should a christian be a republican? Options

[sikdragon]

I do have faults, but im not prejudiced with anyone. All my judgements appear as the reason for those judgements. i seek truth and knowledge. while twisting my words to change my appearance does have the characteristics a serpent's tongue and assuming things without hearing me out also is to the effect of one with prejudiced. Searching for the evil in people blinds you to the good in them.

[Spirited Away]

And here I thought you were perfect.

Prejudice is a matter of opinion in our conversation. While you do not think that you're exerting prejudice, the people who read what you write certainly think so. While it's hard to accept that your words do hurt/annoy others, the reality of it is hardly debatable.

We non religious affliates are minorities, do you disagree? If anyone is not being heard, it is us. What we say have no affect and will not be agreed with simply because we are out numbered. In addition, we Agnostics and Atheists tend to follow concepts and this makes us more divided than organized religions. This matters not because we retain that which is true to our own life, or at least that is how I see it.

You understand of course, what you experience in this very forum is what non-Christians suffer everyday. Confused? You shouldn't be. Inside this forum, though we are minorities, we have the chance to have our say but outside this forum, we are voiceless minorities. It's not because we are afraid to speak against the mass, far from it, it is because we will not be listened to.

You heard me. We are not listened to. Surprised now, are we? Don't be. The most intelligent of men were persecuted by the "good" faith of others simply because they were not listened to no matter how strong their voice rang out. In fact, the louder they were, the more they were punished for it. That is what history has taught us about religion: "might is right".

If you consider speaking plainly to be the works of the Devil, I cannot stop you from amusing yourself with that thought. My words may have come from "self-indulgence", you called it, but they were well thought out. I usually do not say things without weighing its consequences.

[sadolakced acid]

when mr. acid needs to refer to himself in third, sadolakced acid is too long to type. in addition, mr. acid likes mr. acid, because... it's shorter and sounds cool.


anyways.

the reason that government and religion need to be separate is if you have a strong christian president, will he ignore religous teachings and be a leader based on what's best for his country?

don't you hate how bush had divided the country?

i pledge alleigance to the flag of the divided states of america. and to the republicans and the democrates, one nation, red and blue, divisible, with liberty and justice for half.

it is tradition that in wartime bipartisan cabinets are appointed because we unite against a common enemy.

the is the only foriegn war that has divided people so.

this is not what a wartime president should do.

a wartime president should unite a country, even if it means ignoring his christian beliefs when it comes to being a president.

and bush isn't doing that.

[Spirited Away]

when mr. acid needs to refer to himself in third, sadolakced acid is too long to type. in addition, mr. acid likes mr. acid, because... it's shorter and sounds cool.

YaY!

the reason that government and religion need to be separate is if you have a strong christian president, will he ignore religous teachings and be a leader based on what's best for his country? 

So long as nothing is required of me to pray to the Christian God, I do not feel as if religion is affecting my way of life.

don't you hate how bush had divided the country? 

In my opinion, I do not think he was the only dividing factor during the last six months or so. Sure, we do not agree on the Iraqi war, tax cuts, stem cell research, but division happens in almost every decade. More serious ones, American Revolution and the Civil Rights Movement for example, helped to form what is America today.

and bush isn't doing that.

He cannot do that no matter what he does. Think about it with me here. If he were to completely pull out NOW, there will be many who will dislike him. If he continues in there people like you will dislike him. There is nothing to do but move forward what what he has started.

[sadolakced acid]

exactly...

it's like the riddle...


a man is stuck on a ledge with sweet wild strawberrys on it halfway down a cliff. below are sharp rocks, and above are rabid hyenas. what should he do?

eat the strawberrys.

bush is stuck and is now doing the best he can. maybe the best anyone can.

america was rather unified after 9/11 and afghanistan... i'm sure that if bush had never go into iraq that we would still be a pretty unified country...


the way bush is handling iraq now is the only way to handle it...

i'm just concerned about future threats.

iran?
Lybia?
N. korea?

all are threats.

what if one attacks? we don't have any spare troops. what will we do?

there is only one thing... a draft. even though bush says he won't have one, the circumstances would require one.

[Spirited Away]

Well, I'm as stumped as you are on future threats.

What's the reasoning behind the man for being stuck in the first place, though?

[sadolakced acid]

none. the man's on the ledge.


well, what i think Bush should do is simple: the insurgents want iraq, we'll give it to them.

we make a deal, we'll pull out of iraq 6 months after a government is established, if they won't interfere. insurgents can run, they can vote, they can do anything except kill people.

request UN help.

let other countries help with rebuilding.

[Spirited Away]

none. the man's on the ledge.

There must be something that happened that forced him to the ledge. I mean, was he chased by wolves or fell from somewhere higher.

well, what i think Bush should do is simple:  the insurgents want iraq, we'll give it to them. 

What happens of if terrorists occupy it after we leave. (I really don't know if that's possible since I don't know much about terrorist behavior).

we make a deal, we'll pull out of iraq 6 months after a government is established, if they won't interfere.  insurgents can run, they can vote, they can do anything except kill people. 

That's a sound idea, I guess.

[ComradeRed]

Yes, and they'd win too.

Polls of Iraqi voters show that support for the insurgency is high. And as many as 42% are considering to vote for Saddam Hussein in the election

[sadolakced acid]

so then we are conquerors. we are only liberators when we have the approval of a large majority...

the iraqi people don't like what we're doing... they view us as invaders...

simply put, if iraq was to have a true election, either an insurgent or sadamn will be elected.

[sikdragon]

pollers only poll those who give them the results they want. Try asking for an unbiased poll to judge the stability of our accountability in Iraq.

[ComradeRed]

What do you mean by an "unbiased" poll? I think Gallup is pretty unbiased... Even Fox News's poll shows that fewer than 2% of non-Kurdish Iraqis are welcoming of our troops.

"Iraqis are tired of foreign people coming into their country and trying to destabilize their country."
--George W. Bush

[sikdragon]

Fox news may be fair and balanced, but what about the people that actually took the poll. and gallup is something ive never heard of so their credibility cannot be found for being either good or bad.

Bush didn't say the iraqis were not grateful for their own government of which america is installing for them.

[sadolakced acid]

i'd assume american pollers would be biased towards america, don't you think?

[sikdragon]

Nope. If you did then your assumption is wrong. You'd assume an American naval commander would make himself and those he stood with look good, but everybody has their price.

[ComradeRed]

Fox news may be fair and balanced, but what about the people that actually took the poll. and gallup is something ive never heard of so their credibility cannot be found for being either good or bad.

Bush didn't say the iraqis were not grateful for their own government of which america is installing for them.

Uh... you've never heard of Gallup? Haven't you ever heard of "Gallup Poll"

Gallup is the polling organization that's been polling for the longest and is considered the most trustworthy polling agency.

Of course the people that otok the poll are going to have their own opinions -- that's the POINT of the poll, to see what people's opinions are.

"their own government of which america is installing for them."
Anyone see teh contradiction in that? If it's their own government, they should make it, not us.

[sikdragon]

took the poll of iraqi opinion.

They can't their neighbors won't let them.

[sadolakced acid]

you mean we won't let them.

[ComradeRed]

Um... Iraq has never been invaded by a neighboring country for fifteen years.

[sikdragon]

invasion is the only thing to be feared? So, terrorism has no bearing on the well-being of a hated act.

[sickdragon]

That's right, those damn Turks and Syrians and Iranians have been sending lots of terrorists into Iraq for 15 years and blowing stuff up and not letting them make their own government, but when America blows stuff up it helps them make their own government and I'm right because God said so and kill the infidels becaus ethere is no terrorism if everyone worships the one true GOd and OMG I OWNZ JOO!!

[sikdragon]

you cant be serious.

[ComradeRed]

What terrorism? Most insurgents are identified as Iraqi nationals, many of them were former members of the Iraqi army. Considering that the countries around Iraq except for Turkey have all closed their borders, there are very few foreign fighters in Iraq.

PEW Research interviewed a few hundred US Marines. 35% say that they have killed an enemy noncombatant, and 80% say that they have killed an enemy combatant. This means that the absolute minimum amount of civilians killed by the US Marines is about 23,000. When you add in the amount of civilians killed by the US Air Force and US Army, it is believable that we have killed probably close to 50,000 Iraqi civilians in one year. In Saddam Hussein's 30 years in power, he killed about 400,000. Or about 12,500 a year. Thus, we've caused four times more harm than Saddam has.

In addition, under the Geneva Convention, an occupying force is responsible for all deaths caused by resistance forces. If you add in the number of civilians killed by the insurgents, the total number of civilian deaths probably comes out to about 60 thousand.

[sadolakced acid]

the terrorists in iraq are from iraq, and are terrorists because we are invaders and they want us out.

[sickdragon]

you cant be serious.

No I'm serious. We should just convert them or kill them and then there will be no more terrorism left. You're my hero!!