# Comparing Dubya to Steve Jobs? Can you say blasphemy?



## potterhead4 (Feb 25, 2005)

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,343619,00.html

The article calls Bush the "Steve Jobs of the political world." It's great that Steve has achieved so much popularity, but comparing him to Bush? No matter your political stance, you gotta agree that Jobs is way cooler than Bush...there are other points on this, but I have to go. Anyhow, thought it would be an interesting discussion.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 25, 2005)

Not to mention that Jobs holds dinners for the likes of Clinton, Al Gore is on the board of directors for Apple, and he's a diehard Democrat... hehe...

But, then again, the citizens of the United States usually overlook the fact that our two prominent political parties are actually really close to each other "on the spectrum" compared with the rest of the world's political parties.


----------



## whitesaint (Feb 25, 2005)

Yea I agree with you.  I think Dubya makes alot of really wrong and bad decisions and then comes off saying he's all religous and doing it for god.  I don't know of any religous people that start large wars with eternally messed up countries and then say their working with god.  Blasphemy!

Most people I know however never heard of Steve Jobs, but I think Steve Jobs is like the opposite of Bush.  Instead of making a whole lot of bad desicions Steve Jobs makes all the right decisions, and instead of being a major dork like Bush, Steve Jobs is like the coolest cat ever.

Bush seems to say all the wrong things, Steve says all the right things... I dunno maybe it's a bad analogy.  But yea Dubya is like nothing compared to Steve Jobs, at least Steve Jobs tripped on acid and that will make anyone a much broader guy.  I think that's partly why Steve Jobs is so smart, cuz of the acid.

dayum I would love to trip with Steve Jobs


----------



## diablojota (Feb 25, 2005)

whitesaint said:
			
		

> Yea I agree with you.  I think Dubya makes alot of really wrong and bad decisions and then comes off saying he's all religous and doing it for god.  I don't know of any religous people that start large wars with eternally messed up countries and then say their working with god.  Blasphemy!
> 
> Most people I know however never heard of Steve Jobs, but I think Steve Jobs is like the opposite of Bush.  Instead of making a whole lot of bad desicions Steve Jobs makes all the right decisions, and instead of being a major dork like Bush, Steve Jobs is like the coolest cat ever.
> 
> ...




Um... Bush most likely has tripped as well. He has most likely smoked weed and snorted some coke in his day. So that is not quite accurate. He's a born again christian.

And there are sects of people who declare Jihad on other countries and religious groups and say it is in the name of Allah. People blow up abortion clinics in the name of God. No it's not a country taking out another nation, but it is the same thing on a smaller scale.

I am not defending Bush. No need to. However, I am just pointing out your misconceptions.


----------



## whitesaint (Feb 25, 2005)

Well personally I don't like Bush at all, but I love Steve Jobs.    Is there any proof that Bush tripped on acid? or coke?

Well the thing about the Islamic people blowing up crap all the time and murdering people,and then saying their doing it for god,  is we all know that they are insane.

But I see that Bush is kinda doin somewhat the same thing now that I look at it in ur point of view.

The scary thing is many Americans may think that Bush is in his right mind, while a few people like me think he's crazy.  And then all of us American's think the extremists blowing crap up are completely insane and out of thier mind, And then prolly the Iraqi's and Muslims in the middle east think that Al Qaeda and the Islamist extremists are doing the right thing and that Bush is really crazy and America is really evil!

Damn the terrorists say they're doing it for god.  Bush says he's doing it for god.  I guess our greatest enemies our ourselves and we need to just stop interferring with what other countries do.


----------



## macgeek (Feb 25, 2005)

whitesaint said:
			
		

> Yea I agree with you.  I think Dubya makes alot of really wrong and bad decisions and then comes off saying he's all religous and doing it for god.  I don't know of any religous people that start large wars with eternally messed up countries and then say their working with god.  Blasphemy!



Uh, more wars have been fought in the name of God than for any other cause.  And the reason those countries are eternally messed up because of the wars they've fought in the name of God and because of how tightly God is tied to Government.

As for Bush, you're seriously oversimplifying.  Plus, you're ignoring the fact that the majority of the country agrees with him.  Now, that sucks.  I don't agree with him.  I'm completely anti-religion - I hate it, mostly for the reasons I've listed.  But, most of the country agrees with him on social issues like Gay Marriage and Stem Cell Research.  It's a shame, but it's a fact.

As for war, well, the war was brought to us, not the other way around.  Remember that.  And if you have your intelligence agency, Britian's intelligence agency, and the "President" of Russia all telling you that Iraq has WMDs (which btw they have used in the past and not accounted for), you don't screw around.  You don't screw around with millions of lives at stake and listen to a group of talkers (i.e. France, Germany, U.N. as a whole) who you know are in league with the very administration who is threatening you.  The fact is, Iraq had WMDs, they hid them or worse sold them, they couldn't account for them and now neither can we.  We just don't know why.  Worst case scenario.. they were sold to terrorists.  Maybe not Al Queda, but some group.  Personally, I think Saddam was making it seem like he had WMD's when he actually didn't so that neighboring countries wouldn't attack, but that's another story.

Okay, feel free to comment or not.  Sorry to go on such a tirade.  I just get worked up about these things...


----------



## macgeek (Feb 25, 2005)

whitesaint said:
			
		

> Well personally I don't like Bush at all, but I love Steve Jobs.    Is there any proof that Bush tripped on acid? or coke?
> 
> Well the thing about the Islamic people blowing up crap all the time and murdering people,and then saying their doing it for god,  is we all know that they are insane.
> 
> ...




PS.  Bush says he's doing it in the name of freedom and security, not in the name of God.  He actually doesn't talk much about God in his speeches, if you read the transcripts or really pay attention.  Bush isn't crazy.. that's the role he's playing.  Think about it, if he seemed completely docile (like for example, John Kerry), he wouldn't be able to get anything done.  He needs to seem like a little bit of a cowboy for the terrorists to fear him... they don't know what to expect from him, and that's a good thing for us.  Then you have Condi Rice or in the past Colin Powell going in to the other nations and smoothing things over behind the scenes.  I have a lot of family in government.. believe me this is what's happening.  It isn't the first time and it won't be the last.  The terrorists wanted Bush out of office, and that's reason enough for me to want to keep him in.


----------



## Cat (Feb 25, 2005)

It may sound strange, but I'd rather see Bush being called the Steve Jobs of politics, than seeing Steve Jobs being called the Bush of the computer industry ...


----------



## MDLarson (Feb 25, 2005)

Umm.. this is just a dumb topic I think.  Sorry...


----------



## chevy (Feb 25, 2005)

macgeek said:
			
		

> ...The terrorists wanted Bush out of office...



Where did you get that from ? 

Bush is the one making the biggest noise around terrorism... and terrorists need this noise for their "activity" to make sense.

We'll see if he performs so good now that he defends "freedom" and "democracy".


----------



## spitty27 (Feb 25, 2005)

This is a mac forum, not a political debate forum  . I just think it's cool that "Bush is like the endlessly creative (and fabulously wealthy) founder and CEO of Apple Computer, Steve Jobs."


----------



## brianleahy (Feb 25, 2005)

The two have some things in common, but Jobs' has a better track record of running a company well.


----------



## Decado (Feb 25, 2005)

macgeek said:
			
		

> You don't screw around with millions of lives at stake and listen to a group of talkers (i.e. France, Germany, U.N. as a whole) who you know are in league with the very administration who is threatening you.



i find that really offensive. and really stupid.

get over the fact that Bush acted like a rotten cop taking the chance of beating up someone with the excuse "i thought he had a weapon, i was doing it to protect myself".


----------



## fryke (Feb 25, 2005)

Oh my [Goddess-of-choice]! This again? Do we _really_ have to have this? I mean... I always say: Why the hell compare something or someone to something else if not for the sole reason you're out of words describing the thing or person of choice? Why should it even be INTERESTING whether Steven P. Jobs is the Will Smith or the Pamela Anderson or the Toulouse-Lautrec or Picasso of the computer industry? RICHTIG! It's NOT of any interest at ALL. The only time I use such metaphers is when talking to people who're unable to think outside their tiny little world. For example you'd probably have to explain the relativity theory to a bus chauffeur talking about busses and cars, even though they'd never reach anything near speed of light, anyway. But aren't we able to think of Steve Jobs as a person who's CEO of Apple? Do we have to define whether he'd be a good or bad dictator or president or king or something? I'm pretty sure you could find similarities between S.J. and Homer Simpson, Adolf Hitler and Marilyn Monroe as well. But whether those similarities are really there or not doesn't really matter, because it just isn't really NECESSARY to discuss it.

So: If you _do_ feel the need to express your pro or contra G.W. Bush feelings, I suggest the Café or better yet - a talk show or something. In here, we should rather compare Steve Jobs to his predecessors and successors as CEO at Apple.

All that said, I think Steve Jobs is the Fryke of the computer industry. You know, he's right and all.


----------



## chornbe (Feb 26, 2005)

whitesaint said:
			
		

> Yea I agree with you.  I think Dubya makes alot of really wrong and bad decisions and then comes off saying he's all religous and doing it for god.  I don't know of any religous people that start large wars with eternally messed up countries and then say their working with god.  Blasphemy!



Running the government and ever uttering the word God (in a governmental context) at all is Blasphemy, IMHO. Separation of Church and State is a wasted notion in the modern American Government. Fact is, we live in a religious replublic and the fear isn't of having a Godless society... the fear is in becoming a hard line, fundamentalist religious society. That is the fear. That is what we must learn to buffer against. And this most recent round elections scared the hell out of me in that context.

$.02


----------



## chornbe (Feb 26, 2005)

macgeek said:
			
		

> Uh, more wars have been fought in the name of God than for any other cause.  And the reason those countries are eternally messed up because of the wars they've fought in the name of God and because of how tightly God is tied to Government.
> 
> As for Bush, you're seriously oversimplifying.  Plus, you're ignoring the fact that the majority of the country agrees with him.  Now, that sucks.  I don't agree with him.  I'm completely anti-religion - I hate it, mostly for the reasons I've listed.  But, most of the country agrees with him on social issues like Gay Marriage and Stem Cell Research.  It's a shame, but it's a fact.



You, sir, get the gold cigar. I couldn't have said it better.

I maintain that any society that kills in the name of the God we all learned about is the a big, steaming pile of hypocritical crap.

$.02


----------



## MDLarson (Feb 26, 2005)

chornbe said:
			
		

> Running the government and ever uttering the word God (in a governmental context) at all is Blasphemy, IMHO. Separation of Church and State is a wasted notion in the modern American Government. Fact is, we live in a religious replublic and the fear isn't of having a Godless society... the fear is in becoming a hard line, fundamentalist religious society. That is the fear. That is what we must learn to buffer against. And this most recent round elections scared the hell out of me in that context.
> 
> $.02


OK, I'm sick of people crying about Bush & company's religiousity.

"Separation of Church & State" was meant to prevent a state religion like the one found in England circa 1776, not _remove all traces of religion from government._

And please don't persecute Christians or any other religion when you "buffer" against this fictitious hard line, fundamentalist religous society.

Still a stupid topic.


----------



## chornbe (Feb 26, 2005)

I see the current hard-line right wing taking us right back to 1776. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## MDLarson (Feb 26, 2005)

chornbe said:
			
		

> I see the current hard-line right wing taking us right back to 1776. I hope I'm wrong.


How?


----------



## chornbe (Feb 26, 2005)

Federally mandated morality scares me. Government definitions of family and personal unions scare me. Government money feeding church-based social programs scare me. Churches and religious organizations giving monies to political parties scare me. Such things worry me. I'm someone with a generally conservative outlook on things. I'm not a hard liner by any stretch, but I've always been "with" the conservatives on most things. But lately... I just can't get behind the way I see things going.


----------



## MDLarson (Feb 26, 2005)

chornbe said:
			
		

> Federally mandated morality scares me.


What?  Like laws against murder and stealing?  Yah, those are sure old fashioned and should probably be abolished.  I don't know what you intended with your statement, but the fact is, government is ALWAYS 'legislating morality'.





> Government definitions of family and personal unions scare me.


Nowhere in modern history has homosexuality been more accepted than in America.  And the people in this democracy appear to be quite supportive of the status quo.





> Government money feeding church-based social programs scare me.


Why should government 'feed' _only_ secular social programs?  Is that not a form of discrimination?  And if such faith-based programs are successful (like Teen Challenge), why not?





> Churches and religious organizations giving monies to political parties scare me.


Umm...





> Such things worry me. I'm someone with a generally conservative outlook on things. I'm not a hard liner by any stretch, but I've always been "with" the conservatives on most things. But lately... I just can't get behind the way I see things going.


Dude, you are scared waaay too easily.

I find it both sad and amusing how people like you attack the presence of a cross in a court building and the mention of 'God' in anything having to do with government and yet are "scared" of religion bearing down upon you.  If anything, religion is being absolutely stripped away from government, not added to it.  The only point you really have is that we have a Christian president in the White House who takes his faith seriously, and you have a stigma against religous people.

Nobody's discriminating against YOU.  If anything, YOU are discriminating against ME as a Christian.


----------



## chornbe (Feb 27, 2005)

I'm not discriminating. You're quite wrong on that part. And I'm not talking about the laws against murdering and stealing. 

Example: For the record, I'm straight. Wife, several kids, etc. But I do have gay friends and family. My brother is moving to Canada because his S.O., Life Partner, whatever the PC moniker du jour is, can't be naturalized under US law because the US doesn't recognize same-sex marriages. For me, I don't care. But I do care that my brother has to move like 4000 miles away to Canada, and change his career because of a religiously-driven, stupid, archaic rule like "thou shall not lay with another man". The times have changed. Like it or not. That is the very nature of the discrimination of which you speak. 

I don't care about your religious affiliation, so please don't assume you have a clue about what I may or may not be discriminating against. I have said nothing to lead you to that. What I said is our government should *not* be making religious doctrine into law. They are. 

I am, I guess, a hell-doomed athiest (I just refuse to accept that any God could allow the world to exist in the state it is, but you'll now fire back at me with "free will" and such) and my wife is a Catholic, though she is fundamentally an outcast because we were married in the Baptist church. You should see the flack she's getting from the Catholic church now that she's been asked to be my neice's God Mother. Talk about discriminating. My children are being raised under the Christian teachings and I push their teachings just as much as my wife does. When the time comes for them to be old enough to question what they will and make up their own minds, then I will no longer push them. Allow them to question, explore their beliefs, come to their own growing conclusions. And I won't interfere. Free will, and all.

I hope you're right. I hope I'm just being a tad too paranoid. Perhaps I am just a skittish whacko. If so, then you've nothing to fear.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 27, 2005)

Well said chornbe, and that's all I gotta say.  I feel I'd get "schooled" in a discussion like this -- but I just wanted to say that's the best rebuttal to an accusation I've read thus far in this thread.  MDLarson's got some strong beliefs (as does everyone) but passing that harsh of a judgement like that upon another human, in my opinion, is way out of line.

Makes you wonder who the paraoid one really is.  To bring up the idea of discrimination without provocation (I don't see anything that chornbe said that could be interpreted as discriminatory) and then turn it around and accuse the person right back of being the one that's discriminating is just... well, as he put it, paranoid.

We need to keep in mind that supporting one political party or another is a personal belief, and in no way right or wrong.  One is not wrong for supporting Bush.  One is not wrong for supporting Kerry.  And no... Bush didn't win by a landslide.  The majority may support him, but it's a small majority.  It's not like it was 90-10 or anything.  Still, that doesn't make any inferences about whether Bush's actions are right or wrong -- they're actions that some support, and some denounce.  You can't tell someone they're wrong for supporting Bush, nor can you tell someone they're wrong for not supporting Bush.  It's all opinion on what you believe the leader of this free country is capable of, and if you like the direction Bush is taking the company, you support him.  If you would rather see the country being taken in a different direction, you don't.  Simple opinion.


----------



## MDLarson (Feb 27, 2005)

Well, I'm sorry but I *do* feel discriminated against often times when I read some discussions going on here (more often at the MacAddict forums; that's why I hang out here more).

But when the ACLU demands a small cross to be removed from the Los Angeles County seal because of "separation of church and state" issues, I have to gag.  I'm sorry, but if we follow your line of reasoning, chornbe, we must rename Los Angeles to something less offensive, and for that matter, the name Sacremento must go as well.

I don't mean to needlessly bring up strong issues or whatever, but maybe, just maybe you can see it from my point of view.  Christianity as I know it is *not* seeking to limit your freedom (in fact, it's quite the opposite, but that's a sermon issue).

I think the core issue with those "concerned" about religion in the White House is that you don't know how to deal with a strong president who happens to be a Christian.  I have a friend who has recently moved to MN from Massachusets; a liberal grown up in a liberal family.  Concerning the Bush administration, the only thing she can say about it is that she doesnt "trust them".  I ask why, and she doesn't have an answer.

Bah... it's madness.  I have my share of liberal friends (and one close friend who is "coming out of the closet") and we get along JUST FINE inspite of our political differences.  Stop being so suspicious of everybody.  That's all I have to say.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 27, 2005)

Would your opinions be different, if, say, we were a Jewish nation and you were a Christian?  Would you gag when they order the Star of David to be removed from the seal, or would you support the removal of the symbol?

This Christian nation couldn't ask for better support than what you're giving it, but if it were not a Christian nation -- if it were a nation formed under a different religion -- would you give the same support, even in light of the differing beliefs?


----------



## MDLarson (Feb 27, 2005)

I think that I would be fine with your scenario because I would recognize that said nation was founded on a different religous code.  If I was to move to Israel and assimilate and yet keep my Christian faith, I would *not* have a problem with the Star of David showing up on government tokens.  If I were to live in Saudi Arabia instead, I would have the same opinion.

If a tiny cross on a seal offends you or makes you _feel uncomfortable_, then you have the right... nay, the *duty* to remove such old-fashioned and offensive religous symbols.  (I'm being sarcastic)

I would urge athiests and other thin-skinned folks to not be so sensitive to symbols of our nation's heritage.  Again I want to stress that George W. Bush and company is *not* trying to make Christianity the state religion!  If anything is happening, Christianity is in decline as the ACLU continues to *challenge the status quo* and strip government tokens of any and all religous symbols because of up-tight athiests who feel that their rights are being somehow violated.

Isn't it about time this thread gets moved to the cafe?


----------



## spitty27 (Feb 27, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Would your opinions be different, if, say, we were a Jewish nation and you were a Christian?  Would you gag when they order the Star of David to be removed from the seal, or would you support the removal of the symbol?
> 
> This Christian nation couldn't ask for better support than what you're giving it, but if it were not a Christian nation -- if it were a nation formed under a different religion -- would you give the same support, even in light of the differing beliefs?



What?!

That's like asking Israel to remove the Star of David (Magen David) off their flag; it is the very defenition of who they are. I'm not sure where you're going with this. But, having the opportunity of being a Jew in America, I couldn't be more pleased with what's going on right now. Bush is great and will stay in office for another four years whether you like it or not, so I see no point of debate there.



			
				mdlarson said:
			
		

> Umm.. this is just a dumb topic I think. Sorry...


seriously


----------



## Decado (Feb 27, 2005)

ok. enough with the religion-talk. Since i'm among friends here i can afford being stupid and ask right out: Why is there only two political parties in USA? Or are there more? most european countries got a plethora of parties that then have to build a government together. it takes the focus away from the "leader". and it gives more choice in expressing what you as a voter think is important. par exemple: if the green party got a lot of votes, the environment aspect will get much more attention in the government.
We never have these "him/her" versus "him/her" kind of discussions in sweden, because it doesnt matter.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 27, 2005)

spitty27 said:
			
		

> What?!
> 
> That's like asking Israel to remove the Star of David (Magen David) off their flag; it is the very defenition of who they are. I'm not sure where you're going with this. But, having the opportunity of being a Jew in America, I couldn't be more pleased with what's going on right now. Bush is great and will stay in office for another four years whether you like it or not, so I see no point of debate there.
> 
> ...



I'm merely playing the devil's advocate here -- it by no means reflects my own personal opinions or beliefs.

I only used the Jewish faith as an example... it's a general case of (insert religion here) for the example.  Does Israel have the same separation of church and state laws that the United States has?  If not, then comparing the displaying of Christian symbols in governmental places in the United States to the Star of David on Israel's flag is not a good comparison.

I was simply asking, had MDLarson been of a faith other than Christianity, if he would still agree with Christian symbols being displayed in governmental places and if he would still support the displaying of religious symbols other than those of his own faith in government.

I have no problem with the words "God" on my money, nor do I have a problem of crosses being displayed in court, nor do I have a problem with a 10 commandments statue outside of any governmental building.  The Christians built this nation, and by golly, I believe they have the right to display their symbols wherever they'd like.  I even enjoyed saying the "Pledge of Allegiance" in grade school when I was young.

But that's something that people of all faiths that live here have to realize -- this _is_ a Christian nation.  It doesn't mean you have to be Christian to live here, nor does it mean that the government will force you to abide by Christian notions in order to stay on the right side of the law.

I'm in no way referring to Israel or their symbols, flags, government, beliefs or ways when I asked that question.  Some people here are in firm support of having Christian symbols displayed by the government.  All I ask is, knowing that this is a Christian nation, and if that person happened to be of a faith other than Christianity, if they would still lend the same amount of support to keeping the Christian symbols in government.

Hmm... it's tough to word this question right without offending someone, but I mean no offence to anyone.  I'm merely trying to get at a different point of view here (which, in no way, reflects my own beliefs or views).

If this nation were built on a faith other than Christianity, and you were a Christian, would you still argue in favor of keeping religious symbols in government, or would you argue against it (being of different faith than the government)?  Is the reason you support the government's display of Christian symbols: a) because you're Christian, or b) because you support the government?  If the government displayed Jewish symbols, would you: a) support that out of respect of all religions, or b) support that out of respect of the government and the foundation it was built on, or c) not support it, because it doesn't agree with your own faith?  (and, of course, there's always e) none of the above, some of the above, etc.)

Purely hypothetical questions.  I guess: MDLarson -- if you were not Christian, would you still be passionately in favor of the government displaying Christian symbols?  (Please -- I mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone, nor mean any offence... just trying to pose some questions to get at the underlying reasons people have for supporting or not supporting certain governmental actions/beliefs)


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 27, 2005)

Decado said:
			
		

> ok. enough with the religion-talk. Since i'm among friends here i can afford being stupid and ask right out: Why is there only two political parties in USA? Or are there more? most european countries got a plethora of parties that then have to build a government together. it takes the focus away from the "leader". and it gives more choice in expressing what you as a voter think is important. par exemple: if the green party got a lot of votes, the environment aspect will get much more attention in the government.
> We never have these "him/her" versus "him/her" kind of discussions in sweden, because it doesnt matter.



We have two widely accepted parties: Democrat and Republican.  We also have Libertarian, which has a much smaller following, and Independent as well, meaning "all the rest."

Anyone can run for President.  You can even vote for your friend (a write-in).  You don't have to be Democrat or Republican to be President, but it sure helps.


----------



## MDLarson (Feb 27, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Purely hypothetical questions.  I guess: MDLarson -- if you were not Christian, would you still be passionately in favor of the government displaying Christian symbols?  (Please -- I mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone, nor mean any offence... just trying to pose some questions to get at the underlying reasons people have for supporting or not supporting certain governmental actions/beliefs)


Yes, because I DO support acknowledgement of our nation's _heritage_.  Such symbols should not be removed only because of somebody's uncomfortability or supposed "offence taken".

I do not have the position I have _because_ I am a Christian.  That's just a coincidence.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 27, 2005)

Cool, that's all I was trying to get at... thanks for the honest answers without trying to make it seem like I wanted Israel's flag star-less!


----------



## fryke (Feb 27, 2005)

(Okay, this is most certainly not Apple News anymore... Moving the thread...)


----------



## MDLarson (Feb 27, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Cool, that's all I was trying to get at... thanks for the honest answers without trying to make it seem like I wanted Israel's flag star-less!


LOL, no problem Diablo.  I appreciate the way you were asking the questions.  Sorry if I sounded a little defensive at first.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 27, 2005)

No apology needed!  It's perfectly understandable -- it's a discussion about some very sensitive beliefs that people have... it would be a pretty boring discussion if we weren't passionate about our views.

I do pose a lot of hypothetical questions, and tend to play the devil's advocate a lot.  More often than not, I'm asking questions and probing people with my own beliefs set aside, just to try and further the argument and take it a little deeper -- get to the core.

I, for one, don't want any of the religious symbols removed from our government -- I think they exist to remind people about where our country's laws came from in the first place.  Even a non-Christian can understand that by looking at a cross affixed to a court building that we are trying to uphold and interpret laws that were not originally created by man.  Our laws are practical implementations of higher commandments, and change over time to adapt to new societal trends.

It's highly commendable that Bush is trying to bring our nation back to some fundamental values and remind the citizens that, even though the government is a business like any other business that requires a flow of currency, that it is founded upon religion and what one believes is moral and immoral.  I think a lot of people don't like Bush using Christianity in his leadership because it may seem like he's justifying his actions through a higher power.  I don't see it that way, but I'm sure that some do.

This is gonna make your skin crawl, but I wanted Kerry... and Gore for that matter.  Just think about where the internet would be today if we had the _inventor of it as our leader_!    What would this discussion be if we all thought the same thing and supported Bush?  --a boring collection of people patting each other on the back... no fireworks... no flame-wars... no differing opinions...

"Hey, Bush is good!"
"Yeah, man, he's good-good!"
"I agree -- goodness is Bush in a bottle"
"Wow, I love Bush!"
"Bush done us right!"

What a boring discussion... hehe...


----------



## MDLarson (Feb 27, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca, you are a breath of fresh air.  I am so glad to hear a sensible democrat.  Thanks for saying all that.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 27, 2005)

Heh... aren't _all_ Democrats sensible?  

Hey, you win some, you lose some.  Kennedy wasn't a bad president (although someone thought he was, obviously)... Roosevelt wasn't a bad one, either -- he really got the economy back into a manageable state.  And, I'm sure most peoples' views differ from mine, but Clinton really brought a lot of needed attention to health care -- whether he did any good with it is debateable, but I'm one to look at positives, not negatives.  And hey, it's entirely possible to excel at your job while simultaneously failing as a human.  Getting your **** **** ********* and *** **** ***** **** in the ***** *** Oval Office doesn't make you a bad president, just a bad husband!  

Still -- people need to put things in perspective.  When you look at the big picture, Democrats and Republicans really want the same thing: good for the people.  They just differ slightly on their approaches.  They're really close together on the political spectrum -- it's not like Anarchy vs. Dictatorship, or Capitalism vs. Communism, which are on pretty much opposite ends of the spectrum, and some nations are still in civil war over which to settle on.

At any rate, it would be interesting to see how election results turned out if the political affiliation of the Presidential nominees were hidden until the end of the election.  How many Democrats would unwittingly vote for a Republican and vice-versa?  Seems like a good sociological experiment: make some people listen to an unknown, not easily identifiable Democrat, and, likewise, a Republican, then ask the study participants to identify the political affiliation of the speaker.  I'd be willing to bet that no more than 50% get it right.

Edit: Here's a great read on redefining the "political spectrum," if you have waaaaaay too much time on your hands:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm


----------



## chornbe (Feb 28, 2005)

There was this statement made once... slightly after the WaterGate incident. "Nixon was a great president. He just got caught at it." 

I think Clinton had a lot of positive things about his Presidency. To me it's a shame that people somehow equate his pecker to his presidency. *shrugs* Reagan had a good presidency. As did Bush, Sr. 

Democrats,  Republicans... bah. None of it matters.


----------



## Myke (Feb 28, 2005)

_"We have two widely accepted parties: Democrat and Republican. We also have Libertarian, which has a much smaller following, and Independent as well, meaning "all the rest."

Anyone can run for President. You can even vote for your friend (a write-in). You don't have to be Democrat or Republican to be President, but it sure helps."_

Yes Eldiablo...but the interesting thing is; why when you have this choice don't you make use of it? Someone else here said that you have two ideologically similar parties. Why aren't there if not dozens at least a handful of competing parties rather than two monoliths?

Surely this is like being offered a choice of computers running Windows 2000 or Windows XP?

Does it have to be this way? 

Also ...why do so few Americans actually vote in presidential elections.

Just curious!


----------



## MDLarson (Feb 28, 2005)

Myke said:
			
		

> Also ...why do so few Americans actually vote in presidential elections.


Because we're too lazy, and people don't value the fought-and-died-for right to vote that we have.

It was Ross Perot, a 3rd party independant who disrupted Bush Sr.'s bid for a 2nd term that got Clinton in.  Often times voting for a 3rd party candidate means either a wasted vote or a vote _against_ your 2nd choice and the one you don't want in, gets in (like Clinton).


----------



## Decado (Feb 28, 2005)

"Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council, January 27, 2003"

Hans Blix is such a cool name 
first "Hans" that is like a genitive form of "Han" as in Han Solo. and then "Blix" which is a dialectical short form of "Blixt" which means Lightening.
so: Han's Lightening.

to bad he looks half dead.


----------



## iMan (Mar 2, 2005)

I would just like to point out that there's no such thing as a 'religious war' it's all about power and politics. the religion is just a way to sell it to people, to rally support

Viktor


----------



## MDLarson (Mar 2, 2005)

iMan said:
			
		

> I would just like to point out that there's no such thing as a 'religious war' it's all about power and politics. the religion is just a way to sell it to people, to rally support
> 
> Viktor


I don't think so.  People wouldn't blow themselves up if they just believed in power and politics I think.  But I could be wrong since I've never blown myself up in the name of God...


----------



## diablojota (Mar 2, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> I, for one, don't want any of the religious symbols removed from our government -- I think they exist to remind people about where our country's laws came from in the first place.  Even a non-Christian can understand that by looking at a cross affixed to a court building that we are trying to uphold and interpret laws that were not originally created by man.  Our laws are practical implementations of higher commandments, and change over time to adapt to new societal trends.



Hey El Diablo. I agree with most of your rant except for the part quoted above. I am an Atheist. Have been since I was very young (despite both my parents being religious). So, being the "non-christian" that I am, I look up at the cross and don't see laws that were not created by man. They are still created by man. However what I do see is a sign that many people find guidance and direction from. For some religion works. I see nothing wrong with that, especially when the majority believe. That's fine by me. I don't mind having "In God we trust" written on our currency or "Under God" said in the Pledge of Allegience. Whichever method helps people be good and find guidance and a meaning to live life and do so morally, let them follow it.


----------



## Decado (Mar 2, 2005)

diablojota said:
			
		

> I don't mind having "In God we trust" written on our currency



shouldn't it be "in God _some_ trust"


----------



## diablojota (Mar 2, 2005)

Haha. Yeah that's pretty good.


----------

