A Flash Developer Resource Site

Page 16 of 24 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 463

Thread: US Vice President choice thread...

  1. #301
    Perverse Futurist villain2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    892
    Quote Originally Posted by creativeinsomnia
    I know computers, art, AND football. If I learned the bible, I might be considered a renaissance man.
    All kidding aside, you would.

    I guess that's where my annoyance comes from because I have a wide variety of interests/likes and some are seen to conflict with one another, where in reality (for me) there is no conflict.

    Because I like art doesn't mean that I have to think all football fans are idiots.

    Because I'm not into hunting doesn't mean I have to look down my nose at the Guns and God crowd.

    Because I know dinosaurs existed does not mean the Bible is a book of fiction with no merit to it.

    I'd rather more people be truly open minded (on the left) and truly virtuous (on the right) and accept balance as the goal instead of picking a gang to run with.

  2. #302
    Moderator whispers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    CFA2h (respect the HEX)
    Posts
    12,755
    Quote Originally Posted by villain2
    You guys really need to get off the high horse about southern/western people. I am not from there, but I understand they have knowledge and skills that I don't.

    A smart ass can look down their nose at the God and Country crowd all day.

    They know more about certain things than you ever would and vice versa. It's shallow and shortsighted to think that because you know computers and art that you're smarter and better than someone who knows the bible and football.

    A wise man would know that he doesn't know more than anyone else.
    I dont get this post.. AT ALL!

    well I guess your last cleared most of it up..

  3. #303
    Moderator whispers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    CFA2h (respect the HEX)
    Posts
    12,755
    Quote Originally Posted by villain2

    I'd rather more people be truly open minded (on the left) and truly virtuous (on the right) and accept balance as the goal instead of picking a gang to run with.

    shouldnt that old true for those in power and trying to run your country as well?

  4. #304
    Perverse Futurist villain2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    892
    Quote Originally Posted by jAQUAN
    I stand corrected. My point was that it shouldn't be a factor in choosing a leader. Nor should one be sworn in on a bible, masonic or otherwise.
    I disagree. I think religion should be a factor if you're a religious person. If you're not, obviously it won't be because you don't share that common view of the world. If you are, then you know that person is more similar to you in your view of life than someone who is opposed to it.

    Being sworn on the bible comes from the fundamentals of the country which are Judeo-Christian Philosophy. Most of this country's principles, like it or not, are variations of things in the Christian bible.

    I believe a recent Senator swore in on the Koran (need source for that). I do agree that you shouldn't be FORCED to swear on the Bible if you're not Christian when accepting public office.

  5. #305
    Perverse Futurist villain2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    892
    Quote Originally Posted by whispers
    shouldnt that old true for those in power and trying to run your country as well?
    Didn't say it didn't. In my opinion, those trying to run the country should have an understanding of all the people. No one in recent time, except for perhaps Clinton, came close to that ... and none of the four candidates running now come close.

    That's why I want an Independent party that is full of people of ALL the people ... and actually mean it. I want someone with that grand scope of understanding/interests/knowledge mixed with wisdom to lead.

    Unfortunately, the people have to get there first because they elect the leaders, and they elect on who is closer to themselves. So, the electorate has to change before the leaders do.
    Last edited by villain2; 09-18-2008 at 11:18 AM.

  6. #306
    Moderator whispers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    CFA2h (respect the HEX)
    Posts
    12,755
    ?? wow.. How can you have it both ways?

    You want every one "just get along" (para-phrasing) and understand/work towards a 'balance'.. then how can your PERSONAL beliefs be a factor?

    its different if he/she/they want to practice/believe in religion in their PERSONAL lives.. but pushing (yes pushing) those beliefs, and even changing the laws that affect EVERYONE in this nation, based on that is CRAZY!!!!

    it has NO place in leadership...none.

    And I think you're wrong.. if you NOT religious and a candidate is claiming to be (and also talking about changing YOUR life based on their personal beliefs).. that IS a factor to those non-religious people.... no? How couldnt it be? How can it only be a factor or those that ARE religious..and not for those who are not?

  7. #307
    Total Universe Mod jAQUAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    2,429
    How would you feel about a candidate who laid out detailed plans about economy, defense and freedom that were right in line with your desires, yet was an atheist?

  8. #308
    supervillain gerbick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    undecided.
    Posts
    18,979
    Quote Originally Posted by villain2
    I'll work from the assumption some of you don't attend a sane church so let's clarify this common misconception ... If you're a Christian it doesn't mean that you NEVER do bad things. Quite the opposite. It means you understand that you're going to do wrong everyday in your life just like everyone else. The difference is that you try to correct those wrongs and ask for forgiveness, learn from them and fight against your temptation to steal, lie, cheat, hurt people etc. etc. Basically, you agree to fight against doing wrong because it's easy and instead choose to do right even though it's harder.
    You couldn't be more wrong in your assumption dude. I've gone to a very sane church for quite some time.

    And somehow, you've leaped from Christian to god-like; humans are imperfect. Sadly enough, you've missed that in anything I've said. And with that, being human, you damn right I'm going to look at a coke-head or a cheater in a different light; however I hope that they will find a better path.

    Just not on my time if possible. And being human, I've followed one creed that's mine, and very flawed: "I don't really have to forgive; that's God's job."

    Which... given your ability to exaggerate or assume, it means simply I will not oppose you to try to be a Christian. However, as stated above, if your actions affect me, I can choose to disassociate from you until your path will not affect me or my loved ones.

    And the way I was raised... men don't cheat on their women. Period.

    Which is very different from "well, that's human nature so it's okay, it made me happy".
    Out of context, this is hedonism.

    Strangely, it's only the anti-Christian people who seem to think Christians are supposed to be perfect ... never actual Christians.
    Think whatever you wish. I know my relationship with my religion. I've shown glancing blows of my faith here on the boards; let's just say that the people that really know me, know how I feel about religion.

    And with that said; your assumptions couldn't be more wrong about what I meant, what I mean, what I feel, what I think.

    It's ok.

    [ Hello ] | [ gerbick ] | [ Ω ]

  9. #309
    Moderator whispers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    CFA2h (respect the HEX)
    Posts
    12,755
    Quote Originally Posted by jAQUAN
    How would you feel about a candidate who laid out detailed plans about economy, defense and freedom that were right in line with your desires, yet was an atheist?

    ah a blue hat post...


    me?

    I'd LOVE IT!!.. lol

    I dont care what if he was lutheran, catholic or what not to be honest.

    What "I" care about is, those PERSONAL beliefs being used to run our country and those PERSONAL beliefs being pushed or made into laws that affect a nation that is NOT 100% like this person..... where the understanding of balance there?

    Its definitely NOT putting country/people before self.. its granting power to one who wants to change the rest of the nation to be more like them. (their perfect ideal/mold)

  10. #310
    supervillain gerbick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    undecided.
    Posts
    18,979
    Quote Originally Posted by whispers
    I dont know what 'Mid-West' your talking about ...but the mid-west 'I" live in doesnt act no feel that way.
    Look at who voted Bush... both times.

    Midwest. The older, "god vote" voted in leagues against the so-called slacker generations - Gen X, Gen Y - and did not make a dent on the overall outcome.

    The South will vote, in this case, whomever is more like them. Read into that as you wish - I really no longer give a ****. I've seen more things go against my original stance of "It's not about race..." to make me really just say "They deserve whomever they vote for..."

    maybe some of the OLDER generation act like that.. but Id venture to say that is EVERYWHERE...
    Read above. Older people really vote.

    East/West & Mid...

    Maybe you mean Utah? lol
    More like Missouri (midwest) Kansas (midwest), Texas (southwest), Mississippi (south), Iowa (midwest), Nebraska (midwest), Minnesota (midwest)... see. To a person that was educated in Colorado, anything east of there up until the Mississippi River, is "midwest" to me.

    Hell I hoped you lumped 'The SOUTH' in that "God reaction voting" comment..
    That was implicit... and already known.

    The Mid-West is more 'red-neck', and about "WAR"..and about 'kicking arse'...etc.. thats how you win (and they have) 'THIS' Mid-West...
    I wouldn't even say "redneck" is a factor. It's an idea of "like" mentality. Bush has that ol' boy appeal that he says what he's gonna do. Might not be the most common sense thing; but he said he was going to do it. Somehow, that's appreciated in the South, and amongst rednecks. And wherever else in the midwest - last election, the more tech-savvy costal cities voted otherwise.

    It still didn't make a dent.

    shoot.. if your avatar doesnt have a 'blue hat' on.. I cant even read your posts..
    You know I walk my own path dude. Always.

    [ Hello ] | [ gerbick ] | [ Ω ]

  11. #311
    Perverse Futurist villain2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    892
    To Whispers:
    its different if he/she/they want to practice/believe in religion in their PERSONAL lives.. but pushing (yes pushing) those beliefs, and even changing the laws that affect EVERYONE in this nation, based on that is CRAZY!!!!

    it has NO place in leadership...none.
    And in a country where 90% of the people believe in God to have someone committed to taking that OUT of public discourse is crazy. Many people see that telling them marriage now has to be considered between same sex as well as opposite sexes is an insult to their traditions and religion.

    I get what you're saying, but you don't seem to think the door swings both ways. Telling someone you HAVE to believe in what is in direct contrast with your beliefs ... and further, you're not allowed to have your beliefs involved in public life ... is oppressive.


    to jAQUAN:

    I'd vote for them because a) I personally don't care about religion in public office but I see how it's important to others and b) even if I did, I'd take 9 out of 10 if the other guy was very religious but had no clue how to run the country.

    to gerbick:
    I said some of you, not all of you, and not you specifically, probably didn't attend church. It wasn't direct to you, it was directed to the group.

    Out of context, this is hedonism.
    Have you paid any attention to our media, which is the largest influence on society at large. Let me give you a few examples of how that's in the public lexicon:
    "Have it your way", "Look out for number 1", "Obey your thirst", "You do you", "Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" which is usually quickly followed by "if they have a problem with what you do, that's their problem, not yours", "don't have any regrets".

    How many times are these messages pumped through television shows, commericials, songs, ads, commentators, and then echoed by people you see everyday. Hedonism ... yes, ... out of context - in this culture - surely not.

    And again, to your last point, I wasn't speaking to you directly Gerbick, I was speaking to the group and said I'll assume SOME of you don't go to church - and made it a point to speak to those people.

  12. #312
    Moderator whispers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    CFA2h (respect the HEX)
    Posts
    12,755
    I understand the door 'swings both ways'.. but I dont see any of 'their' choices being taken away?.. the choice is STILL theirs to make..and they can make their choice based on their beliefs. You put someone in power who takes away the choices from the people based on their personal feelings.. THAT is oppressive.

    Noone is saying they have to BELIEVE that abortion is OK.. or gay marriage is OK... just saying that for those that DO agree, its an option. That takes nothing away from the religious sect. while still keeping this 'balance' of not everyone is of the same mindset.

    How would they feel if a gay candidate was saying: when Im president, Im going to outlaw all opposite sex marriages... and only make what "I" feel is the only true marriage/union of two people.. same sex marriages ONLY in this nation from now on..


    sounds equally as stupid as making bans/laws the other way or outlawing abortion IMHO...

    for the record, not that it matters.. I currently do NOT attend church.. If I had to label myself.. it would be an agnostic leaning somewhat toward atheist... (its easier for me/myself to accept scientific answers then 'poof/magic' then there was man theory)..

    but I went to a catholic school for most of my younger years, baptised, first communion..etc..etc and was even an alter boy for many years...

    just to put my 'thoughts/ideas' into perspective for anyone..

  13. #313
    supervillain gerbick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    undecided.
    Posts
    18,979
    Quote Originally Posted by villain2
    I said some of you, not all of you, and not you specifically, probably didn't attend church. It wasn't direct to you, it was directed to the group.
    You had quoted me; therefore it seemed pointed to me (first). Thus my answer.

    [ Hello ] | [ gerbick ] | [ Ω ]

  14. #314
    Spartan Mop Warrior Loyal Rogue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The Pit of Despair
    Posts
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by villain2
    Being sworn on the bible comes from the fundamentals of the country which are Judeo-Christian Philosophy. Most of this country's principles, like it or not, are variations of things in the Christian bible.

    I believe a recent Senator swore in on the Koran (need source for that). I do agree that you shouldn't be FORCED to swear on the Bible if you're not Christian when accepting public office.
    Actually villian, you couldn't be more wrong on this one point.

    That is a common misconception that is promoted by certain christian groups to falsely justify their desire to influence politics with their religious views.

    A lot of the founding fathers were more deists and freemasons than christians.
    They specifically created a secular government not based on christianty or religion.
    Nowhere is that spelled out more clearly than in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli.
    "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
    George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin are just a few who would not be considered "christians" by most of today's evangelical christian standards in America due to lack of beliefs in such aspects as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, the sacrement, Revelation, or eternal damnation.

    As for swearing in, the official swearing in of Congressmen and Senators is not done on a Bible or any other religious tome.
    It is done en masse.
    This is 100% in agreement and accordance with the provision spelled out in the US Constitution that
    "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
    What you are referring to is the staged individual photo op that is conducted after the official swearing in which each Congressman and Senator is photographed however they choose for publicity's sake alone.
    While most choose to be photographed with their hand on a Bible, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison chose his publicity shot to be with his hand on a Koran originally owned by Thomas Jefferson.

    I don't say any of this as a slam on your religion or "christians in general", but only to clear up a common misconception.
    ::
    "Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN

    "Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick

  15. #315
    Perverse Futurist villain2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    892
    You're confusing Judeo-Christian philosophy with Christianity. They are two different things.

    The tennants of Judeo-Christian philosophy are inherit in our laws from murder being illegal, stealing being illegal etc. etc.

    That is different from Christianity which would be everything taught by Jesus being law.

    Much of Judeo-Christian values - the basis for many laws in Western civiliization - come from the Bible but is not, in itself, adherent to the entirety of the Bible.

    Has that changed over the years? Yes. We're currently at a point of transition from those fundamentals to a culture less influenced by the parameters, doctrines and ideas of the Judeo-Christian mindset. It's a new form of American thought that is highly progressive and strongly non-traditionalist.

    Are you saying Western civilization is not based on Judeo-Christian philosophy?

    on another issue ...

    Noone is saying they have to BELIEVE that abortion is OK.. or gay marriage is OK... just saying that for those that DO agree, its an option. That takes nothing away from the religious sect. while still keeping this 'balance' of not everyone is of the same mindset.
    That's what making laws and amendments are, saying you have to believe this is ok.

    If you make a law saying a man can murder his wife if she cheats, and it's passed, you're basically forced to accept that as part of your society.

    It goes back to an old point that we're in a cultural shift and we don't share a commonality of what used to be Americana. There are a lot of if's, and's and but's to everything that used to be considered right and wrong by the majority. It's no longer a majority, more like 50/50.

    Bottom line, we're going through growing pains as a country and whichever direction it goes, it's going to go there and some people will be forced to be okay with things they disagree with. Sometimes that's a good thing (ending slavery) sometimes it's a bad thing (third trimester abortions).
    Last edited by villain2; 09-18-2008 at 02:52 PM.

  16. #316
    Didn't do it. japangreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    \o/ |o| |o_ /o\
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by villain2
    The tennants of Judeo-Christian philosophy are inherit in our laws from murder being illegal, stealing being illegal etc. etc.
    I don't think Judeo-Christian philiosophy or Western cultures have a monopoly on those.
    That's what making laws and amendments are, saying you have to believe this is ok.
    Not at all - only in a totalitarian system is that which is not forbidden required. You do not have to agree with a law to obey it.
    If you make a law saying a man can murder his wife if she cheats, and it's passed, you're basically forced to accept that as part of your society.
    You are only forced to accept it as part of the legal system - society (by which I'm assuming you mean culture) is not necessarily dictated by laws. This is evidenced by the civil rights movement, etc.
    Hush child. japangreg can do what he wants. - PAlexC
    That was Zen - this is Tao.

  17. #317
    Chaos silverx2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    The hospital
    Posts
    1,262
    Quote Originally Posted by japangreg
    I don't think Judeo-Christian philiosophy or Western cultures have a monopoly on those.
    Not at all - only in a totalitarian system is that which is not forbidden required. You do not have to agree with a law to obey it.
    You are only forced to accept it as part of the legal system - society (by which I'm assuming you mean culture) is not necessarily dictated by laws. This is evidenced by the civil rights movement, etc.
    as well as the honor killings where a girl falls in love with someone, and gets brutally murdered because they arnt who was chosen for them. or the person they fell for believed in a differnt religion.

    **** religion fanatics man. Its so over the top how people use religion to make things "ok"

    "im making a law that gay people cant get married because in a book some group of people wrote about a "diety" which may or may not be real you wont know till your dead to the point where you cant be revived wrote thousands of years ago said that marriage is man and women only" Yeah F that. F people that use religion as the compass of their life. morality comes from the heart, and i dont need a book to tell me what is right and what is wrong.

    And F dentists too.
    GhooooostGIrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrl
    https://signup.leagueoflegends.com?ref=4b5493e6c7342
    use the link above if you download league of legends.

  18. #318
    Perverse Futurist villain2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    892
    Quote Originally Posted by silverx2
    "im making a law that gay people cant get married because in a book some group of people wrote about a "diety" which may or may not be real you wont know till your dead to the point where you cant be revived wrote thousands of years ago said that marriage is man and women only" Yeah F that. F people that use religion as the compass of their life. morality comes from the heart, and i dont need a book to tell me what is right and what is wrong.

    And F dentists too.
    1. No one needed to make a law that said gay people can't get married because marriage was never designed for gay people ... people are making amendments, laws and court rulings to change or adjust the definiton of marriage so gay people can get married ... basically because of guilt that everyone is the same (read: I said the same, not equal, there's a difference) when we're not.

    Marriage was established as a way to have stable homes for children to be raised in, a merging of families and other issues that went to furthering the society as a whole. Hence the whole "husband and wife" thing ... you can't have children naturally without both sexes. Marriage was established as a societal stabalizer to encourage building strong families ... strong families mean a stronger nation.

    In this day and age, we've made marriage about the wedding and the fleeting thing called love. That's why it's so backwards because the basis of marriage isn't about love ... as much as we've tried to make it that way ... why the heck would anyone make an institution that's supposed to be "til death" based on something that is notoriously temporary?

    Personally, I think marriage is a miscontrued concept that most people don't really understand, but that's what happens when we buck traditions and everyone makes up their own rules because no book is going to tell me nuthin'! Bible, Dictionary, History book ... nothin!

    2. You saying "F" religious people furthers my previous point. It also goes to the whole culture of "me" thing again. "I know everything and no one else could possibly know more than me to tell me anything ... I know everything, me me me!".

    Your presentation tells me you might want to listen to someone about something, because you come off a wholly ignorant ... then again, what's right and wrong? Everyone make up their own right and wrong. If you want to molest a child, who should say no? If you want to steal money from everyone, who is to say that's wrong? If you want to start a war based on misinformation and half truths, who is to say you should be held accountable? Viva la Anarchy!
    Last edited by villain2; 09-18-2008 at 04:41 PM.

  19. #319
    Perverse Futurist villain2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    892

    Fun Debate

    it's been fun matching world views with you guys today. thanks for boxing match.

    So, I can pretty much take away this:
    - Christians are considered homophobic by and large
    - Judeo-Christian values apparently aren't the fundamentals of Western Civilization because some of the founders were not part of a specific church
    - People still don't understand what separation of church and state really means
    - It doesn't matter what the definition of something is, we can change it if we feel like it (I particularly want the word up to mean down)
    - People from the south and western states who like Guns and God are morons and we are much better than they are
    - You combat religious theory by using profanity, mocking people, mocking their beliefs and saying they have no place in public life
    - which is a great way to get your own views as part of public life by saying the other side can't say anything
    - and people who are anti-religion are just as one-sided and blind as people who are religious fanatics, just with more colorful language and smugness

  20. #320
    Chaos silverx2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    The hospital
    Posts
    1,262
    we are gods children

    god has no wife

    god created us without the help of a female

    check mate on your arguement to why gays cant marry.
    GhooooostGIrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrl
    https://signup.leagueoflegends.com?ref=4b5493e6c7342
    use the link above if you download league of legends.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width

HTML5 Development Center