posted
The answer is easy. Lets break down the system. The percentage of people who fit the criteria to be able to vote is probably 70%, though this is just an estimate. About 120 million of those people voted, which is actually about 40% of the U.S. population. A little more than half went towards bush which, for simplicity sake, lets call 25%. So 20-25% of the US are responsible for whatever president got eleceted. Now lets see who voted for Bush. Was it the minority who decided the election. No. Was it women? No. Men? no.
IT WAS THE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN VOTE. Did you know that Evangelical Christians make up around 1/3 of this country? And that's just Evangilacals! Who did they vote for? Hmm... letss see. Who wants to ban gay marriage? Who wants to make abortions illegal? Who wants to stop stem-cell research? That's right, you guessed it! Bush! As anyone who reads this can probably tell, I would call myself a "liberal" even though i don't really believe in partisanship. You see, Bush didn't win because he had better plans for social security, healthcare, Iraq, whatever. It was Values that won him the election. And let's face it, that man can talk. He talks it up, and Kerry, although I wanted him to win, didn't really take a stance or share his ideas for what to do, just stated that he knew how to do it. I'm an athiest. I'll just be up front and frank. I also realize, that I have a lot of biases. Though one thing that I can not see the other side of is the way Bush twists the bible. As bush says stating from the bible in his own words based on Leviticus 18:22: "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." Okay, so it does say that in the bible. Well guess what else the bible says? Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Well how about that! Besides the obvious response that, "Obviosuly not everything in the bible is true today." Then what the hell makes homosexuality so godamn bad. Why do you get to decide what in the bible is right today and what's not? I guess God really does talk to Bush. Doesn't it also state that A camel would have an easier time getting through the eye of a needle than a rich man getting into heaven? Maybe im missing something, in which case I PLEAD TO YOU, inform me. I realize I have biases, but I honostly cannot see how anyone can justify the contradictions the bible makes.
I really am not trying to inflame anyone or bash against religion because I believe if I was raised by a religious family (I am only 17) I would be a totally different person with different beliefs. I love Orson Scott Card's books too. His Ender's Game Series has had one of the most profound effects that anything like a book or movie has ever had. I love all of his books. I just can't read his essays and let it go by. I mean, he's calling minorities dumb! Well lets see, who gets the least amount of money for education? Well I'll be, it's the minority counties! That's not even the point. They aren't dumb, they are ignored. Kerry saying to the minorites vote for me because im better than bush. Wow, great going Kerry, that'll really make you popular. The fact that the minority vote did not come out has nothing to do with the republicans. The Dems need to learn to FOCUS on minorities and not just say vote for us because we're better. When you give a group of people attention they are going to have more incentive to go vote. Not only that there is also a reciprocal effect. If a majority of the minority DID go vote, both the dems and reps would HAVE to pay attention to them. They couldn't be ignored because they would have such a voice that either party would have to please them. This, I don't think people understand.
To Orson: It really offended me (even though im not a minority by any means, in fact id say im nationally around the 80th percentile in wealth) that you would say the liberals are calling the minorities dumb by really trying to get them to get to the polls. I think if they really wanted to get to the polls, they would. But that is in only some areas. How can you deny the fact that in a VAST MAJORITY of minority county has a 3 HOUR LINE TO VOTE. Why would they reduce the number of polling stations when the knew the voter turnout would be extremely high? In conclusion. If you disagree with me, please IM me or dont hesitate to send me an email at Shearplaya@gmail.com. I think the dems are headed down a bad road trying to move more conservatively. They need to have their own voice, not try to imitate the right.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just can't read his essays and let it go by. I mean, he's calling minorities dumb!
I've never seen him do that. I've seen him accuse the democratic party of acting as though minorities are dumb, but that's it. Please provide a source for this accusation.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting that you chose your first post as a Bush bashing one, I'd say introduce yourself first
I do not support Bush in anyway, in fact I wish that he hadn't been elected, but the election is over, there's nothing we can do. Just wait the 4 years out and hope he doesn't screw up even worse than he all ready has Posts: 84 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Doesn't it also state that A camel would have an easier time getting through the eye of a needle than a rich man getting into heaven
Yes it does, but no one knows what "the eye of a needle" means anymore, at least in the reference. When one entered a city with city walls, there's was always a small, low, entry off to the side (I forget why now, someone help me out). Sometimes they'd have to try and get a camel through this door, and the camel would have to bend way far down and they'd push and pull and all this until finally the camel popped out on the other side. This door was reffered to the eye of the needle, that's what the reference is talking about.
posted
Obviously, this nation is going to heaven in a handbasket. I recommend you flee to Canada ASAP.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush won because there were more people who decided to vote and to use that vote to vote for Bush than there were people who decided to vote and to use that vote to vote for Kerry. As Dagonee showed in another thread, church goers did not represent a larger percentage of people who turned out.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
But please think what the Left is saying. They believe that their core voters are so stupid and so uncommitted that they either can't figure out where they're supposed to vote, or, having been informed that they made the wrong guess, they won't have the initiative to go to the correct polling place and cast their votes there.
That was my source for this accusation. As for the hobbes reply. I think that's really interesting. I haven't read much about hobbes, just done a little studying at school. Could you tell me where I could read more about that? Maybe a book hobbes wrote, or what specific peice of writing it's in.
This has all the info you'll need with viable sources. By the way, I actually am thinking about going to college in canada Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see you're point. Now that I look at it again, I think you're right. Thanks for clarifying that. I still think there's a hint of harsh cynicism in that quote
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, the link you provided doesn't say anything about 1/3 of the nation being "Evengelical Christian".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xaposert, Again I am not bashing either side. I'm stating my opinion. But i am critisizing, yes, the democrats AND the republicans. Nobody is perfect.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I still think there's a hint of harsh cynicism in that quote
There's not just a hint -- there's a lot of it. But he's criticizing "The Left", not the minorities.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What we have instead then, I believe, is a beautiful Hebrew hyperbole, as in the tree sticking out of one's eye whilst one is removing a speck in another's eye! Indeed, Jewish Talmudic literature uses a similar aphorism about an elephant passing through the eye of a needle as a figure of speech implying the unlikely or impossible:
"They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle."4
This first instance concerned dreams and their interpretation and suggested that men only dream that which is natural or possible, not that which is unlikely ever to have occurred to them.
"… who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle."5
In this case, the illustration concerns a dispute between two rabbis, one of whom suggests that the other is speaking "things which are impossible".
The camel was the largest animal seen regularly in Israel, whereas in regions where the Babylonian Talmud was written, the elephant was the biggest animal. Thus the aphorism is culturally translated from a camel to an elephant in regions outside of Israel.
The aim is not, then, to explain away the paradox and make the needle a huge carpet needle for, elsewhere, the Jewish writings use the "eye of the needle" as a picture of a very small place, "A needle's eye is not too narrow for two friends, but the world is not wide enough for two enemies."6 . The ludicrous contrast between the small size of the needle's eye and the largest indigenous animal is to be preserved for its very improbability.
Jesus' hearers believed that wealth and prosperity were a sign of God's blessing (cf. Leviticus and Deuteronomy). So their incredulity is more along the lines that, "if the rich, who must be seen as righteous by God by dint of their evident blessing, can't be saved, who can be?". Later Christians have turned this around to portray wealth as a hindrance to salvation, which it can be – but no more so than many other things, when the message is that salvation is impossible for all men for it comes from God alone.
But beyond impossibility is possibility with God for, elsewhere, a Jewish midrash records:
"The Holy One said, open for me a door as big as a needle's eye and I will open for you a door through which may enter tents and [camels?]"7
In other words God only needs the sinner to open up just a crack for him and God will come pouring in and set up room for an oasis. God only needs a 'foot in the door', so to speak.
This is similar to the Talmudic use of two Hebrew letters, one which represents God holiness ('Q' Qoph, as in qadôsh 'holy') and another representing evil ('R' Resh, as in ra' 'evil'), in a story told for the purpose of teaching the Hebrew alphabet and Jewish morals. It is said that 'q' has a separated opening in order that should 'r' repent he may enter into God's holiness through the small opening.
A brief survey of sermons or search on the Internet reveals how many perpetuate the myth of the small gate in Jerusalem. Victorian travellers to the Holy Land even claim to have been shown it. The inaccuracy may appear harmless but it is neither good scholarship nor good exposition. The exaggerated and contrasted size is deliberate and is not an overt judgement on riches or poverty. Jesus reflects on how hard it often is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. The riches are a distraction and hard to share if one is too attached to them. The disciples' incredulity is that if even the rich cannot be saved, who can? But the verdict is that even the rich, not only the rich, will find it impossible to save themselves – but with God all things are possible.
posted
Im sorry i was 10% off. You got me, after i listed the source that gave the information. That wasn't the point that i was trying to make. You're playing with semantics. The point is the religous vote (not just evangelical) won bush the election. a vast majority of the US are a specific sect of christian who believe in the same "values" as bush. Thats the point I was trying to make.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shear, I'm sorry you feel upset about Bush's win but the way you are stating your argument is not very clear or precise. Please, take some time to think and organise your ideas before you start or continue your discussion.
posted
I agree with Teshi. This is a huge blurb/rant.
To argue, your words must be in fit fighting shape. Each one must be a deadly punch to the opponent's stomach...or if you're desperate, perhaps lower...
One major failing of yours is to not bother capitilizing a proper noun, namely Bush. Even if you are arguing against something you hate, grammar still applies.
Of course, all the above are irelevent if you are talented enough at rhetoric. If you are a great demagogue, you can break whatever rules you want.
posted
"playing with semantics" is phrase used when someone takes what you say and uses it to their side of an argument when it's not the point the person was trying to make. Perfect example: what i just said. I don't see why everyone is getting so defensive? Yes i wish kerry would have won, but thats not the point of what my original entry was about at all.
a vast majority of the US is some sect of christianity... I dont understand what the miscommunication is.
my thoughts are organized. It's just very aggrovating when you try to make a point and you have a minor statistic wrong and thats all people talk about.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you really want me to punctuate perfectly and be grammatically correct, I will be. On the other hand, you should really proof read before you criticize me for having spelling errors.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
WOW. Am I in an episode of the Twilight Zone? I can't beleive everyone is still caught up on a small statistical error. It's like saying, Nate Robinson has the highest vertical in the NCAA, it's about 50 inches! Then people respond saying it's only 48 inches! You're wrong! Please gather your information correctly before you write responses when my point is he has the highest vertical. Do you understand where I'm coming from? Anyone?
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shear, please don't take offense where none is intended. We're all (mostly) grown-ups on this forum, and as such we appreciate well-written rhetoric as opposed to hastily-typed rants.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "playing with semantics" is phrase used when someone takes what you say and uses it to their side of an argument when it's not the point the person was trying to make
If it's used that way, it is done so in error. Did you read the definition of the word semantics that I provided?
Playing with semantics would be arguing about what the words mean. For example, we could disagree about what the words "evangelical", "majority", or "is" mean.
I will now commence to argue semantics. A simple majority is, by definition, over 50% of the population. A vast majority would be more than that. According to the numbers you provided, it's less than half that. Therefore, I say you are in error.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I shall refrain from commenting on your last post (except in this nasty, passive-aggresive manner) and shall overlook the minor fact that you used poor grammar even when you tried to correct yourself.
Look:
I do not care enough about this situation to spell check my posts. Writing quite seriously for two years has already improved my spelling to the point where it is almost always correct.
I was merely making the point that your post was an ineffective piece of rheotric for many reasons, but mostly because you reveal a heavy bias and do not organize your thoughts in a compelling manner that overcomes the biases of the readers.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
SM -- what's up? You're posting, but you don't seem to be on AIM. If you can, get on AIM, por favor.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:WOW. Am I in an episode of the Twilight Zone? I can't beleive everyone is still caught up on a small statistical error. It's like saying, Nate Robinson has the highest vertical in the NCAA, it's about 50 inches! Then people respond saying it's only 48 inches! You're wrong! Please gather your information correctly before you write responses when my point is he has the highest vertical. Do you understand where I'm coming from? Anyone?
Had you not whined about being corrected, no one would be talking about the statistics still. As it is, you overstated the case by 20%, so your example with a roughly 4% overstatement doesn't seem very applicable.
Feel free to get back to your point any time. Or you can keep whining and therefore keep the issue active.
posted
Please read my original post on what exactly I was stating a vast majority was. Because it sure wasn't evangelicalism. And I guess my post was a success because no one has yet to reject my point on how "values" won bush the election.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: my thoughts are organized. It's just very aggravating when you try to make a point and you have a minor statistic wrong and thats all people talk about.
Shear, your argument isn't very organised. Your first post is a rambling and ranting mess that makes use of false statistics. Posting a view that is not only badly written and makes frequent use of information that is either wrong or misinterpreted is by no stretch of the imagination a convincing way to go about presenting an opinion that you want to be taken seriously.
Also, yes, correct grammar is the norm here. Please use it to the best of your ability .
Finally, the reason people will not take you up on the validity of your argument itself is because your ideas seem to be deliberately insensitive and inflammatory. This is why I advise you to re-organise and re-think your position.
quote: If 70 million are evangelical, then they make up 23.9% of the 293,027,571 in the U.S.
23.9 != vast majority.
Quoth Shear:
quote: Now lets see who voted for Bush. Was it the minority who decided the election. No. Was it women? No. Men? no.
IT WAS THE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN VOTE
Generally, when something is written in big huge giant letters, I think that is they point they're trying to make. Then again, I don't see big huge giant letters that often. Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think no one has found it worth refuting. There are numerous threads on the subject in the forum, with many posts taking your side in a more coherent manner, without the poor biblical scholarship.
Of all sects. I interpreted what Shear said to mean that 1/3 of Americans are evangelical Christians and a vast majority are Christians of any denomination.
But I don't really feel like defending what he/she said after that last post. Shear, be more mature.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
