Bush <strike>Bushwhacks</strike> Neck In Neck With Gore

[Risen]

I thing something that han't been said here is that conflict comes not only between misunderstanding religion, but also misunderstanding within religion.

Example: Many people hate Catholics. Usually because they don't understand them. Why? Because it's the Catholic who don't understand their own faith who get publicized. It's true that Catholics are against abortion. However, a Catholic acting as prescribed by the church doesn't kill abortionist doctors. Same goes for the gay debate.

It comes down to education. It is severely lacking. If you heard what my roommate listens to, you'd believe me. (There are usually two words that can be made out, neither of which I care to repeat.)

There's nothing wrong with religion. In fact, it does a lot of good things. Teach tolerance. Educate.

Feel free to disagree with me, but don't expect me to respond to unbased arguments.

[NiGHTMARE]

Regarding your point on women not being able to be president...

Actually, if Gore loses (which looks likely ATM), he probably wouldn't dare run for President again, leaving the way clear for Hillary Clinton to be prime candidate for the Democratic representative in the 2004 elections. After all, the Clintons are well loved by the rest of the Democrat party.

And if Bush runs for President again, I think most people would prefer to vote Hillary rather than him :)

I don't know if any of this has been talked about in the American media, but the British media are talking a lot about it :)

[Guest CocoT]

Ok ... I'm not going to dwell on this gun issue anymore, because, after all, it's none of my business. I live in Europe, where violent crime rate is lower than in the States and, quite frankly, if some of you who think carrying guns is an "unchangeable" right, then fine. Keep on seeing your children killing each other with folded arms, it's your problem.

As a matter of fact I DID spent some time in the U.S (all in all around a year and half) and if I said what I said, it's mainly because of what I saw there. I didn't go there with "guns=bad" in my head, I simply OBSERVED what was around me :

- My 13-year-old host brother had 3 guns hidden in his room he had bought from school friends without his parent knowing about it
- A 16-year-old guy in my high-school shot himself at the beginning of the year with his dad's gun.
- A guy in my class started to take hard drugs and, at the end of the year was so fucked up he decided to quit school

... now THAT's a hell of an introduction to a new country, isn't it ? No need to say American exchange students aren't very likely to come across that kind of things when they go abroad.

When you say citizens need guns to protect themselves from the governement (which, I agree with many later answers, is stupid (come on, this idea is a VERY old notion)) I think you should ask yourself if, sometimes, there isn't an appropriate time to QUESTION the law. The Constitution and the Amendments are NOT like the Bible. You COULD change it. When I was in the U.S, I often had the feeling most Americans thought of questionning the Constitution as some kind of sacrilege. I believe this is also part of the problem. You guys should be able to question your own values.

[Guest Wyvern]

I have read the Bible, and there's some stuff in there than isn't the nicest in the world. I'll give you that.

However, the times you mention were in the Old Testament, where animal sacrifice was the means utilized to atone for sins and such. And being so, more extreme methods of "cleansing" were used (they were still outlandish sometimes, I'll agree with you there; ESPECIALLY Job). I don't necessarily agree with how some things were handled, like the instances you mentioned. That's not the point I was making by saying the good stuff about Christianity.

Christianity is a FAITH. It's pretty much basic ideals are these: treat each other with respect and love, believe in Jesus, and try to be the best you can be for Him. That's what I believe, and that's what I will continue to believe.

As for the brain defect thing, any scientist against creationism is going to find SOMETHING to say to mock/refute people who choose to become Christian. It's a viscious cycle between the two groups, and it really needs to stop.

And your calling me touched in the head for believing in something only proves my point more. Respect my choices and I'll respect yours. It's no reason to call anyone brain-damaged over.

[Guest Archvile46]

It is far from over, people. This recount has a 200 vote margin. Gore has already gotten permission to do a hand recount in several counties. Should Bush win, Gore will still take it to court, and possibly demand a re-vote in Florida because of the "butterfly ballot" that was so confusing.

So, Gore supporters, don't abandon hope quite yet.

[Guest Excalibur_Z]

Changing the Constitution means abandoning any type of foundation that this country was built upon. It still absolutely has relevance today. The Constitution is merely a document stating basic situations in America and outlining inalienable basic human rights. Taking one or more of those rights away leads you right into the corruptor's hands. What about when they came to take Elian Gonzalez away from his relatives, storming in like the Gestapo? It's ludicrous. They ripped him away from American salvation and tossed him to Communist Cuba, where he's probably already been deprogrammed.

As for the rest of you anti-gun liberal-Socialist jackals, it's true that the military are better trained, but there are less of them. I don't know where you are all getting the notion that pro-gun individuals are slack-jawed hillbilly gun nuts, because that's the most flagrant stereotype I've ever heard. I live out in California, and the violence isn't as rampant as the liberal media will have you believe. Watch some Fox News Channel or CNN, and you might see some unbiased stories.

Any idiot knows you have to educate your kid on guns before you can give him one. Like I said before, the people who would dare to commit violent crimes with guns are fools - they're practically throwing their lives away by doing so. It's much better to have a victim who can defend his/herself. Obviously if you don't get it by now, then you'll never get it - you've already been brainwashed.

[Hellbent]

Hillary said she wouldn't run for president. If Gore loses, it's very likely he'll run in 4 years because winning an election by a hair isn't desirable... better to win by a landslide. So Gore would try to do that next election to give him a better run in office if he were to get elected. At least that's what they said on the radio - I didn't really follow the guy's logic on that. Something about winning by a small margin is not good for the presidency... which I guess makes sense.

[Guest CocoT]

"outlining inalienable basic human rights"

Is the carrying of a gun a human right ? I don't know ... I mean I really don't. Why not make the storage of nuclear heads in one's garden a human right, then ? If it was written in the constitution that you could only wear cotton socks because, in 1800 or so it boosted the economy and some "founding father" thought it would be nice to write it in, would you do it ? Nope.
To most non-American people, the first thought when someone reads that amendment is "Jeez, these people are still living in the world of Cow-boys and Indians" ...
Once again, I think the brain-washed ones are those totally unbale to question a text (because that's the only thing it is for Christ's sake!) and let it decide for their lives. I realize the Constitution and the amendments have a lot of good points and that they are, very often, warrants of freedom and right, but, you know, sometimes amendments need to be amended ...

[AndrewB]

CocoT, very well said. Darn, this thread is getting very long...

[AndrewB]

Oh yeah, and if you apply for gun ownership in Canada, with your reason being "Self-Defense", or something along those lines, you'll be turned away. Nobody should need a gun to protect themselves.

[Guest]

I'd like for the Bible to be abolished.

[Guest]

And other major bodies of work in the names of which so many lives were lost for no reason.

The Constitution was amended more than 25 times over the past 200 or so years. It can be changed again. Get over it.

[Guest]

Winning by a small margin, especially with the many disputed ballots in question, is a lose-lose scenario for both candidates.

If Bush is declared the winner at this point, many Democrats, especially in Florida, will cry foul.

If Gore is declared the winner, he will be elected to office with a majority of the popular vote and electoral, but his administration will still suffer a backlash.

However, if Bush turns out the winner, and a few years down the road it does turn out his cronies did fix the ballots in Florida, then the consequences for his Presidency will be devastating.

Hell, his administration might be devastating anyway.

[Guest Jim Bentler]

Gore is not accusing Bush of fixing the election. That would be a preposterous accusation with no proof whatsoever. He's saying that the design of the so-called "butterfly" ballet was so confusing that it caused voters to accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan, rather than him. Indeed, Buchanan recieved many more votes in that voting distrcit than anywhere else in Florida.

Sorry for posting a novel.

However, there are several reasons not to take this accusation that serously.

(1) Gore's campaign chairman, mayor Daly of Chicago has very harshly critisized the ballet, yet it has been in use in Chicago for years without any complaints.

(2) There are always voting irregularities in every election. Some people are always bound to make a mistake, such as accidentally voting for one candidate and changing it to another (even though

(3) John F. Kennedy won the close 1960 election vs. Richard Nixon amid charges of voter fraud, not confusion among voters. Richard Nixon, who would later make himself one of the most despised politicians ever through the Watergate scandal, decided that he would not challenge the results because it would be bad for the country. Even Nixon knew that a legal challenge to the election's results could plunge the U.S. into tremendous turmoil. He knew that it was unacceptable to risk this merely so that he could be president. He was later rewarded with the presidency, although he did not make the best of that and resigned in disgrace. Gore could learn a little from Nixon.

(4) The ballet was submitted to several Democrats who approved of it. It was not made to be confusing and definitely not designed to give Bush the election.

(5) Some people alledge that since Bush's brother is the Governor of Florida, he must have helped fix the election somehow. These people are being completely unreasonable. That is the sort of thing that goes on in countries with so-called "elections" in which one party always seems to win every single election for the last fifty years. The U.S. does not let any politicians get their hands on the ballets or the results.

(6) Over 5,000 people in Palm Beach, Florida claim to have voted for Buchanan by mistake instead of Gore, but Buchanan only recieved about 3,000 votes there. This renders their claim much less believable. How do over 5000 people vote for someone and then he only gets about 3,000 votes? The numbers just do not add up.

(7) Gore's supporters are clamouring for a new election. Gore will likely ask for a revote in Florida, since he was still over 300 votes short after the recount. This is not the sort of thing that the U.S. does. Corrupt governments often ask for a revote if they aren't happy with the first one. A fair revote is impossible. They would have to check the records of who voted and find every single person and have him/her recast a vote. It would take years. Who's to say people would not change their vote based on the present controversy? If they just held another regular election, it would not accurately reflect the results of the first one.

(8) News officials incorrectly called the state of Florida for Gore with less than 1% of the votes in based on exit polls! (They realized that the state was not Gore's, but too close to call about an hour later). Part of the state was still voting and based on past experiences, when a candidate has supposedly lost, his supporters don't turn out to vote for him. They figure that he's already lost so their vote won't do any good, while the other side tends to turn out to vote only a little less often.

(9) The calling of Florida had a similar effect of decreasing Bush's votes throughout the states that still had the polls open. Therefore, Gore may not have won the popular vote or gotten this close in the electoral vote if the media had not screwed up so badly. There would have been no controversy surrounding the election in such a case, and in my opinion, the country would certainly be better off without this controversy.

[Swedish Fish]

I've been avoiding reading a lot of this thread because a majority of these posts are just stupid, ignorant, or both. However, what Jim just said is the smartest and most educated thing I've heard so far.

[Guest Excalibur_Z]

"You can't go changing the votes just because some people don't like the outcome."

Gore's people are just being childish. Accept the loss.

--

I'm not sure how much other countries know about America and internal politics and controversies, but I can say it's probably not comparable to those other countries with regards to gun control. What would America be like without civilians wielding guns? I can tell you right now, it would be more violent. Crime would go up because there are less citizens to help out the police against criminals. In the case of corrupt government, well, I've already stated my case on that. Better safe than sorry, friends. I'm not talking about the exaggerating circumstances that the liberals have drilled into your heads, either - a history lesson, if you don't mind...

In the Dark and Middle Ages, common people were forced around. These common people didn't have weapons, but the armies and police did. The peasants were miserable, needless to say. Of course, this was before guns. If civilians had the same weapons the police had, those same civilians wouldn't be slaves - they would be equals.

During the Revolutionary War period however, common people along with colonist soldiers had muskets. There was very little violence among colonists (aside from traitors). Everyone stood an equal chance against the enemy.

For modern day, though, police corruption happens. We depend far too much on the police to beat crime, and that's a huge weakness. Times have changed, and liberals have convinced many people that we should depend even more on the incompetent police. They've convinced many people that civilian weapons should be left in the past. It's all about equal defense rights - the reason school shootings happen is because the armed student feels much more comfortable because he has an advantage over the other students. If that same armed student knew that his peers were on equal ground and also possessed a weapon, he would think twice about starting any trouble. Liberals just don't trust the public, and place too much faith in the government. Since there's no way I can sway the liberals here to think otherwise, I'll just leave it at that.

[Bloodshedder]

Not to be self-promoting or anything, but I wrote a research paper for high school that outlines why the U.S. should not have gun control. Feel free to read it if you like and give criticism. Obviously, all of the issues are not covered; there's so much I could've put in it that I didn't. A persuasion paper can only be so long.

http://www.crosswinds.net/~cgct/files/GunCtrl.doc

[prower]

Nixon himself didn't call for a vote fraud investigation - however, he did tell his aids to investigate the matter.

Nixon did, indeed, silently recount votes after Kennedy had been elected, but after all of the states he recounted had the same turnout as before, he called it off.

[Chief]

I'd just like to second everything Confusion has said!!

BTW, it's too late to fix the gun problem in America. They tried that in Australia with a gun 'buy back' scheme... so all the honest people handed back the newly banned guns, and all the criminals were left with theres. Yeah, good one.

[Guest Excalibur_Z]

I think we're all in agreement that nobody's going to agree here. Sigh. I thought I'd shown you the light =)

[Guest Excalibur_Z]

Comment #200. Is this a first for Doomworld?

&lt;/cheese&gt;

[Guest balanco]

Yet another "generic" prez is being elected &lt;sigh&gt;. What ever happened to the greats like George Washington, and Abe Lincoln.


-sorry, I am very lonely, sad, bored, and I don't get to see my best friend (or any
of my friends) that much anymore, and it's really getting to me. Damn far away job :

[Guest Confusion]

Now, this is a good argument. However, the following statement I found to be a little inconsistent:

There's nothing wrong with religion. In fact, it does a lot of good things. Teach tolerance. Educate.

(I assume by "religion" you're referring to Christianity.) Educate? In what ways does religion educate? By claiming things which are clearly contrary to everything which science knows about the world? Creationism? Elevation of faith over reason? Opposition of things such divorce, abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, and so on? Now, I am not denying your right to believe whatever you wish, but to be honest I see the Bible as nothing more than a big book o' myths and simplistic morality lessons, and the fundamentals of the Christian faith as ancient superstition invented thousands of years ago by a group of imaginative, overly optimistic and ethically confused individuals living in a oppressive, distressing society. That's just what I see. I am eager to see how you can dispute my claims.

[Guest Confusion]

Oh, and could you please visit http://www.godhatesfags.com/ and tell me why, if these people misunderstand their own religion, that they can provide so much biblical proof indicating that they do not? Thanks.

[NiGHTMARE]

Didn't the American constitution originally make it so that only white males could be land owners? I don't hear anyone objecting about when they changed THAT.

[NiGHTMARE]

Hypothetical scenario... The entire city of, let's say San Francisco, start a violent revolution against the government. The civilians have plenty of guns between them, and of course lots of cars and trucks and such.

The military on the other hand, have several nearby ships equipped with cruise missiles, a couple of aircraft carriers, and an airbase quite nearby with fighter planes, rocket helicopters, etc. There's plenty of army types around too due to the nature of the situation, but I think that even without them involved, who will win is rather obvious, and it 'aint the civilians.

The military force is only a small fraction of the total strength of the US. If more cities were to start a revolution at the same time, they could easily be dealt with in the same way.

[Guest Captain Napalm]

All you pro gun people are assuming that if the government decides to take the country by force, that every soldier, General and so will just say: "Oh well. That´s my job. If I gotta help Gore (or any other president who want´s to ban guns) become absolute ruler of Usa then so be it!" I mean these people are smart. Then again there was Hitler.

[Hellbent]

69% think Bush will win.
19% think Gore will.

There were some other poll figures, but I don't remember them.

[Risen]

Perfect, a decent argument.

Sorry for the miscommunication; I'm not the best writer, and that paragraph should have read:

There's nothing wrong with religion. In fact, it does a lot of good things. In light of that fact, we should teach tolerance. We should educate.

I was not trying to imply that religion teaches tolerance and educates. Indeed it educates, and it should teach tolerance, but that is one of the problems I have even within people in my own religion. Read on.

&lt;novel&gt;
I can only truly defend Christianity (more specifically, Catholicism) because that is what I am. From my experience, though, the same types of misunderstandings exist elsewhere across the board. Only extremest Islamic people scream "Jihad!"

Religion can be taught in many different ways, and each teacher has a tendency to add thier own interpretation into the mix. This can and has made things very difficult for those of us who follow the faith because of the fundamental beliefs and not because our parents did, or because it agrees with us at the moment, or because if we twist it the right way it will say whatever we want.

Straight off that godhatesfags page:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22.

As a Catholic, I do not believe homosexuality is right. However, where does the bible say that homosexuals should be brutally killed? The bible also says Love they neighbor as oneself. God does not hate fags. He(She/It) dislikes homosexual acts. For anyone to turn from them just as they might turn from a life of abusing homosexuals, God would forgive and forget just the same.

In my experience, I've found that the Bible can be skewed so that anyone can make any claim they want and still have "Biblical reference." The problem here is education: People don't understand the context of the Bible, which is very important.

Example: You have most likely heard the passage "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to get into heaven." Did anyone ever tell you: The eye of the needle was not a small slit in a metal pin in Jesus' time. In fact, I doubt they had the precision tools to make such a needle. The needle was an opening about 4 feet high in the side of the wall of the city, built for pedestrian passage. Camels are quite a bit larger then 4 feet tall. To allow your camel to pass, first you would have to completely unload it of all of it's travelling gear. Then you would have to have the camel sit down almost entirely and sort of shuffle through however it can, probably with the help of more than one person. Therefore, Jesus states that the task will be especially difficult, but he does not describe an impossible task.

Now, for your other points.
Creationism?
The creation story was written as fiction to emphasize points that could not be explained. It was not written to be believed word for word, and neither were the other 3 of the first 4 stories in the Bible. Creation sought to teach that God is the ultimate creator of everything, and that things appeared in sequence, with humans being the last and most magnificent of all. The rest is mostly to give some idea of how that might have happened, and to show the awesome power of God. We now understand that this process may have taken quite a bit longer. Ever heard of the "long day" theory?

Elevation of faith over reason?
You would have to elaborate.

Opposition of things such divorce,
The church believes that a marriage is sacred and should be treated as such. It shouldn't be rushed into. The church provides ways out if the problems really couldn't be forseen.

abortion,
Killing unborn babies is wrong. Killing those who aid in abortions is also wrong.

euthanasia,
There is a limit to this, and I don't know all the details. Life is so valuable, why would anyone want to end it early?? There is way too much to live for if you just look for it.

genetic engineering,
The church is not afraid of fixing genetic disease. They caution against the creation and even possible decision of how you want your child to look, their sex, disposition, etc... It's trying to play God, and it's bound to fail miserably.

Many people say they believe in a religion when really, they only believe as much of is ans they need to for their own purposes.
&lt;/novel&gt;

I hope this helps. At least so that someone comes to understand that we're not hate machines, only the extremest groups who tend to be the ones to get publicized.

[Guest Jim Bentler]

Michael Niggel (aka Risen), that is one of the best summaries that I have ever heard of Catholic beliefs. I have to say that I am quite surprised that anyone else here understands that Catholic faith so well. I am also a Catholic and I agree with nearly all of the church's stances, including those on homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty (against it in all circumstances), and genetic engineering. That does not, however, mean that that I automatically agree with any stance the Pope takes on an issue. For example, I do not see why there cannot be any female priests.

With George W. Bush as the president of the United States of America and a Republican Congress, the US could pass laws curtailing and possibly ending the unethical practise of abortion. If the legislation were overturned by the Supreme Court, it would be more likely that such legislation would not be overturned at a later time when Bush had appointed replacements for the soon-to-be retiring justices.

I disagree with Bush's death penalty stance, but I cannot see his stance having much of an effect on the US's laws on the subject. They would probably remain the same either way. I am against the death penalty because people can change and should have a change to do so.

Regarding both the death penalty and abortion, I believe that no human being has the right to decide who lives or dies. Science supports the idea that a fetus is a living human being. Everyone has a right to live from conception.