I'm still here

[jugner]

I've gotten a few PM's asking why I haven't posted in a few weeks, instead of sending several replies I decided on one post.

Not because of politics, but how people are handling them, many peope say stuff to maniac and drew, and particularly maniac, now he seems to ask for it, but people ask him to show something to back it up, well robace backs up everything he says and noone says anything to him at all. Why? People don't seem to like debating with someone who does there homework, they'd rather take shots at those who don't. Robace has had some great posts, how many responses has he got? None. Like it or not, it's true.

Read this thread
http://ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?t=62361
specificaly posts 15, 17, 20-30. During this discussion I was stating my opinion, and it was not received well, I was not insulting, and didn't accuse anyone of anything. I was insulted, accused of some things though, now can I ask for some responses on this, am I wrong, or do I have a legitimate complaint? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Now the person I'm reffering to in this thread will probably say why am I singling him out, well I've made comments to others and they don't get mad or dissrespectful to me if I don't agree with them, they don't seem to mind if I disagree with them, they don't insult me for no reason, that's why.

The second reason is religion, people post agianst religion a lot, how many posts have you seen saying people without religion are not all there? Threads are started about how religion is hypocrasy, how many threads on how not having religion is stupid? Based on that, which group sounds more tolerant?

I used to enjoy posting here, but now people don't have respect for opinions that they don't agree with, and get insulting to people in general. So now I don't.

[General Zod]

To me,people are sounding more and more like politicians these days They'd rather hurl insults at each other They like to blame the "other side" for the problems I guess that's easier that letting our elected officials know what the people are thinking

[milagros317]

Thanks, Jugner, you have explained why I never posted much in the P&R Forum in the first place.

[isabeau]

it would be nice for people to be able to post, express their opinion, and not resort to name calling and threats. we are mostly all adults here right? i have been enjoying the political threads, however when it becomes personal the threads lose the reason they were posted in the first place.

isabeau

[hivoltage]

jugner, you might want to keep in mind the reason that criticism of religion and true believers has increased - because they are now the ones in power. Bush and the Republican party have made no secret of their close bond with Christian Evangelicals and the Christian philosophy on controversial issues.

Nobody criticizes Bill Clinton anymore (not much), but people sure did during his tenure.

[jugner]

jugner, you might want to keep in mind the reason that criticism of religion and true believers has increased - because they are now the ones in power. Bush and the Republican party have made no secret of their close bond with Christian Evangelicals and the Christian philosophy on controversial issues.

Nobody criticizes Bill Clinton anymore (not much), but people sure did during his tenure.

Why is religion targeted? People are doing it, not religion. Money does more than religion as far as swinging decisions about polcies, noone blames money, but the people that do this.

Not criticizing Clinton? Whats your point? Why say that?

[Cosmo_ac]

Not because of politics, but how people are handling them, many peope say stuff to maniac and drew, and particularly maniac, now he seems to ask for it, but people ask him to show something to back it up, well robace backs up everything he says and noone says anything to him at all. Why? People don't seem to like debating with someone who does there homework, they'd rather take shots at those who don't. Robace has had some great posts, how many responses has he got? None. Like it or not, it's true.

Thats not entirely true Jugner. I've responded to a few of Rob's posts. I have no problem with debating somebody who does there research, and much prefer it. However, sometimes i don't repond to Rob, because sometimes he makes posts that are way too scattered. They'll briefly touch on a dosen different issues, and i might simply not be inclined to do hours of research for each topic.

Also, some topics just don't interest me, and i won't be posting on them.

[isabeau]

i respectfully disagree, cosmo. i find that robaces posts make sense. he researches and doesnt just ramble vaguely as others have done, myself included. if people would just quit attacking each other, and express their viewpoints with respect to others opinion, this forum could be a great sounding place, plus an example for the world to follow, on how people can agree to disagree, but still remain civil..

isabeau

[MrMacphisto]

You brought up some good points, Jugner. I know I bash religion a lot, but I've tried to tone that down some. I'd rather focus more on the people who use religion as a political tool than on religion itself. Personally, I don't really care if someone follows a religion or not, but when I see that some people bring religion into legislative issues, it pisses me off. Granted, I've started to realize that, for all practical purposes, the Christians in this country outnumber the non-Christians, so I suppose that Christian ideology will inevitably enter political debates. That being said, maybe it would be better if the non-Christians (like myself) just used Christian contexts to get their points across.

What I'm getting at is that Christianity is like any other religion: it can be interpreted in many different ways. This is why so many radically different denominations of Christianity exist. If the non-Christians can successfully demonstrate that religion can be used to defend almost any side in a political debate, the religious right might be a little bit less reliant on their religion to make political points. Since we have the Freedom of Religion in this country, anyone is free to bring religion into a political issue, but logistically, it's not usually a good idea.

Getting back on topic, I'm glad to see you posting again, Jugner. I'll try not to offend you much more in discussions.

[Cosmo_ac]

Isabuea, i'm not talking about all of robs posts, or even the majority. I'm just saying sometimes they tend to be a bit scattered. That asside, i do think Rob is very polite in his posts and does a good job with research.

[Robace252]

1st Junger....thank you for noticing. I notice this alot and never try to say anything because I dont want to anyone to think Im waving my *ahem* around opening me up for attacks...because BELIEVE ME..no one wants that, least of all me.
Cosmo and MacPhisto and there are 1 or 2 others that usually give me responses on things they have an interest or want to have an interest in, but usually I feel if I post and they agree then much else doesnt need to be said. They as 2 of those of the opposite side of a lot of things I believe in have always been nothing but respectful and even gracious in their responses to me, as well as isabeau.
There are many (AND I SAY MANY) that meerly read my responses filled with facts and since they have nothing more than hate/emotion/and ideas of what the world is or should be..those usually pass me over for an eaiser target. Which is fine...I usually start out the opposite way..I dont take on the weakest links, its FAR TOO EASY..Id rather have intelligent debates with informed people...than to have an argument with an emotional blowhard that couldnt find a decent fact if they had it attached to their nose.
So to me, the less that respond the better. It proves that they nothing to say to someone unless they feel superior to them...which explains why I usually have the last word and no one tries to say otherwise.
Okay, its time for me to go and deflate my head and find Comso and MacPhisto to have have a lively and informed debate...I need to find a good topic for us. Oh and isabeau also. (again I know Im forgetting 1 or 2 more and probally not the ones who think Im talking about them)

[hivoltage]

Jugner, I thought my post was pretty clear.

Those who are in power are the ones who are criticized. When Bill Clinton was in power, he was criticized relentlessly. He was even IMPEACHED for lying about a consensual blow job from one of his staff.

Now, the Republicans are in power, and they wield their faith like no administration has. Christian Evangelicals are consistently credited with giving Bush his second term and the Senate to the Republican Party - and many of these same Christians are consistently demanding "payback" in the form of strictly conservative judges, a gay marriage ban, a ban on embryonic stem-cell research funding, government funding for faith-based charities, etc.

Christians have clearly opened themselves up for criticism by mixing faith and politics as never seen before in America. Once a large group of people say they want a Supreme Court Justice who is one of the very faithful (Roberts IS), or that embryonic stem-cell research and gay marriage need to be banned because the Bible says so, they are no longer keeping their faith "private" by any stretch of the imagination.

And they can certainly no longer say that their faith does not affect other Americans.

[jugner]

Here's the thing, you said "Christians have clearly opened themselves up for criticism by mixing faith and politics as never seen before in America." I'm a Christian, what have I done? By attacking Christians, your including a lot of people who don't deserve it. Saying bad things about Christians is talking about a lot of people, many of whom would agree with you otherwise.

[drew70]

I think the relationship between the current administration and evangelical Christianity is grossly exaggerated. I believe this is in large part due to the sour grapes mentality on the American Left, who refuse to concede that Bush fairly won either election on his own merit. So they have to invent reasons that "explain" his victories at the polls. In the 2000 election, they say that Bush only won because of Jeb Bush and the Supreme court. In the 2004 election, they say Bush won for religious reasons. They can't and/or won't admit that he won both times because more people wanted him more than they wanted Al Gore or John Kerry.

And for the record, Clinton was not impeached for a consensual blowjob. He was impeached for lying under oath.

[MrMacphisto]

Here's the thing, you said "Christians have clearly opened themselves up for criticism by mixing faith and politics as never seen before in America." I'm a Christian, what have I done? By attacking Christians, your including a lot of people who don't deserve it. Saying bad things about Christians is talking about a lot of people, many of whom would agree with you otherwise.

A good point, and sadly, this may be the reason for why the average American appears to be becoming more conservative. Whenever Howard Dean says something that insults Christians, he's definitely hurting the reputation of his party.

[MrMacphisto]

I think the relationship between the current administration and evangelical Christianity is grossly exaggerated. I believe this is in large part due to the sour grapes mentality on the American Left, who refuse to concede that Bush fairly won either election on his own merit. So they have to invent reasons that "explain" his victories at the polls. In the 2000 election, they say that Bush only won because of Jeb Bush and the Supreme court. In the 2004 election, they say Bush won for religious reasons. They can't and/or won't admit that he won both times because more people wanted him more than they wanted Al Gore or John Kerry.

Well, Bush's second campaign did gather many voters (and a lot of funds) through churches. There's nothing illegal about that, but it does implicate that Bush has a heavy connection to Christian political groups. I think you're forgetting that the claims about the 2000 election concern electoral corruption, whereas the claims of Bush's connection to religious fundamentalism are merely a statement of political motives.

Bush did win 2004 fair and square, but the 2000 election remains immersed in corruption and intrigue. Granted, it doesn't matter now. Let's just hope we won't have to bring the Supreme Court into elections for at least another hundred years....

[Cosmo_ac]

Actually, if i remember right, Cardinal ratzinger, the current pope, sent out a notice to Catholic churches in America telling the priests to deny services (i can't remember exactly what service it was) to any church goers who weren;t voting for Bush. I'll see if i can find the article.

[MrMacphisto]

Well... that's Catholicism for you... Ratzinger was a former Hitler youth, so I'd expect as much from that asshole....

[Cosmo_ac]

Actually, i'm not going to post the info here because i don't want this thread to stray. However, if anybody is curious, i can post a new thread, or if you want, just go to yahoo and type in Ratzinger and Bush and the info should just pop up.

Edit: It was "Communion" that they were supposed to deny Kerry supporters.

[hivoltage]

35% of the votes that Bush received were from Christian Evangelicals, and that makes the Republican party beholden unto their agenda.

I certainly am not saying it is OK to criticize Christians because the overwhelming majority vote Republican.

I am saying that it is OK to criticize the agenda that has been pushed hard by Christian Evangelical voters regarding many controversial issues like gay marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, the abortion pill, the morning-after pill, strictly conservative justices, etc.

And I am also saying that it is acceptable to criticize the argument "because the Bible (or God) says so".

And Drew, I did address the "lying" aspect of the Clinton witch hunt. And now President Bush will face the Katrina and high gas price witch hunt - but that's another thread.

[isabeau]

Cosmo i'm curious start a new thread

isabeau

[jim66e]

Most topics on this thread don't address the participation or the actions of Christian Evengelicals, people just say Christian, which is a very broad term. The same with most of the negative comments that just get addressed to all Christians.

[drew70]

Actually, i'm not going to post the info here because i don't want this thread to stray. However, if anybody is curious, i can post a new thread, or if you want, just go to yahoo and type in Ratzinger and Bush and the info should just pop up.

Edit: It was "Communion" that they were supposed to deny Kerry supporters.Nothing the Catholic Church does surprises me. If this is true, I agree it's most heinous. I'm all about keeping religion and politics seperate. But I have to wonder how a church would enforce such a thing. "You voted for Bush? Then freely receive the Body of Christ, amen." *plop* "And you, oh you voted for Kerry? Tsk tsk. For your penance, you must say four hundred 'Hail Mary's' and six hundred 'Our Father's'.

[Cosmo_ac]

Well, as a catholic practitioner is religious, i assume it would be a sin to lie to the church. Even if the priests don't know, god would know, wouldn't he?

But i honestly don't know.

[New2u]

I think the relationship between the current administration and evangelical Christianity is grossly exaggerated. I believe this is in large part due to the sour grapes mentality on the American Left, who refuse to concede that Bush fairly won either election on his own merit. So they have to invent reasons that "explain" his victories at the polls. In the 2000 election, they say that Bush only won because of Jeb Bush and the Supreme court. In the 2004 election, they say Bush won for religious reasons. They can't and/or won't admit that he won both times because more people wanted him more than they wanted Al Gore or John Kerry.

And for the record, Clinton was not impeached for a consensual blowjob. He was impeached for lying under oath.

drew, Bush and the Evangelicals are in bed together (so-to-speak) and Bush is being directed by them, an example was Bush's first consideration for a Supreme Court Nominee was Alberto Gonzalas but the Evangelicals hit the roof because of Gonzalas' Pro-Choice views so Bush switched over to John Roberts who's wife is a member of an anti-abortion group. Bush is also pushing the "Intelligent Design" faith which shows his complete ignorance on evolution and science in general.

How Bush won back in 2004 would've made a great "spooky" episode on "The Twilight Zone" T.V. series if it were still on today. But Bush's approval polls were bad before and after the election and now, 10 months later, are even worse, all done on his own merit.

On the Clinton thing, yes, Clinton was accused of doing what Bush did to congress a while back with the "Downing Street Memo" as evidence. The only difference is that the Republican congress reserves "impeachments" only for Democratic Presidents, but not for their own.

[kis123]

jugner:

I was one of those people who PM'd you. It was during hurricane Katrina and I was generally concerned for you. I got NO response from you regarding your safety at all.

I know how it is to take a break or to even leave the forum because things get overwhelming. I been slammed a lot around here myself. I take breaks from time to time just to get away from the madness. So I understand the points/issues you've addressed here. What I don't understand is why you didn't respond. When you've PMd me privately in the past, I responded to every one of your PMs even when I really didn't want to. I gave you respect as a gentlemen and an adult. I do not feel you did the same. I'm sure you had your reasons, but I can't understand what they could be.

I know there always hasn't that much love lost between us-our views on a lot of things don't always gel. But I was concerned for you and am somewhat upset that you didn't even respond to my checking in on you.

I was going to deal with this privately, but since you went public with this post, I'm choosing to express my issues publically as well.

I hope all is well with you and I am genuinely glad that you're okay.

[jugner]

Sorry if I upset you, but when I started this thread it was the first time I had been to the forum in a while. Instead of sending seperate PM's I thought I would just start a thread explaining why, it wasn't because of the hurricane.

[kis123]

Sorry if I upset you, but when I started this thread it was the first time I had been to the forum in a while. Instead of sending seperate PM's I thought I would just start a thread explaining why, it wasn't because of the hurricane.

I'm just glad you're okay and we didn't lose a TMF member to Katrina. All is well in my world and I hope the same for you.

Now it's off to create more insightful and thought-provoking posts! Yeah, right!!!!!! :rotate: