only say this because I care.
PAD
If you read many of the posts on this site, you will find a strong and real disdain for Christian values. Just go back and read the disdain for my belief in prayer on this site. I have been told that I am an idiot because I believe the Bible is true. So while I have no problem agreeing that some on the left do not exclude God, there is at least a very vocal group on this site who do.
That’s a fair statement to make; I would not want the spiritual impulses and motivations to be excluded or them to be disrespected merely because they ARE religious or spiritual.
Jim:
Christianity has not been perfect in its practice. But it has allowed a lot of movement in the right direction. Things like slavery, racism, denying women the right to vote, were concepts that were not practiced in most countries at the time. In many regards, we led the way of reformation.
Yes, quite progressive. What happened to all that tolerance? Churches used to be leaders of social progress in this country. Now Christians in this country seem to be more interested in political power.
Jim:
Since I believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, then it is not disdain to tell you that you are going the wrong way and headed towards a canyon where the bridge is out (to change the metaphor), but an act of compassion.
I used to live in Florida where my friends were trying that compassionate stuff with me. Your “compassion” insults my religion, by telling me I am “going the wrong way.” And if I compassionatly reached out to you by telling you that you are going the wrong way and should convert to Judaism? See, some of us liberals believe in God, but don’t feel the need to denigrate your religion by telling you it is wrong. That is why we have a seperation of church and state, so all people can worship as they see fit, not as you see fit.
Speaking of the twins, the Oct. 17 installment of “Opus” had the president confronting an elephant seal in his anxiety closet. He confessed it didn’t make him anxious (“ya know, I’m weirdly at peace with it,” he said), and they both realized there’d been an address mix-up.
But the president added that he didn’t have any anxieties…
Unless it involved the twins.
Meanwhile, over at Opus’ residence, the twins appear out of his anxiety closet announcing that they’ve enlisted, and Opus, armed with a bat to ward off the elephant seal he’s expecting, finds he is “weirdly at peace with this.”
Hmmn, if the offspring of a sitting president did enlist and specifically requested a combat assignment, would the request be denied because of potential concerns the commander-in-chief would become a grieving father if they were captured? Or would they not be allowed to enlist at all, because of their relationship with the president?
If it’s true now, it wasn’t always. Just ask Robert Lincoln who was in the Union army during the Civil War.
Rick
I have a couple of questions for the consevative Christians. I am not trying to be sarcastic, I am truly interested.
1. How will you find new converts when you seem to be so exclusionary? Examples: If you are gay, and will not live a lie for your religion; or if you believe in a woman’s right to choose, but get denied communion.
2. What side of the gun control issue would Jesus lean toward? By extension, while we are on the issue of violence, what would he think of going to war with Iraq?
RE: Voting
Den,
“Because that’s the age of registration for selective service and the age of the coveted “youth vote” that Puff Daddy (who aparently didn’t vote himself) and the media hyped as being key to this election but turned out to be nothing”
You know, I think it’s really unfair the way the media and pundits have blasted the “get out the youth” vote as a failure. While the PERCENTAGE of the overall vote stayed the same for the youth demographic, that is simply because turnout was up across ALL demographic groups. Many, many, many more young people voted this time, which is encouraging.
What is really encouraging is that they seemed to be evenly split politically, putting a lie to the theory that a greater youth vote, due to their supposed more liberal/rebellious nature, fear of a draft and “give me more money” attitude about college aid is a predominantly liberal/Democratic voting group.
Puff daddy helped get more young people to vote. They seemed to do so in a thoughtful manner. Both he, those who helped him and those who voted should be commended, not put down.
Den,
“Absolutely, put their money where their mouth is. Let’s start with the Bush twins. Sending them both to Iraq should make up for daddy ditching out on Vietnam.”
Gee, using this brilliant line of reasoning
A.) Anyone who serves in The National Guard is not honorably serving their country
B.) Bush actually DESERVED a “pass” as you define it, since his father was a World War II hero and actually lied to enlist EARLY
C.) Clinton should have sent Chelsea to get dragged through the streets of Somalia, since he had no problem sending other soldiers to meet that fate
Den W,
“That’s exactly what we do need. If Bush is too wussy to make the sacrifices he’s demanding of every other family in America…”
First, every other family in America? Last I knew, there wasn’t a draft and he has not even made a huge push for “recruitment”. The military is still hitting all their recruitment targets because many, believe it or not, WANT to serve.
Second, if the only way one, in your opinion, can support a position is to make it affect them personally, then I would assume that if you care about the homeless, you’re more than willing to take one in your home. Forget about donating to charity! I mean, Bush is FUNDING the Iraq war. Make a real difference! The first homeless person you see on a steam grate, you should take them in your home.
You should also refrain from calling yourself an environmentalist if you use paper, drive a car to work and eat red meat. If you do any of these things, then acording to your own theory, you should be quiet.
Meanwhile, back in reality, check out http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-11-17-kerry-nest-egg_x.htm
It seems that Kerry forgot to spend 15 million dollars in his campaign. I’m certainly not as bright as Mr Nuance but I have to wonder if 15 million MIGHT have made a difference in Ohio.
Looks like the smarter guy won. Again.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but didn’t Kerry vote against additional funding for the troops.
You are incorrect.
A.) Anyone who serves in The National Guard is not honorably serving their country
Never said that. I only said that he did so to avoid going to Vietnam. Of course, I don’t believe that Bush’s service in the guard was honorable, but I never made a general statement about anyone else in the guard. Nice try.
B.) Bush actually DESERVED a “pass” as you define it, since his father was a World War II hero and actually lied to enlist EARLY
Nope. That’s why both twins should go. One for this generation and one to make up for Bush spending Vietnam on an extended coke binge.
C.) Clinton should have sent Chelsea to get dragged through the streets of Somalia, since he had no problem sending other soldiers to meet that fate
Maybe if he had, he’d have sent the troops in with better planning and equipment. Don’t assume that just because I think Bush is ŧwáŧ that I have a tremendous love for Clinton.
First, every other family in America? Last I knew, there wasn’t a draft and he has not even made a huge push for “recruitment”. The military is still hitting all their recruitment targets because many, believe it or not, WANT to serve.
Then why is the army imposing a “stop loss” rule on people whose enlistment is up?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04319/411224.stm
I made no reference to folks who, through apathy or laziness, fail to vote. I mentioned people who choose not to vote. Some of these folks think that, when presented with the choice of a punch to the jaw or a knee to the groin, choose “none of the above.”
No, you missed the point. If you choose not to vote, then you get what you deserve. If you choose to participate and make demands that politicians actually look out for our interests for a change, maybe your chooses will improve.
How about all of the Kerry supporters get their girls pregnant and have them get a partial birth abortion. Fair’s fair right?
Wow. Talk about having nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I love how you and Jerome both try to change the subject instead of debating the issue.
I love how you and Jerome both try to change the subject instead of debating the issue.
When the “issues” are discussing forcible drafts and partial birth abortions from Bush/Kerry supporters, I think it’s fair to say the conversation has gone off the deep end where the term “debate” isn’t even relevant.
If you read many of the posts on this site, you will find a strong and real disdain for Christian values.
No, and this is where people like you continue to fail to see the arguments we are presenting.
A) Values are NOT exclusive to Christianity, contrary to popular belief. I’ve had to put up with this same garbage on another forum – not only have Christians “claimed” marriage, they’ve now claimed moral values as well.
What I despise is the notion that, while you claim to be of some higher moral value, Christianity still allows for discrimination and bigotry, only now instead of directly at women and blacks, it’s at gays.
That people are so blasted hypocritical when it comes to quoting the Bible – take what you want, leave the rest behind.
That Christians are never wrong, and if you question their belives, you’re some sort of Satanist who’s going to hëll. Why? Because you can’t question Christians. Why can’t you? Because. No reason, just because.
Yes, there is a special kind of arrogance behind all of this, and you fail to admit that as well.
From Den, quoting me: “`I made no reference to folks who, through apathy or laziness, fail to vote. I mentioned people who choose not to vote. Some of these folks think that, when presented with the choice of a punch to the jaw or a knee to the groin, choose “none of the above.’
No, you missed the point. If you choose not to vote, then you get what you deserve. If you choose to participate and make demands that politicians actually look out for our interests for a change, maybe your chooses will improve.”
Remember, you suggested that people who don’t vote should be drafted to remind them what their vote is about. My point is that, for some, not voting is in fact voicing your opinion. Basically stating that the parties are putting forth candidates that are not worthy of the office of president, and this not worth voting for.
You seem to think that voting is an obligation, not a right. Go check the Constitution: People have the RIGHT to vote. We aren’t REQUIRED to. Chastising people because they choose note to vote makes no sense.
And I’m not responding to your comment about forced partial birth abortions (which was YOU changing the subject first) because there’s no point. I’ve spent enough time trying to “debate” a subject which pretty clearly has no room for debate or conversation with a lot of people that I’m not going to continune it with you.
See, some of us liberals believe in God, but don’t feel the need to denigrate your religion by telling you it is wrong.
For your point to be valid, then either there is no objective truth, or we can’t know any objective truth. Any honest comparison of the major religions show contradictions on some key issues. They can’t all be true at the same time. It is not being arrogant to say someone is right and someone is wrong, it is being intellectually honest. The responses to my post demonstrate this fact: PAD and others have no problem saying I am wrong.
If religion is just a nice “crutch,” a nice intellectual way of looking at the world, then by all means, we should let people believe whatever works best for them. But if there is an objective spiritual reality (not saying we can “prove” it by physical means since by definition that would take it out of the spiritual realm), one that has rules and laws that are even deeper and more important than the laws of physics (which is a logical position if you accept there is an all-powerful, personal God who created everything), then you cannot treat religion as meaningless to daily life as whether you root for the Yankees or the Red Sox.
Rather than calling me names (PAD had a rather nice, long stream of them), why not deal with the content of what I am arguing? Why are some of you (not all) who are “liberal” unwilling to have a rational discussion about this? My original point was exactly this issue.
Jim in Iowa
David B spewed:
“Not everyone believes your ideology, either. I don’t think it’s fair to ask other people to shut up unless you’re willing to do the same.”
I think I’ll use kingbobb’s quote in response:
“Wow, there goes the point, whizzing right by you.”
I’m not the one trying to pass laws forcing people to do anything or banning them from anything. You áššhølëš are trying to legislate your religion,, you ARE the Taliban.
Jim, fûçk your god.
Hmmm… I’m still alive…. score more points for me
That last part was aimed only at Jim in Iowa’s hateful, bigotted prejudiced god. Not at Peter’s jeish god or any intelligent person’s god.