AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > News & Politics

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-06-14, 03:29   Link #1381
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fipskuul View Post
I see the religion to be between the person and the god. And, such case would allow any kind of possibility.
Ideally that's the way it would work. There are two big reasons why religion is important (I'm stating this to take up time while waiting for something, not because I think that nobody knows it):

1) Many voters, particularly the devout, feel that religion equates with a person's morals and virtues. For all of its diversity and its separation between church and state, America is a Christian nation as far as what the majority of the population believe in. Many of them are uncomfortable with the idea of a president that is of a different faith, as that other faith may be unknown to them.

For the devout, having a highly religious person as president would be wonderful... for them. These are usually the types of people who file lawsuits because evolution is taught in class, and they picket clinics and college campuses to protest abortion and homosexuality (among other things, but those were the sorts that I witnessed). Someone who will try to impose their religion's will on society is something that they'd love, as they're attempting to impose their views on others already in their day-to-day lives.

2) For the non-devout, a candidate's religion only matters in terms of how fanatical they are about it. We want to avoid someone who will do crazy things in the name of their religion, or who will attempt to shift society to be preferential to that religion. Whether the person is religious or not, we want them to be professional about it and recognize that not everyone conforms to their beliefs, and that people believing and valuing different things is OK.

To that end I was rather frightened at the prospect that Huckabee might have been nominated as the Replubican candidate, given that he is deeply religious. The overall struggle is between people who want to force everyone to live the way that they feel is right, and people who want everyone to live as freely as possible. It's very difficult for a candidate to pander to both groups, and the latter group is much less easily targeted than the former.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-14, 04:28   Link #1382
Hage-bai
Banned
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystique View Post
1. He's muslm - funny how i've never heard any other candidate in the last 8 years get that rumour... Also, does it state in your constitution a president-to-be has to be christian?
2. sworn into office using a Qur'an - how that even got ground as a rumour *shakes her head*
"yes, in front of all the other politicians, publicly, i'm gonna change just the odd 230 years of tradition and not swear on a bible."
just curious where that came from and if it wasn't a muslim who said it, why do people believe it?
I vagely remember america having it's first muslim politician or something (i forget his name) - out of personal curiosity, can someone link a picture of him for me
3. does not say the pledge with hand over his heart
...
I say this as a brit, is that of some serious offence over there or something, cause it kinda seems trivial to me...
Speaking of which, do they still make kids stand, do the hand thing and sing the national anthem at school?
4. he had to post his birth cert!?!?!
why? i mean seriously, some random obama hating geek can easily photoshop that into something fun (if it is scanned up)
1.He was born a muslim and attended school in Indonesia as a muslim. Both fathers were Muslim. Some may argue that this guy is even an apostate. It is no surprise that these rumors pop up. Can't say that about the past presidents. Furthermore, I expect to see a muslim prime-minister in Britain long before one ever obtains the US presidency.

2.That "anti-imperialist" Ellison was sworn in on a Qur'an. While Obama is truly a christian, the precendent has already been set.

3. The lack of offence seen in Britain and Europe is the sole reason we'll see you guys as part of the Ummah in 50 years. Rather sing the anthem in school than take ridiculous Religious education classes in England (I did by the way).

4. Might as well quash the rumors by releasing the birth certificate.
Hage-bai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-14, 10:43   Link #1383
Sokar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Berkeley
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hage-bai View Post
1.He was born a muslim and attended school in Indonesia as a muslim. Both fathers were Muslim. Some may argue that this guy is even an apostate. It is no surprise that these rumors pop up. Can't say that about the past presidents. Furthermore, I expect to see a muslim prime-minister in Britain long before one ever obtains the US presidency.
He wasn't born a Muslim, you can't be born into a religion, you believe in it or you don't.
Sokar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-14, 10:50   Link #1384
Xellos-_^
Not Enough Sleep
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hage-bai View Post
1.He was born a muslim and attended school in Indonesia as a muslim. Both fathers were Muslim. Some may argue that this guy is even an apostate. It is no surprise that these rumors pop up. Can't say that about the past presidents. Furthermore, I expect to see a muslim prime-minister in Britain long before one ever obtains the US presidency.
I am not much of Obama supporter but misinformation like this ticks me off. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you just didn't do any research and not in reality a neo-con or troll.

Obama's father was a Muslim, his mother was not. Obama's mother was a ethnologist, one of the place where she work was in Indonesia where Obama did go to school at. When she died, Obama was raise by his maternal grand parents in Kansas. Despite being typical white people, they seem to have done a good job with Obama.

Quote:
2.That "anti-imperialist" Ellison was sworn in on a Qur'an. While Obama is truly a christian, the precendent has already been set.
Ellison was born in the US and was raise in the US.

Quote:
3. The lack of offence seen in Britain and Europe is the sole reason we'll see you guys as part of the Ummah in 50 years. Rather sing the anthem in school than take ridiculous Religious education classes in England (I did by the way).
Absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:
4. Might as well quash the rumors by releasing the birth certificate.
he is too naive and his campaign advisor are too naive.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-14, 14:09   Link #1385
Hage-bai
Banned
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
I am not much of Obama supporter but misinformation like this ticks me off. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you just didn't do any research and not in reality a neo-con or troll.

Obama's father was a Muslim, his mother was not. Obama's mother was a ethnologist, one of the place where she work was in Indonesia where Obama did go to school at. When she died, Obama was raise by his maternal grand parents in Kansas. Despite being typical white people, they seem to have done a good job with Obama.

Ellison was born in the US and was raise in the US.

Absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

he is too naive and his campaign advisor are too naive.
Your attack is completely ridiculous. I was simply stating that the I am not surprised these rumors are circulating. This "misinformation" was perpetuated by people at his own Indonesian school who claimed he was registered as a muslim. Want to blame someone, blame the waffling memories of the schoolteachers. Now, it does not matter what religion he "technically" was as a child. He's current beliefs are plain to see and he has done a good job of combatting the rumors. The argument that you can't be "born a muslim" makes sense. However, another viewpoint is that in Islam, the religion is passed down in name from father to son. Furthermore, traditionally, when a muslim man marries a non-muslim woman, the wife is expected to embrace the husband's religion. This does not prove he practiced both his fathers religions but again its not surprsing that rumors circulated about it.


In regards to Ellison, please tell me something I do not know.
Now go back and read.
Hage-bai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-14, 14:22   Link #1386
Alleluia_Cone
Prospective Cog
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
I love how citizens of this country pretend to be unprejudiced but use attacks against candidates such as: "He is a Muslim!"

Barrack Obama is clearly is not a Muslim, but in order to diffuse these attacks, maybe he should say something like the following to his attackers: "What if I am? What is your point?"

At that point, people who accuse him of following Islam, would have no real recourse to stating their opposition to this other than to admit they are prejudice themselves against a certain religion.

And by the way, I'm not even an Obama supporter; I think he is unbelievably naive, a flake, impractical, terribly unexperienced, the master of platitudes, a media creation, the second coming of Jimmy Carter, etc.

That said, these attacks against him are ridiculous. He has enough faults so that looking for fake ones is counterproductive and silly.

Last edited by Alleluia_Cone; 2008-06-14 at 14:36.
Alleluia_Cone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-14, 15:25   Link #1387
Mystique
Honyaku no Hime
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: In the eastern capital of the islands of the rising suns...
First off, many thanks for answering my questions, kinda made a nice read at work to learn some more things about you voters who tend to look outside of the box a little, so just gonna reply to stuff I’ve read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Mad Skillz- View Post
A Hillary supporter from another forum told me recently that he got a paper in the mail from her base in Kansas (where he's from) urging them to vote for McCain and that she plans to run again in 4 years.

Apparently over 3 million republicans voted for Obama in the primaries because they know that he is much less a threat to McCain than Hillary would have been.

*is kinda speechless*
That is a sneaky, underhanded move to ensure 'no coloured' person or no 'skirt' is gonna run this country kinda mentality, I’d have thought (seeing as they're both democrats) that the Hillary lot would be supporting the similar side, (surely both their policies would be very different to McCain’s) not go for a total switch over....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
I don't know that the slandering gets any worse as November draws closer.

In response to your first question, the president of the US does not legally have to be a protestant Christian, but in our entire history we've only had a single president who did not fit that description. That president was John F. Kennedy, and he was a Catholic. Not being a Christian myself I don't see the huge difference, but history tells us that people basically attacked his religion by saying that he'd be loyal to the pope before being loyal to America, and how the pope would be influencing him, America would now be under the pope's control... that sort of rubbish.
Being a Christian myself, there isn't much difference, but heh, I am living in a country were some odd 500 years ago the King of England then went against the church (Catholics) and more or less said 'screw you guys, I'm making my own religion so I can divorce another wife or two', I didn't know Kennedy was being attacked for being Catholic though. O.o
Makes me think that America is in a state where England has been for the last 800 years until last century, religion wise

Quote:
Couple the above with the attacks that 1) Obama has contacts who are ex-members of the Weathermen (a long-since disbanded American terrorist organization) and 2) Obama is not patriotic/hates America because of Reverend Wright etc. and it's very clear to see what's going on. People are trying to draw on the culture of fear that our current government has set up in order to make Obama seem like some sort of threat.

It is my personal opinion that it really doesn't matter whether the president isn't the most patriotic nut in the country. In fact, it might be better if s/he isn't. I'd like a president who knows when to veto ridiculous laws, who has an interest in fairness and protecting our rights, and who can make a positive impression for us on the international stage. Those are largely the only things that matter in the president's role.

However, in America itself people don't think along those lines. The president is seen as the person who will make laws and control practically everything (even though this is technically not within their power, nor is it the intended function of the executive branch of the government). People want the president to practically be a nationalist, although the reason as to why somewhat eludes me. Perhaps they think that if the president doesn't sleep with a blanket that looks like the American flag and if he doesn't live, breathe, and dream America, then he'll do a bad job or worse. Totally ridiculous.
Yet, I believe it was the Bible Belt lot who were supporting Bush a lot for his second term (I know, you guys told the rest of us that 'it was a lesser of two evils'), but it seems if a politician can get the entire 'squeaky clean, church going, family man' image in top shape, it's enough to attract voters like a moth to a flame.

On a side note, that's biggest front that America brings to the world via your mass media; this ideology of 'being one' when in truth you're 48 inland countries (I know bout the other 2) with your own state laws, cultures and mentalities, but it's not something we see short of hanging out with you lot on forums like this, where I hear the infamous words 'it depends on the state'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yezhanquan View Post
I agree with "Miyuki-sensei" (Nice avatar, Kyuusai). Too often, the presidential candidates seemed to forget that the Supreme Court and Congress still exist.

I think the majority of voters seemed to have the wrong impression of a President's duty. Navigating through Congress is definitely part of the job, but the candidates seem to think that they can just ram through "reforms".
I learnt about the 'veto' rule when I was on a tour guide at Congress last year, kinda thought 'the "most powerful man in the world" doesn't have absolute say when it comes to making laws unlike a referee in football? O.o
Sweet...
I heard after the mid elections, when Dems took over for most part that Bush had a lot of trouble trying to enforce things; with the new president however, if Obama does win, wouldn't it be easier for him to try to change things around in Congress though since he'd be appealing to his side for most part?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab View Post
There is something called the "October surprise" where one party pulls out some huge piece of news that is either super favorable to them or some huge scandal against their opponent.

And eventually this stuff just starts going in one ear and out the other.
Learn something new everyday... thanks for that ^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fipskuul
I see the religion to be between the person and the god. And, such case would allow any kind of possibility.
Quote:
Ideally that's the way it would work.
I agree there, esp since America is a country founded on immigrants from all corners of the earth, faiths would be just as diverse too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ledgem
There are two big reasons why religion is important (I'm stating this to take up time while waiting for something, not because I think that nobody knows it):

1) Many voters, particularly the devout, feel that religion equates with a person's morals and virtues. For all of its diversity and its separation between church and state, America is a Christian nation as far as what the majority of the population believe in. Many of them are uncomfortable with the idea of a president that is of a different faith, as that other faith may be unknown to them.

For the devout, having a highly religious person as president would be wonderful... for them. These are usually the types of people who file lawsuits because evolution is taught in class, and they picket clinics and college campuses to protest abortion and homosexuality (among other things, but those were the sorts that I witnessed). Someone who will try to impose their religion's will on society is something that they'd love, as they're attempting to impose their views on others already in their day-to-day lives.
Those we call 'bible bashers' m'dear and even to me are quite annoying, imposition of one faith on other only leads to arguments at best, bloodshed at worst.
As I said that it feels like religion wise America is where England was hundreds of years ago, it seems we're now beginning to take the opposite direction.
As it was revealed soon after Blair stepped down, he kept any news about his faith to himself in fear of public ridicule and the thing is he may have been right. Religion in relation to politicians that seems to very much be 'to each their own, just keep it away from the house of commons unless it's related.'
We don't wanna know what you personally believe in, we wanna know what you plan to do for us and we'll check (or rather the oppisition checks and BBC reports every so often) if they're keeping on target of said electorial promise.
It'd be interesting to see if America ever gets to a point where 'what kind of Christian' a president is, no longer plays such a strong influence in terms of voting or how good a candidate they'd be to run the country well, but then again, I honestly can't think off the top of my head any other country who states "In God/Allah/Buddha/Shiva <insert other spiritual leader> we trust" on their bank notes. :\
Though according to wiki that's only a very recent thing it seems, but then we as tourists come over to America, read that while we're shopping, see this on your number plates... it kinda sends this weird message of 'don't forget, we as a country believe this!' (and only this)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hage-bai View Post
1.He was born a muslim and attended school in Indonesia as a muslim. Both fathers were Muslim. Some may argue that this guy is even an apostate. It is no surprise that these rumors pop up. Can't say that about the past presidents.
I think I can go by xellos getting annoyed by the 'misinformation' you're stating as if it really is the case that it was generated by people in his own Indonesian school, then why are you reiterating it to me as a 'non-American', who's asking for an objective reply as to where the rumours came from?
Quote:
in this case, I think I’m gonna pay note to Furthermore, I expect to see a muslim prime-minister in Britain long before one ever obtains the US presidency.

3. The lack of offence seen in Britain and Europe is the sole reason we'll see you guys as part of the Ummah in 50 years. Rather sing the anthem in school than take ridiculous Religious education classes in England (I did by the way)
yeah... I gotta do what xellos has done and 'give you the benefit of the doubt' for the same reason he did; that's a pretty flimsy comment that holds very little ground in relation to:
1: The history and growth of ethnic minorities in the UK in the last 40 years
2: The changes of Brits attitudes towards religion in the last 40 years
3: The results of the local elections last month, namely the rise of independent parties, who if they continue to rise, we're gonna get some serious social backlashes in this country (namely the BNP)
4. The extent of how severe immigration has become ever since the further opening of the EU + 9/11, plus the detention centres here, I doubt they're gonna relax their rules anytime soon.
5.Speaking of Europe, i doubt the Danish or the French will be joining anything anytime soon, even within 50 years or so.

R.E is taught at schools that are affiliated with said religion, where the students must be baptised (Catholics) or proven that they practice their faith before entering. At least in London, there are plenty of schools that don't teach R.E to strictly relate to Christianity, but rather to relate to many faiths since we're kinda diverse like that - on a personal note, having kids learn the differences of other religions of the kids in their class helps to diminish the ignorance and the 'fear of the unknown' as adults, it makes for a more understanding and co-existing society.

The anthem here would be 'God save the Queen' but we're no longer in a society where the entire population holds the queen in high reverence as the royal family used to be, where a negative comment on the Queen/King once upon a time was enough for you to take a nice little trip to the Tower of London.

- if you wish to take up more debate on your theories of the UK and Islam, feel free to bug me or start up a new thread about it and we'll talk.
PS: how did that answer my question anyways (dare i ask)


Lastly though, no one has yet to answer this question:
Quote:
*just learnt who michelle obama is*
Apparently she got called 'baby mama', which is causing some controversy, just curious as to 'why' and what's the full meaning of that term in terms of him wanting to be president.
Or do I chalk that down to an 'Ebonics' thing and go hunt on urbandictionary or something? >.>
__________________

Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn't get you anywhere. - Van Wilder
"If you ain't laughin', you ain't livin'." - Carlos Mencia

Last edited by Mystique; 2008-06-14 at 15:43.
Mystique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-14, 15:50   Link #1388
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
For the devout, having a highly religious person as president would be wonderful... for them. These are usually the types of people who file lawsuits because evolution is taught in class, and they picket clinics and college campuses to protest abortion and homosexuality (among other things, but those were the sorts that I witnessed). Someone who will try to impose their religion's will on society is something that they'd love, as they're attempting to impose their views on others already in their day-to-day lives.
I realize that your response was partially rushed, but don't you think that this statement is a little heavy handed. There are plenty of Devout Christians, Muslims, Hebrews, Buddhist, Hinduist, Shintoist, et cetera, et cetera that are devout and never file lawsuits or are extrememly critical of other's religion etc. Rather it is only the truly fanatical (who can be found in any group or any society, for that matter) that even come close to the issues or forcefulness that you have stated (though I will admit that once the fanatical base gets the ball rolling some of the strictly devout crowd will hop aboard). Again, I realize that your response was somewhat rushed, and you probably did not mean for it to come out quite so...generalized, but I felt that it was still a point worth clarifying.

That being said, I completely agree with your sentiments, and, for a while there, I was also deeply scared that Huckabee could be a presidental candidate. I actually thanked God that he lost . Now maybe I should pray to make sure he does not become the V-P .
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-14, 16:06   Link #1389
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystique View Post
That is a sneaky, underhanded move to ensure 'no coloured' person or no 'skirt' is gonna run this country kinda mentality, I’d have thought (seeing as they're both democrats) that the Hillary lot would be supporting the similar side, (surely both their policies would be very different to McCain’s) not go for a total switch over....
It's a case of people getting a bit too caught up in supporting their candidate. They forget that we're not supposed to be supporting candidates because we like their look, their name, or their personality, but because of their values and policies. If your choice candidate doesn't make it, you go with the next best person. Saying "vote for McCain so that Clinton can get a second shot in four years" shows that people have forgotten the policies aspect and are treating it as that they want Clinton in office just for the sake of victory at getting Clinton into office.

Quote:
Being a Christian myself, there isn't much difference, but heh, I am living in a country were some odd 500 years ago the King of England then went against the church (Catholics) and more or less said 'screw you guys, I'm making my own religion so I can divorce another wife or two', I didn't know Kennedy was being attacked for being Catholic though. O.o
Makes me think that America is in a state where England has been for the last 800 years until last century, religion wise
I'm not sure where England was in the past regarding religion. I'd say that in most places religion isn't a big deal, but every president that we've ever had was Christian of some protestant sect, with JFK being the sole exception. I don't know if it's so much a matter of people being uneasy with different religions, but rather that it's something new and unknown. We more or less know what to expect on the religious and group affiliation aspect if the president is a white, middle-aged to elderly man who is a protestant Christian. What would happen if any of those factors were changed?

In reality, probably not a whole lot. It sparks fears anyway. If the president were Jewish would America suddenly be very anti-Arab and bow down to Israel? If the president were Muslim would we suddenly adopt the Sharia laws and go to war with Israel? If the president were Catholic would the pope be pulling America's strings? If the president were Buddhist would we bow down to Asia/would Asians become the ruling ethnic class in America? They're all ridiculous fears, but very few people want to think for themselves and come to that conclusion. And again, there is a big unknown because the majority (currently Caucasian and Christian) themselves don't know much about other cultures and groups, and they become afraid when they see other groups suddenly stirring and getting excited. Can you imagine how much shit would get tossed at a president of Jewish background, or someone who was of Chinese descent? These could be the most American citizens in the entire world, but because the majority are different they'd be afraid and wonder if these people had some secret link to their country of origin or some such rubbish.

Quote:
On a side note, that's biggest front that America brings to the world via your mass media; this ideology of 'being one' when in truth you're 48 inland countries (I know bout the other 2) with your own state laws, cultures and mentalities, but it's not something we see short of hanging out with you lot on forums like this, where I hear the infamous words 'it depends on the state'.
Divisions occur easily and naturally, wherever you go. States are an easy way for us to break apart when we're considering America alone, but even within states you'll hear people creating divisions based by county, town/city, and geographical location (where I live in NY, in a town with a population of just over 7,000, the "mountain people" are elitest snobs who used to be communists while the "townies" are dregs).

I suppose it's only natural that such generalizations can be made about states. I've lived in New York and Los Angeles and they were relatively similar in terms of diversity. However, on a drive from New York to Los Angeles I passed through Texas and noted that there was a huge cross, and I don't think it was by a church. I'm pretty sure I noted another cross up on some mountains somewhere else along the way, but I don't recall which state it was in. You don't really see those sorts of displays along the coastal regions, I'd think.

Quote:
I heard after the mid elections, when Dems took over for most part that Bush had a lot of trouble trying to enforce things; with the new president however, if Obama does win, wouldn't it be easier for him to try to change things around in Congress though since he'd be appealing to his side for most part?
More like Congress should have an easier time passing things since Obama won't be threatening to veto them just because they're Democrats. Either way, the breakdown isn't always so easy. During times of elections the politicians can usually be counted on to vote strictly according to their party affiliation because they want their party overall to appear stronger/better than the other. At other times I think politicians feel a bit freer to take sides however they please, unless it's some issue where the issue becomes one party vs. the other. I like to think that politicians act more on their own will than their party, but it seems to be rare for politicians to even read about what they're voting on. WTF are they spending their time doing?

Quote:
Or do I chalk that down to an 'Ebonics' thing and go hunt on urbandictionary or something? >.>
No idea, and I haven't even heard anyone make an issue over that. You're the first and so far only person I've heard that "baby mama" remark from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by james3wk
I realize that your response was partially rushed, but don't you think that this statement is a little heavy handed. There are plenty of Devout Christians, Muslims, Hebrews, Buddhist, Hinduist, Shintoist, et cetera, et cetera that are devout and never file lawsuits or are extrememly critical of other's religion etc. Rather it is only the truly fanatical (who can be found in any group or any society, for that matter) that even come close to the issues or forcefulness that you have stated (though I will admit that once the fanatical base gets the ball rolling some of the strictly devout crowd will hop aboard). Again, I realize that your response was somewhat rushed, and you probably did not mean for it to come out quite so...generalized, but I felt that it was still a point worth clarifying.
You're right, devout was a poor choice for the term I was looking for. Fanatical followers are probably closer to what I was thinking of. My apologies if that offended anyone.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-14, 16:21   Link #1390
Hage-bai
Banned
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystique View Post

R.E is taught at schools that are affiliated with said religion, where the students must be baptised (Catholics) or proven that they practice their faith before entering. At least in London, there are plenty of schools that don't teach R.E to strictly relate to Christianity, but rather to relate to many faiths since we're kinda diverse like that - on a personal note, having kids learn the differences of other religions of the kids in their class helps to diminish the ignorance and the 'fear of the unknown' as adults, it makes for a more understanding and co-existing society.
I last attended a state-funded public school in the UK 8 years ago , that was affiliated with the anglican church. The school has no restrictions on attendants being christian. I am not a representivitve of any christian denomination. R.E classes were 95% bible related and the 5% that tried to explain other religions was horribly taught. The nail in the coffin is the mandatory visit to some local church each term to sing some hymns and such. In comparison to this, requiring students to sing the national anthem in the U.S is nothing.
Hage-bai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-17, 05:29   Link #1391
sundaeGURL
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Well I say McCain is in serious trouble now, even GOP is not yet warming him up.But donít worry itís still an early race then. You never know a senior citizen might have the momentum to smoke the competition between the two; but then again I find this unlikely. The poll that I saw in PollClash, so far, is accurate. And it seems that the recent WSJ/NBC poll coincides with what pollcalash have, Now that the candidates are set for the US Presidential Election, Barack Obama and John McCain are beginning to set the tone for their campaign. Looking at their most recent speeches, what do you think about what you hear?
sundaeGURL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-18, 03:29   Link #1392
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 29
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
I found a quite entertaining GIF animation on a random forum today:



Not constructive or particularly smart, but it put a smile on my face.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-18, 07:30   Link #1393
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
More like Congress should have an easier time passing things since Obama won't be threatening to veto them just because they're Democrats. Either way, the breakdown isn't always so easy. During times of elections the politicians can usually be counted on to vote strictly according to their party affiliation because they want their party overall to appear stronger/better than the other. At other times I think politicians feel a bit freer to take sides however they please, unless it's some issue where the issue becomes one party vs. the other. I like to think that politicians act more on their own will than their party, but it seems to be rare for politicians to even read about what they're voting on. WTF are they spending their time doing?
(bold added by me)
Well, unless they're
1) complete freeloading fat jackasses chasing easy sex;
2) totally Tom DeLay abusively corrupt and evil;

they're spending their time frantically raising cash for running in the next election cycle by attending fundraisers or schmoozing lobbyists.

Its not even a question of greed - its a simple fact that whomever has the biggest moneychest will statistically win the election because the *voters* show us over and over again that they are easily manipulated by the amount of facetime/airtime the politician produces rather than the *content* of their message.

95% of the reading and research of those bills is done by their staff to the point that its almost more important to know the makeup of congressman's staff and school of lobbyists than to know anything about the man or woman with the title.

This is why many people push for:
1) real public financing of elections,
2) a return to the Fairness Doctrine of airtime,
3) requiring that those media companies borrowing the airwaves produce news without an eye to the profit
4) No earmarks, no "unrelated pile'o'crap" omnibus bills

and other fixes are absolutely necessary to restore some minor sanity to the process of governance.
__________________
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-18, 09:56   Link #1394
Mystique
Honyaku no Hime
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: In the eastern capital of the islands of the rising suns...
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
I found a quite entertaining GIF animation on a random forum today:



Not constructive or particularly smart, but it put a smile on my face.
xD
Bloody brilliant!
Definitely brought a smile to my face and then some, that is getting spread to a few peeps i know are somewhat geeky about pokemon

Thanks for my daily dose of medicine, doc. ^^
__________________

Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn't get you anywhere. - Van Wilder
"If you ain't laughin', you ain't livin'." - Carlos Mencia
Mystique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-18, 13:06   Link #1395
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 33
Thanks Vexx, that's a rather insightful look at the problem. I wonder what the chances are that it'll ever be fixed? There are a lot of issues in politics that seem to stem from money availability. It's one thing to pass minor laws regarding how the government handles itself, but to do something drastic like altering the sources of funding seems like it'd be a big step. I don't know that politicians who've learned how to use the current system to their benefit would be so willing to change it, even in the name of fairness.

And thank you WanderingKnight for sharing that. I'd +rep you for bringing in humor but apparently your and my accounts are still in a cooldown phase.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-18, 14:36   Link #1396
Onizuka-GTO
Holy Beast ~Wuff!~
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Leeds, UK
Age: 35
Send a message via MSN to Onizuka-GTO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hage-bai View Post
I last attended a state-funded public school in the UK 8 years ago , that was affiliated with the anglican church. The school has no restrictions on attendants being christian. I am not a representivitve of any christian denomination. R.E classes were 95% bible related and the 5% that tried to explain other religions was horribly taught. The nail in the coffin is the mandatory visit to some local church each term to sing some hymns and such. In comparison to this, requiring students to sing the national anthem in the U.S is nothing.
hahaha. oh fun. i remember that. when i was in primary school (7-8 to 11-12?) i attend a public school (nationally fund) oh it was a ball. singing protestant hymms during assemblies, even though we weren't Christians or religious, memories of getting caned by the Head Master for punching a kid for picking on my little sister (we were the only Chinese family in the area) and swatting a jackarse across the face with a stick that me and the gang dipped into a healthy pile of poo we found sitting in the loo building (which was outside/no heating/with greaseproof single sheet toilet paper) , oh the innocent fun we had back then.



Anyway, thanks for bringing back the memories. These days, schools are far different, I have to say state run schools are getting better, but the higher standard of living means more people are in the middle class brackets and can afford to send their kids to grammar school (private-funded) so are far better educated and have a more broader curriculum to give then a chance to make a better decision on the world around them.

however, this leaves a gap for those choose to stop further education and that is where the problems we got. with all the disrespect we have in the UK, a good caning never hurt anyone. well, unless you count a lifetime addiction to Anime.

And i think that more or less sums up what i think is happening here, the less educated ones are the majority.

To me i think it's sad to hear them drown out all the voices of the more rational ones in this election.

But I'm glad that the more open minded group of Americans are here on this forum to explain this sometimes bizarre habits of our rebellious cousins.

I guess this election will be the one, to see if the voice of the educated, can be heard....or be the one of those "Florida moments"

__________________
Onizuka-GTO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-18, 22:48   Link #1397
ApostleOfGod
^.^
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
I found a quite entertaining GIF animation on a random forum today:



Not constructive or particularly smart, but it put a smile on my face.
LOL BRILLIANT!!

WOW


ROFL. THAT'S AMAZING.

Wow. I'm going to laugh cry. Lol
__________________
There are two ways to live life.

One is to live life as if nothing is a miracle.

The other way is to live life as though everything is a miracle.
ApostleOfGod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-19, 13:38   Link #1398
Xellos-_^
Not Enough Sleep
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 42
i know this is foxnews home of fauxnews but still

Quote:
Obama said in a September 2007 questionnaire by the Midwest Democracy Network that he would agree to forgo private funding for the November election if nominated. He elaborated by saying his plan would be to return excess donations and hold both major party candidates to a public “fundraising truce.”
“Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge,” Obama wrote. “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
Having numerically clinched the GOP nomination, McCain has moved toward accepting public funds for the general election — but Obama has gradually eased off his earlier pledge.
Obama and his supporters argue his reason for doing so speaks to his ambitions as a reformer.
Obama has already “rewritten the book when it comes to financing campaigns” by rejecting Washington lobbyist and political action committee contributions, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, an Obama supporter, told FOX News.


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06...-public-funds/
So is Obama a smart reformer or a typical politician who say one thing and then does something else when it is more advantagous to do so?
__________________
Xellos-_^ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-19, 14:33   Link #1399
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
So is Obama a smart reformer or a typical politician who say one thing and then does something else when it is more advantagous to do so?
I'm sure this will seem like a really stupid question, but what's the difference between private and public funding? I'd say that it really depends on that.
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-19, 14:49   Link #1400
Xellos-_^
Not Enough Sleep
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
I'm sure this will seem like a really stupid question, but what's the difference between private and public funding? I'd say that it really depends on that.
Public Funding means a portion (half or more) is provide by the government, however there is a set limit on how much money a candidate can spend during the election.

Private funding means you can spend as much as you want but you receive no funds other then what you can raise.

The public fundng money comes form the check box on the tax forms asking if you want to donate money to the presidential campaign.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
debate, elections, news, politics, united_states

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We use Silk.