So the First Presidential Debate Happened

[wittdooley]

And It's always fun to get everyone's comments. However, I'm going to lay out some ground rules for this forum so that we can be better informed to each other's comments. To post, you must submit the following info:

Country of Residence
Political Leanings (Conservative, Liberal, Moderate)
Age
Education

Here's why I'm requesting the previous: it can provide a good deal of background on the speaker and can help avoid a lot of that pesky "internet confusion." For example, If someone says something that suggests they may be a bit ignorant of how something works and I see that they're 17, one could write that us youthful ignorance and can better help tailor a response.

As with any political thread, Please be respectful of your other posters and use the info each poster offers to better inform the tone in which you respond.

So I'll start:

USA
Moderate, Fiscally Conservative
29
College Graduate, MBA Candidate

There were a few things that were really, well, quite shocking to me about the debates. First, it was a bit alarming how unprepared Obama appeared to be. He was most certainly not the campaigner of 2008, and it was pretty apparent.

Second, I was not expecting Romney to be as adept at the debating as he was. I chalk a great deal of this to the fact that mainstream American media has presented him as bit of a poor speaker, but to me Romney was charismatic and articulate, traits Obama expressed 4 years ago that were noticably lacking. The body language, to me, told much of the story. Obama looked down a ton, looked at Romney seldom, and seemed generally haggard. Additionally, had I said "um" the number of times he did through the course of that two hours in my university public speaking course, I would have failed. Significantly.

Third, I was a bit dismayed reading my Facebook feed during and after the debates how disinterested or uninformed a lot of my Facebook friends were. Lots of them seem to be leaning towards Obama not because he's the best candidate but because he's the "not-Republican" candidate. And they held to that unconditionally following the debate with overexagerations or simple dismissals at the disparity between the candidates last night.

I think there were a lot of things we probably should have assumed about Romney that really showed last night. The man has been a VERY successful businessman for 25 years, so of course we should have known he'd be articulate and charismatic. You don't make the kind of money he has in business without being both of those things. Nor do you get there without being an informed and intelligent leader.

The informed part is what concerned me the most about Obama last night. Whether it be due to unpreparedness or not, he was effectively 'schooled' last night in some of the more important economic topics by Romney, and thats disconcerting to me.

Overall, I think it was a pretty telling debate that should assuage some fears that Romney may not be a competent public figure. He clearly is. I'd read on CNN that Obama had more to lose than Romney had to gain from last night, and I can't help but think that all of the worst possibilities came to fruition last night for the incumbent.

[Wildeybeast]

As it was on at stupid o'clock in the morning over here, I didn't see it so I can't comment on the debate. I do have a question though - how much do these things matter? Do they actually affect the way that many Americans vote?

[Kyban]

I didn't get a chance to watch it yet either because I was engaging in a game of 40k. I think these debates generally only affect undecided voters, my impression is that those who have already picked a side tend to stay there even if it didn't put on a good show at the debate.

[wittdooley]

I didn't get a chance to watch it yet either because I was engaging in a game of 40k. I think these debates generally only affect undecided voters, my impression is that those who have already picked a side tend to stay there even if it didn't put on a good show at the debate.

This is pretty spot on, and quite frankly if you're undecided at this point in time you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. The majority of those people (the October Undecideds) are voting based on superficial things about the candidates. Because of that, the debate was a pretty big win for Romney, IMO.

Living in arguably the most important state in the election (Ohio), it's always very interesting to me why Ohio is such a huge swing state, and I think it amounts to a lot of very 'republican' values mixing with a HUGE percentage of liberal arts colleges (I went to one) and education majors (I was one) that come from the state. In that, I mean that if you're from Ohio you're probably raised Christian and then learn to be accepting and compassionate in school, presuming you stay in Ohio. We don't have tons of old money. We have a lot of blue collar workers. And so it's an interesting mix.

I think the next debate, the one on Thursday the 11th, may play a large part in determining the outcome of Ohio's voters, as Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate, is from Ohio and went to Miami University. Should be interesting.

[Wildeybeast]

In that, I mean that if you're from Ohio you're probably raised Christian and then learn to be accepting and compassionate in school.

I'm fairly certain JC's message was that we should be accepting and compassionate. He'd be turning in his grave if he knew that wasn't a key part of Christian upbringing. ;)

[Gotthammer]

Jesus said that he didn't come to remove the old laws, merely bring them to fruition - so he literally said he endorses the anti-woman, pro-slavery, pro-rape, genocidal old testament and that anyone who doesn't follow these rules is damned (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17).

[DarkLink]

And the first jerkass internet atheist appears. I can tell this thread is going to go real well :rolleyes:.



The informed part is what concerned me the most about Obama last night. Whether it be due to unpreparedness or not, he was effectively 'schooled' last night in some of the more important economic topics by Romney, and thats disconcerting to me.


Concerned that Romney outperformed Obama, or that Obama didn't perform as well as one would expect a sitting president to?

[wittdooley]

And the first jerkass internet atheist appears. I can tell this thread is going to go real well :rolleyes:.



Concerned that Romney outperformed Obama, or that Obama didn't perform as well as one would expect a sitting president to?

That Obama didn't perform as well as one would expect a sitting prez too. It left me taken quite aback at how Ill prepared he seemed.

[DarkLink]

I haven't been paying particularly close attention to the election, so I don't know relevant this is to the debate, but Obama does have a pretty big target hanging off of his back. After four years, the only real change that's particularly visible to much of the public is Obamacare, and that's highly controversial. I think that alone is a big hamper on Obama's campaign, not just because of the obvious unpopularity of a sitting president that's "failed" to handle those problems, but because he can't re-use the Hope and Change rhetoric that was so successful in the last election.

[Sean_OBrien]

USA
Fiscal Conservative, Social Leave me the hell alone
44
MEng, MBA

Largely was what I expected it would be. Romney has had to survive off from facts and figures. As much as people always point to his daddy's money (a claim which is generally false) - you don't make it as far as he has without them, especially in private equity fields where he spent most his career. Obama on the other hand comes from a field where you don't need to actually have a handle on that. Anytime Obama is without a teleprompter or a screaming throng of faithful - he will look the way he did (if he had spent time in the court before entering politics - he would likely perform better).

How much the debate will impact things is hard to put a finger on, it really will depend on how many truly undecided voters there are left to sway. However, with early voting and all of that - a bad performance early on isn't good for a candidate, and I would guess that nearly all the undecided voters were watching last night:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/tv-column/post/fox-news-channel-scores-most-viewers-for-debate-according-to-early-stats/2012/10/04/9538a3b4-0e4c-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_blog.html

67 million people tuned in to watch it compared to 52 million for the first Obama-McCain debate. The big bugger though is that in the debates, you don't get the media spin to it. Romney is able to say what he has to say and Obama the same. You don't have a bunch of talking heads trying to make it sound other than it actually did sound. If you think Big Bird should continue to get half a billion dollars a year - Romney likely lost points. If you think that the government should stay out of business - Romney likely gained points. Same holds true with Obama.

Given the hyper-partizan nature of media now, that tends to help one candidate more than the other provided that he doesn't do poorly.

[Gotthammer]

And the first jerkass internet atheist appears.

Why do you say I'm a jerkass? I provided sources to back up my claim that if you follow Jesus he commands you to follow the rules of the old testament, which are extremely anti-woman, pro-slavery, pro-rape, genocidal (see Numbers 31 for all of those). If you can point out where the bible commands you to not do those things, I'll be happy to read them.

My point of bringing this up is that the bible is used to justify taking away rights from people, yet only when it is convenient for those doing the taking. It is especially ludicrous in a country that has official seperation of church and state. If you are going to use a religious text to justify oppressing people (it was done to justify slavery, then segregation, now homophobia and mysogyny), then you can't just pick and chose the bits that appeal to you now - especially when the text itself commands you to obey everything in it. Or politicians could stop doing it as an appeal to the masses and just run the country the way they're meant to.

Using religion to justify your government is dangerous as it one day might not be your religion in charge.


Oh and this is me being a jerkass - I find it hilarious that your reaction to seeing me say (with direct quotes from Jesus) that according to the bible you have to follow all the parts of the bible, even the ones about murdering your children if they disrespect you (Mark 7:9) or women having to marry their rapists (Deuterononmy 22:28-29 'traditional marriage'), makes me an athiest.

[Psychosplodge]

But Gott you forget Timothy 2:11-12 ;)
@Wildey, I thought he supposedly "Ascended"


Country of Residence England
Political Leanings (Conservative, Liberal, Moderate) Irrelevant as doesn't translate well
Age late 20's

From the clips I've seen your sitting president looked like he actually paused to think about the question not just spouted what he'd been coached to say.

Just seen this on tumblr

I know I’ve told this story before, but I want you all to know. I mean really really know.

In February of 2010, my younger sister (who was 14 at the time.) was in a really bad accident. She fractured her skull, broke her eye socket, and her brain started to swell rapidly. She was put into a medical coma to keep her brain safe from the swelling and after 36 hours she had to have brain surgery because she developed a blood clot. See that tube at the top of her head in the first picture? That’s going into her head..

She spent nearly 6 weeks in the hospital. She had to relearn a lot of basic functions like walking, and changing her clothes. But she trooped through and made it back home. For almost 2 weeks while they kept her sedated, we had no idea what we were going to do, how damaged her brain was. It was the most terrifying time in my life watching my little sister struggle to stay alive.

She was uninsured, but with the help of a great children’s hospital, and donations from all over the world (Hey! Thanks tumblr <3) we were able to keep her initial costs very low. But the graces of good people can only go so far. She needed physical therapy, and regular check ups for a long time after her initial release from the hospital.

My grandparents gained custody of my little sister, and they tried to get her put on my grandfather’s (private) insurance plan. She was denied because of her accident. Because she had a pre-existing condition. My family is lower middle class, and could not even consider affording the out of pocket costs of the therapy my sister needed

Within weeks of being denied, the Affordable Healthcare Act went into effect. I encouraged my grandmother to re-apply for my sister to be insured.

The insurance company had to cover my sister. Because of Obamacare, my little sister was able to go to her therapy. She was able to take the medications she needed, and go to the doctor for regular check ups. She was able to get the care that she needed, and she is now 17 years old, and has been medically cleared to participate in all the things a kid is supposed to do. She drives. She goes to the beach with her friends, she is going to start college soon.

I am terrified of how different things could be for my beautiful sister if she wasn’t covered under an insurance plan. I want Obamacare. I want other families standing terrified at the foot of a hospital bed to know the person they love is more than just a profit. More than a number. They are taken care of, and they have a President that is willing to really fight to make sure they can keep that coverage.

And another one...

There’s no denying that President Obama was awful in the debate last night, and Jim Leherer was quite possibly the worst moderator in debate history.

Clearly Romney won, but he won at the expense of the truth. He lied and lied and lied, and completely got away with it, unchallenged by the president or the moderator.

I’m sure this will fire up Republican partisans who aren’t thrilled about Romney, and it will infuriate Democratic partisans who wanted their guy to fight back, just once.

But I don’t think it makes a huge difference in the polls, especially in swing states. It probably brings a few Republicans home for Romney, but it doesn’t pull weak Obama supporters away from the president, especially since the national political discussion seems to be not that Romney wiped the floor with Obama last night, but that Romney did it by lying, misrepresenting himself and his plans, bullying everyone in sight, and just generally being a dick.

Like I said, I’m sure that fires up people who just hate Obama no matter what, but I don’t think it does much to pull away people who weren’t already looking for something — anything — to like about Romney.

But Obama has got to show up at the next debate, ready to brawl. If he doesn’t do that, and Romney’s lies go unchallenged again, it will definitely hurt the president.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbdpliHm1f1rsbrsao1_500.jpg
2982

[eldargal]

And the first jerkass internet atheist appears. I can tell this thread is going to go real well :rolleyes:.?
I'm not an atheist (agnostic) and I'm certainly not anti-theist, that doesn't change the fact Gott is absolutely right. Christianity has evolved a lot since then, but if you are going to take a literal approach to the Bible over some things you can't object when people point out this means being pro-rape and anti-woman because it does. You either pick and mix what you want to live your life by, accept that Christianity has evolved since then, or you accept that God encourages you tp rape unbelievers and keep women out of authority.


It is actually one reason why I'm more fond of the Catholic Church, they at least have made theological efforts to reconcile these issues (feminism, science etc) starting in the nineteenth century and have done a credible job of doing so. The US 'bat sh*t crazy nutjob' approach to religion really doesn't do much for me.

Great Britain
Conservative (in the real sense of the word, not the modern 'ignorant, bigoted, hypocritical, sexist lunatic cretin' sense of the word)
25
DPhil (Archaeology) BA (Art History)

Incumbent presidents often seem to lose the first debate, it doesn't seem to make that much of a difference. Romney certainly won convincingly, in the long run I doubt it will have much impact unless Obama continues to perform poorly in future debates. Personally I found Romney rather lacking in substance, he did a good job of attacking Obama but not so well in articulating the practicalities of his own policies, but then perhaps that wasn't the forum for it.

I liked McCain, I would have voted for Mccain had I been an American (up to the point his running mate who shall remain nameless blew the image of being a smart, sophisticated woman in her first non-scripted interview). I would not vote for Romney. Not sure I'd vote for Obama either mind you.

[DrLove42]

Great Britain
Fairly Central, but completly disillusioned with Liberal Democrats, Consrvatives or Republicans
24
MEng (Aeronautical Engineering), PhD (in progress, Bio-nano tribology)

I would consider myself, if I had a vote firmly in the Obama camp. He just seems better.

I've heard from a lot of comments online that Romney just spouted lies, but no one ever called him on any of them


Also in the political world comes this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19842704

If this is how Politics work in the US, i'm really glad i've got nothing to do with it

[Psychosplodge]

That's actually quite sick, daemonising someone to such an extent for not fitting their narrow world view of normal

[Sean_OBrien]

@Psycho

Keep in mind that things like the picture you posted are entirely propaganda. For example, CNN actually ran a debate clock and Obama actually spoke for 3 minutes longer than Romney. This actual fact was not questioned by Time when they reran the article:

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/10/04/debate-watch-obama-eats-up-the-clock-but-romney-sets-the-agenda/

Regarding the list of "Facts" - well, FactCheck.org (about the only group who actually does so anymore) actually gives a run down of most of the "facts" used and how they actually compare with reality. While good arguments can be made regarding some of the "facts" which are disputed, it does a fair job of actually addressing the numbers and figures which are thrown about.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

Everything else in the pictorial cliff note is largely irrelevant. The second blurp is editorializing from someone who didn't bother to check the facts (as linked above) and is obviously solidly in Obama's back pocket. The first blurp - while an interesting sob story is irrelevant as well, in so much as they state that charity has taken care of their sister to a large extent already (my long time contention of what should happen) and they presume that what they say would hold true always (Romney believes in keeping in place a mechanism to insure pre-existing conditions). Not to mention, situations like that also are covered under existing state and Federal programs.


The US 'bat sh*t crazy nutjob' approach to religion really doesn't do much for me.

I think they prefer to be called Evengelicals. I am not religious, however I hold strongly the opinion that people should be allowed to believe what they want to up until the point that they burn buildings and stone people in the streets. That said, old religions are a complicated bit.

With a proper religion (hard to specify - but generally one which has their own network of churches, a seminary of sorts to train up pastors and such and a governing body to set dogma and practices) they deal with the issues between the OT and NT in a fairly clear and simple manner. Catholics can trace their position back to Thomas Aquinas where he sets out a difference between moral law (the 10 commandments) and everything else. They follow that the moral law is still in place, but that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial aspects of the law (all the stuff about sacrifices and what not). The various civil aspects only applied within the OT kingdom of Israel (things like how much a slave should be bought for for example). Other proper churches have similar positions, but they are set forth clearly in their dogmatic teachings (Lutherans have Luther's Catechism for example, Anglicans have the 39 Articles).

Issues arise though when you have the charismatic evangelists who have no religious affiliation and little actual education in the matter (most are unable to read the original sources as well - which means that many of the subtle differences in words like law and love are lost on them).

The pro-rape is largely a mess as it is attempting to look at bronze age life through the lens of modern society. What we see as rape now is not too far and away from date night back then. It is a harsh view - but they were harsh times when an entire village could be wiped out without much more than a virus or a bad harvest. Girls were a commodity to be bought and sold (not uncommon at all) and slavery existed among all sexes. The tradition continued to some extent into recent times, and even arranged marriages are seen as rape by some strict feminists. However, without JDate - it wasn't easy for a maid to find a husband and that was key to the survival of the small tribes of the period.

The rest of the pro-genocide, anti-woman bits are similar as well. When they used to lay siege to cities - that is the sort of things which were done (killing the men and boys and taking the women). While women are forbade from being in leadership roles within the church as well as a number of other bits and bobs throughout the OT and NT - much of that falls under ceremonial laws by dogmatic reasoning (which is addressed above).

One often referenced segment from the NT is found in Ephesians 5 - the old "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." However, that alone is out of context with the whole of what is being addressed - which is a "Christian Marriage". It starts out "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." That is, husbands should submit to their wives and wives to their husbands. Some might read that as compromise - generally a good thing (as someone who has been married nearly 25 years...there is a lot of submitting going on). It follows up with "In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body." That sounds a lot to me like old school chivalry and gentlemanly behavior. While not too popular amongst some, it hardly is an anti-woman stance and many woman would be happy to have as much.

Granted, when you are dealing with charismatics - what I tend to refer to as the "crazy christians" you never know for sure what you are going to get. They tend to cherry pick bits and pieces from the Bible as much as those who detract from it.

However, going back to the original spark in the fire pit - the quote is actually "fulfill" not "fruition". This is an important aspect of the words which are accredited to Christ and the source of the understanding of what was going on. The Greek word used ends up being in reference to filling (as to fill an order) and the translated word fulfill was chosen as to fulfill a contract. The contract which was being fulfilled was that of the OT covenant (which would cover the OT ceremonial and civil laws by most real church understandings). That is to say - the terms of the agreement are complete. It would not be much different from you taking out a loan and me paying the balance for you. The loan is fulfilled and you are in the clear. You no longer need to sacrifice a goat once a year.

Though that is a bit of a diversion to the debate I guess...

[Kirsten]

Country of Residence: Isle of Man
Political Leanings: Other
Age: 27
Education: Ancient History Degree

Whatever happened in the debate, it doesn't alter the fact that Romney continually lies, slanders, and looks down on other people. His 47% comment, which he has finally said was wrong, he also described as 'inelegantly stated' i.e. it is true, but I am sorry you heard me say it. Tax dodging, I have draft dodging too, seriously anti-women, anti equality in general, I think it is dreadful that anyone could consider voting for him.

[Psychosplodge]

The picture is clearly just a joke, the first line of text tells you that, plus the fact checking at the bottom lol.

With regards Religion, I think the message of Dogma is important, It's religion, not faith that's an issue.

[Sean_OBrien]

That's actually quite sick, daemonising someone to such an extent for not fitting their narrow world view of normal

Is it?

http://articles.philly.com/2012-10-04/news/34261195_1_t-shirt-teacher-charles-carroll-high-school

The WoW is bit is stupid. However, the article above is sick. If a political campaign thinks it might have a go at trying to compare a candidate to the orc they play online...whatever. However, when a teacher in a school attacks and mocks a student for wearing a shirt which supports a political candidate they are against - that is sick...a level of sickness which isn't uncommon.

http://www.salisburypost.com/News/052112-WEB-North-Rowan-teacher-suspended-qcd

However, as opposed to candidates who should have a long understanding of political attacks:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI

[Sean_OBrien]

The picture is clearly just a joke, the first line of text tells you that, plus the fact checking at the bottom lol.[/I]

One of the problems though is that jokes and facts are often times confused by today's youthful voters...

A surprisingly large chunk of the population actually turn to the Daily Show for news and opinion reporting (roughly 200,000 in the 18-35 demographic). Not for entertainment - news and editorial opinion. While I get a kick out of the show and watch it a few times a week - I also understand what it is, and Stewart has repeatedly stated that he is a comedy show...not a news show (generally following gross misstatements of facts). Unfortunately, there is no requirement to check sources be those who view things online before they go to the voting booth - so I wouldn't be surprised if a portion of the people who see the picture take it as facts and not otherwise.

[Psychosplodge]

Yes it is sick, It's also wrong, that that girl had to put up with sh!t like that from a teacher, though don't understand why as a non-voter she'd care enough to wear a t-shirt, but that's her choice.

If the vids accurate, I second the Doc's glad I'm not in that system sentiment.

And that student's right, both sides should be open to criticism.
And that's where you trot out the freedom of speech amendment...


Well to be fair I haven't seen anything I'd consider proper news from american TV, (they show it sometimes late night here on various channels) And compared to ours its all just loud music big headlines and shouting more akin to our red top tabloid newspapers (unfortunatley they're dumbing ours down to that too slowly).

Though i think last time I said something similar someone pointed out your newspapers actually contain actual news, and the gossips saved for magazines?


One of the problems though is that jokes and facts are often times confused by today's youthful voters...

A surprisingly large chunk of the population actually turn to the Daily Show for news and opinion reporting (roughly 200,000 in the 18-35 demographic). Not for entertainment - news and editorial opinion. While I get a kick out of the show and watch it a few times a week - I also understand what it is, and Stewart has repeatedly stated that he is a comedy show...not a news show (generally following gross misstatements of facts). Unfortunately, there is no requirement to check sources be those who view things online before they go to the voting booth - so I wouldn't be surprised if a portion of the people who see the picture take it as facts and not otherwise.

And you've just summed up why democracy doesn't work.

[wittdooley]

Whatever happened in the debate, it doesn't alter the fact that Romney continually lies, slanders, and looks down on other people.

Well...he doesn't, not really. Again, much of this perception has been the face presented by the media, many of whom are left leaning. That's not to say that Fox News doesn't lean more right (of course it does) but the "major" networks (as foxnews is cable only) like NBC, CBS, CNN, are pretty firmly entrenched in the Obama camp and present the 'face of the devil' that they need to.


His 47% comment, which he has finally said was wrong, he also described as 'inelegantly stated' i.e. it is true, but I am sorry you heard me say it.

But that's just it. It is true. And it's true for the Obama camp as well. Do you think, in regards to the election, Obama gives two flaming craps about the 'crazy christians?' Absolutely not. They're NEVER going to vote for him, so why should he waste his time pandering to them in any way? Obama is simply more practiced at keeping his mouth shut, which, in all truth, is easier to do if you're typically reading off a script.


Tax dodging, I have draft dodging too, seriously anti-women, anti equality in general, I think it is dreadful that anyone could consider voting for him.

I'm sorry, I think these are simply ignorant statements. The man clearly loves his wife. He gives a TON of money to foundations trying to cure MS. He gives TONS of money to charities that help the less fortunate. To make the claim that he is "seriously anti-woman and anti-equality" is, to me, just foolish. If he were as anti-woman as you say he is, there wouldn't be any women voting for him. But remember, just because you believe abortion should be okay and that a woman's right to choose should be their inherent right, there are three other women that believe that, due to their religions conviction, it's a sin and is morally wrong. And guess what the pro-choice women do to these other women? Ostracize them to an extreme extent. That doesn't quite seem right, now does it?

I also find it ironic that so many "pro-choice" folks are so willing to give up their choice with health care and allow the guv'ment to choose what is best for them.

@Psycho -- While I appreciate the anecdotes you provided, it's pretty clear that both of them have opinions coloured by their experiences when make any story they're going to tell wholly biased. The second one talks about all the "Romney lies and misrepresentation;" well, FactCheck.org's write up of the debate shows that each candidate "lied" a fairly equal amount. The reason so many people are claiming Romney lied "a ton?" Because that's how the media has presented him to the public. To me, it means there are too many people blindly following the campaign ads without doing any actual, you know, research, and that, friends, is frightening.

Also, the main point of contention in those anecdotes is Obamacare. Listen, there are very few folks that are right leaning that want sick people to suffer. Please remember that the majority of these right leaning folks give to the church, and it is typically the church (be it the Archdioces, etc) that takes care of the people that can't take care of themselves. Who are most homless shelters run by? The church. Who are many hospitals sponsored by? The church. So please don't get that twisted. Where caring for the needy becomes an issue is when people that CAN take care of themselves are forced to do something they don't want. Romney made a great point about this in the debate: "If I don't like my health care provider, or they're treating me unfairly, I can go find another one." Under Obamacare, you can't do that. That's a slippery slope, and we're already seeing that evidenced in NYC, where you can no longer sell or purchase a friggin Big Gulp. So, we can limit the size drink someone purchases, but we have people fighting giving drug tests to those on welfare. Really?

[Psychosplodge]

I appreciate that both the anecdotes were provided by people with a bias to their side, to be fair there isn't a lot of politics in my tumblr feed, so I didn't have a lot to pick from, but they were what I saw.

When it comes to the four women you mention, the one woman isn't telling the other three what to do with their body, but they are with hers. Relevant link. (http://jigsawlovey.tumblr.com/post/31238623892)

I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is
Though I think last time we did that we did about 60 pages? :D and were still saying the same as on page one...

[imperialpower]

Country- Great Britian
Political alegianc- Royalist, Imperialist
Age 24

I do not have much intrest in US politics since it seems more like a high budget talent show than anything else and the candidates seem to get ellected because they are more popular rather than from what they stand for and what they are offering their country for me the media plays too much of a slanderess role and is just looking for a good story rather than trying to educate people on the candidates.

[wittdooley]

I appreciate that both the anecdotes were provided by people with a bias to their side, to be fair their isn't a lot of politics in my tumblr feed, so I didn't have a lot to pick from, but they were what I saw.

When it comes to the four women you mention, the one woman isn't telling the other three what to do with their body, but they are with hers. Relevant link. (http://jigsawlovey.tumblr.com/post/31238623892)

Though I think last time we did that we did about 60 pages? :D and were still saying the same as on page one...

Sorry, i Should have been more clear. I simply meant to say that being against abortion does not make you inherently anti-woman.

[Psychosplodge]

I would disagree, though thanks for clarifying lol

[Kyban]

Country - US
Politics - Independent
Age - 21
Education - Currently In College

On the topic of the candidates' performances, I'd say both put up a good showing but Romney had a lot more energy and certainly seemed more prepared, Obama gave the impression of considering his answer more than Romney who sounded like all of his material was memorized. Both were pretty stressed throughout, just look at how often they blinked. Obama was a lot more jaded than 2008, he tried to stay more realistic and didn't make any of the grand promises that Romney made or he did in the previous campaign. He also tried to indicate that Romney's promises weren't realistic but Romney just shrugged off those accusations.

I'll probably vote for Obama because I see his plan as being more realistic and slightly better. Romney had some good ideas too but neither candidate seems really outstanding.

[eldargal]

No it doesn't, but it depends how you go about it. There is a difference between opposing abortion and trying to force your will on others just because you think some old book gives you that right. There are some anti-abortion groups that get this right, and there are some pro-choice groups that disgrace the name and damage the cause by actually advocating abortion. Fact is the whole debate in the US is completely messed up.

Sorry, i Should have been more clear. I simply meant to say that being against abortion does not make you inherently anti-woman.


I think they prefer to be called Evengelicals. I am not religious, however I hold strongly the opinion that people should be allowed to believe what they want to up until the point that they burn buildings and stone people in the streets. That said, old religions are a complicated bit.
My phrase encapsulates them better. I have no issue with their beliefs, I only have an issue with them trying to force it down other peoples throats.

The rest of what you say is quite correct, I'm well aware of the history of these issues.:) There are also translation issues, we are dealing with texts that were originally written in ancient Greek or Hebrew of Latin then translated into medieval latin and later into English. For example in one of the Pauline Epistles there is a phrase about 'women remaining silent' but the word for silent could be translated as 'silent' or 'peaceful' which have dramatic different meanings in modern english. The point is if you are going to base your moral code literally on a book written by dozens of different authors over hundreds of years in differnet languages then translated into modern English you either accept that the word 'literal' is virtually meaningless or you end up the idiocy that is evangelism.

The irony about evangelists and al lthose other nutjobs is how absolutely ignorant of their own faith they are. I mean part of the reaction against the Church in the early 16th century (that whole Reformation thing...) was that the Bible was kept out of the hands of the ordinary people so their religion was handed down from on high by their priests. Hence the significance of the King James Bible. Yet the level of knowledge some evangelists show of their Bible is specularly lacking and so consistent in my experience I can't believe it isn't widespread.

[Kyban]

Fact is the ... US is completely messed up.
Fixed! :p



The irony about evangelists and al lthose other nutjobs is how absolutely ignorant of their own faith they are. I mean part of the reaction against the Church in the early 16th century (that whole Reformation thing...) was that the Bible was kept out of the hands of the ordinary people so their religion was handed down from on high by their priests. Hence the significance of the King James Bible. Yet the level of knowledge some evangelists show of their Bible is specularly lacking and so consistent in my experience I can't believe it isn't widespread.

The problem is that many people are drawn to the outspoken evangelists who spout their own view of the scripture and aren't second guessed. Their followers end up knowing only what their told about their religion, even when they own a copy of their bible. In a lot of places it appears to be very similar to the problems that preceded the King James Bible.

I'm not a big fan of religion but it certainly seems like there are some unpalatable ideas still floating around in the Bible and other religions' books, though I'll admit I haven't read them and with the number of followers that still take the literal word of their books as law that unpleasantness still exists. Even if a religion were to be done correctly I still wouldn't be overly fond of it.

[eldargal]

I had an argument with one woman in the US who refused to believe one of the lines from the Pauline Epistles was true, so I showed her in her own Bible and she did not take it well.:rolleyes: In contrast all my Catholic friends (and family, my father is from a Catholic background though he is very laid back about it) often have rigorous debates about theology.

[Kyban]

I had an argument with one woman in the US who refused to believe one of the lines from the Pauline Epistles was true, so I showed her in her own Bible and she did not take it well.:rolleyes:


Probably the kind of woman who "disapproves of them foreign folks" anyway. :p

[DarkLink]

I think a lot of people hear things that Romney actually supports (like improving and fixing medicare and healthcare), and assumes he's lying. In reality, long before running, Romney implemented a widespread healthcare plan as governor Romney is much more moderate than most people seem to think, and when he says something that sounds moderate, anti-republican types accuse him of lying.

And of course, these are politicians we're talking about.


I'm not an atheist (agnostic) and I'm certainly not anti-theist, that doesn't change the fact Gott is absolutely right. Christianity has evolved a lot since then, but if you are going to take a literal approach to the Bible over some things you can't object when people point out this means being pro-rape and anti-woman because it does.

My point was more about the tone. Mention religion of any sort, and it seems like someone with a chip on their shoulder shows up with out-of-context quotes with the intent of character assassination and the presumption that the religious individual is stupid and gullible. The technical accuracy of the quote is not the issue. So, yes, while you could find comments like that to construe that Jesus supported many uncomfortable cultural norms at the time, it's just as easy to point out that Abraham Lincoln was just as racist as everyone else back in the day. If you cherry-pick quotes, you could easily make Ghandi look like a violent, anti-government terrorist. That's just as silly and disrespectful as handwaving a few thousand years of complex religious beliefs with a mere 'Jesus likes slaves and rape'.



Edit:
BTW, Romney's moderatism (I think I just made up that word) is probably the reason for some of his seemingly crazy quotes. He's had to sell himself hard to republicans because he's a moderate, and so he has to sound like a crazy conservative when he's campaigning for conservative votes. A lot of republicans think he's 'not republican enough'. So either he has to sound crazy to get his core constituents or sound not-crazy to get the moderate vote. The recent polarization of US politics hasn't helped there.

[Kyban]

If you cherry-pick quotes, you could easily make Ghandi look like a violent...

Have you ever played Civilization? Every time I run into Ghandi he declares war! :rolleyes:

[eldargal]

It's hardly cherry picking, the OT and parts of the NT are full of it. Much of the OT stuff is still considered important by various Orthodox Jewish groups, though even they tend to shy away from advocating mass rape these days. It is also a valid point to make that a literal interpretation ofthe Bible necessitates supporting these things when Romney is a Mormon who do believe in taking a literal interpretation of said book. Of course the fact is they don't really, they take the bits they want to take literally and ignor the bits that don't suit their political ideology.

Also Ghandi was possibly a bigot and an argument can be made that Lincoln freeing the slaves was more about undermining the southern economy than any particular belief in equality between the races.

[Wildeybeast]

Why do you say I'm a jerkass? I provided sources to back up my claim that if you follow Jesus he commands you to follow the rules of the old testament, which are extremely anti-woman, pro-slavery, pro-rape, genocidal (see Numbers 31 for all of those). If you can point out where the bible commands you to not do those things, I'll be happy to read them.

My point of bringing this up is that the bible is used to justify taking away rights from people, yet only when it is convenient for those doing the taking. It is especially ludicrous in a country that has official seperation of church and state. If you are going to use a religious text to justify oppressing people (it was done to justify slavery, then segregation, now homophobia and mysogyny), then you can't just pick and chose the bits that appeal to you now.

Whereas you picking out just the bits that support your argument, taking them out of context and misinterpreting them through your own very biased POV is perfectly acceptable of course. I love it how some atheists are just as militant, dogmatic and narrow minded as the most devoted religious fanatics and yet are completely incapable of recognising it. Your comments are wrong on so many levels that I could spend all day correcting them, but I'll settle with the following points.

Numbers 31 makes no reference to rape. Jesus did not
literally said he endorses the anti-woman, pro-slavery, pro-rape, genocidal old testament.. For a start, much of the Old Testament is not law, it is history, poetry, prophecy and wisdom literature. Secondly there are three types of 'law' - ceremonial, civil and moral. It is entirely unclear as to which section of law he is referring. Whichever one it is, Numbers 31 is not law. And if you bothered to read the rest of the Sermon on The Mount, you would get a much more enlightened understanding of exactly what Jesus means when he says' he comes to 'fulfil' the law.



But Gott you forget Timothy 2:11-12 ;)
@Wildey, I thought he supposedly "Ascended"

He did (allegedly). It was a Theology joke and therefore inherently unfunny.

[Kirsten]

it is history

the word you are looking for there is myth

[DarkLink]

Whereas you picking out just the bits that support your argument, taking them out of context and misinterpreting them through your own very biased POV is perfectly acceptable of course. I love it how some atheists are just as militant, dogmatic and narrow minded as the most devoted religious fanatics and yet are completely incapable of recognising it. Your comments are wrong on so many levels that I could spend all day correcting them, but I'll settle with the following points.

Exactly.

And don't get me wrong, it's not like there aren't the same type of people within religions who attack others with different beliefs, and it's not like I'm only referring to attacks on Christianity. I'm saying that religions are vast and complex, and if you don't buy into one why hold a grudge against the people who do? Unless they're like, literally terrorists, but even then you should realize that for terrorists, religion is merely an excuse and justification for their hate, rather than the direct cause.

But there's a world of difference between this:

"Jesus' message was one of love."

"Well, I kind of read it differently, since he does justify [insert something unlikable] here."

And:

"Jesus' message was one of love."

"Nope, the only thing Jesus loves is rape and slavery."

[Kirsten]

My point of bringing this up is that the bible is used to justify taking away rights from people, yet only when it is convenient for those doing the taking. It is especially ludicrous in a country that has official seperation of church and state. If you are going to use a religious text to justify oppressing people (it was done to justify slavery, then segregation, now homophobia and mysogyny)

this is true, you cannot argue against it, it is demonstrable. People cite specific passages of the bible in order to try and justify their own prejudice. Romney recently stated that marriage has always been between one man and one woman, and yet his great great whatever grandfather had six wives. It is impossible to defend 'biblical marriage' because a) marriage is not christian in any way, shape, or form, and b) biblical marriage has already been radically altered. It is perfectly reasonable to call BS on people who try to use the bible as some sort of perfect truth when they don't follow it themselves.

[Kyban]

Unless they're like, literally terrorists, but even then you should realize that for terrorists, religion is merely an excuse and justification for their hate, rather than the direct cause.

While it may start as an excuse for some it also becomes a tool that allows them to manipulate more people into fighting their cause. Religion may start out with all good intentions but throughout history it has been twisted to fulfill many horrific ends. It isn't inherently bad but rather like government, it can end up on either side of the scale (or both).

[Gotthammer]

When did I ever say I was an athiest?


I did say that cherry picking quotes from a book to make government policy is a bad thing, and if you pick out individual lines... let's just say Leviticus 20:13 at random here... and use it to justify refusing peoples' rights, you have to live by the rest of the text.
For isntance those who campaign to variously exclude and punish homosexuals use Lev 20:13 to justify it, but they should also be logically arguing that adultery is punishable by death or that poly-cotton blends are a sin (both from Leviticus ~or is it only the bit about gays that still counts..?).


And Wildey, I'd be happy to hear how using a religious text to justify denying people equal rights in countries with seperation of church and state "is wrong on so many levels". Everything else I will accept as being hyperbolic, and I do appologise as I lost my cool when I shouldn't have - but given the various christian demoninations often have as much difference in their own dogma to make them almost totally seperate religions (Mormons & Jehova's Witnesses anyone?) I am extremely skeptical of any faith-based governance as it is so very open to interpretation.

I will further admit that I have a chip on my shoulder, but I doubt many of you here are treated as a second class citizen due to other people's religious beliefs - that are meant to be seperate from the government - being used to justify denying you equal rights.

[Wildeybeast]

the word you are looking for there is myth

Wrong. We can cross reference several sections with Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian records (and Hittite ones to a lesser extent). These bits are history. The rest could be history, it could be made up nonsense. Some of it is made up nonsense since there are 'historical' accounts within the Bible which contradict themselves. And anyway, half of history is 'myth' in the sense that it is written by the victor and only tells one side of the story.


When did I ever say I was an athiest?


I did say that cherry picking quotes from a book to make government policy is a bad thing, and if you pick out individual lines... let's just say Leviticus 20:13 at random here... and use it to justify refusing peoples' rights, you have to live by the rest of the text.
For isntance those who campaign to variously exclude and punish homosexuals use Lev 20:13 to justify it, but they should also be logically arguing that adultery is punishable by death or that poly-cotton blends are a sin (both from Leviticus ~or is it only the bit about gays that still counts..?).


And Wildey, I'd be happy to hear how using a religious text to justify denying people equal rights in countries with seperation of church and state "is wrong on so many levels". Everything else I will accept as being hyperbolic, and I do appologise as I lost my cool when I shouldn't have - but given the various christian demoninations often have as much difference in their own dogma to make them almost totally seperate religions (Mormons & Jehova's Witnesses anyone?) I am extremely skeptical of any faith-based governance as it is so very open to interpretation.

I will further admit that I have a chip on my shoulder, but I doubt many of you here are treated as a second class citizen due to other people's religious beliefs - that are meant to be seperate from the government - being used to justify denying you equal rights.

My apologies also, I meant your interpretation and selective use of the Bible is wrong, not that part of your point. I agree entirely that using a collection of texts written over period of approx 2500 years by around 50 different authors, for a huge variety of reasons, which has been arbitrarily compiled by a small group of people as a model for governance is nothing short of madness. My issue is people blaming what's in the Bible or the message of Jesus for the actions of idiots. People are the problem, not the book. I despise religious fanaticism and intolerance in all it's forms. People who use the Bible to suppress others have completely missed the fundamental message of Jesus, despite him making it incredibly clear 'love your God and love others as yourself'. If we all followed the latter bit (with the former bit being optional) the world would be a much better place. And that message is pretty much universal across all major religions, in one wording or another. But I also despise hypocritical atheists who accuse religion of intolerance whilst shoving down others throats just how right their belief is based on the same narrow minded view. I get a bit of a bee in my bonnet about that, sorry if that made my post more judgemental and snobbish than I meant it to be.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Oh god.

Wildey's an RE teacher. :p

[Gotthammer]

Ya, people are the problem, but I am an incredible cynic and misanthrope at times so probably contribute my fair share ;)

If it makes you feel better whenever I hear Dawkins speak I want to punch him in his stupid smug face (though this one (http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2kjbzumtB1r4x4xko1_500.jpg)was a good zinger - I think the key was he didn't say anything).

[Kyban]

Wow, we got away from the topic pretty fast. The debate didn't even have anything to do with religion. :rolleyes:

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/anchorman-well-that-escalated-quickly.jpg

[Gotthammer]

Wildey's an RE teacher. :p

I am also skeptical of any book that requires a university degree to be understood when failure to follow it correctly leads to eternal damnation ;)


Kyban: True, but the election and campaigns feature it heavily, as do the candidates' speeches and rhetoric.

[Kyban]

I am also skeptical of any book that requires a university degree to be understood when failure to follow it correctly leads to eternal damnation ;)
The Layman's Bible Handbook (http://www.olivetree.com/store/product.php?productid=16976) I knew there'd be one! :p



Kyban: True, but the election and campaigns feature it heavily, as do the candidates' speeches and rhetoric.
Not complaining, just amused. :D

[Gotthammer]

DLC should not be required to get the full experience.


and religion in government has been on my mind a lot lately as I've got some personal stuff going on that is basically due to it, so yeah, bit snappy about it - sorry thread :(

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

DLC! Hahahahah!

It's okay Gott. We all have bad times, it just seems to be our turn currently!

[Wildeybeast]

Ya, people are the problem, but I am an incredible cynic and misanthrope at times so probably contribute my fair share ;)

If it makes you feel better whenever I hear Dawkins speak I want to punch him in his stupid smug face (though this one (http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2kjbzumtB1r4x4xko1_500.jpg)was a good zinger - I think the key was he didn't say anything).

Oh me too, I really hate that man. He has zero qualifications on religious studies and according to my microbiologist friend is only an average biologist, so god knows why he has become THE authority for atheists, beyond being a smug opinionated arse.

Oh god.

Wildey's an RE teacher. :p

Not to mention a Theology graduate. I feel prouder of that part, though the teaching qualification was undoubtedly harder to get.



I am also skeptical of any book that requires a university degree to be understood when failure to follow it correctly leads to eternal damnation ;)

The degree helps you get the finer points of the textual analysis, understanding authorial intent, historical context, literature genres and so on, but a child can get the basic message providing it's explained properly by an intelligent, rational adult. The problem is that it is invariably not. I've spent several lessons this week explaining to my kids that Jesus was a real, historical person and some of them still don't believe me. Though a number of them had no idea that Nelson Mandela was a real person (despite him still being alive). Humanity is doomed.


The Layman's Bible Handbook (http://www.olivetree.com/store/product.php?productid=16976) I knew there'd be one! :p

I'd be very wary of any 'Bible handbook' which doesn't make clear which translation of the Bible it is using.

[Psychosplodge]

Wow, we got away from the topic pretty fast. The debate didn't even have anything to do with religion. :rolleyes:



Kyban: True, but the election and campaigns feature it heavily, as do the candidates' speeches and rhetoric.

It's quite scary really, any extremist with access to nuclear weapons(Mormonism is quite an extreme form of Christianity imo)


ok so this just popped up on my dash, is it accurate? O_o
'Cause if it is it's certainly relevant to the respects women side of the debate...
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbctsugfKa1rwta20o1_r1_500.jpg
2990

[DarkLink]

Extremism is not a characteristic inherent to a particular religion, it's a characteristic in individuals in which they allow faith and belief to obstruct reason. Mormonism is not an extremist religion, any more than Islam is. I know quite a few Mormons and the only thing significantly different about them is their churches hold more community events for their members than most other churches I've seen, and that they have a more actively involved youth group program.

But I guess the contraception thing kinda sorta almost ties into the OP;).