Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Just listen to yourselves...

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Just listen to yourselves... (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/74863-just-listen-yourselves.html)

Personally, I am not too convinced George really recieved a majority vote. Some slimy things are coming to light. But, nonetheless, he recieved a massive wave of support from the religious right. And if things are as we are told to believe, roughly half the population are opposed to the "moral values" held in such esteem by the other half. I have never believed that I have any right to dictate or force my personal spiritual beliefs on another person of different point of view. I cannot and will not accept forced conformity to a set of moral values I do not share. I am not alone. Ever hear the difference between tatooed people and non tatooed people? Tattoed people could care less whether you´re tattoed or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ravenradiodj

I don't think the gay marriage issue had anything to do with it for MOST voters.

I have to agree with Manx on this one, my problem with fundamentalist Christians, generally speaking (not all of them are like this, but most are), is their habit of believing that they're right and everyone else is wrong, of pushing their belief system down everyone's throat. To anyone who says they don't, ask them how they feel about prayer in public schools. It is absolutely undoubtedly a violation of the separation of church and state, and yet all of them believe, no, INSIST that they have a right to it, and if you oppose them, you're doing Lucifer's work.

"Allah" is merely the Arabic word for "God". Ask them if they would object to a teacher of Arabic descent stating "one nation under Allah" in class, and you'll find out just how intolerant and self-righteous these people are.

I am a pagan minister who regularly feels the scorn, disdain and obsessive drive to "save" everyone else that this group feels for anyone not a part of it. There are exceptions, yes, fine individuals who are fundamentalist who disagree with me entirely, yet who remains my friends, respect my views, and, hey, can even go through a normal day without mentioning Jesus to other people 753 times.

I have no problem with Jeheshua Bar Joseph, the man you erroneously call Jesus. It's the majority of his followers that I have a problem with.

I wonder how Christian it is to drop napalm on civilians, including children, in violation of a UN Resolution banning napalm that we signed years ago. I wonder how Christian it is to use depleted uranium bunkerbuster bombs that cause radiation sickness and mutated fetuses for control of the world's oil in an act of military aggression without legal standing (yes, another UN resolution violated, making every death in this war a murder). So many of you walk around with "What Would Jesus Do?" shirts and stickers. I'd like to hear your answer. Anyone here picturing Jesus firing an automatic rifle into a crowd? Anyone here imagining Jesus saying he'd murder another man for making a pass at him (as REVEREND Jimmy Swaggart recently said, presumably not in the presence of one of his hookers).

I have zero problem with your belief system, and will always defend your right to believe what you wish to believe. But the collective hypocrisy of this group of people, who are the majority of voters in this country, and their bias against anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them, is nauseating.

One last suggestion: the next time a fundamentalist Christian tells you that his religion doesn't dictate his politics, ask him if he'd vote for a candidate who agreed with his position on absolutely every issue, but the candidate was a Muslim, or a Pagan, or an atheist.

Gotta go, someone's knocking on the door, perhaps it's the FBI coming to "liberate" me from my civil rights.

Thank you for this post. Far too often do people fail to grasp the underlying importance of what you say.

I am always boggled at people who truly believe Bush is Christian. What could be more un-Christlike than starting a war? "But Coppertop, no one can be like Christ. He was perfect in everyway..." Yeah, yeah. But the point is he gave an example of how to live a righteous life. War isn't in that description.

Sorry if it's been mentioned before, I got into this thread rather late.

Yeah, you can't blame Christians for who they voted for. In a democracy everyone gets one vote.
Liberal intolerance is just as bad as conservative intolerance, and they even claim to be the tolerant ones.

I have to agree with one thing that has been said. A vote is a Vote not matter who you are. Liberal or Conservative. Reguardless of how you feel if you voted you did your part. No reason to be angry with the other side that also voted. Instead seek out those who support your personal belief and hate the views of the oppisition and still chose not to vote.

No, plain and simple. The essence of egalitarianist liberalism is that all people are inherently equal in all aspects. This doesn't mean they conduct themselves in equal manners or that all behavior, actions, or even ideas are equal. It simply means that nothing is out of hand worse than anything of similar creation before inspection. The fact of the matter is, I can be better than some evangelical Christians, I am smarter than some evangelical Christians, and I did cast my vote with more concern than some evangelical Christians. Its not scapegoating to emphasize the fact that the influx of evangelism in this country has a direct correlation to the election of republican leaders nor is it scapegoating or in any way discriminating to point out that the contradictions in evangelical belief and their tendency to vote republican. Similarly, these points have been made about Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, and even women during every election cycle for the last 6 decades! Anyone who wants to de-emphasize the roll of evanglistic Christians in this election is ignorant or in denial of the facts. Furthermore, anyone who wants to claim this is exclusionary and unique behavior on the part of librals is a hypocrit. This attack is nothing more than reactionary and completely in the spirit of the last 4 years of sore winner's syndrome.

Just wondering, how come evangelical Christians played such a huge role in this election and not the election four years ago? Was the "influx of evangelicals" only during the past four years?

I gotta agree with Coppertop about war being very un-Christian. Bush seems to just be choosing what aspects of Christianity to uphold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeshoe

That's what karl rove believed. The campaign shifted its strategy to net those evangelicals he believed had stayed home last cycle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeshoe

Actually its not just the last 4 years. The evangelical Christians came out big for Bush in 2000 and Bush Sr 1988. Ironically, it was George W. that courted them then too and in Senior's reelection bid in 1992 Dubya was busy with his own campaign/administration in Texas as governor and the evangelical turnout for the republicans went to crap. It really all began though with Reagan in the early 80s when the big time Fawell and Baker shows were airing and the evangelicals have been very good to the republicans ever since, just particularly with Dubya who is himself an evangelical born-again Christian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedro padilla

Who do you think won the popular vote? What are the slimy things coming to light?

Who told you half the popultionis opposed to the "moral values" held in esteem by the other half and what values are you talking about?

Ever hear the difference between the child molester and the non-child molester? the drug addict, the guitar player, the monkey, or the gun dealer?

Don´t know who won the popular vote. I´ve been told what to think, but being a sceptical, free thinking individual I reserve my right to question anything that doesn´t smell right. As I hope you do.
Slimy shit for me include such smelly things as Diebold and deliberately disenfranchised democratic voters. "Lost" or disqualified votes. The absolute blackout of any media coverage questioning the elections outcome. Exit polls which call fraud in any other country are ignored or marginalized in the USA.
Opposed to the moral values was bad wording. I should have said opposed to having someone elses moral values shoved down their throats.
Child molestation is an international moral no no. Drug addicts are their own business. Gun dealers are american patriots. As far as I know guitar players and monkeys are still OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedro padilla

I guess I'm just not good enough to be sceptical enough. I kind of need evidence. Do these alleged impropers account for millions of votes? Are all of the impropers in favor of Bush? Who is Diebold and which voters were deliberately disenfranchised? Which votes were lost or disqualified--and which of the disqualified votes were wrongfully disqualified. Who blacked out the media? What about the exit polls are fraud?

I really don't see why people are so against gay marriage AND gay civil unions. Firstly, if gays are such a small minority, what POSSIBLE impact could this have on our country or businesses? Lets say a company has 100 workers. 98 of these workers are strait, and married, some of which have children. All 98 of these people recieve extra benefits for them, their spouse, and their children. Lets say that one of the remaining two workers was gay, and the final remaining one was black skinned. The gay man/woman has a spouse, and a child (a child? how can a gay have a child? maybe he/she *gasp* had sex with someone of the opposite sex and produced a child, or had a child then got divorced, or had been artificially inceminated). This person is DENIED special care for his spouse and child. Would it REALLY cost that much to add one more family to this benefits list when you already have 98% of your workers recieving it? "NO, you CAN'T have this because you're SLIGHTLY different from these 98 people over here." How is there no outrage? Now lets say that That one remaining worker, the black skinned worker, also had a spouse (of the opposite sex) and a child. If this one person is DENIED medical care just because he was black skinned, just because he was SLIGHTLY different from the other 98 workers recieving benefits, do you think there would be outrage? You're damn right there would be. How is that one case any different from the gay man/woman's? Just because this person's spouse (that you'll probably never see at work) is of the same sex?

Should it be illegal for gays to get jobs? I mean, it seems, no one wants to see "them" benefiting in any way. Why give "them" jobs at all? You wont have to work next to that "fag" or hear them talk about their "fag" spouse. Their child must be a "fag" too because you can't live with a "fag" w/o becoming one, right?