(no subject)
Oct. 28th, 2004 12:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rabidsamfanMaybe the reason he doesn't realize how many Americans are dissatisfied with his policies is because he only reads the part of the paper that gets handed to him and he's not allowed to see the protesters.
Maybe.
Naaaaah!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 05:09 pm (UTC)Americans abroad who wanted to register themselves to vote, found out that the internet sites they tried to use were unusually long blocked so that they were not able to register. On the other hands Army members were given other sites that worked perfectly well. 69% of the american soldiers abroad are assumend to vote for Bush.
You may think this is not my business, but I live in a country that was given democracy by the american people and politicians 60 years ago, and we've learned and inhaled the lesson. Out secretary of state stood in front of Donald Rumsfeld last year when he visited Germany, listened to his legend about Saddam Husseins nuclear material orders (which never existed, and this was, too, well-proven by european diplomats and journalists), and that man, Joseph, "Joschka" Fischer simply said: "I don't believe it."
What I can't believe is that through this president and his camarilla an old, rich democracy slowly comes down to what we would call a "banana republic", and still it isn't sure if he will lose the election.
*shakes her head in despair"
Sorry. I didn't want to rant.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 05:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 07:01 pm (UTC)*sigh*
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 07:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 07:36 pm (UTC)If you can't count it twice, you shouldn't be able to count it at all...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 07:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 08:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 09:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-02 06:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 05:29 pm (UTC)Well, that and all the Photoshopped Stepford clones who apparently attend his events:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/27/22442/878
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 08:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 08:48 pm (UTC)If one believes in the elements on the periodic table without seeing the atom and protons, neutrons, etc., he is believing out of faith. For all one knows, the scientists could be lying. Of course, we know that the elements are real now-a-days, but what about when a person first discovered them?
If one believes that one cannot know anything, he is believing out of faith. If one goes to work, believing he will be paid, he is believing out of faith. Faith based on what? Past experience, what others have said, but faith nonetheless. There could be a time when the company goes bankrupt completely and cannot pay the employee.
If one goes to see some place he's only heard of before and seen pictures of, he's having faith it's still going to be there.
If one believes what someone says, he is having faith. Faith that the person is telling him the truth.
All this goes to say that a person does have faith in a lot of things, not just faith in religious matters. You can't tell me, and neither can the person who wrote the article, that you don't live by faith in certain things.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 09:05 pm (UTC)You cannot look at most of our early presidents and say they did not have a basis on faith, many their own faith in God, which was then shared by most of the American people (I am not saying all, as not all believed). I don't really see why faith is so wrong to decide things with. Abraham Lincoln and the president of the Confederacy both had to have faith that their cause was the right one. So did the Presidents at the time of WWI and WWII. Even Hitler had faith that his cause was right. Faith governs life. Without it we'd all be even more at odds with one another.
"When I was first with Bush in Austin, what I saw was a self-help Methodist, very open, seeking," Wallis says now. "What I started to see at this point was the man that would emerge over the next year - a messianic American Calvinist. He doesn't want to hear from anyone who doubts him."
Hm...really? Calvinistic? When has he said that God ordained at the foundations of the world certain people to eternal life and others to eternal damnation, and when has he killed those people in his country, even, that are of different faith (even "Christian") that are against him, and don't hold the view of Calvinism? Hm...what a claim!
And if they're saying that of our presdent, that he doesn't want to hear from those who doubt him, they'd better be saying that about radical terrorists, who have a radical faith in Islam. If they really hold their Islamic faith, then they'd be killing everyone who does not believe like them, as the Koran said.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 10:00 pm (UTC)They do say that about the fundamentalist Muslims who are using terror as a weapon. The quote is near the beginning of the article. Something to the effect that Bush understands them because he is just like them...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 10:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 09:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 09:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 09:24 pm (UTC)Ok. What is wrong with voting based on character and the other things? When this nation entirely fails to vote based on character -- which highly includes morality -- as it already has begun to, I will know that our nation is moving futher away from faith, further away from godly morality. If homosexual marriage is allowed, what's next? Beastiality becomes ok within the law?
"To me, I just believe God controls everything, and God uses the president to keep evil down, to see the darkness and protect this nation," Billington told me, voicing an idea shared by millions of Bush supporters. "Other people will not protect us. God gives people choices to make. God gave us this president to be the man to protect the nation at this time."
And unless one's an athiest, a deist, or of a faith that does not believe their god intervenes in the affairs of mankind, he will believe this, too.
"Where people often get lost is on this very point," he said after a moment of thought. "Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not - not ever - to the thing we as humans so very much want."
Faith: 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
That is from Webster's dictionary. How does complete trust or sincerity of intentions lead to deeper reflection? Yes, I believe that people will think it over for believing in whatever thing (therefore, I believe 2 b (1) is an incorrect definition, since one will believe based on things presented to him. The Bible, for instance, or creation, would be manifestations and enough proof to one who believes in God.), but that does not mean that it will not lead to what we origionally started out considering to believe in being our belief in all cases.
And, RabidSamFan, I am giving you the benefit of a doubt, as you claim to be a Christian, that you do not agree with all the quotes in that article concerning faith, but I am clarifying certain things for people who may believe. You could believe in some of the quotes I have dealt with, but I will give you the benefit of a doubt until you say otherwise.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 09:55 pm (UTC)Why do you defend him so blindly?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 11:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-02 07:08 am (UTC)Yet, the Bible also tells gov't to have the death penalty. The Ten Commandments were for moral basis for individuals, not for nations. Also, the Bible says the most important Commandment is to love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind.
True, he is not of many people's faith, but what makes him an appeal to Christians is that he is for many of the morals that they are for. Kerry is not. That is what I think is what makes President Bush appeal to us as believers. Maybe I'm wrong, but I know that is what makes him appeal to me as a Christian.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-02 06:43 am (UTC)Hm. That could be asked of a lot of things when one does not agree with another's views.
1. The President has proven how he will act. He is overall consistent. Kerry, on the other hand, in the ten minutes of one of the debates I saw he had changed his opinion on Iraq so many times my head was spinning and I was yelling at him disproving his warped views.
2. Our President may not have the best military record, but at least he was not like Kerry after Vietnam protesting it, saying it was very wrong, comparing it with Ghengis Khan and then using it as a major campaign!
3. Our President is for morals. He tried to get rid of Partial Birth abortion, which is unecessary to have. If a woman must have an abortion, she can have it before the child is to the point where if only a few more inches were out, it would be murder. He is against homosexual marriage, which will lead to moral and population decline in our country (Arwen's reply to you really showed that even from a nonbiblical viewpoint.).
4. Our President shows what I see has true patriotism. He is willing to do something for the furthering and protecting of our nation despite popular opinion.
Those are just a few. If you call that blindly, then so be it. And, having faith in God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) has EVERYTHING to do with how one votes, or at least it should, as His Word should have a major influence on how one views things. I will be praying tomorrow, for our nation, for the voters, for the President, even for John Kerry -- that if he becomes President, he will somehow have firm positions all at once.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-02 08:54 pm (UTC)The second person to put in arguments on the ballot for Oregon said it so much better than I could:
http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov22004/guide/meas/m36_fav.html
Most Americans are moderate about abortion -- I also happen to agree that if a woman needs to get an abortion early is better than late (and that a legal abortion is a hard choice but an illegal abortion is a worse one) -- but Bush is pandering to the folks who want to not only take away a woman's right to choose an abortion, they also want to take away her right to choose birth control. And I don't want to go there.
Kerry is capable of being subtle, which is different from contradicting himself. Nuance matters.
And Bush isn't all that moralistic. Watch this:
http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." —Ralph Waldo Emerson
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-29 04:14 am (UTC)http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts
Is that the record of a man of honor? Or a man who is trying to gain power here, and money, for himself and his cronies, and wrapping his true aims in a cloak of patriotism and religion?
You asked the other day if the Shire was communistic under Lotho and Sharkey, and I was too sleepy to point out that Lotho was only able to cause the trouble he did because he owned so much property. Pack too much power/wealth into too few hands and you get a destroyed ecosystem, an overburdened underclass, and the loss of rights. I don't want that for America.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-29 05:36 am (UTC)thanks~
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-02 07:00 am (UTC)With the Shire and Lotho. They were at least Socialistic. That's what it is. Government owns most everything and what it doesn't own it controls. Socialism is proven to lead to Communism. That is where I saw the correlation. You said once, I believe (correct me if my memory has failed me), that Socialism is better than Capitalism. If I were to tell you to go live in China for a year and then Taiwan or America after that, you would tell me no way in an instant. Is it only a coincidence that China who has a Communistic-socialistic gov't has an appx. income of $1,000 per year per person, whereas Taiwan, which has a Capitalistic gov't has an appx. income of about $25,000 a year per person? I would say not. May I ask your definition of Socialism? And Capitalism?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-02 08:39 pm (UTC)Communism, Socialism and Capitalism are economic theories. Like any theory of the social sciences they explain ideals rather than perfectly match reality. In the ideal Communistic society, there is no such thing as private property. All of the resources and products are shared equally by the members of the society. The only employer is the State, and profit creating enterprises are unknown. Goods and services generally are distributed by the State.
In a Socialistic ideal, the State has ownership of some resources and responsibility for many aspects of infrastructure, both physical and social. But there are still businesses operating and goods and services are transferred in monetary transactions as well as from the state. Private property is common, but does not include water, mineral rights, or other things which benefit the entire population.
In a Capitalistic ideal, all property is private. All transactions are monetary and the price of goods and services is determined by supply and demand. Water rights and other resource rights are based on private ownership, and the state exists primarily to protect ownership rights.
None of these conditions exists in the world, except perhaps on very small scales.
Political systems are different. They can be democratic or tyrannical, etc.
A monarchy puts supreme power into the hands of one person -- generally a king. If he's a good king, it's a good system, but otherwise you've got trouble.
An oligarchy puts supreme power into the hands of a ruling class -- generally a hereditary nobility or the most rapacious manipulators of the economic system.
A democracy puts supreme power into the hands of the electorate. But wait! The elecotrate can (and has) been restricted by excluding people on the basis of gender, race, criminal records and/or party affiliation in order to create an oligarchy that claims to be a democracy.
My problem with Bush isn't that he's not perfect. It's that he seems to think that he is perfect.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-02 07:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-02 08:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-29 05:51 am (UTC)Of course real faith leads us to deeper reflection. If it doesn't, if you take your own opinion for the only measurement, something is deeply and utterly wrong. Deeper reflection means: to question yourself (and even more if you are a leader), to be careful with your decision, to measure every single one of those decisions on God's will. What does he want from me? Is this truly right? What does the bible say?
Okay. Now... did God (or the bible) tell him to begin a war by spreading lies (that were already proven to be lies), by ignoring any clever advice from outside? Did the creator that president claims to believe in really order a crusade? For this is what it meanwhile seems to be, and things like these may be possible in a kingdom or theocracy, but America is neither the one nor the other. The crusades I know have only caused cruelty, death, pain and grief, and this one is no exception. It is certainly true that Saddam Hussein was a cruel tyrant, but the US knew that for many years and chose to ignore it as long as Saddam was useful.
Did God tell George Bush to ignore civil rights when someone dares to claim them and express a different opinion? No democratic civilization allows a government to arrest it's people if they simply say that they think something else.The administration of George Bush does.
Muslim inhabitants are arrested simply because they are muslims... they have commited no crime, they are no terrorists, but they are arrested nonetheless and muslim men are being thrown out of the "land of the free" while their family sits as home, helpless and with no idea where their husband and father can be found. The so-called "patriot act" allows the secret service to spy out anyone... I have heard about cases where people tried to complain that they were constantly watched, and the local police only shrugged and told them that they could do nothing. And none of those watched people had anything to do with terrorism. Most of them shared the same crime... they had a different opnion than the administration of that "christian" president.
"You should measure them by their deeds" says the bible. Okay... that's what I do. And what I see is a government that tramples the rights of their own people (and the rights of other nations) under foot, that suppresses a free press (and believe me, a good, free press is no threat for a healthy government, only a very good instrument of control, because it helps to think over decisions before they are made and shows upt the mistakes, if necessary. A controlled press isn't able to fulfill that duty any more). The Bush- administration declares everyone who dares to say that there is something going terribly wrong to be an enemy - this spoken by a so-called "Old European".
I believe in God, I'm a Christian. But what I see developing in your country is no christian leadership but the beginning of a dictatorship in the name of God. I know the signs... my people is bitterly experienced in recognizing them, we have lived though a dictatorship, too, and we still pay the prize sixty years later. God has given us rules, yes, but also the freedom of choice, and He is Truth. I don't see freedom in America right now, let alone the freedom of choice or the right to express your opinion without the fear of being restricted.
Faith leads to freedom. The faith of George Bush leads somewhere completely different. Don't you think there might be something wrong?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-29 12:23 am (UTC)On a different note. I love your drabbles and stories! I wish I discovered these sooner. Take care and happy writing to you!
Ami
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-29 12:44 am (UTC)I'm glad you're enjoying the fics!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-29 12:43 am (UTC)"Since the voting computers in 17 states did not have Microsoft Vote for Windows XP, not only the ballots cast but the identities of all who voted have vanished as well. Microsoft promised to have a patch ready by say, April..."
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-29 12:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-29 07:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-02 08:55 pm (UTC)