Post-Election Analysis

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

I originally had this as an edit in my message, but I'm afraid it will get lost, so:

I would also like to note that I am a United Methodist. The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church states: "We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ. We therefore reject war as an instrument of national foreign policy and insist that the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among them."

And if the other sides refuses to do the same? I mean - do you think the civil war was justified or do you think we should have just let slavery go on? Do you think World War II was justified - or should we have continued to let millions of jews, gypsies, homosexuals, as well as others be sent to gas chambers?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

I am not saying what Hussein did was justified, and I am glad he is gone. Even though I think that trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 was a bit...off, it is a good thing that we have gotten rid of Hussein (this is something I am CONSTANTLY reminding Democrats on my campus of).

Bush never claimed there were ties between Hussein and 9/11 though. The only thing that Bush said was that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Hussein and that is a fact. It is the media and others who heard it as it being a tie between 9/11 and Hussein. I am aware that there is the report that Bush soon after 9/11 supposedly said "tie this to hussian" - but there was nothing publicly stated in this regard - and it is impossible to know if that was true - or if it's just made up - since he supposedly said it in a private meeting.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sun-star

The thing I don't get about this 'moral issues' question...

Why do people define it so narrowly? Surely almost every decision you make about voting is based on a moral choice. Whether a war is right or wrong, for example, is about the biggest moral issue there is. Economic policy is all about the kind of society you would prefer to see, and the way you believe the poor can be best helped: that's a moral issue. Scientific research is a moral issue; so is education. It's not all about gay marriage. I know that if someone asked me what my priority in voting is, I'd say it was 'moral issues', because to me that's inseparable from the decision I'm making. Isn't it possible that some of the 22% who chiefly voted on 'moral issues' were thinking the same way?

I totally agree with you, Ms. Star!!

(NB: I'm not saying every issue is a moral issue - constitutional questions don't tend to be, for instance. But I think we should widen the scope a bit.)

Oh, someone used NB! I haven't seen that one for awhile!

[Elfhelm]

I'm afraid JD has misunderstood me. I have issues with a group called The Christian Coalition. I do not have issues with other religious people, Christian and non-Christian. I do not believe my political party should cave in to these people in the Christian Coalition. One, because my party is made up of a lot of non-Christian religious people, and Two because our take on the issues is the moral one. Yes, I think legalised abortion is more moral than the alternative: faked crib deaths, back alley defrocked doctors, coat-hangers, etc. And I certainly do believe that support for gay rights is moral. Many churches have floats and march in the Gay Pride Parade in our city. The Christian Coalition does not represent them, and it certainly does not represent the host of non-Christians in this country.

Of course, there is always the possibility that my opinions are being characterised as "hate" and intentionally misquoated to take strength away from the veracity of the ideas, but I won't claim to be psychic.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And if the other sides refuses to do the same? I mean - do you think the civil war was justified or do you think we should have just let slavery go on? Do you think World War II was justified - or should we have continued to let millions of jews, gypsies, homosexuals, as well as others be sent to gas chambers?

The United States did not get involved in WWII because of the Holocaust. The Civil War did not begin because of slavery.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I totally agree with you, Ms. Star!!

I believe it has already been pointed out that in the polls used to measure why people were voting, moral issues were defined along the lines of "Moral issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc." Obviously laws are based on some set of morality.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I'm afraid JD has misunderstood me. I have issues with a group called The Christian Coalition. I do not have issues with other religious people, Christian and non-Christian. I do not believe my political party should cave in to these people in the Christian Coalition. One, because my party is made up of a lot of non-Christian religious people, and Two because our take on the issues is the moral one. Yes, I think legalised abortion is more moral than the alternative: faked crib deaths, back alley defrocked doctors, coat-hangers, etc. And I certainly do believe that support for gay rights is moral. Many churches have floats and march in the Gay Pride Parade in our city. The Christian Coalition does not represent them, and it certainly does not represent the host of non-Christians in this country.

Of course, there is always the possibility that my opinions are being characterised as "hate" and intentionally misquoated to take strength away from the veracity of the ideas, but I won't claim to be psychic.

Wel considering this is the FIRST time you have mentioned the Christian Coalition - don't blame me for ACTUALLY representing what you have said. You have only talked about the Religious Right - which is not the same as the Christian Coalition.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

The United States did not get involved in WWII because of the Holocaust. The Civil War did not begin because of slavery.

You are technically right concerning the WWII - you are wrong about the Civil War. it was because slavery was going to be eliminated in the south that forced the south to leave the union - we then fought them to keep the Union together and eliminate slavery. If it wasn't about slavery - then we could have just have fought to keep the union together and let the south keep their slaves. I should remind you that the Lincoln/Douglas debates are all about the issue of slavery.

[edit]I guess we shouldn't have gotten involved with WWII - it wasn't our business - nor were we ever directly attacked by Germany. And even though Japan attacked - maybe we should have turned the other cheek. (this isn't necessarily direct at you Starr Polish).

[Starr Polish]

Actually it was about states' rights. And yes, you could argue that they felt it was being violated because SOME people in the North were abolitionists, but ultimately the issue was states' rights. Lincoln did NOT advocate the absolute abolition of slavery...he was simply against the spread of it into newly formed states/territories. He won the Republican candidacy because he was a moderate, not a radical.

[Elfhelm]

I have never used the expression Religious Right and I mentioned the Christian Coalition many times. What ticked Rian off was the phrase Republican Christian. She feels I am saying anyone who is a Republican is not a real Christian, and has gone to lengths to demonstrate the she does charitable works in accordance with the instructions Christ gave to his followers. I maintain that the policies of the current Administration are not Christian. But I admit that since I am not a Christian I can't speak on their behalf. I don't think he said, take care of the businesses so the poor people can hope to be hired without any health insurance. I think he said:

Matthew 25
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


Rian does not interpret this to mean there should be government programs to help the poor. She seems to interpret it to mean she is personally responsible for her own charitable acts, and not those of her government. So that the person she elected President can let the poverty level rise, watch the number of people with healthcare decrease, but as long as he supports a Constitutional Amendment banning Gay Marriage, and says he prays, he must be a Christian.

And isn't that what this whole "moral" vote discussion is all about?

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Bush never claimed there were ties between Hussein and 9/11 though. The only thing that Bush said was that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Hussein and that is a fact. It is the media and others who heard it as it being a tie between 9/11 and Hussein. I am aware that there is the report that Bush soon after 9/11 supposedly said "tie this to hussian" - but there was nothing publicly stated in this regard - and it is impossible to know if that was true - or if it's just made up - since he supposedly said it in a private meeting.

Okay, so he didn't say straight out that their were tied. But since Al Quaeda WAS the cause of 9/11, it's not unreasonable to assume Bush believed the 9/11 attacks were tied to him as well. Now, I know what assuming does, but it honestly is not a stretch.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

Okay, so he didn't say straight out that their were tied. But since Al Quaeda WAS the cause of 9/11, it's not unreasonable to assume Bush believed the 9/11 attacks were tied to him as well. Now, I know what assuming does, but it honestly is not a stretch.

That was the problem - a lot of people doing a lot of assuming - when nothing of that sort was ever said by Bush.

As for the south - Lincoln did want slavery eliminated from the United States. That was why the south left. Believe me - I am well aware of the state rights issue - but the only reason why the south left to begin with was because the issue of slavery was NOT going to be left up to the states anymore.

[jerseydevil]

Elfhelm - why are you bothering to speak for everyone now? Is Rian not allowed to explain what she means? [Flamebait Deleted]

Last edited by Sister Golden Hair

[Starr Polish]

Grr...I know this is off-topic, but it really bothers me when people say that Lincoln was all-for abolishing slavery. Perhaps personally he was, but as a political figure he never had "absolute abolishment" on his platform. He only wanted to stop the spread of it, and was going to let it exist.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

Grr...I know this is off-topic, but it really bothers me when people say that Lincoln was all-for abolishing slavery. Perhaps personally he was, but as a political figure he never had "absolute abolishment" on his platform. He only wanted to stop the spread of it, and was going to let it exist.

The thing is - he was not only supporting the spread of it - he was for abolitioning it - but he supported shipping blacks back to africa. That is where the controversy of Lincoln comes in. He was fully against slavery. The thing people go against Lincoln about is because they think he should have just come right now and stressed the complete abolition of slavery all at once, and the complete civil rights of blacks - without looking at the time he lived in and that he would never have gotten elected at all. The reason he supported shipping blacks to africa was becuase that appealed the majority of people - whether he actually agreed with that is another question.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Elfhelm - why are you bothering to speak for everyone now? Is Rian not allowed to explain what she means?

No. She thinks I don't understand her. I am merely demonstrating that I think I do. But she won't talk to me.

[Flamebait Deleted]

As for the rest, take it to PM.


Last edited by Sister Golden Hair

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

No. She thinks I don't understand her. I am merely demonstrating that I think I do. But she won't talk to me.

BTW - Rian won't talk to you - like she said in her post - because of your attitude toward [edit]christian republicans[/edit]. YOu can either carry this out - or you can move on - it's up to you.

[Elfhelm]

When the 9/11 Comission said there was no tie between them, Cheney said they didn't know what he knew. Then they said bring it over here and let us see it. Over that weekend he appeared on TV saying "we don't know", and finally Bush came out and said there is no tie between bin Laden and Saddam, but continued to say there were links to Al Qaeda. The links he meant was that one of the names of one of Saddam's underlings was very similar to the name of someone who met with one of the hijack pilots in Sweden. That was later shown to be a different person.

The fact is, even during the debates Bush was still saying that the war on Iraq is fundamental to the war on terrorism. And Cheney referred to Bagdad as "the heart" of terrorism. Bush said in his state of the union address when he wanted to justify invading Iraq that Iraq had nukes that could end up in the hands of terrorists.

Is that not enough to support the claim that Bush and Cheney sold the war on Iraq to the American people as vengeance for the attacks on 9/11?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

When the 9/11 Comission said there was no tie between them, Cheney said they didn't know what he knew. Then they said bring it over here and let us see it. Over that weekend he appeared on TV saying "we don't know", and finally Bush came out and said there is no tie between bin Laden and Saddam, but continued to say there were links to Al Qaeda. The links he meant was that one of the names of one of Saddam's underlings was very similar to the name of someone who met with one of the hijack pilots in Sweden. That was later shown to be a different person.

The fact is, even during the debates Bush was still saying that the war on Iraq is fundamental to the war on terrorism. And Cheney referred to Bagdad as "the heart" of terrorism. Bush said in his state of the union address when he wanted to justify invading Iraq that Iraq had nukes that could end up in the hands of terrorists.

Is that not enough to support the claim that Bush and Cheney sold the war on Iraq to the American people as vengeance for the attacks on 9/11?

No - if you read the 9/11 Commision report - there were several communications between Hussein and bin Ladin (not just Al Qaeda). Hussein had offered bin Ladin use of Iraq for terrorist camps - but at that time bin Ladin was safely in Afganistan and didn't need Iraq. Hussein then right before the war - sent a communication to bin Ladin - which never made it.

Show me where Bush said Iraq HAD nukes. Because the only thing they said was that Hussein was trying to get his hands on the material to make them.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

BTW - Rian won't talk to you - like she said in her post - because of your attitude toward religious people. YOu can either carry this out - or you can move on - it's up to you.

I can not be more clear. I can only repeat. The platform of the Republican Party does not fit my understanding of Christianity, but I am not a Christain so this is my personal interpretation. I do not think GW Bush's actions and policies are moral. What more can I say? I do not want to see my party go that way just because they didn't defeat an incumbent.

Flamebait Deleted]

My party represents more than one religion. I don't want that to change. I think the abortion/gay issues are nonsense. You can't overturn Rowe v. Wade and you won't get that silly amendment passed by 66% of both houses and ratified by the states. So those are red herrings thrown out to appease the Christian Coalition. In time, good people will realise they are being duped. It's just a fad!


Last Edited by Sister Golden Hair