Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Why did you vote for Obama?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362568 is a reply to message #362524] |
Wed, 10 December 2008 22:25   |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Darkknight wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 17:59 |
You keep saying there is no proof of God and therefore you won't believe one even exists. You have not shown me one thing to make me see otherwise.
|
The burden of proof isn't on him. He has no proof that the Flying Purple Invisible Unicorn doesn't exist either. We have no proof that he's purple, either, since he's invisible but we belief. It's our faith, so it's above scrutiny, amirite?
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362581 is a reply to message #362574] |
Thu, 11 December 2008 01:06 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Darkknight wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 21:44 |
| Dover wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 23:25 |
| Darkknight wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 17:59 |
You keep saying there is no proof of God and therefore you won't believe one even exists. You have not shown me one thing to make me see otherwise.
|
The burden of proof isn't on him. He has no proof that the Flying Purple Invisible Unicorn doesn't exist either. We have no proof that he's purple, either, since he's invisible but we belief. It's our faith, so it's above scrutiny, amirite?
|
No the proof isn't for me to come up with. I started this topic and the topic was why did you vote for Obama? It wasn't me who changed the topic to a religious war.
|
Yet you continue to bawwwwwwww about it. If you were truly interested in keeping this thread on topic, you wouldn't have indulged. It takes two to tango, it takes two fling shit at each other, and it takes two to have an argument. to Don't attempt to absolve yourself of responsibility of what this thread has become.
And while we're here, yes, the burden of proof IS on you. You have a claim, Spoony does not.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362606 is a reply to message #362581] |
Thu, 11 December 2008 06:15 |
 |
DarkKnight
Messages: 754
Registered: May 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Thu, 11 December 2008 09:06 |
| Darkknight wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 21:44 |
| Dover wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 23:25 |
| Darkknight wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 17:59 |
You keep saying there is no proof of God and therefore you won't believe one even exists. You have not shown me one thing to make me see otherwise.
|
The burden of proof isn't on him. He has no proof that the Flying Purple Invisible Unicorn doesn't exist either. We have no proof that he's purple, either, since he's invisible but we belief. It's our faith, so it's above scrutiny, amirite?
|
No the proof isn't for me to come up with. I started this topic and the topic was why did you vote for Obama? It wasn't me who changed the topic to a religious war.
|
spoony put his 2 cents in their wasnt a God so i responded to it. now if he wants to start his own subject on is their a God or not and ask the question then Ill respond.
But your right I shouldnt have here since he hijacked my topic.
Yet you continue to bawwwwwwww about it. If you were truly interested in keeping this thread on topic, you wouldn't have indulged. It takes two to tango, it takes two fling shit at each other, and it takes two to have an argument. to Don't attempt to absolve yourself of responsibility of what this thread has become.
And while we're here, yes, the burden of proof IS on you. You have a claim, Spoony does not.
|
your right i shouldnt have responded to him hi-jacking my topic. i should have kept on on track.
if he wants to start his own topic on if theres a God or not I'll respond their instead of here from now on.
[Updated on: Thu, 11 December 2008 06:16] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362626 is a reply to message #362606] |
Thu, 11 December 2008 08:15 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
If a candidate's opinions on foreign policy or economics or law&order are fit subjects for debate, so are their opinions on religion. Until the day the religious stop trying to impose their own rules upon non-believers, claim unjustified religious privileges and interfere with non-believers' lives, this is a fit subject for criticism.
Still, the other thread is up and ready, just waiting for you to completely ignore everything I say, again. Here it is.
| Jecht wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 21:36 |
Spoony, It's not on other people to ensure that I don't look at other women lustfully, it's completely on me. I don't expect others to change for my beliefs. It's my personal responsibility.
|
Better. Much better. Your religious rules only apply to believers.
Earlier, as an argument against secularism, you implied the opposite.
| Jecht wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 21:36 |
Jesus(and it was new testament, not old by the way)
|
I am perfectly aware of that. If I said otherwise, and I do not think I did, please quote me and I will be happy to correct it.
| Jecht wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 21:36 |
was simply making the point that a person should not covet another person's wife. A straying eye is painful to your wife, the other man, and most likely to the other woman. This is obviously a useful sermon, and I'm sure even you believe that looking at other women can hurt your significant other.
|
I would not disagree that your wife would have a legitimate grievance, but that is not the point. The point is the sermon claims that the two things are morally equivalent, which is insane. The Ten Commandments go along the same lines; the commandment against theft is preached with the same imperative as the commandment against possible desire of theft (which is a rather exaggerated description of envy). Odd, that, since the shortlist of 10 don't say anything about slavery or rape or cruelty to children. Still, why is theft the only commandment which must be backed up by another commandment saying you can't THINK about theft? Why not a commandment saying you can't THINK about murder or false witness? Why not a commandment saying you can't THINK about adultery? (Admittedly, Jesus takes care of the last one in the New Testament, but apparently thinking about murder is not worth prohibiting)
| Jecht wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 21:36 |
On to the secular debate, the wording was irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. As you recall I was the first person to say secular. If you don't agree with this terminology then simply plug in a word of your choice to fit. Arguing semantics is too nit-picky for me to take seriously.
|
Yet my point still stands. You said secularism affects you in the same way as religion affects me, which only goes to show you don't know the meaning of the word. Secularism is freedom of religion and freedom from religion; it precisely means your religious beliefs do not affect me and mine do not affect you. It means let's agree to disagree and the town is big enough for the both of us. You said otherwise, and added the wild statement that we "should agree to disagree" when you argue against that very concept.
Incidentally, there has never (to my knowledge) existed a truly secular society in the history of the world, and until there is, the concept of freedom of religion is an illusion.
| Jecht wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 21:36 |
Pastors are more learned than I am, or you are on this subject. They spend their lives researching the bible and corresponding texts to explain the basis behind God's teachings, Revelations, and interpretations of God's word. While I may even disagree with some theories and even make up my own, they still know the content much better than I. In fact, I've only read through the text approximately one and a half times. Pastors read through it hundreds of times. It's a Pastor's job to show support for these "ramblings" as you deemed them.
|
I fail to see why this makes them 'learned' any more than a child who's read See Spot Run a hundred times and consequently thinks it's all true and wants to live his life by it. Still, if you want to get a pastor in here to debate religion and secularism with me, I positively encourage it.
| Jecht wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 21:36 |
To sum up. I don't wish to impose my beliefs on anyone.
|
Very good. The world would be a much better place if all religious people thought the same. If that ever happened, I would not care whether your religion is factually correct or not, certainly not enough to challenge it.
| Jecht wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 21:36 |
I do however, want to make sure people don't get the wrong idea about my religion.
|
Who are you to say it is wrong? My "ideas" about religion come primarily from reading the Bible. Somewhat secondary to that is my observations of those who claim to follow it. Is the Bible wrong, then? It certainly contradicts itself often enough.
| Jecht wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 21:36 |
My church is filled with kind, loving, accepting people.
|
I would not dispute that, any more than I would dispute that there are plenty of Muslims who are not misogynistic, rabidly anti-Semitic, homophobic murderers. Unfortunately their religion specifically commands them to be.
I would also take issue with the word "accepting", bearing in mind that for the past two thousand years atheists like myself have been told that we will suffer horrifying and everlasting torture after we die, merely for not buying into your way of thinking. Even if this claim were anything truthful, if it were any more than an unknowable guess, it is still a long way away from "accepting".
The ranks of atheism are also filled with kind, loving people, just as your church probably is. There is a major difference between the two; atheists do not threaten you with ghastly punishments for thinking what you think.
| Jecht wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 21:36 |
While they may not agree with certain lifestyles (such as homosexuality), they would NEVER turn those people away from the congregation, charity, or prayer.
|
Likewise, I do not agree with Christianity, and yet I would not treat someone badly because of their religion. Unfortunately, the analogy is flawed. I would never support a law which meant that Christians have fewer rights under the law than non-Christians, never. Many Christians support laws which mean homosexuals are legally second-class citizens. If not for Christianity, I am fairly certain these laws would have little trouble being democratically removed.
| Jecht wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 21:36 |
The church does many charitable programs such as premarital counseling, addiction counseling, helping those in need, and sending prayer to terminal patients of other local churches. Surely these things are not immoral and deplorable.
|
Of course not, any more than Hezbollah and Hamas' charitable work towards Palestinians is deplorable. Unfortunately this does not invalidate the criticism of the other things they do.
There is one point, though - regarding prayer for patients. This has been known to have rather unpleasant consequences. A scientific experiment was done in the attempt to prove that prayer can have a positive effect on patients' recovery. I will admit that I laughed at the absurdity of this, but my chuckle didn't last long; it lasted right up until I read the results. The results were as follows:
- People who received prayers and didn't know it. There was no noticeable change, just as with people who didn't receive prayers.
- People who received prayers and DID know it. They actually came out medically worse. We've known for a while about the effects morale can have on recovery. I can say that if I was in hospital and someone (a doctor or my parents or a priest) came in and told me that I was being prayed for, I would immediately feel more worried... is my condition that bad?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Thu, 11 December 2008 08:59] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #363385 is a reply to message #362662] |
Tue, 16 December 2008 17:13 |
 |
Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
I voted for Barack Obama because I agree with the need to end the Iraq War responsibly, I agree with his stance on teachers unions, I agree with his tax policy and I like the transparency that he brought to the senate and that he plans on bringing to the White House. I agree with his stance on closing Guantanamo. I think he has a more solid voting record when it comes to veteran's affairs. Compared to McCain, to me Obama is clearly more competent and intelligent, as demonstrated in the way their respective campaigns were managed. I believe Obama can do a better job helping our economy recover and lowering the percentage of foreign oil we use over the next decade. Obama plans on putting more money into energy independence and public works projects. I like that, while imperfect, the Obama campaign's average donation was much smaller than any other campaign. I like that, while imperfect, he has changed his position far fewer times than McCain, and that the changes were not as fundamental as McCain's. I liked that Obama, on the whole, ran a positive campaign and had positive tv ads, while McCain, on the whole, did just the opposite.
On the flip side, I was put off by McCain's blatant attempt to win over ex-Hillary supporters with Palin, rather than chose someone actually capable of taking over the job of US President. I was put off by the McCain campaign calling tax rates lower than that of the Ronald Reagan years "spreading the wealth", and saw it as a blatant attempt to play into mainstream Amercia's fears of Communism. McCain is too old and I personally think that being a war veteran is a good reason NOT to make someone in charge of the country, if anything at all. The idea that McCain had a good chance of dieing (looking at medical statistics) during his presidency, a long with his choice of Palin, sealed the deal.
I could go on and on, but I think a far better question to ask would be "Why on earth did you vote for John McCain?" DarkKnight it's pretty clear you think that anyone who voted for Obama did so because he is black. This is completely wrong and offensive to all the Obama voters who took the time to inform themselves about the issues. I could just as easily accuse you of voting for whoever you voted for because he's white.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #363396 is a reply to message #357510] |
Tue, 16 December 2008 18:21 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Oh, I don't know if he's any more intelligent than McCain, but his campaign managers certainly had a far better grasp of subtle manipulation (knowing when to release statements, image control, and most importantly when not to speak up). He was never directly dishonest, no- but there is a certain indirect dishonesty in the way the campaign was run.
For one example (my favorite), take Obama's stance on the Second Amendment- he stated openly that he "supported the Second Amendment" yet never clarified how he interpreted it. His voting record and ties with various anti-gun groups reveal which way he comes down, as does his choice of VP (Biden was instrumental in passing Clinton's so-called "Assault Weapons" ban). A lie by omission- implying that he supports the right to keep and bear (having specified nothing of the kind) while, in fact, he doesn't. That sort of thing, however, is pretty common in politics- when candidates aren't busy flinging mud at each other instead. Perhaps Mr. Obama isn't quite as different as most people seem to think?
Mastering public opinion does not make a candidate honest. Knowing when to shut up and let the other guy sink himself (which is, more or less, what both Obama and Biden did) does not make a candidate honest. It makes them and their handlers more skilled at the art of political maneuvering, not at telling the truth. To paraphrase a very old bit of wisdom: "A bad liar may present a finely crafted fabrication, but all a great liar has to do is present a bit of truth."
| Quote: |
On the flip side, I was put off by McCain's blatant attempt to win over ex-Hillary supporters with Palin
|
Palin was a terrible choice on McCain's part. Terrible. There had to have been some other Republican woman willing to jump on his ticket... I'm of the opinion that she lost him the race. To his credit, though, he's been trying to distance himself from her since November (going as far as to say that he wouldn't support her in a Presidential bid). Not that it's going to help him any in the future, but it might just keep her from grabbing the spotlight if her former running mate doesn't want anything to do with her.
| Quote: |
McCain is too old and I personally think that being a war veteran is a good reason NOT to make someone in charge of the country, if anything at all.
|
Some of our most popular and successful Presidents have been veterans- including, among others, Washington and Kennedy, and their terms saw some of the most responsible and efficient uses of military resources to resolve conflicts with a minimum of bloodshed. Some of our worst military cluster-fucks, on the other hand, have taken place during the terms of Presidents with no combat experience... Carter (Iran- the botched attempt to rescue American personnel from the embassy), Clinton (Somalia), and Bush Jr. for instance (the latter served in the Air National Guard but never flew in combat). Perhaps such experience is useful, even if it doesn't make or break a Presidency on its own?
| Quote: |
it's pretty clear you think that anyone who voted for Obama did so because he is black. This is completely wrong and offensive to all the Obama voters who took the time to inform themselves about the issues. I could just as easily accuse you of voting for whoever you voted for because he's white.
|
You cannot deny that at least a large number of voters turned out in favor of Obama because of his skin color. All of the major news agencies covered that aspect of the race (no pun intended), and people were saying left and right how proud they were of being able to vote for the first black President- and mentioned no other reason for their votes.
No, not everyone voted based on pigmentation- I sure as hell didn't (though I also didn't vote for Obama- who I did vote for is my little secret), and nobody's insinuating that you did either. However, a great many people did.I'm sure that a large number of people voted against him with similar motivations, but claiming it was a non-issue is utterly naive.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
[Updated on: Tue, 16 December 2008 18:24] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #363438 is a reply to message #363396] |
Tue, 16 December 2008 23:58 |
|
Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
No, Obama seems a lot more intelligent than McCain. Look at their educational backgrounds. Look where they started off in life, financially.
Obama realizes that people want their guns, but have to respect the ridiculousness of having lax gun laws in cities. I live in Boston and I think it wouldn't make sense for everyone to have easy access to guns. In more rural areas, I insist that people shoot the shit out of animals, cans and targets all they want. And defend themselves. That too. But take that shit out of the inner cities. I really don't see him making gun laws part of his agenda, so this was a non-issue for me.
And don't even start with honesty. McCain and his campaign spokespeople twisted the truth so badly it was sometimes cringe-worthy.
| Quote: |
You cannot deny that at least a large number of voters turned out in favor of Obama because of his skin color.
|
I mean, I guess. Yeah, blacks and latinos voted in larger numbers, but YOU can't deny that he outperformed Kerry, a white guy in virtually every demographic possible.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obama-outperforms-kerry-among-virtually.h tml
The idea that Obama won because felt compelled to vote for a black dude is not supported statistically, and you are just wrong.
[Updated on: Sun, 28 December 2008 10:11] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #363440 is a reply to message #363396] |
Wed, 17 December 2008 00:28 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 16 December 2008 17:21 |
Some of our most popular and successful Presidents have been veterans- including, among others, Washington and Kennedy, and their terms saw some of the most responsible and efficient uses of military resources to resolve conflicts with a minimum of bloodshed. Some of our worst military cluster-fucks, on the other hand, have taken place during the terms of Presidents with no combat experience... Carter (Iran- the botched attempt to rescue American personnel from the embassy), Clinton (Somalia), and Bush Jr. for instance (the latter served in the Air National Guard but never flew in combat). Perhaps such experience is useful, even if it doesn't make or break a Presidency on its own?
|
Yet ironically, the two presidents that are often named as "the greatest" had next to no military experience; Lincoln had six months in a militia that saw no combat. FDR had no experience at all. Perhaps the opposite is true?
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 16 December 2008 17:21 |
You cannot deny that at least a large number of voters turned out in favor of Obama because of his skin color. All of the major news agencies covered that aspect of the race (no pun intended), and people were saying left and right how proud they were of being able to vote for the first black President- and mentioned no other reason for their votes.
|
I'm willing to wager that an equally large, if not greater number of people voted against Obama, or purposely didn't vote, because of his skin color.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Wed, 17 December 2008 00:28] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #363508 is a reply to message #363396] |
Wed, 17 December 2008 08:03 |
 |
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
Do you people even pay attention? He never denied that people voted against Obama because he was black.
| NukeIt15 |
I'm sure that a large number of people voted against him with similar motivations
|
While I do fear that Obama wants to take away more of my guns and ammunitions than I would like to see (ie. 0), he has stated that he doesn't want to take away our guns.
| Obama |
"I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."
|
However, that doesn't mean he won't attempt to limit and seize ammunition.
whoa.
[Updated on: Wed, 17 December 2008 08:03] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #363578 is a reply to message #363571] |
Wed, 17 December 2008 14:01 |
 |
u6795
Messages: 1261
Registered: March 2006
Location: Maryland
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Ma1kel wrote on Wed, 17 December 2008 15:28 |
successful troll is successful
|
I knew you were trolling if that's what you meant, I just figured I'd add to that because no 9 page argument is complete without a Hitler comparison (especially considering we're arguing about Obama) I mean, the three thumbs up emotes kind of gave it away.
yeah
[Updated on: Wed, 17 December 2008 14:02] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Nov 07 20:37:49 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02212 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
