Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Obama or Clinton?
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=13540
Page 2 of 12

Author:  AbuGrape45 [ Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

If you think a Republican candidate is just as capable as a democratic candidate, why wouldn't you want one in office?

Author:  StrongRad [ Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

AbuGrape45 wrote:
If you think a Republican candidate is just as capable as a democratic candidate, why wouldn't you want one in office?

Because republican = evil.
Haven't you been indoctrinated to believe that yet?

Seriously, though, I don't care about their party if they have sound policies. Saying "please mister terrorist, it hurts my feelings when you blow up stuff" is not a sound policy.
Then again, neither is dumping billions of dollars a month into the desert without expecting those getting the money to show some responsibility.

Author:  AbuGrape45 [ Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

I'm almost compelled to screen-cap the results thus far and make a sig out of it. Hillary has no votes.

Author:  furrykef [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

The problem with parties when it comes to offices like the Presidency is that candidates are likely to be strongly loyal to their party whether or not they are themselves conservative or liberal. So I would probably vote for a Democrat over a Republican even if I liked the Republican more unless there was a more compelling reason to vote for the Republican, because the Democrat would probably "mesh" better with the Democrats in Congress. Remember, it's Congress who makes the laws in the first place, and the President gets to vote on what they come up with.

I hate political parties and think they should be abolished. It would cause a lot of problems to simply go away. It would cause new problems, too, but I think they would at least be better problems to deal with. But the fact is we do have a two-party system, and the two parties are indeed very distinct in their philosophies... although I say I'm more of a non-Republican than I am a Democrat.

- Kef

Author:  STupendous7 [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

Rogue Leader wrote:
STupendous7 wrote:
Mainly because Romney is a Mormon, and his religious views are considerably different from mine.


Just when I get my faith back in humanity just a bit, man. Just a bit.

If Romney truly practiced Mormonism, he would not be a good president. It's nothing personal against him or any other Mormons. But if he really practiced Mormonism, his views would affect him as president, and it would not be a good thing.

furrykef wrote:
Moreover, I never liked the "X is wrong, so X should be illegal" mentality, and I always argue vociferously against it. We are not a Christian nation; you cannot apply Christian laws to all of us. You should be striving for laws that are best for everybody, not laws that are best for you and screw over everybody else.

But that's where I disagree (of course). I know we're not a Christian nation; in fact, we were established on "religion and good morals," not a "Christ as king" world view. However, that doesn't mean that Christian laws aren't good for the nation. Even if everybody else isn't a Christian, that doesn't mean that God or the Bible is wrong. Christian laws are best for everybody: if you don't follow God's law, then you're going to hell, no matter what you say or believe to the contrary.

furrykef wrote:
As for a political candidate's religious views: can anybody tell me why they even matter?

I can. Like I said earlier, if a political candidate really and truly follows a religion, then that religion will affect how he lives.

furrykef wrote:
Whether a candidate is the most devout of Christians or the most fanatical atheist is of no importance to me as long as they don't try to put their religion into the law, which they should not be doing in the first place. Now, Huckabee does want to put his religion into the law -- in fact, into the Constitution -- and that bothers me...

- Kef

But if the religion is for the good of the people, then don't you think it would be best to put it in the law? People like Obama and Hillary also have a world view; that world view will change how they live, and the laws that they pass. So then, even they are trying to put their world view into the law. Everybody does. So you can't really say that they shouldn't put their religion in the law, or else the president won't be able to change the law at all.

Author:  lahimatoa [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

Quote:
If Romney truly practiced Mormonism, he would not be a good president. It's nothing personal against him or any other Mormons. But if he really practiced Mormonism, his views would affect him as president, and it would not be a good thing.


Feel free to back that up with some facts, STupendous7.

Author:  Rusty [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

STupendous7 wrote:
blah blah blah.


Rogue Leader wrote:
Just when I get my faith back in humanity just a bit, man. Just a bit.

Author:  furrykef [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

STupendous7 wrote:
If Romney truly practiced Mormonism, he would not be a good president. It's nothing personal against him or any other Mormons. But if he really practiced Mormonism, his views would affect him as president, and it would not be a good thing.

Can you give me any examples of what he might do as President directly as a result of his Mormonism that you would not like?

STupendous7 wrote:
However, that doesn't mean that Christian laws aren't good for the nation. Even if everybody else isn't a Christian, that doesn't mean that God or the Bible is wrong. Christian laws are best for everybody: if you don't follow God's law, then you're going to hell, no matter what you say or believe to the contrary.

Hang on, hang on, hang on. OK, let's make up a little hypothetical example. Suppose that instead of Christianity, the most common religion in the United States were Islam -- maybe about 60% of the population would be Muslim, and Muslim Congressmen and Muslim Presidents would be the norm. However, in this scenario, you're still a Christian, with exactly the same views. Now, imagine one of these Muslim politicians came along and said, "Even if everybody else isn't a Muslim, that doesn't mean that Allah or the Qur'an is wrong. Sharia law is best for everybody: if you don't follow Sharia law, then you're going to hell, no matter what you say or believe to the contrary."

How would you feel about that?

STupendous7 wrote:
furrykef wrote:
As for a political candidate's religious views: can anybody tell me why they even matter?

I can. Like I said earlier, if a political candidate really and truly follows a religion, then that religion will affect how he lives.

It's quite possible for somebody who isn't a Christian to behave exactly like a good Christian except for the religious parts. I was a Christian, and am now an atheist, and I don't live terribly differently. (I wouldn't say that I made a good Christian, but a very large number of Christians don't. How do you know Huckabee is one of the good ones, anyway?)

STupendous7 wrote:
But if the religion is for the good of the people, then don't you think it would be best to put it in the law?

Considering that not putting it in the law is one of the founding principles of this country, no, I don't. If you really want a country where God's law is state law that badly, you could move to a country where it is, or try to found one on your own. This country is not the place for it.

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

It's pretty much cut and dry that putting religion into the law is not the thing to do. And I don't think we should change the Constitution to "fix" that, because it would be violating the fundamental principles of the Founding Fathers. America would no longer be America.

Of course, another founding principle of this country is that you're free to practice any religion you want, within reason. It's the job of the preachers and the people themselves to handle that; they don't need the government to babysit them, especially if they don't share the same religion as the government.

STupendous7 wrote:
People like Obama and Hillary also have a world view; that world view will change how they live, and the laws that they pass. So then, even they are trying to put their world view into the law. Everybody does. So you can't really say that they shouldn't put their religion in the law, or else the president won't be able to change the law at all.

There's some extent to which you're right. The job of the President is to make decisions, and those decisions aren't always going to be easy and obvious ones, and not everybody is going to agree on them. If it were that way, there would be no need for a President.

But the President's job is also to represent the best interests of the people -- all the people, not just those who share the President's religion. The job of the President is most certainly not to represent his religion -- there's that Establishment Clause again. I daresay that an agnostic President would probably make the best sort of President, because he is more likely to see every relevant issue rationally rather than colored by religious bias. And believe me, he's not gonna forget that there are religious people who don't believe the same as he does.

- Kef

Author:  Rusty [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

It's going!

It's going! It's going- IT'S GONE, OUTTA THERE!

Author:  Lunar Jesty [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

I don't think I've ever told you how much I love you, kef.

Author:  The Noid [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

I'm going to undergo exstensive surgery, move to Kef's town, and seduce him so I can have his babies.

Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

furrykef wrote:
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

It's pretty much cut and dry that putting religion into the law is not the thing to do. And I don't think we should change the Constitution to "fix" that, because it would be violating the fundamental principles of the Founding Fathers. America would no longer be America.

I wouldn't call that 'cut and dry'... It pretty much just says that congress can't establish a national religion, but something like banning gay marriages isn't establishing a religion. Most of the time we interpret it more as 'we shouldn't favor certain religions over another', but it's not really clear all the time.

Author:  furrykef [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

I wouldn't say it's so cut and dry that banning gay marriage is clearly legally unconstitutional. (Notice I say "clearly". I wouldn't be surprised if a court eventually finds that it is.) But I do think it does violate the spirit of the Constitution, if not the letter.

The problem is that "marriage" is hopelessly intertwined with religion. You could argue that the government side of marriage is entirely secular and has nothing to do with religion. Well, if that were true, why do people keep trying to link the two? So I think that having marriage in the law does establish a religion, in a sense; it's just not a specific one and you don't have to be a practicing member. But the religious element is there.

- Kef

Author:  Rusty [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
but something like banning gay marriages isn't establishing a religion.


How so? How is gay marriage morally wrong in any sense other than a religious one?

Author:  StrongRad [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

Rusty wrote:
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
but something like banning gay marriages isn't establishing a religion.


How so? How is gay marriage morally wrong in any sense other than a religious one?

I know some pretty big homophobes that are not religious in any sense of the word.

Author:  Rusty [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

That doesn't mean they can control what people do.

Why it's forbidden is beyond me. Trying to control what other people do, when it is doing no harm, makes no sense to me. I mean, you can hate gay people all you want. But what I am saying is that it is THEIR life. THEY should be able to live it like THEY want to.

Author:  StrongRad [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

Rusty wrote:
That doesn't mean they can control what people do.

Why it's forbidden is beyond me. Trying to control what other people do, when it is doing no harm, makes no sense to me. I mean, you can hate gay people all you want. But what I am saying is that it is THEIR life. THEY should be able to live it like THEY want to.

I won't disagree with you. In fact, I'm apathetic to the whole "gay" thing. I was just giving you an example that not all anti-gay marriage people are that way because of their religion.

I'm more worried about how I live my than I am about how others live theirs.

Author:  HHFOV [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

Rusty wrote:
That doesn't mean they can control what people do.

Why it's forbidden is beyond me. Trying to control what other people do, when it is doing no harm, makes no sense to me. I mean, you can hate gay people all you want. But what I am saying is that it is THEIR life. THEY should be able to live it like THEY want to.
I don't think Ed's point was that banning gay marriages isn't done for religious purposes.

What he was trying to say, I believe, was that though it's done for religious reasons, doing so might not qualify as "establishing a religion". Sure, it's having a law influenced by your own religion, but the Constitution doesn't actually explicitly state that you can't do that; it just says you can't establish a complete national religion on which all trials and legislature are inherently based.

Author:  Rusty [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

That still doesn't make it a good thing. Not everyone has the same religious beliefs and morals that others do, so keeping it out of law altogether is a better idea.

Author:  Kristanni X [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

Stevezor wrote:
People should learn to not judge this election on ethnicity or sex
Which is Why I vote Hillary Clinton.

Author:  The Noid [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

...because she's a woman?

That doesn't really make any sense.

Anyways, on the pimping Chelsea thing: bad choice of words. "I am a mother first and a candidate second" = "I am a mother first and a president second". I'm all for protecting the family and keeping everybody safe, but that could have been revised a little bit to "I am a candidate as much as I am a mother".

Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Rusty wrote:
That doesn't mean they can control what people do.

Why it's forbidden is beyond me. Trying to control what other people do, when it is doing no harm, makes no sense to me. I mean, you can hate gay people all you want. But what I am saying is that it is THEIR life. THEY should be able to live it like THEY want to.
I don't think Ed's point was that banning gay marriages isn't done for religious purposes.

What he was trying to say, I believe, was that though it's done for religious reasons, doing so might not qualify as "establishing a religion". Sure, it's having a law influenced by your own religion, but the Constitution doesn't actually explicitly state that you can't do that; it just says you can't establish a complete national religion on which all trials and legislature are inherently based.
Yeah, I pretty much meant what HHF said.

Author:  Mikes! [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

Well, what other reason, one not based on Abrahamic religious codes, should there be for a ban on gay marriage?

Author:  StrongRad [ Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

Mikes! wrote:
Well, what other reason, one not based on Abrahamic religious codes, should there be for a ban on gay marriage?

General homophobia?

Author:  Mikes! [ Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

Yeah, but I figure most of that comes from a general disapproval of human sexuality from Abrahamic religion.

Author:  furrykef [ Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

It could be argued that it's a crime against nature, which is basically the argument my grandfather has used against homosexuality. For him, religion doesn't even enter the picture. Personally, I think that argument sucks... masturbation would also be a "crime against nature" by the same definition and I don't see anybody trying to ban that. Not to mention that homosexual activity does occur in nature. So, it's a terrible argument, but secular arguments do technically exist.

Anyway, I don't think that voting for or signing a bill for religious reasons is fundamentally unconstitutional from a legal standpoint. I do think that doing it solely for religious reasons isn't very much in spirit of the Constitution, though. But the fact remains that most people who are pushing for this law are Christians who want to see Christian laws applied to everybody, and I think that is fundamentally wrong -- especially when it tramples on the personal freedom of a significant portion of the population. (It's also worth noting that anti gay marriage laws are going to do absolutely nothing to prevent "sinful" acts from happening in the first place, so I think even the religious argument sucks!)

- Kef

Author:  Rogue Leader [ Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

IMO, saying that passing a law influenced by religion is not barred by the Constitution seems very loophole-ish to me. I think that passing laws banning gay marriage, abortion, or anything similar is pretty much legislating morality, and that doesn't bode too well for me. I mean, specific churches can deny gay marriages and stuff, but a government as a whole? That's unfair.

Author:  furrykef [ Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

Rogue Leader wrote:
I think that passing laws banning gay marriage, abortion, or anything similar is pretty much legislating morality


I don't agree as far as abortion is concerned. We can agree that laws against murder are more than mere "legislation of morality", right? So the question is whether aborting a fetus constitutes murder. That's not an easy question to answer, because there isn't a clearly-defined point where a fetus becomes truly human. Even birth is a fairly arbitrary point. I don't see where "morality", in the sense that you're using the term, even enters the picture.

- Kef

Author:  Rusty [ Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

Is the question of whether or not an aborted fetus a human life lost or not a moral one?

Author:  Rogue Leader [ Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Obama or Clinton?

furrykef wrote:
Rogue Leader wrote:
I think that passing laws banning gay marriage, abortion, or anything similar is pretty much legislating morality


I don't agree as far as abortion is concerned. We can agree that laws against murder are more than mere "legislation of morality", right? So the question is whether aborting a fetus constitutes murder. That's not an easy question to answer, because there isn't a clearly-defined point where a fetus becomes truly human. Even birth is a fairly arbitrary point. I don't see where "morality", in the sense that you're using the term, even enters the picture.

- Kef


I will concede the abortion really does fall in the gray area. Maybe contraceptives would be a better argument, but that's a far less controversial topic.

Page 2 of 12 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/