Who is your pick so far for the next US president?

[morse86]

Is this for the oscars? Best actor talent? Cause all of them are actors.

I'll vote for a biblical candidate, except there is no biblical candidate. Maybe that's why God doesn't want us to waste our time in politics.

 

[jayem]

Is this for the oscars? Best actor talent? Cause all of them are actors.

You're close. All of them are the Oscars. Little human effigies who look shiny, but have no distinguishing features, and do nothing but stand there.

 

[Frenzy]

Right now it is Marco Rubio. That could change. I will support the Republican nominee.

Simple question, why would you do that? how do you think a Republican president is going to help you and America?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Socialism is when the state owns and controls the means of production. Our government exercises some control through regulations but the means of production in America is privately owned. You are mistaking social programs for socialism.

No. You are mistaking socialism for communism.

They are not the same thing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Most people don't care that there might be a difference. I don't want any kind of socialist at all running the government.

I bet you'ld think differently about that if an unfortunate set of events and / or circumstances makes you go bankrupt, leaving you unable to take care and provide for your family, perhaps even make you loose your house.

 

[OldFashionGal]

I bet you'ld think differently about that if an unfortunate set of events and / or circumstances makes you go bankrupt, leaving you unable to take care and provide for your family, perhaps even make you loose your house.

What I find so hard to understand is there is people that have admitted they got Unemployment, Food Stamps, Disability Benefits, etc. that will say they want to eliminate those programs. They got help but don't want anyone else to I think is both sad and wrong. I can understand people's feelings that don't want people to get any of that if they are able to work and don't try to find a job but otherwise I think it's just being mean.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What I find so hard to understand is there is people that have admitted they got Unemployment, Food Stamps, Disability Benefits, etc. that will say they want to eliminate those programs. They got help but don't want anyone else to I think is both sad and wrong. I can understand people's feelings that don't want people to get any of that if they are able to work and don't try to find a job but otherwise I think it's just being mean.

Not to mention that it is the complete opposite of what is generally understood as so-called "christian values".

Social programs where the poor, the hungry, the sick and the homeless are being taken care off with medical aid, welfare, social housing, etc.... what could be more "christian" then that?

Well, if "christian values" are indeed things like compassion, empathy, charity, etc.
Aren't christians supposed to feed the hungry and help the poor and sick and all that?

Why would they be against their nation doing exactly that?

I find it incredibly ironic that those who are most against such programs in the US, always seems to correlate with the most fundamentalist christians.

The more fundamentalist they are, the more capitalist and anti-social they are it seems.
I can usually predict with relative accuracy what their stance will be on such political topics, purely by seeing how "hard" they believe in their religious stories.

On the flip side, when we look at old europe, we see the exact opposite.
The more secular and irreligious a country is, the more social it seems to be. The more solidarity, charity, etc programs are implemented by the nations with tax dollars - with the full support of the secular citizens.

Ironic really, that if we indeed accept these things as being "christian values", then the secular people of this world seem to be more "christian" then the hardcore christians of this world.

In fact, there seems to be a trend that the more "christian" one calls himself, the less importance is given to these "christian values" - even to the point where they are firmly against it and would scream bloody murder if their government would even only CONSIDER implementing sich programs.


So ironic...

 

[OldFashionGal]

Not to mention that it is the complete opposite of what is generally understood as so-called "christian values".

Social programs where the poor, the hungry, the sick and the homeless are being taken care off with medical aid, welfare, social housing, etc.... what could be more "christian" then that?

Well, if "christian values" are indeed things like compassion, empathy, charity, etc.
Aren't christians supposed to feed the hungry and help the poor and sick and all that?

Why would they be against their nation doing exactly that?

I find it incredibly ironic that those who are most against such programs in the US, always seems to correlate with the most fundamentalist christians.

The more fundamentalist they are, the more capitalist and anti-social they are it seems.
I can usually predict with relative accuracy what their stance will be on such political topics, purely by seeing how "hard" they believe in their religious stories.

On the flip side, when we look at old europe, we see the exact opposite.
The more secular and irreligious a country is, the more social it seems to be. The more solidarity, charity, etc programs are implemented by the nations with tax dollars - with the full support of the secular citizens.

Ironic really, that if we indeed accept these things as being "christian values", then the secular people of this world seem to be more "christian" then the hardcore christians of this world.

In fact, there seems to be a trend that the more "christian" one calls himself, the less importance is given to these "christian values" - even to the point where they are firmly against it and would scream bloody murder if their government would even only CONSIDER implementing sich programs.


So ironic...

Just keep in mind not everyone that calls their self a Christian is like that. There are some caring ones in this world that do believe all those things you stated

 

[Hetta]

I think it's hilarious that you'd call his thinking morally reprehensible. IT's action that is or is not morally reprehensible. Not thinking. Like those who put innocent fetuses to death-that's morally reprehesible. Same with putting elderly to death just because they're inconvenient...

You better call the cops and let them know that the elderly are being put to death, and identify where this happening. Or just admit it's a piece of hyperbole.

 

[Frenzy]

I find it incredibly ironic that those who are most against such programs in the US, always seems to correlate with the most fundamentalist Christians.

I don't think American Christians are the same as the Christians of old, today American Christians say all the words but do not act on those words, for them they are just words they must say to identify with their Christianity, loving one another and turning the other cheek were Christ's values, for them that's a weak and watery kind of Christianity, where is the hate? as they see it to be good Christians they must hate so many of the things that Jesus told them to love and care for, that's not the kind of Christianity for them.
Even Gandhi commented on that fact.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Hetta]

Not to mention that it is the complete opposite of what is generally understood as so-called "christian values".

Social programs where the poor, the hungry, the sick and the homeless are being taken care off with medical aid, welfare, social housing, etc.... what could be more "christian" then that?

Well, if "christian values" are indeed things like compassion, empathy, charity, etc.
Aren't christians supposed to feed the hungry and help the poor and sick and all that?

Why would they be against their nation doing exactly that?

I find it incredibly ironic that those who are most against such programs in the US, always seems to correlate with the most fundamentalist christians.

The more fundamentalist they are, the more capitalist and anti-social they are it seems.
I can usually predict with relative accuracy what their stance will be on such political topics, purely by seeing how "hard" they believe in their religious stories.

On the flip side, when we look at old europe, we see the exact opposite.
The more secular and irreligious a country is, the more social it seems to be. The more solidarity, charity, etc programs are implemented by the nations with tax dollars - with the full support of the secular citizens.

Ironic really, that if we indeed accept these things as being "christian values", then the secular people of this world seem to be more "christian" then the hardcore christians of this world.

In fact, there seems to be a trend that the more "christian" one calls himself, the less importance is given to these "christian values" - even to the point where they are firmly against it and would scream bloody murder if their government would even only CONSIDER implementing sich programs.


So ironic...

It's more than ironic. It's outrageous. But then much of the Christian right in America - while pretending otherwise - really secretly believes in the prosperity bible, which says that the more holy you are, the richer you become. Therefore if a person is poor, it stands to reason that they must be the exact opposite of holy. Rather they are lazy, feckless, and (according to many) probably addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, and just taking benefits so that they can sit home and do nothing. I have read every kind of attack on the poor on this website, and I've often seen memes on the topic posted by "Christians" on my Facebook page. Either they are ignorant by choice, or they are just ignorant by circumstance on the difficulty faced by a person born into poverty. Despite the occasional rags-to-riches story, this is not the norm, otherwise there would be no poor - everyone would be sitting by a swimming pool, drinking a mimosa. But who would do the dirty work then, I wonder? Who cleans those pools or sells the ingredients for the mimosa if everyone is rich? So poverty - by which I include those working for a minimum wage - will always be with us, it has to be, so that others can be rich. That is the way the capitalist world works unfortunately - in America anyway. For some to be rich, many others have to be poor.* However, I disagree that they should be kept poor until they starve. People don't have to be kept at bare subsistence level so that others can revel in their riches, but in this country, even saying those things gets one labeled a socialist.

I could go on this topic for hours. But as oldfashiongal says, not all Christians think this way. Many of us volunteer for programs to assist the poor, and even more of us support welfare and assistance for the poor, disabled, and otherwise needy. Many of us actually note Christ's words on the topic of the poor, and know that they are to be helped rather than reviled. Many of us deplore the prosperity Bible as an evil, and not at all scriptural.

* I am not saying that any of this is a good thing. Just wanted to clarify that.

 

[zippy2]

Simple question, why would you do that? how do you think a Republican president is going to help you and America?

Simple answer: I think the Republicans have better national security ideas for one thing. Nothing else much matters if that is not secure. Dems are in lala land on national security.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is the way the capitalist world works unfortunately - in America anyway. For some to be rich, many others have to be poor.*

This reminds me of an awesome movie I saw the other day with Justin Timberlake.

It was called "In Time" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)

I really recommend it!

In a nutshell: the movie takes place in some kind of science-fiction fantasy world where "time" has become the new money. When people hit 25 year of age, they get a "year". A clock starts ticking on their left arm. When you buy something, you pay in seconds, minutes, hours, days,... and when you work, you get paid in the same as well. When the clock hits 0, you die. You are "out of time".

Then the world is divided into "time zones". Where you live depends on how much "time" you have and earn. "Rich" people have thousands, even millions, of years. In the ghetto, nobody has ever more then a couple of days. They are always running and racing against the clock. The movie is about the path of a guy from the ghetto, who through some circumstances, gets his hands on a century.

Really, one of the best movies I've seen these last years (in terms of story and "making you think").

In any case, there was this one line in that movie which reminds me of the bolded part in your quote: "For one person to be immortal, many have to die".

To which the response then is: "If even only one person has to die...nobody should be immortal".



Sorry if that went a bit off topic, but as it strikes me how similar the bolded parts are to that line of the movie, I felt like I needed to share this

 

[OldFashionGal]

Simple answer: I think the Republicans have better national security ideas for one thing. Nothing else much matters if that is not secure. Dems are in lala land on national security.

Oh, yes, that's right it was the Republicans that got Bin Laden.......NO wait, it was Bush that said forget him! Don't remember Bush exact words but meant that. Keeping us secure does not mean starting wars AND doing it alone when the main countries that should be fighting or help fighting leave it all for the USA to do. Protecting our country YES I agree with Bernie Sanders war should be a last resort not a first!

 

[Hetta]

This reminds me of an awesome movie I saw the other day with Justin Timberlake.

It was called "In Time" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637688/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)

I really recommend it!

In a nutshell: the movie takes place in some kind of science-fiction fantasy world where "time" has become the new money. When people hit 25 year of age, they get a "year". A clock starts ticking on their left arm. When you buy something, you pay in seconds, minutes, hours, days,... and when you work, you get paid in the same as well. When the clock hits 0, you die. You are "out of time".

Then the world is divided into "time zones". Where you live depends on how much "time" you have and earn. "Rich" people have thousands, even millions, of years. In the ghetto, nobody has ever more then a couple of days. They are always running and racing against the clock. The movie is about the path of a guy from the ghetto, who through some circumstances, gets his hands on a century.

Really, one of the best movies I've seen these last years (in terms of story and "making you think").

In any case, there was this one line in that movie which reminds me of the bolded part in your quote: "For one person to be immortal, many have to die".

To which the response then is: "If even one person has to day...nobody should be immortal".



Sorry if that went a bit off topic, but as it strikes me how similar the bolded parts are to that line of the movie, I felt like I needed to share this

J Timberlake was in a good movie? How did that happen? Anyway, that's an interesting concept, and I'll definitely look that movie up. I hope you realize that I don't think it is a good thing that many have to be poor for others to be rich, anymore than I would think it right for many to die so that one can live forever. It's a horrible idea - although obviously not to those who would like to live forever.

And now I have the ear bug for Oasis all day long ..

 

[Hetta]

Oh, yes, that's right it was the Republicans that got Bin Laden.......NO wait, it was Bush that said forget him! Don't remember Bush exact words but meant that. Keeping us secure does not mean starting wars AND doing it alone when the main countries that should be fighting or help fighting leave it all for the USA to do. Protecting our country YES I agree with Bernie Sanders war should be a last resort not a first!

Remember that we are just cannon fodder - those who are expendable. Those who promote war think they are more than cannon fodder, although in fact those who promote war have typically never been in a war, but just cheered on the carnage from the sidelines.

 

[zippy2]

Oh, yes, that's right it was the Republicans that got Bin Laden.......NO wait, it was Bush that said forget him! Don't remember Bush exact words but meant that. Keeping us secure does not mean starting wars AND doing it alone when the main countries that should be fighting or help fighting leave it all for the USA to do. Protecting our country YES I agree with Bernie Sanders war should be a last resort not a first!

Bush never said forget him. In fact it was the much hated interragation techniques that brought about the information that led to the death of Benladin. The guy who shot him said so.

 

[OldFashionGal]

Bush never said forget him. In fact it was the much hated interragation techniques that brought about the information that led to the death of Benladin. The guy who shot him said so.

This is off topic but you mentioned Bush never said forget him and while I said that I didn't remember Bush exact words it meant that and I stand by that statement that what Bush said did mean forget getting Bin Laden when Bush said He don't spend much time on him........I am sure you might interpret it differently.

 

[Hetta]

This is off topic but you mentioned Bush never said forget him and while I said that I didn't remember Bush exact words it meant that and I stand by that statement that what Bush said did mean forget getting Bin Laden when Bush said He don't spend much time on him........I am sure you might interpret it differently.

All that shrugging, grinning and hand waving ... what a despicable little man. "I don't know where he is .." (and I don't care.)

 

[inconsequential]

Cthulu!
View attachment 165666

Probably write this one in.