Why don't Americans have Evangelicals shut up?

[denuseri]

You have just reproved my point again.

If you don't recall religion as being an issue during the Clinton campaign's then perhaps you didn't pay close attention. It's been an issue in allmost every presidental bid throughout american history.

As for heading to world peace,,smh, its a lofty goal that every administration has claimed to strive for. Few have even gotten near let alone close. Least of all the president that made the office of president into a farce filled with open coruption IE: Clinton.

The liberals are just as guilty of speading hateful propaganda in every way I have seen it used here throughout the "rant" in paticular. If you don't agree with "liberal beliefs" than you get branded as a neo-conservative fanatic? Sounds like propagoanda of the lowest variety in plain view.

As for Bush being wrong,, no more so the LBJ with vietnam which was just as likely to draw us into WW3.

I doubt McCain is going to push us into a war, he at least knows what one is like unlike his opponents.

People who have no respect for democracy......hummm, sounds like yet another one sided put down.

Fact of the matter is, anyone in America can within reason; so long as they are not inciting treason or revolt, say pretty much whatever they want to. Including the one's you don't agree with.

I see the call for censorship of the evangelicals today ,to be as equally reproachable as the call made by southern democrats to censor civil rights speaches in the 50's & 60's.

[damyanti]

I see the call for censorship of the evangelicals [/COLOR]

That has been my point, everyone else is being censored except them.

And if you can give statements that make Bush sound like that he wasn't more wrong than other US presidents, .

As for the rest of your post...just proves my concerns are well founded. It is possible to be a religious person and respect the liberal ideal that everyone has the right to their own beliefs.


"Fact of the matter is, anyone in America can within reason; so long as they are not inciting treason or revolt, say pretty much whatever they want to. Including the one's you don't agree with."

So why was Keith Olbermann made to shut up? What about all the statements from Bush and his cronies that unless you support him you are with the terrorists?

Its the conservatives who always yell foul not Liberals...and my beef is that liberals don't, not nearly as ferociously.
No one tried to force Bristol Palin to abort, but her mother, if given chance, will do everything in her power to force her religious beliefs on other young teenagers and force them to give birth when they don't want. I don't have a problem with their beliefs, but the aggressive way in which they want to legislature it is something I find very dangerous.

Anyway all of that is the matter of your personal policies and you can have your country any way you like - what would be nice, is if you let the rest of the world enjoy the same luxury. You think McCain/Palin ticket will be equally successful in matters of foreign policy? Who will negotiate with them, when all they are seen is as more of the same (Bush)? Who will respect them when they are condescending towards other world leaders? When Obama came to Europe there were rallies of support of unbelievable proportion. We don't want McCain to visit at all, and if he does, he can expect pretty much the same "welcome" Bush receives every time he imposes himself on us.

[hopperboo]

It is possible to be a religious person and respect the liberal ideal that everyone has the right to their own beliefs.

Its the conservatives who always yell foul not Liberals...and my beef is that liberals don't, not nearly as ferociously.

No one tried to force Bristol Palin to abort, but her mother, if given chance, will do everything in her power to force her religious beliefs on other young teenagers and force them to give birth when they don't want. I don't have a problem with their beliefs, but the aggressive way in which they want to legislature it is something I find very dangerous.

Anyway all of that is the matter of your personal policies and you can have your country any way you like - what would be nice, is if you let the rest of the world enjoy the same luxury. You think McCain/Palin ticket will be equally successful in matters of foreign policy? Who will negotiate with them, when all they are seen is as more of the same (Bush)? Who will respect them when they are condescending towards other world leaders? When Obama came to Europe there were rallies of support of unbelievable proportion. We don't want McCain to visit at all, and if he does, he can expect pretty much the same "welcome" Bush receives every time he imposes himself on us.

It isn't possible to be religious person and respect the idea of an "oops" abortion. (The healthy, adult, sexually active woman who doesn't bother with birth control because she's too lazy and ends up getting pregnant and saying it was 'a mistake.') And just for the record I am pro-choice. And abstinent. IMHO.

It isn't possible to be a religious person and denounce your beliefs because other people feel it isn't politically correct. (Heaven forbid someone get their feelings hurt). IMHO.

I find that America is (and has been) falling further and further away from religion, and perhaps that is why some of the extremists are being rather loud. They see that loss. Though no extreme is healthy, that is for sure.

As for McCain not getting a welcome from other countries...well, frankly I don't really care what his welcome is like. He'd be the president of the United States, and we'd be the one having to deal with him on a daily basis. I don't believe McCain will be another Bush. I like how he goes between the parties. There are a few things I am not wild about, but overall he is a much better choice than Obama. I think Obama would be more worried about forgien policy than America. (Not to mention, I'd love to see him sit down and talk Al Qaeda and ask then why they aren't' being nice). I'd be willing to bet he'd invite them over to the USA for coffee and a chat...sorry, not the person I want running my country.

[damyanti]

It isn't possible to be religious person and respect the idea of an "oops" abortion. (The healthy, adult, sexually active woman who doesn't bother with birth control because she's too lazy and ends up getting pregnant and saying it was 'a mistake.') And just for the record I am pro-choice. And abstinent. IMHO.

It isn't possible to be a religious person and denounce your beliefs because other people feel it isn't politically correct. (Heaven forbid someone get their feelings hurt). IMHO.

I find that America is (and has been) falling further and further away from religion, and perhaps that is why some of the extremists are being rather loud. They see that loss. Though no extreme is healthy, that is for sure.

As for McCain not getting a welcome from other countries...well, frankly I don't really care what his welcome is like. He'd be the president of the United States, and we'd be the one having to deal with him on a daily basis. I don't believe McCain will be another Bush. I like how he goes between the parties. There are a few things I am not wild about, but overall he is a much better choice than Obama. I think Obama would be more worried about forgien policy than America. (Not to mention, I'd love to see him sit down and talk Al Qaeda and ask then why they aren't' being nice). I'd be willing to bet he'd invite them over to the USA for coffee and a chat...sorry, not the person I want running my country.

So since it is against religion it should be against the law? Prohibited for everyone? So if someone is religious ergo he must be be intolerant of everyone else's choice and right to live their life as they see fit? And who gets to decide which religion is the religion?

You are welcome to McCain, but I don't want him for president of my country. In that case, kindly pack up your troops home and excuse yourself from meddling into matters of other nations. You have to deal with him (your president) on daily basis?...So do we! Everyday I have to live with the consequences of his actions.

[Ragoczy]

So since it is against religion it should be against the law? Prohibited for everyone? So if someone is religious ergo he must be be intolerant of everyone else's choice and right to live their life as they see fit? And who gets to decide which religion is the religion?

The abortion question doesn't hinge on religion, it hinges on when life begins. It just so happens that religion provides some people with an answer to that question.

If you have a fundamental belief that life begins at conception, that from that point it is a unique, human life, then, whatever the source of that belief, you have a duty to oppose abortion and it's reasonable to attempt to make illegal what you believe is murder.

Their position is not to impose their religion on others, but to oppose what they believe is wholesale murder -- again, it's a reasonable position given that belief.

Unfortunately, the answer to when it's a human life isn't answerable. Personally, I have issues with the extremes on both sides of the debate.

I think it's ridiculous to argue that it's a human being right after conception and hypocritical to say "well, okay, we'll let you murder that baby if you were raped".

On the other side are the proponents of abortion on-demand in the third trimester. Arguing that at eight months it isn't a human baby and has no rights is disgusting and reprehensible to me.

Again, unfortunately, we have no measuring stick for where that line between blob of cells and baby actually lies. The question I ask is:

Given that our entire legal system is based on the premise that it's better to allow the guilty to go free than to punish the innocent, that doubt should always fall to the possibility of innocence, shouldn't the maybe-child get the same benefit as the maybe-innocent-murderer?

[hopperboo]

So since it is against religion it should be against the law? Prohibited for everyone? So if someone is religious ergo he must be be intolerant of everyone else's choice and right to live their life as they see fit? And who gets to decide which religion is the religion?

You are welcome to McCain, but I don't want him for president of my country. In that case, kindly pack up your troops home and excuse yourself from meddling into matters of other nations. You have to deal with him (your president) on daily basis?...So do we! Everyday I have to live with the consequences of his actions.

No, I didn't say things that were against religion should be against the law. I said I don't have to (nor does a country) have respect for it. Again, that is just my personal opinion. Many people believe those who are not tolerant and respectful of every lifestyle are close-minded and bad, when I don't see it that way at all. People form opinions of what is right based on religion and their own beliefs and upbringing. How respectful is it to throw everything one believes in away because someone might get some feelings hurt? Forming and opinion and backing up that opinion isn't close-minded. It's a choice. Sitting on the fence, hurling insults at people who dare to form an opinion is not respectful either. (That is meant as a general comment, not a personal insult to you).

As for who decides what religion is paramount, the USA was founded on Christian beliefs. Yes, it founded on the right to freedom of religion, but if push comes to shove, it was founded on Christian beliefs.

It became our business when said country has terrorists that attack us. If other countries don't want us interfering they should get their own extremists groups under control.

[AdrianaAurora]

OMG, I thought you were a better person than that, Denuseri and for you to sink so low. You discussed no issue, but to tell her that her opinion is invalid. And your post - I thought we don't allow personal attacks and flaming on this site. And for what - because she dared to openly state what the rest of the world thinks of us. Because that is what the rest of the world thinks of us (and thats who, I assume, she meant by "we"). Have you bothered to read foreign newspapers and have you traveled abroad in the last 6 years, you would know that. You don't have to like her opinion, but she is entitled to it. That is called free speech.

Fact of the matter is, anyone in America can within reason; so long as they are not inciting treason or revolt, say pretty much whatever they want to. Including the one's you don't agree with.

Oh, there it lies the trap, its the great patriotic republicans who decide what is treason and revolt, right. What about the treason VP Cheney committed when he outed CIA agent? What about treason of George Bush who went to war without the vote of Congress? What about treason of Colin Powell who knowingly lied to UN Security Council? What about the treason of Alberto Gonzales and the rest of the Bush cronies?

I find your statement personally offensive because I was one of those who was denied the right to free speech and threatened that if I don't fall into the party line I will loose my job, be discredited personally and that they will destroy my family (I can PM you what my big sin was). I quit. I also recall a small matter of fired US attorneys because they refused to stop investigating Bush's friends. I could go on and on...but why bother? The day Bush got elected for second term I lost all faith in US, packed my bags and moved my family to France - I couldn't stand the climate of oppression and doom. It is highly unlikely I will ever move back. And if you are hoping to convince anyone that Bush is a great president - keep dreaming.

And she was being kind - I will put it bluntly, world despises US and its high handed international policies. The difference with which people take my views if they know I am American, or if they think that I am Canadian is unbelievable. They are weary of us - and thats the consequence of 8 years of Bush. The only reason I am given a break is because I am married to Canadian and I am only part American. You cant use fear and war and you cant demand respect without giving none.

And don't even get me started on Palin, who was only selected for her bimbo value. And I base my argument on the fact that she supports the war, has sent her son to Iraq - both based on Bush's Doctrine and she doesnt even know what that is. So much about being able to debate facts with republicans these days.

I for one would love if these "evangelicals" who have "kidnapped" the republican party crawled back into whatever swamp they crawled out from.

One thing you are right though, she was wrong - McCain isn't the new Bush, Palin is.
(Not that McCain matters anyway, he is already half dead.) And as for him knowing anything about war - he screwed up and was captured on his first mission, and that was decades ago.

I will stop now, this theme depresses the hell out of me. Congratulations though, you probably succeeded in confirming her stereotype - that we are all belligerent, war hounds and that we all posses sanctimonious belief in our own greatness that renders us incapable to rationally respond to or accept any criticism.

[denuseri]

Well since my attempt to actually speak about the real issue which is effecting ALL countires including the US didnt work or was completely ignored, i will have to come down to the lower playing field and I am gonna play as devils advocate just a bit here since i find it so absurd and use sophist techniques since, they seem to be favored over reason:

But to prove the point that a sophist argument such as the "rant" has no basis:

Everyone censored??? Hardley, most censoship in america is actually preformed by liberal supporting media that censors by omission and spin what they dont want reported , unless it gets then controvesial ratings and if evangelicals get any press coverage its ussually painted to be negative becuase it cuases controvesy which makes the networks money.

Liberals actually SHOUT foul way more often and with a lot more covereage than any conservative dares or ever gets to.

Looks like you have never watched any american politics at all, (outside of a very focused liberal filter) if anything the liberal agenda gets the majority of the attention allmost all the time in america.

And Keith Olbermann is one of the most LOUDLY outspoken propagandist out there, and he is everywhere, hardley censored. SMH

and saying McCain is more of the same doesnt make it so, no matter how much you want everyone to think it is your arguments sound like another example of a poor advertising tactics used by car salesman when they are as onesided as they are.

And your WE dont want statement strikes me as rather absurd. Just which "we" are you? Becuase you certiantly dont speak for all.

Of course its easy to throw whoppers from the peanut gallery whever your paticular peanut gallery may be.

Of course thats the problem with sophistry it's all to easy to turn it completely in a circle.

Which just proves my concerns are well founded. It is impossible to be a liberal person and respect the religious ideal that everyone has the right to their own beliefs.

Should I continue this example?

No need becuase your next post shall prove my point again?

Sophist rehtoric as opinion is fine use it all day long I dont care turn yourself blue with it, just dont expect me to swallow an argument with no logical basis behind it.

[denuseri]

I have never said one isnt intitaled to thier opinion.

For the record i am not nor have i ever been a supporter of the evangelical movements attempts to control the republicans, any more than i have supported the s o c i o l i s t s attempts to take over the democrats.

As i said it was an example turned back on its self ( devils advocate) to show why the rant was an argument made with complete bias of such a one sided kind that it has no base in logic and ergo deserves rebuttle.

I find the assumtion that i am sinking so low or flameing when i have simply turned sophistry back on itself as and example personally offensive Aurora which its too easy to just point at your own post and say its flameing me ? come now,

the constitution speaks of the right of free speach and sets the standards by which is allowed, specifically that treason and inciting a riot are the areas under which it is to be denied, and not by any one party but judicial review, i have seen both parties when in power abuse the interpetation of the law, thomas Jefferson even abused it by holding the surpreme court hostage once, its abuse is even more rampant in many european countries not to mention the countires that have no free speach.

But I see censorship takes many forms when people read between the lines of a post or have a personal involvement and I am sorry if you took personal offence.

(also Bush did happen to get congresses approval prior just like his father did for the first gulf war he cant wage a war without them backing him) and i have never supported him, nor most of his policies, read my numerous other posts

Anyone can get up and spout such statements out the political realm on both sides which doesnt frequently result in any valuable out come when both sides are going to resort to such tactics instead of looking at facts or other emperical evidence, instead of ranting I ask ok then what is the solution to the question posed by the thread, how do we solve compacency? but to do that we need consensus, which cant be achieved when one side continues to rant as opposed to work to a solution .

One persons opinion doesnt speak for everyone, its impossible, blanket statements about opinions of world populations are often tools of the media and ussually based in poor if any statistical anaylasis. I would love to see a system by which real world populations actual opinions could be 100% reported as accurate, but the technology or drive to deliver it doesnt exist yet.

I get my news from more scources than you think, and have been, I have walked the streets of beruit and jeruselem, i have many relatives that live there and in germany, i am in contact with both the jewish and arab sides by blood. I have seen how my mother and our families were driven out of thier country over issues that were exacerbated by failed brittish polcies in the middle east that the usa is no closer to fixing today.

What shocks me is when people swallow such sophistry, instead of recognizing it for what it is.

As for confirming her stereotype? What about the stereotype she is portraying i ask you? I see a sterotype just as bilegerent and sanctimonious; expouseing a belief that renders us incapable to rationally respond to or accept any criticism.

Electing a new President of eaither party or a few senators in america isnt going to in and of itself change the worlds situation. The problems with ever decreasing rescources or the complacency of populations under tyrany by voluntary oppression (democracy). The divisions that exist between the conservative and liberal factions of all democratic governements are not going away by having one or the other side "win".

The fact of the matter is in america most people are moderates, that only lean to the left or right on specific issues with a minority of indivduals that loadly shout propaganda for thier side from the wings, which is why the past few elections have been so close.

Solutions are only going to come when both sides stop mudslinging and sit down to a real discussion.

I am out .
peace.

[denuseri]

Ok back for one clarification:

I am sorry if my approch was seen as a personal attack by anyone.

My sole purpose was to try and get people to realize that when they use the techniques that i saw in the "rant" or my satiric rebuttle of "devils advocacy" used to highlight it in paticular; that they will find no common ground or diplomacy becuase both are too inflamatory and use dogma over fact.

Which defeats any attempt to come to an agreement.

Based off the opinions i have seen put forth here I believe that many in the international community have fallen prey to the controvesy driven liberal bias of the united state's own media and its infulence abroad when it come to painting assumptive characteratures of both of the american cantidates, giving the populace of the whole world a misguilded viewpoint that one is on thier side and one is against them.



People that have followed the Republican primaries closely know just how pissed the evangelical minority is at McCain being the choice made by the moderate majority for the GOP, there is a little war being waged in that party for its control and he is against Bush's side in it, not for it. Despite what you may have been lead to believe by the opposition.

A simular war has taken place in the democrates party with insidious outcomes, Obama has appeared to win on the surface, but when he refused totruely unite his party and took on Biden as his watchdog instead, I saw that he had lost the idealogical battle or at least suffered a severe setback.

Despite his inexperience i was for a long time one of his supporters, his demogogery and idealisum apealled to me. I have infact vacilated three times so far before the election, and probably will again as i gather more data, as opposed to rehtoric. But i am an independent despite my party affiliation which i keep to access at least one half of the primary proccess so vacilation is our middle name.

In these days ahead where our worlds rescources and populations are reaching Malthusian proportions, it will take more than mere idealisum or good intentions to save the world let alone preserve our own country, which has taken on too many of the worlds burdens despite our own peoples many misgivings, History has shown it was out of nessesity to preserve capitalisum at the time, unless you all prefered to learn german or later russian.

Which is where we started our own history of butting in, which i will admit i dont like that its been maintained or what its become becuase i see too many simularities with france and great brittans mishandeling of thier colonial empires which colapsed.

I unfortunately see many many years of strife to come and if an when america falls it will be dificult to avoid the collapse of western civilatation simular to or worse than what was suffered after rome's decline.

I can assure you regaurdless of who wins the election in the United States he is most assuradly on America's side first ..and everyone elses second.