Home - List All Discussions

Election 2006 and 2008

How are you voting?

by: Allizdog2000

I am pissed off.. VERY PISSED OFF. Which is why I am voting either mostly democrat/Liberal or Third party in November 2006 and in 2008.
- Gas Prices are killing everyone!
- The War in Iraq was huge error. Against the war, not the soldiers. Where are the WMD!?!?!? Oh.. that was a lie! Madelene Albright put is correctly on the "Colbert Report", the US will not invade countries that have nuclear weapons!!
The abortion issue. While I do feel that the states are turning it around, the abortion issue will be how I decide who I will vote for Governor and state assembly.
Immenent Domain is completely how I will vote for local/city/county elections.
Gas Prices, The War in Iraq is how I will vote for Congress, Senate and President.
ADDED:
Other question:
President Bush, Do you approve or disapprove of his performance?
Me: I give him, thumbs way down!

reply from: AshMarie88

I will be voting for someone who's pro-life and who has more of the same views as me. I sure hope Hillary Clinton won't win... I'll die if she does.
Uh, anymore these days, disapprove. We need a better president... :-/

reply from: Shiprahagain

But if you're voting on the abortion issue, Alliz, why would you vote liberal? At least Republicans make some headway against it. Like when Bush stopped funding UNFPA.

reply from: nsanford

Me? I usually vote Democratic. I agree, gas is a killer, it's over $3 where I live.
It's still a little to early to say how I would vote in '08. I would like to see Warner/Obama though. Who would you like to see run?
I disagree. There are more important issues. What state do you live in?
Neither party really knows what to do about gas prices. If you want to see a solution to the war in Iraq, vote Republican. Democrats have no real plan. Most of them just bash the president.
Bush is a idiot. I don't even know why he was elected the first time.

I find this extremely funny. Tell me one thing that's so bad about her that would cause your death. More conservative nonsense.
I remember that episode. I love that show. Too bad it's on a two week break.

reply from: AshMarie88

Well, he said he's not voting pro-life for pres... Sort of.
Gas Prices, The War in Iraq - how I will vote for Congress, Senate and President.

reply from: AshMarie88

Nsan, you can't say there are more important issues than children dying.
It's your opinion there are more important issues, but that's just that... YOUR OPINION.
And by my saying I'll die if Hillary gets elected, ever heard of sarcastic sayings?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Nsanford, I think this is a good reason to dislike Hillary Clinton. http://www.pop.org/main.cfm?EID=719 Because you are pro-women's choice, I think you'll agree how she runs roughshod over the voices of foreign women is troubling.

reply from: nsanford

I find all politicians troubling. There's something wrong with all of them.
I never said I liked Hillary, I just said she's not that bad. And that's a biased link.
Plus, I mixed on the Mexico City policy.

reply from: Allizdog2000

The state elections will determine this. Abortion and Immenent domain is the deciding factors. Pro-Life and Against immenent domain/seizing private property for corporate use.
President Clinton really wasn't that bad, compared to President Bush!
I live in Illinois. I'm likely voting mostly all third party in November. Like I hear from many pissed off people living in Illinois, "Only Chicago counts!" Obama and Durbin are only representing Chicago. Governor Blagojevich isn't the governor of Illinois, he is the Governor of Chicago. Well, that is inaccurate, but it sure seems that way! because they only care about the major city, and screw the rest of the state.

reply from: faithman

single issue voter. whoever is most pro-life.

reply from: nsanford

Should I vote for whoever is most pro-choice?

reply from: faithman

Should I vote for whoever is most pro-choice?
I guess that cansil us out.

reply from: AshMarie88

Should I vote for whoever is most pro-choice?
Well you surely wouldn't vote for someone pro-life...

reply from: holopaw

Same here. All other issues are secondary.

reply from: holopaw

Should I vote for whoever is most pro-choice?
The cool thing about being BORN in America is once you're 18, you can vote for whomever the heck you want. If your "mother" dismembers you in the womb, you can't.

reply from: xnavy

clinton was a very good example of someone who couldn't keep his pants up. i would vote 3rd party if i thought they had a chance of winning
the white house. even though i don't care for the war in iraq, i will probably still vote republican.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Naw, Hillaryous doens't have a chance. She's too sexy to be president (according to Sharon Stone), anyway. Fifty one percent of voters wouldn't vote for her, either, a poll said a while back.
I'm hoping my Senator, Sam Brownback (he's been thinking about it, I've heard), runs cause he's such a great guy and it pro-life to the max. The only problem I have with him is his support for a bill that will give social security to illegal immigrants.
Anyways, I'm with Bush on certain issues, and I think the media and Democrats like to blow up little things and make other things up about him, though I don't agree with Bush on everything. I think he needs to stop trying to get "more support" and toughen up and kick some butt instead of just sitting back and trying to say "what the public wants." He's voted for pro-life stuff and he's appointed two very good judges on the SCOTUS, so I guess he's done a decent job overall....despite the illegal immigrant deal.
But unfortunately, I won't be able to vote until 2012 (I will BARELY miss the 2008 vote; I hate it). So I guess I've kinda said this all for nothing....

reply from: Tam

Uh, that's "Eminent" Domain.

reply from: Tam

I have NEVER voted for a Rep or a Dem and I never intend to vote for any of them, either. They are a HUGE part of the problem, NOT the solution, and I will not support them in any way. I vote third party or not at all.

reply from: nsanford

Any particular party?

reply from: faithman

How about... stop the scum bag maggot pro-abort punks from killing babies party. A little long, but quite catchy.

reply from: nsanford

No, I don't think so. How about the "I hate pro-choicers because they value the individual party"? Or maybe the "I'm intolerant of others" party.
All of those sound good to me.

reply from: faithman

Or... we hate womb children party. intolerant of womb life party... slaughter the children party... or just plain democrate does it.

reply from: nsanford

What's a democrate?
Anyway, I'm all for the "pro-choicers are evil because they don't agree with me" party. Sure to bring in the hillbilly vote.

reply from: faithman

You forgot the knuckle draggin red neck vote. Of course the "hood" vote will go the way of who ever keeps the check on time. cause they just slap the bastard out the b_ tch.

reply from: nsanford

You know, the "No separation of church and state" party sounds like one for you. You really get to force your belief on others.
I'll be busy in the "Obey the Constitution" party. Might even check out the "Treat others the way you want to be treated" party. But you wouldn't like those, they aren't insulting enough.

reply from: Tam

Any particular party?
Hard to say in terms of the upcoming election. Last time I voted, I was only just beginning to consider myself pro-life. I voted mostly Libertarian. But most of the libs I voted for are probably pro-choice. There is, however, a Libertarians For Life (www.l4l.org) group that I think is pretty cool. On the other hand, I am not in agreement with the Libertarians much anymore, so I don't think I could vote for them, either. I might consider voting Green Party, if I could find anyone worth voting for.
On the abortion issue, I will vote for anyone who considers abortion a problem and has any remotely reasonable idea of how it should be solved. Anyone who considers abortion to be not a problem but a woman's inherent right will not get my vote, but the candidate does not have to support outright criminalization to get my vote. In fact, I have so far never voted for anyone who supports criminalization of abortion. I certainly would vote for someone who supported criminalization of abortion, but I am not a single-issue voter, so it's not that simple.
Actually, I'd say I'm a two-issue voter. Not only does the candidate have to satisfy the above criterion about abortion, but s/he also has to be pro-environment. So anyone who thinks the earth is ours to rape and destroy (like Ann Coulter) would never, ever get my vote, no matter how much I agree with the person about abortion--and the same is true in reverse: anyone who thinks abortion is a woman's right (like Ralph Nader) will never get my vote, no matter how much I agree with the person about the environment.
So if you find any pro-life, pro-earth candidates, please feel free to let me know!

reply from: Tam

ROFL
Coming from someone who supports abortion, that is pathetic. You need to rephrase to "Treat BORN others the way you want to be treated."

reply from: tabithamarcotte

The only problem with them is that they seem to lean towards "eliminating all the unwanted children who just create more carbon dioxide to poison us (which means GLOBAL WARMING)" or something along those lines.

reply from: galen

The ONLY thing i am sure of is i will NEVER vote republican again for President. Otherwise i will look at ALL candidates on the ballot and vote for those i hope will be the lesser of the evils. i have to say that i am displeased with most federal elected officials but the state and local ones we have are not half bad.
i am voting though because i feel i do not have the right to complain about a government if i did not have a hand in electing it.
Mary

reply from: faithman

So lets see.... treat others the way you want to be treated..... suck brains oput of head, boil in saline... chop, dice, crush, and suck up the mess with a vacuum. Man!!!! you must have some really ruff week ends, if you like getting treated like that.!!!!

reply from: holopaw

Are you also for the "pro-choicers are evil because they advocate killing babies" party. Sure to bring in the genocide embracer vote.

reply from: faithman

Are you also for the "pro-choicers are evil because they advocate killing babies" party. Sure to bring in the genocide embracer vote.
My pro abort mind is so open my brains fell out party.... fricasee fetus for lunch party.....sex with no responsibility party..... eat your young party.... Human chop shop for spare parts party.....kill the kids for power party....

reply from: Tam

I actually feel that the fact that there was not a single candidate in any of the five major parties for whom I felt comfortable casting a vote gives me just as much right to complain as anyone who voted for the "lesser of two evils" or cast a minor-party vote knowing the candidate had virtually no chance of winning.

reply from: faithman

Run girls off in the river party.... drive drunk into barracade party......slap police doing their job party....hide kick backs in the freezer party...

reply from: faithman

So lets see.... treat others the way you want to be treated..... suck brains oput of head, boil in saline... chop, dice, crush, and suck up the mess with a vacuum. Man!!!! you must have some really ruff week ends, if you like getting treated like that.!!!!

reply from: yoda

So you would LIKE to be killed by a doctor hired by your mother?

reply from: Shiprahagain

I agree. One doesn't vote to get complaining rights or just for the sake of voting. You ought to vote b/c you like the candidate. If enough ppl didn't vote when they didn't like the candidate, the political system would change. However, I still support Repubs b/c bad as they are, they do make pro-life baby steps which save many kids -- i.e. not funding UNFPA.

reply from: Tam

I treat it the way I'd treat a membership on a hiring committee. If the person is clearly unqualified for the job, I'd rather abstain than vote for him/her. I really hope there are some good candidates this time.

reply from: holopaw

I agree. One doesn't vote to get complaining rights or just for the sake of voting. You ought to vote b/c you like the candidate. If enough ppl didn't vote when they didn't like the candidate, the political system would change. However, I still support Repubs b/c bad as they are, they do make pro-life baby steps which save many kids -- i.e. not funding UNFPA.
No, nothing would change unless you had multiple parties. In a two major party system, not voting for the party closest to your views, just helps the other party.

reply from: Tam

Let me ask you something--if you had to choose between two candidates, one of whom was a Satanist and the other of whom was an abortionist, would you vote for either of them? Could you actually bring yourself to cast a vote for the Satanist to keep the abortionist out of office, or vice versa?
The point is, when a candidate's views are so abhorrent to you that you cannot cast a vote FOR the candidate, that does not mean you "help the other party" because it only helps the other party if you *would have* voted for the candidate but don't. If it's someone for whom you would never in a million years cast a vote, your NOT casting a vote for him/her cannot be construed as "a vote for the other guy" as it is often claimed.
If, on the other hand, there is a candidate whose views match your own quite well, but you are nitpicky about some relatively minor issue on which the candidate's views don't precisely match your own, and you refuse to vote for him/her out of something akin to pettiness, then it can be construed as helping the other candidate.
If the problem is wider, with the parties themselves, that's not something that can be solved by voting for the parties perpetuating the problem. If, for example, the two parties are virtually identical in ways that make it impossible for you to cast in good conscience a vote for either party, that can't be construed as helping the "other party"--because neither party is the "other party" to someone who wouldn't vote for either of them. In other words, if you won't vote for Dems OR Reps, which is the "other party" that gets helped by your abstaining? Obviously, neither of them is helped by the lack of a vote cast by someone who wouldn't have voted for either of them anyway.
If the two parties are different but both evil, like if they were the Nazi Party and the Abortion Party, you wouldn't vote for either one, anyway. Would the fact that you didn't vote for the Nazis mean that you are endorsing abortion?
You catch my drift, I am sure! That is why it is so essential that those of us who do not want to perpetuate the two-party problem stop voting them into office.

reply from: holopaw

Let me ask you something--if you had to choose between two candidates, one of whom was a Satanist and the other of whom was an abortionist, would you vote for either of them? Could you actually bring yourself to cast a vote for the Satanist to keep the abortionist out of office, or vice versa?
The point is, when a candidate's views are so abhorrent to you that you cannot cast a vote FOR the candidate, that does not mean you "help the other party" because it only helps the other party if you *would have* voted for the candidate but don't. If it's someone for whom you would never in a million years cast a vote, your NOT casting a vote for him/her cannot be construed as "a vote for the other guy" as it is often claimed.
If, on the other hand, there is a candidate whose views match your own quite well, but you are nitpicky about some relatively minor issue on which the candidate's views don't precisely match your own, and you refuse to vote for him/her out of something akin to pettiness, then it can be construed as helping the other candidate.
If the problem is wider, with the parties themselves, that's not something that can be solved by voting for the parties perpetuating the problem. If, for example, the two parties are virtually identical in ways that make it impossible for you to cast in good conscience a vote for either party, that can't be construed as helping the "other party"--because neither party is the "other party" to someone who wouldn't vote for either of them. In other words, if you won't vote for Dems OR Reps, which is the "other party" that gets helped by your abstaining? Obviously, neither of them is helped by the lack of a vote cast by someone who wouldn't have voted for either of them anyway.
If the two parties are different but both evil, like if they were the Nazi Party and the Abortion Party, you wouldn't vote for either one, anyway. Would the fact that you didn't vote for the Nazis mean that you are endorsing abortion?
You catch my drift, I am sure! That is why it is so essential that those of us who do not want to perpetuate the two-party problem stop voting them into office.
Honestly, I'd vote for the lesser of two evils, the satanist. I think Bush & Kerry stunk. I voted for Bush to keep Kerry out of office.

reply from: Tam

Well, that is your prerogative. I would not vote for a satanist under any circumstances. If millions of people vote for the satanist out of fear of the other candidate, it is their fault if a satanist is in charge. So they are the ones (if anyone is) who have no right to complain, because they're part of the problem.

reply from: domsmom

You forgot the knuckle draggin red neck vote. Of course the "hood" vote will go the way of who ever keeps the check on time. cause they just slap the bastard out the b_ tch.
I know this is just horrible of me to say but, ROFLMAO!!!
That is too funny!

reply from: 1003

ignorance is not funny. it's sad.

reply from: holopaw

Well, that is your prerogative. I would not vote for a satanist under any circumstances. If millions of people vote for the satanist out of fear of the other candidate, it is their fault if a satanist is in charge. So they are the ones (if anyone is) who have no right to complain, because they're part of the problem.
We all have the right to complain. It means a bit more if a person votes. I pay taxes, my taxes go to paying the politicians. If an employee is not doing a good job, their boss has a right to complain. Do you believe that people who don't vote have a right to complain?

reply from: Tam

Of course. As you say, we all have the right to complain. However, I don't feel that anyone who votes for Candidate A has the right to complain about the fact that Candidate A gets elected. That's not to say that everyone who votes for Candidate A will support that candidate 100%, or shouldn't complain about certain of A's policies, but if you vote for someone, it's on you that s/he got elected, and not the fault of those who did not vote for that candidate.
People who don't vote at all have different reasons for not voting. If the reason you don't vote is that you just don't give a damn, then you probably don't have a right to whine about who got elected. If, however, you are forced to abstain due to an utter lack of suitable candidates, you certainly have the right to complain about the fact that none of the candidates were acceptable. If you don't vote because you are boycotting voting because you think the entire system is corrupt and rigged, you have the right to complain about the corrupt system.
Again, as you say, we all have the right to complain. But if you're contributing to a problem, you probably don't have a leg to stand on to complain about that particular problem--and be taken seriously, anyway. For example, if a practicing abortionist complained about abortion, that'd be really offensive. If a Nazi complained about having too many prisoners in a concentration camp, that'd be appalling. When you've made the problem, you should quit griping and making it worse, and start instead to work for something better.
I frankly don't think this system is long for this world. It's so corrupt and out of balance. But that's not why I didn't vote. I simply felt that each of the candidates was unacceptable and refused to endorse, with my act of casting a vote, any of them. I realize there are people who felt that all the candidates were unacceptable--and knowingly cast a vote for a thoroughly unacceptable candidate, for fear that another thoroughly unacceptable but slightly less palatable candidate would win.
If the winning candidate isn't a good candidate for president, that's not my fault--and therefore it is not my fault that we have an unqualified, unacceptable president (which I think we do). We would have had, in my estimation, an unqualified, unacceptable president regardless of anything I did, so don't blame me. The people who voted for Bush are the ones responsible for his being in office, no one else (unless, of course, it IS totally rigged--in which case none of the members of the voting public are to blame whatsoever).

reply from: Valfar

I'm voting straight ticket Dem. As much as Hillary Clinton repulses me, I'd rather see her in the White House than Frist or anything else the Repugs can come up with

reply from: Allizdog2000

Then don't vote for her in the primaries. I am going to vote for some douche like Kerry or Dean in the primaries, vice a turd sandwich on the Republican side.
I voted for that douche Kerry in 2004. Although he was 20 million votes short.
I predict that Democrats/liberals will sweep the 2008 elections.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Although I've lived through 5 different decades, I did not vote in a Presidential election until 2000. Bill Clinton's sexual shenanigan's with various women and the march of the evil Democrat contingent in support brought me out to vote. I wanted to make sure no "Demon"crats got into office to support sodomy and abortion. I did not want to see any individual from the evil and wicked Democrat crew get into office. They support killing unborn children and support men committing unspeakable perversion (digging around in each others feces).
The Hollywood crew is the same. Vile movies depicting unlawful sexual acts, profane language, disrespectful, violent, making light of low moral behavior. Exalting the profane and accusing the good and decent.
Bill Clinton is the poster boy for abortion. He enjoys sexual acts with a variety of women such as Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinski, etc, etc. He wants abortion to clean up any little "accidents". He is so vile and perverse there is no limit to how low he will go. He vetoed the partial birth abortion ban that Congress had passed to protect children. He is for sticking scissors or another sharp object in the back of the head of an 8 or 9 month or preborn child to kill him or her. Bill was a ruler within the kingdoms of man. Bill will not be given a position of rulership in the Government of God. I believe the most useful function he'll have to perform is serving as fertilizer.

reply from: nsanford

Isn't it a little early to start predicting?
You can't think of anyone better than that? I pity you.
Lumping all the Democrats in one pathetic group? Have you ever stopped to think not all Democrats care for abortion? Or is just easier to think in stereotypes?
Stop whining. Hollywood makes some outrageous movies, but that's their job. To entertain people. Deal with it. Besides, there are good movies, you just have to look for them. But that's too hard. It's just easier to say "Hollywood is evil" isn't it?

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Isn't it a little early to start predicting?
You can't think of anyone better than that? I pity you.
Lumping all the Democrats in one pathetic group? Have you ever stopped to think not all Democrats care for abortion? Or is just easier to think in stereotypes?
Stop whining. Hollywood makes some outrageous movies, but that's their job. To entertain people. Deal with it. Besides, there are good movies, you just have to look for them. But that's too hard. It's just easier to say "Hollywood is evil" isn't it?
There are some good people that make movies and shows and act. I know who a handful of these people are. Most in Hollywood are about promoting inappropriate behavior.
Democratic senators from my state have said you are a horrible person if you limit marriage to one man and one woman. It's pretty clear the main party platform includes using a sledgehammer against traditional marriage and preborn children. A handful of Democrats are not for partial-birth abortion or sodomy. However, I find fault for their being part of this evil organization and providing any kind of support to it.
Bill Clinton is one of the most prominent promiscious playboys around, and a liar through and through (unless the semen is on the dress and he has to fess up before DNA proves him a liar). A lifestyle like his, keeping Jennifer on the side, dropping his drawers at a hotel before an unwilling Paula Jones (she was offended and felt assaulted), or doing the cigar thing to Monica while she responded with the under the desk thing, shows that he is a lover of pleasures rather than a father concerned with the well-being of his possible offspring. It is a horrible, horrible thing to think of committing sexual acts with a woman who is destinied to be some one else's wife. Has he no shame? Will Bill look such men in the face later? Or is sex "no big deal" that should not affect later relationships? Does it matter if your husband or wife is a promisious person? I would contend that it is no way to build a trusting loving respectful partnership. Bill is a good example of why abortion is desired by the masses today. As one co-worker said to me in the late 90s, "We have a pervert in the White House."
I should add that Mr. Bush is dishonest on several fronts. He deceived the masses about WMD in Iraq. He also said Islam was a great and peaceful religion. Heck, Allah is Satan himself and Mohammed is his prophet. Yes, I realize many in Islam are deceived. They don't think of themselves as being in a movement that is designed to bring people into conflict. Doing the Jihad thing until all are in submission to Allah means war rather than peace.

reply from: nsanford

You're post is full of ignorance, and I don't have a lot of time, so I'll respond to you're major points.
Those damn Hollywood directors! Always trying to destroy America's values!
Yeah, right. Not everybody's out to get religion, you know.
Really? Every single one? Well if it makes you feel any better, I'm a democrat, and I don't think you're a horrible person. Just a very misguided one. What will happen if gay people are allowed to marry? Nothing. You know what the major threat to marriage is? Divorce. And guess which state has the lowest divorce rate? Massachusetts, and they allow gay marrige. Check it out.
Which according to the majority of America, is a very good thing. Ultra conservatives like yourself drag us down.
Which it is. There have been Muslim nutcases, Jewish nutcases, and Christian nutcases. The terrorists use and manipulate Islam. Read the Koran. It's actually pretty peaceful.
Right, sure. I doubt this can be proved.
How do you explain Pakistan?

reply from: yoda

That was pitiful, ns. Perhaps you should wait until you have more time?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Nsanford is right about Islam, but I wish he'd extend his insightfulness to abortion.

reply from: yoda

Although no religion has a corner on violence, Islam does have a couple of distinctions that makes them probably the most inclined towards violence. Their founder was a military conqueror, he set the pattern. Many of them claim that their scriptures say that all unbelievers must be "converted or killed". And their unique brand of law ("Sharia"?) does prescribe the death penalty for any of their believers who convert to another religion. On paper at least, they are "different".

reply from: Shiprahagain

In keeping with my philosophy, I'll pm.

reply from: nsanford

Although no religion has a corner on violence, Islam does have a couple of distinctions that makes them probably the most inclined towards violence. Their founder was a military conqueror, he set the pattern. Many of them claim that their scriptures say that all unbelievers must be "converted or killed". And their unique brand of law ("Sharia"?) does prescribe the death penalty for any of their believers who convert to another religion. On paper at least, they are "different".
A religion can change greatly from the time of its founding. Take Christianity. The founder was probably the most liberal person ever to walk the earth, but modern Christianity is quite conservative.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Yeah, it is. Especially the part where it says to kill anyone who doesn't convert to Islam.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Get a clue! Jesus taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves, was against premarital sex, prostitution, irreverence in church, divorce, abortion, ect.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Conservatives want to mine oil in Alaska, which means more oil and lower gas prices, but we can't do that because if we do, Alaska won't look pretty any more! (according to liberal environmentalists) ;disgust:

reply from: Tam

Conservatives want to mine oil in Alaska, which means more oil and lower gas prices, but we can't do that because if we do, Alaska won't look pretty any more! (according to liberal environmentalists) ;disgust:
Whoa there, Laurissa. There's another way of looking at that situation. On the one hand, we have a society dependent upon a substance that is toxic to the entire world, and this society uses it with, frankly, nary a thought as to the effect that it is having on the world. Rather than wake up and deal with reality, reducing and eventually eliminating the dependence upon this substance, some members of this society think we should go into a beautiful, natural environment and rip it apart to extract yet more of this toxic substance, in order to burn it to create even more pollution. So the negatives are: destroying the environment by drilling and destroying the environment by burning oil. The positives are: permitting a gluttonous and apathetic society to continue in its gluttony and apathy for a tiny bit longer before waking up and taking responsibility. Hmm, doesn't seem much like a positive to me!

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Hmm, you're right... hydrogen-powered cars it is!

reply from: holopaw

Hmm, you're right... hydrogen-powered cars it is!
It's all a big sham. We can power an entire apartment complex with electricity, but we can't discover a way to get a car across town using electric power. I call bull cr@p. There is no way we can create a device that fits in your pocket that allows you to instaneously communicate with anyone in the country, yet we can create an automobile that runs on electricity and sunlight. Again, bull cr@p.

reply from: yoda

Would that it were that simple. There are plenty of electric cars around (in development), that can go about 150 miles without recharging. Batteries are getting lighter and lighter, albiet more expensive.
The problem, with both electric and hydrogen powered cars is the source of the electricity or hydrogen to fuel them. Making either of them in commercial quantities involves the use of fossil fuels right now, and that means more pollution. True, making electricity at a modern power plant is less polluting than a typical automobile, but it's not "clean". Same with hydrogen.
Solar powered cars are in development also, there's even a race in Australia every year where they compete. They can make good highway speeds in full sunlight, but they carry only a driver, nothing else.
The best hope I see is the simultaneous development of renewable power sources including solar, wind, ethanol, and things like used cooking oil. I don't see much hope that any one such souce can replace fossil fuels right now, but as a combination used where most efficient, I do see promise.
We have windmill farms close to where I live, and they're good neighbors to the hydro-power dams. Solar is coming along, but lacks a price point breakthrough as yet.
In the meantime, conserve, conserve, conserve!

reply from: Tam

Yeah, I don't think electricity or hydrogen are the answers. There are cars that run on water, on garbage, on cooking oil, etc!
And yes--conserve, conserve, conserve! And reduce, reuse, recycle!
On the subject of hydrogen, ethanol, etc. cars, here is an interesting article!
http://blog.wired.com/bibendum/

reply from: yoda

Okay, tell me about the cars that run on water?

reply from: Tam

I haven't seen one, just heard about them. Sorry, I don't have time right now to research this, but I did notice that Google just returned 800 hits for the search term "cars that run on water"...let me know if you find something cool!

reply from: yoda

Okay, it's a misnomer. Other than "urban legends", all of the links seem to be talking about extracting hydrogen from water as a fuel.

reply from: Tam

Well, I don't know enough about this subject (cars running on water) to state anything conclusively, but I think it's far, far more likely that this technology actually exists (whether it's nascent or was squelched, or probably some of each) than that it's all a big hoax (or, more accurately, a bunch of little hoaxes). I suppose time will tell.

reply from: nsanford

Well the bible says kill all those who work on Sunday...
That includes some Christians. Even harsher, aren't you? So don't complain.

reply from: nsanford

Yes, but I doubt he would agree with banning those. Wasn't Jesus all about free will and such?

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Although no religion has a corner on violence, Islam does have a couple of distinctions that makes them probably the most inclined towards violence. Their founder was a military conqueror, he set the pattern. Many of them claim that their scriptures say that all unbelievers must be "converted or killed". And their unique brand of law ("Sharia"?) does prescribe the death penalty for any of their believers who convert to another religion. On paper at least, they are "different".
A newspaper editor is on trial for his life in Yemen. He printed thumbnail pictures of the Danish cartoons with Xs through them. (Showing Muhammad wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb.) He could be executed for blasphemy. A couple months ago a Muslim in Afghanistan was also facing a possible death sentence after he loudly proclaimed that he converted to Christianity. Abandoning Islam is a crime punishable by death. This was a major news item. Through tremendous political pressure, and I image secretive threats from the US, the man was sent out of the country. I find these cases extremely disturbing. Al Zarqwai was not to far out of the mainstream when he determined that fellow Muslims who did not practice his type of Islam were worthy of death. After all, nations such as Yemen and Afghanistan execute people who abandon Islam.

reply from: nsanford

Yes, he was. Even Osama is willing to work with Shi'ites.

reply from: Shiprahagain

We call Islam violent now but let's not forget in the two greatest of human holocausts, the killing of over 150 million Indians during colonialism and a minimum of 60 million blacks in slavery, Christians were the culprits. Muslims haven't done nearly so much damage.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Where does it say that...? Let alone, who does it?
These Muslim terrorists actually do kill people who don't follow Islam (take the man who converted to Christianity - the Taliban ordered him to be executed but he got an asylum). I don't see a mob of Christians attacking malls and Wal-Marts on Sundays because people work there.

reply from: faithman

I beg to differ. It was the theory of evolution that fueled both indian and afircan opression. It was the true christian that set both people groups free. Go back and read the dred scot descission, when the supreme court said that both indian and african were sub human and inferior beings. It was the true christian that stood in the gap, and said that both were true persons and deserved to be protected by law. Evolution, islam, comunism, have killed many more millions than christianity ever thought of. So get your facts straight before you go telling lies on the christian faith.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Oh Faithman you don't realize that TRUE Muslims oppose terrorism. Who signed the treaty of Torsedilla's that supported colonialsim? The pope. Who did Frederick Douglass say made the worst slave masters? Preachers. Your comment is too ahistorical to even mess with. Think Christians aren't violent -- who commits tons of violence in India -- the Christians. Who supported colonialism in Africa -- missionaries. Did you forget one of the main justifications of colonialism around the world and African slavery was that the people being oppressed were heathens whose souls needed to be saved? Did you forget blacks were considered subhuman by ppl interpreting the Christian curse on Ham? Do you realize the original enslavement of Indians was on missionary plantations? Do you remember when Reagan, a Christian, bombed innocent Libyans deliberately? What about how Christian Clinton gave money to UNFPA which lets the CHinese gov't torture women who have more than one child? Or how about how Christian Bush has killed 100,000 innocent Iraqi's -- oh yeah, I forgot, it's not terrorism if we do it.

reply from: holopaw

I beg to differ. It was the theory of evolution that fueled both indian and afircan opression. It was the true christian that set both people groups free. Go back and read the dred scot descission, when the supreme court said that both indian and african were sub human and inferior beings. It was the true christian that stood in the gap, and said that both were true persons and deserved to be protected by law. Evolution, islam, comunism, have killed many more millions than christianity ever thought of. So get your facts straight before you go telling lies on the christian faith.
I'm a Christian and I love my faith, but when I think Abolitionist, I think Puritans. I certainly wouldn't say Protestant Christians were at the forefront of helping African-Americans get the freedom that was their God given right. Considering Sunday is considered the most segregated day of the week, I wouldn't say Christians are at the forefront of racial conciliation either. Pre Civil War Christians made the slaves sit in the balcony and it's not as if the former slaves were welcomed in white churches after abolition either.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Exactly, I mean, I'm a conservative Christian Fundamentalist. I get picked on for being Creationist. I'm a Bible Thumper! But people have to realize you're not less loyal to Jesus by acknowledging the bad things Christianity has done. Jesus is not responsible for the crimes people commited in His name. Also, Allah is not responsible for the crimes people commit in Islam. Those who deserve the blame are the oppressors, not the deities. Jesus would want us to look at our history unflinchingly b/c He represents truth. And He began fighting oppression by looking for it in His own religion, that of the Jews, not blaming every bad thing on other cultures. He repeatedly honored other religions in his anecdotes like when he talked about the good Samaritan. Jesus wants us to fight oppression FIRST within our own communities, that's why he said "remove that plank from your eye so that you can more clearly see how to remove the speck from mine." We won't improve the future unless we remember the past, and we can't remember the past if we whitewash Christianity. And THAT's what would displease Christ.

reply from: nsanford

I can't seem to find it right now, but I can find verses that condemn plenty of people to death. You talk back to your mom? You should be dead. Point is, both the koran and the bible are extremely old books that have verses that no longer apply to mankind. Most Muslims do not want to put non-Muslims to death. Just like most Christians don't want to kill homosexuals.
Why are we on this topic again?

reply from: Shiprahagain

I don't know but I really wish we could talk about -- wait, what was that subject this forum is dedicated to? Oh, yeah! ABORTION!

reply from: faithman

All you site are evolutionist pretending to be christian.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Funny how the Pope signed the Treaty of Torsedilla's centuries before Darwin's birth yet was an evolutionist. The point is, the terrorists are evil men pretending to be Muslim. Lots of people do evil things in the name of all sorts of religions, that makes the person bad, not the religion.

reply from: faithman

You made my point exactly. It is the perversion of the faith responsible for the things you site. Christianity seems to be the faith that purges itself. Islam has always been violent, and does encourage the slaughter of the infidel. Both in it's holy book, history,and in modern times.

reply from: Shiprahagain

That just shows you don't know history. I'll bet people didn't think Christianity purged itself when it terrorized the world for 1,000 years straight. You don't seem to realize, most Muslims are not terrorists.

reply from: faithman

No, it just shows you have been spoon fed revisionist history that is anti christian. No other name has benifited man kind more, no other man has inspired us to make life better, than the Lord Jesus Christ. Christians terrorized nothing for a thousand years.

reply from: Shiprahagain

No, it just shows you have been spoon fed revisionist history that is anti christian. No other name has benifited man kind more, no other man has inspired us to make life better, than the Lord Jesus Christ. Christians terrorized nothing for a thousand years.
Yeah, b/c the Conquistadors were devout Buddhists. And Queen Isabel led the Inquisition on behalf of the Pagan faith. I guess the revisionists just lied and said those people were Catholic.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Back on topic, what kind of history are ppl using when they say more sex ed and contraception will fight abortion when those movements pave the way for it?

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

No, it just shows you have been spoon fed revisionist history that is anti christian. No other name has benifited man kind more, no other man has inspired us to make life better, than the Lord Jesus Christ. Christians terrorized nothing for a thousand years.
I believe Revelation or Daniel says the woman (Church) who was to keep herself a virgin for Christ whored herself out to the Kingdoms of man for 1260 years. So Shiprah's 1000 years is pretty close. The whorish lady handed many over to her partner she was committing fornication with (man's kingdoms) so they could be persecuted and put to death. This unholy union lasted many years, and untold millions were put to death in the Inquistion and Crusades. This was nothing but the Church whoring herself out to man's government and being unfaithful to Christ. Yes, the "Church" terrorized the world. But it will turn out this will not be the virgin to be married to Christ when he returns to set up His never-ending Kingdom; it was just an unfaithful woman whoring around with men's governments. Raised as a Catholic in my youth, I was shocked and insulted when I saw shows about the Inquistition and Crusades. I was confused as to how there could be such a horrid history; and the Catholic Church appeared guilty of atrocities. When I became older I studied and learned the truth about this unfaithful lady. Yes indeed, she is guilty of attrocities.

reply from: yoda

Apples and oranges. What some "Christian" people do out of greed is hardly on the same level as what someone does because their "religion" tells them to do it. Evil exists everywhere in the world, and we don't need to have violence encouraged by the explicit instructions of an organized religion.

reply from: yoda

All I know is what I see in the media, and I've see references to "Sharia Law" in many different countries, including Canada and Australia, btw. And even in Afganistan it is claimed that the instruction to kill that convert came directly from Moselm Sharia Law.

reply from: yoda

Then the peaceful Imans have very bad press agents, because you never hear abou them, only the screaming lunatics with blood in their eyes. I don't know whose fault that is, but it leaves a very bad impression of Islam.
You mean the ones about Israel and the Palestinians?

reply from: yoda

Okay, so in all countries whose laws do not conflict with Sharia law, it is applicable?
I would assume that would include most of the middle east, right?

reply from: yoda

So are you saying that we're getting a bad impression of Islam because most of the media is controled by Jews? Is that your reason for posting so much about the Jews?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Yoda, the imams you see on tv are the ones the media wants you to see. Imagine if the only Christians ever broadcasted to the rest of the world were Jerry Fallwell, Pat Roberson, and the Grand Wizard of the KKK? The issue is very complex so I'll pm you a long article. Perhaps if we save our political/religious stuff for pming we could keep the forums open for abortion?

reply from: nsanford

A good idea. Now everyone can direct their attention back to disproving me.
Ah, the charm of being outnumbered...

reply from: holopaw

Whenever people start bashing Jews I get very nervous. I suggest you go to the white supremacist message board, some of the words I read here are very similiar.

reply from: yoda

cp, I think that Shiprah has the right idea, let's take this to some sort of a private discussion, and leave this area for abortion discussions.

reply from: yoda

I agree with your last sentence, but why did you get in one last political comment?

reply from: Tam

Wait, the Puritans were Protestant Christians, weren't they??

reply from: Shiprahagain

Alright you old codger, you leave us young'uns alone

reply from: Shiprahagain

I'm just teasing you, Concerned. The median age of my friends is around 80, to me, you are a young person.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Wow, unless you have no friends in college, that would put your oldest friends at around 140, huh, I mean if the median age really is about 80............ Are you teasing again? LOL
I have two sets of friends, those my age, and those whose ages range from seventies to early one hundreds.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I meant the median of that generation of my friends Next time I'll specify.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics