Aha! I've found something...
I got this from I Drew This by David Craig Simpson.
I think that sums up my last post in fewer words (except the part about how sexuality is not a choice).
EDIT Oh, looks like this is Marble Garden's 10,000th post too. Heh. Thanks for noticin, Harley. 
What if you realise that gay marriages are not going to happen any time soon in the Christian and Jewish churches?
Oh well, you can still get married in a registry office, or the Chapel O' Love...
Your writer friend has twisted his words a little. You can prefer traditional marriage ceremonies, but that doesn't automatically make you homophobic or against gay rights.
The people he's targeting are not the people you've suggested, Harley. He's reacting against the far right conservatives who use the idea of 'traditional marriage' to cover their disliking of gays.
What he (and I) have a problem with is the idea that all forms of marriage (even simply legal ones) should be denied to gay people, which is what the far right in the USA (particularly people like Bush and Keyes) seem to want.
I'm not about to support a law that forces churches to marry gay couples if they object to it for religious reasons, although I disagree with the religious condemnation of homosexuality. But there's no reason why a legal marriage or union between gay couples can't be allowed.
If you're devoutly religious, your best choice is to ignore the various forms of the Bible for all religions, and put your faith in your God, rather than your church.
Half of what the Christian Bible says is contradicted by the other half. This is easily explainable, since the Bible was written by many different humans over many years, not by one God. Hell, half of the Bible isn't even adknowledged by Jews.
Quote:
If you're devoutly religious, your best choice is to ignore the various forms of the Bible for all religions, and put your faith in your God, rather than your church.
Try living with a near-Fundementalist like my dad. Unless you already do, then I share your pain if that's the case.
My dad approves everything that Bush, Ashcroft, et. al do (The War on Terror, War in Iraq) on the basis that they are christian. 
LOL,
Jews don't "acknowledge" the New Testament, but for english versions of the Tanak they have even used the KJV as a resource.
If you read the bible you will find that the "inconsistancies" are always taken out of context. All of the slavery, woman subjugating, polygamy, and other unsavory subjects are in the Old Testament, with the exception of Philemon, an epistle of Paul who sent a converted run away slave back to his Christian master with the letter begging mercy.
In the OT, you couldn't keep a slave permanently, at the 7th year they were free to leave or free to choose to be a slave for the rest of their life. If their master was kind, their right ear would be pierced against the door post of the house and a gold earing would be their to wear to signify the choice they made. The old testament even has rules about how you must humanely treat a slave.
No other book has been translated into more languages, no other book has been studied by the greatest minds throughout history than the Bible. To dismiss the bible flippantly shows a lack of wisdom.
Jimro
But to take the Bible as the truth shows navet -- in the end, it's still just a book.
Quote:
No other book has been translated into more languages, no other book has been studied by the greatest minds throughout history than the Bible. To dismiss the bible flippantly shows a lack of wisdom.
No one here dismissed it, just pointing out where it is wrong, much like the story of genisis, if you get right down to it the Bible is a bunch of stories created to act as a law of peace, however it has caused so much bloodshed and hatred that we cannot consider it as the truth. By condemming homosexuals it causes hatred, what benevolent God would want to cause hatred.
It doesn't matter who's studied it or how many languages it's written in. It's the basis of a RELIGION.
To make laws based on what ONE religion says in a multicultural society is to force aspects of a religion upon a population where it will not always be welcomed.
That is the point I'm making.
And I'll have you know, Jimro, that I was ecuated for 6 years in a church of England primary school. I do not dismiss the Bible 'flippantly', I dismiss it from disagreeing with its content.
My morals I developed through my own experiences. I don't need an archaic book to tell me how to think.
You see it's those underprivelidged bibles from poor communities that are causing all the war. Books from the wrong side of the tracks, cracked leather binding and gold leaf pages worn thin from use.
It starts off innocently enough, a little Calvinism here, a little Catholocism there, but it never stays at that level.
No, the poor little bibles are forced into violence by a cruel and uncaring world. The poetic beat justice of the KJV is only a temporary outlet for these disenfranchised books.
Soon Messianic sects get ahold of these impressionable bibles and they become "Torah Terrorists" spreading fundamental law by force wherever they go.
It's a sad sad world where such good books go bad.
Blaming the bible for war is like blaming weather on baldness.
The bible didn't start the crusades. Some vision some kid had started the crusades.
If I have tried to make one truth abundantly clear it is that all evil comes from inside, not outside, a person. If the bible were stricken from the world today you would still have people killing each other in the name of God.
Understanding the Bible as truth is not naive, but a very educated decision, Tolkien and C.S. Lewis both came to faith later in life after rigorous searching for truth. Faith is never a subject to be taken lightly.
Jimro
Neither is the lack of it, which you might also reach through 'deep exploration'.
Nice how you miss my points completely and seem to be driving this into another "hahaha! my beliefs are better than yours!" rant, Jimro.
This topic is about American politics. Don't turn it into a religious flame war.
CNN accidently revealed what a bunch of sloppy whores they are a few minutes ago.
Just before Crossfire, they came back a few seconds early, while Judy was talking with the staff. "Are you sure you want to use that poll? There's another one that shows them tied."
Then lo and behold, on Crossfire, Tucker trots out a new poll showing that Bush is opening up a lead. And then on Wolf Blitzer he makes a big deal about the new Time poll showing Bush with a double digit lead.
I've noticed this before. When there are polls with conflicting results, they show the one with Bush ahead. Liberal media my ass.
public opinion polls only poll the opinion of the public that takes the survey. A poll by the NY Times probably wouldn't include Bubba from Saginaw, Michigan. Nor would would Seattle PI poll reflect the cuban american opinion in Miami.
I don't know if CNN chose to use the poll with a broader geographic base or larger survey group or what. Could have been a flip of the coin.
Jimro
I'm not saying anything about the polls themselves. Frankly, I think polls are bullsh-t, especially after that election we just had. I'm just saying that something fishy was going on at CNN, and I doubt that they'd show a poll with Kerry in the lead if they could help it.
I don't watch enough television to know which side of the fence CNN is slanted. But if you look at the political views of the owner of Ted Turner I would suspect them to be liberal.
Jimro
I just watched Bush's acceptance speech and I was left with the following impressions:
1) He is a socialist. His speech was straightforward socialism, all filled with plans for government to spend more and get more involved in peoples lives. Funny, I always thought he was a Republican, but all he does in his speeches is talk about how the government can spend more of the taxpayers' money.
2) He's had three and a half years so far, and he hasn't yet shown one iota of interest in most of the things that he addressed in his speech -- health care, retraining workers, home-ownership for the middle classes. How can anyone trust this man?
3) He looks like a cross between MAD Magazine's Alfred E. Neuman and Howdy Doody, but dumber and on drugs. When he smiles it makes me want to flee in terror, like I'm looking at an evil clown-elf. I know this is juvenile, but it's the truth.
4) I couldn't help but notice that he just barely mentioned the state of the economy. Could that be because he's ruined it? And that he's presided over the loss of two million jobs? TWO MILLION! Imagine almost the entire population of my hometown suddenly losing their jobs. HOLY CRAP, DUDE! He said that things are getting better. Well, actually, they're not. They're a little bit better than a year ago, but the US economy is just a sad, pale thing when compared to the robust economy that they had when Clinton was in power. Remember Clinton? Created a government surplus? Restructured welfare? Knew his way around foreign policy? Clinton was a better Republican president than George W. Bush will ever be.
Didn't listen to the speach, read the transcript. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5900248/
Compared to his 2000 nomination speech it is very similar. www.usatoday.com/news/conv/118.htm
1) Nope, not a socialist. Basically revisiting the platform responsible for the Fair Deal under Truman, who was a democrat.
2) Legislation has been passed towards the goals set forth in 2000.
3) I am sure you are supermodel yourself with hordes of adoring women.
4) Each president has to deal with the consequences of the previous administration. Clinton got lucky and saw the fruits of others work. The economy "crashed" under Clinton too, good old dot com bust, I'm sure you remember that.
Jimro
Legislation has been passed towards the goals set forth in 2000.
Example.
I am sure you are supermodel yourself with hordes of adoring woman.
Which is it? Women or woman? 
The economy "crashed" under Clinton too, good old dot com bust, I'm sure you remember that.
Yeah, but that was in no way the government's fault.
The man says he's going to increase spending on healthcare and education, while decreasing the threat of terrorism. Quite apart from the fact that this is what all politicians trot out when they want to get elected, where's he going to get this money from? Carrying out such promises will involve substantial tax raises. If he only carries out one of them, guess which one it's going to be?
That's right, the threat of terrorism. More money to the military. The way I see it, the only way Bush can possibly further lower the risk of terrorism is to close the bloody airports.
I'm confused. Why are America's troops still in Iraq? Saddam Hussein and his sons are no longer in power; neither will they be returning. They're being tried for crimes against humanity. The country has been ripped apart looking for WoMD, and none have been found. Even if they were there at all and have been moved to an allied country, they're not coming back either, since the president who ordered it isn't even in the country. There's even a nice, Western-friendly government 'in charge'.
It's this new government's job to deal with their own terrorist threats. They have to learn to stand alone and deal with their own problems, yet Bush continues to waste American resources and lives by sending his soldiers over. Why is he doing this?
I'll tell you why. Now that the Western-friendly government is in power, Bush wants to keep his eye on the country; he wants to make it dependant on America; he wants to be able to say 'You owe me, I saved your country, sell me oil cheap or I'll pull out and you won't be able to handle it without me'.
So he cares about Iraq, does he? Since when? For years, Iraq has been suffering under Saddam and his sons, and only now does he make a move; when America is attacked. And he didn't even deal with that particuarly well, attacking a country rather than a terrorist organisation.
Another thing I've noticed about Bush; he's turned the whole election into a farce. It's become a popularity contest, a television show, and most of all, a test of patriotism.
In his recent, ridiculous convention, in which confetti and about a million balloons (red, white and blue, natch) were dropped on an ecstatic crowd, most of his supporters were vigourously waving American flags that he had doubtless handed out. Those who had home-made banners had decorated them with red, white and blue. He's trying to suggest that anyone who doesn't support him is against America. He keeps telling people what he's going to do, but not how he's going to do it.
Well riddle me this.
How many of you are just plain straight liberals or are Republicans who just can't stand Bush?
Just wondering.
Bush revising the New Deal? Is he out of his mind? That screams socialism and isn't more government power more like a Democrat? I'm getting confused here...
I vote Labour. Even if they are jerks, I'd rather gnaw my leg off than vote Conservative, with their apalling economy ideas and the way they follow Europe like lapdogs.
As for the Liberal Democrats, well they have a lot of nice ideas, but all those ideas involve huge tax raises and large deductions of benefits.
So yes, you're right tornadot, I can't stand Bush. Unfortunately I'm not registered to vote in America.
How many of you are just plain straight liberals or are Republicans who just can't stand Bush?
I'm a liberal. The correct term in Canada is a New Democrat. It's like Labour, only without the popularity.
Quote:
Another thing I've noticed about Bush; he's turned the whole election into a farce. It's become a popularity contest, a television show, and most of all, a test of patriotism.
You know, I think that's pretty much how I'd summarise American politics.
As for my political allegiance, you might call me a liberal since most of my views are liberal ones. I certainly hold no conservative views as far as politics are concerned, and won't touch the right wing with a barge pole.
i'm for kerry, because Bush mucked up on iraq and also in the way he gives tax cuts to people who don't need them.
Are any of you old enough to vote? Harley's age is published as 19, but I don't know if that is old enough to vote in the UK.
Just wondering.
Jimro
In the UK you're legally considered an adult at the age of 18, I think it's the same in Canada but you'd have to ask Cycle.
Quote:
How many of you are just plain straight liberals or are Republicans who just can't stand Bush?
Liberal is by far the best classification for me. However, I don't mind Bush. He's funny and relatively sincere for a politician. I do not like the majority of his policies on the other hand and that's what matters when it comes to voting--policies, not personality. I've been voting since 1999 and I always vote for whoever I like the most between the choices available to me. I've voted for candidates in a few different parties as a result.
Quote:
Bush revising the New Deal? Is he out of his mind? That screams socialism and isn't more government power more like a Democrat? I'm getting confused here...
One: Don't believe the stereotypes for the parties. They are rarely accurate when dealing with a SPECIFIC person. Using party stereotypes will tend to make a person ignorant of the positions for a particular person as they do not always fall in line.
Two: BOTH parties increase government power. The only difference is in the areas that they tend to concentrate the power based on stereotypes. However, as per my first note, the stereotypes do not always apply to a specific person and as a result should be ignored when discussing a specific person.
One of the reasons some conservatives are upset with Bush (but they will mostly vote for him anyway) is that he spends. He is not completely fiscally responsible.
i'm not old enough to vote but when i am, look out Mr Blair..
Quote:
but when i am, look out Mr Blair..
Don't be so quick to choose who to vote for, you have to think about what your voting for, not why your not voting for Blair. Think about it, Blair may be a pretty bad Priminister but at the moment there's no one any better.
Quote:
Don't be so quick to choose who to vote for, you have to think about what your voting for, not why your not voting for Blair.
Well you see my opinion took a long time to form (everything from top up fees to iraq has influenced my opinion).
Quote:
Think about it, Blair may be a pretty bad Priminister but at the moment there's no one any better.
Do i detect a slight vibe of hypocricy there, or is it just me?
Quote:
Well you see my opinion took a long time to form (everything from top up fees to iraq has influenced my opinion).
Well you didn't actually state why you weren't voting for him so it sounded pretty rushed, also my telepathic abilities are some what none existant, so forgive me for not being able to know your opinion before you've actually told me.
Quote:
Do i detect a slight vibe of hypocricy there, or is it just me?
I don't see how, unless you missed my point, I'll simplify it for you; my point was don't say "I don't like Mr Blair so I'm going to vote for this guy" but instead think "Let's see what this guy has to offer me, let's hope he's better than Blair.". My other point was that at this precise moment Labour is still the best bet, sometimes we have to make reluctant choices.
Labour might have chosen to side with Bush, but I don't think the Conservatives would have gone against him either.
I don't know about the Libs though...
hell i'd vote lib dems anyway, at least they're honest about raising taxes...
Are you out of your mind, moose? You're voting for someone when you have actual knowledge that they're gonna raise taxes? You know, all governments raise taxes, so why not vote for the BNP? At least they'll only put a tax on anyone who isn't of pure ethnic origin.
according to your logic harley, i can't vote for anyone at all.
Quote:
so why not vote for the BNP?
Because they give patriots a bad name.
That was sarcasm, in case you hadn't noticed.
And anywa, Bush gives patriotism a bad name.
Sweden's a good example of a 'socialist' country. According to Kompi, taxes there are pretty high, but what you get in return is worthwhile (including state-paid university education, no less, something I believe everyone who is able deserves).
So, I don't have a problem with taxes so long as they are dealt out fairly (no tax cuts for the rich) and actually go towards decent services for the people (like improving state schools and the NHS). I will vote for the Liberal Democrats primarily because of their policy against Blair's tuition fees and their opposition to the war in Iraq, among other things...
But let's get back the American flagwaving contest shall we? We can talk about Blair, Howard, and Kennedy in another topic. Yes, in Britain we have THREE main parties.
exactly
And anywa, Bush gives patriotism a bad name.
I bet you say the same thing about George Washington.
Jimro
George W. Bush has not treated veterans well since he came to power (cutting combat pay, cutting veterans benefits, getting an awful lot of them killed for nothing), but that certainly wasn't enough to pry the Republican party's nose from the military's ass last week. Fortunately some bold delegates decided to show the GOP's true colors and went to great lengths to ridicule America's veterans:
(Reuters)
Yes, the must-have accessory on day one of the Republican National Convention was the "Purple Heart Band-Aid" - brainchild of Morton Blackwell, a delegate from Virginia. These oh-so-hilarious accoutrements were designed to deride John Kerry's service in Vietnam, and Morton handed them out with the message, "It was just a self-inflicted scratch, but you see I got a Purple Heart for it." But isn't this incredibly offensive to any veteran who won a Purple Heart? Not according to Republican bigwigs such as Newt Gingrich who declared on ABC, "I think it's funny." So for all those who volunteered to join the military and won the Purple Heart for wounds received during combat, please remember - the Republican party thinks you're a bunch of pussies who deserve nothing more than their undying contempt.
Meanwhile, Fox News, often viewed as fair and balanced (tm), and sometimes even liberal (bs), pretty much ignored the massive protest which took place the day before the Republican Convention - except when some moron set fire to a float (which the fire department put out in about two minutes) and then they were all over it like a rash. The Fox News presenter at the time said that the organizers must be pretty disappointed with the turnout since they'd expected 250,000 people and "only thousands" had showed up. No, no, no. THIS is what "thousands" look like:
And this is what close to half a million people looks like:
Speaking of the protest, want to see a video of a young Republican Convention-goer dragging a protester to the ground and then kicking her while she's down? Here you go. (Note that the video is mislabeled and the man doing the kicking is not Tyler Bickford.) Now THAT'S bipartisanship. Compassionate conservatism right there. Such a touching display of American national unity.
And finally, we come to George W. Bush. But first, after snoozing through Gov. Pataki's speech, the Convention audience was treated to a disturbingly hokey video documenting Bush's many "accomplishments" since he came to office. Apparently these accomplishments include wearing a cowboy hat and throwing a baseball - indeed, most people would be forgiven for thinking they were watching a Cialis commercial. If you haven't seen it, the Daily Show's RNC video - available here or here - is a far more accurate portrayal of Bush's presidential achievements. But once the warm-up was complete, it was time for the main event. Rumors that Bush would make a 1970s-rock-concert-style entrance, rising slowly through the floor amidst a cloud of dry ice, were sadly proven to be false - although his 1980s-game-show-style entrance did leave many viewers wondering whether he was going to ask members of the audience to "come on down." Unfortunately, the first half of Dubya's speech appeared to be nothing more than a re-hash of his unkept promises from the 2000 campaign, except without the money to pay for any of it this time. Leave No Child Behind? Compassionate Conservatism? It's almost like the last four years never happened! But it was during the speech's second half that the President really caught fire - because he got to talk about WAR and TERRA. (Pay no attention to those soon-to-break exposs on his National Guard Service - or lack of it - by the way.) "We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer," Bush boasted. Funny then that President We-Will-Not-Flinch almost crapped his drawers when two protesters interrupted the proceedings and were dragged out by police. Incidentally, has anyone noticed that the Republicans spent all week bragging about making America more secure, and they couldn't even secure their own damn Convention? There were protesters inside Madison Square Garden every single night for God's sake. Anyway, while some pundits were shedding tears of joy at Bush's Great Acceptance Speech, others were not quite so impressed. The fact that he obviously left out quite a bit of stuff which hasn't gone too well so far - you know, little things like:
- The economy being in the crapper
- Everyone losing their jobs
- The gap between rich and poor getting wider and wider
- Enron (etc.)
- Record-breaking oil prices
- Record-breaking government deficits
- Corporations outsourcing American jobs
- Corporations getting massive tax-breaks while low income Americans get nothing
- Environmental laws being gutted
- Abandoning stem-cell research
- Failing to fund No Child Left Behind
- Giving massive government handouts to pharmaceutical industries while pretending to help the elderly
- An increase in the overall tax burden on the middle-class
- More and more people falling into poverty
- More and more people without health insurance
- Failing to unite, not divide the country
- Exploiting September 11th for political purposes
- Opposing investigations into September 11th
- Opposing the Department of Homeland Security
- Israeli spies influencing American foreign policy
- Iranian spies influencing American foreign policy
- No end in sight to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict
- No sign of Osama bin Laden
- Almost 1,000 dead American soldiers
- Almost 12,000 dead Iraqi civilians
- Quagmire in Iraq
- A resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan
- Insulting the United States' friends and allies
- Making the world, which was on the US' side 100% when 9/11 happened, hate the United States
- Four more years
- Four more years
- Four more years!
Yes, after the disappointing failure of Bush to arrive by rising through the floor, I know this viewer was left wondering if perhaps he would instead sink into the stage at the end of the speech as flames leaped up around him. Alas... it was not to be.
Cycle, are you planning to be the CBC's political editor? If not you really ought to do some kind of political journalism. That was good, stuff! 
Do you want what these guys are planning?
Social and religious conservatives are now firmly in control of the Republican Party. In New York, reporters were banned from a rally of Christian conservatives at the Waldorf-Astoria. Inside speakers debated fighting abortion and trying to remove the separation between church and state in American life.
.......I can't vote for a man who will take that away from me.
My beef with the social conservatives is why are they depending on the government to fix all? The politics sway in the wind...and nothing is going to turn at all right for them...
And I do not want government to get into the church...if the seperation of church and state go down...everyone has a choice about what to believe. What you believe I may or not agree with but I can't change you...forcing them is only going to make it worse...
Agreed.
The separation of church and state is the single quality of the American government that I admire the most.
America is a multicultural country. To fuse the Christian church with the government of so diverse a nation would be utterly moronic.
The seperation of church and state is based on this statement in the bill of rights, ammendment 1.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That is the only reference to the seperation of church and state. Which makes it ok for Congress to set aside money for the purchasing of Bibles for the indians, yup that happened. No one forced them to read it.
That also means it's ok for chaplains to minister to servicemen and congressmen.
Jimro
4 more years!!!!
Osama agrees with you there, Jimro.
No, some guy named Simpson agrees with me.
Osama hasn't yet made a press release to Al Jazeera on the subject.
Jimro
I think you'll find that, by reading the rest of 'I Drew This' (link in a previous post), that David Craig Simpson actually strongly disagrees with you.
For example:
Of course, you'll probably just see this dismiss this as liberal propaganda.
Sorry to disapoint you,
I dimiss it as liberal entertainment.
Jimro
