Ducky

Thoughts, views? Unscientific public poll shows that Kerry again won. I think the margin was much smaller this time, but yet still considerable. (despite the near exact 70%ish/30%ish ratio as the first)

Omg, you mean the people who don't sign up for the military? No !@#$%^&*. Isn't that what he said though.

Way to bring unheard life altering views to the discussion.

Dunno, but the only reason I stay here in the forums is due to Monte's posting. heh

These are wrong things?

GG, we win. Now lets pretend the national debt doesn't exist and get on with our lives.

My Mother and Aunt both worked for the hospital, both laid off. My outlook? On the outside, one could say that they flourished during the Clinton era and were stubbed while Bush was in office. In reality, !@#$%^&* happens. It doesn't matter who is in office. People lost the exact jobs under Bush and Clinton. It is a geographic concern. That is what breeds my apathy over the whole election. Sure, things are indirectly influenced by decisions, but so are they by a butterfly in africa. Neither candidate proposed the solution I wished for the problems I see. Just because one candidate dismissed my concerns as garbage, is no reason to vote for the other which is just as flawed. I don't like Bush, but I am not giving into an anti-Bush candidate when Kerry is just as !@#$%^&*ing stupid. My solution? Don't vote.

What's wrong with apathy? passion blinds logic. I have seen too many useless and silly arguements on this board due to people being too stubborn with change.

Ummm.. Voting for a 3rd party in this specific election is a waste of a vote.

Pwnt

Yea, it is total popularity bull!@#$%^&*. Kerry FlipFlops. Bush went into Iraq the wrong way. Main arguements, which don't stand up anyways. At the time, the decision to go into iraq and do more cleanup was good. Everyone was all up for killing terrorists. Now we are telling him he was wrong? And the same bull!@#$%^&* with Kerry too. Most of his opinions have changed over a 5 year period. As happens with anyone who is willing to flow with time.

yea, old news though...heh Has anyone ever glimpsed at the ratio of people on this forum and the countries they are from? Say on average 6 Regular Americans 2 Brits 1 Korean 2 Canadians, blah blah 1 xxx 3 xxx Of course 90% of the topics will be on the US and it seems as though we are always attacked. We are hardly attacked every single post, it is just your arrogance that makes you think we are. A different opinion isn't automatically an assault on the very fabric of our nation.

Heh, I care whom is elected in other countries.

<--

Aye, NOT dying seems to be quite the moronic way to live life.

Aye, I can see how it is so much more enticing than that of the Universe theory that states it always existed :-p

One thing that was said afterwards that I fully agree with is (Please note I cannot cite an exact source, but they were Msnbc panelists) Bush did not so bad a job as to lose his voting support/base, but he did extremely poorly in securing the undecided, as Kerry actually had a chance with his prepared speech.

Alrighty, after watching the debate recap for the most part, I agree with vile that he will improve. You can't go much lower. (Had to take the shot.) I believe "showing the voters you are just like them" is important in order to gain backing, but it seemed that the tactic did not go over too well with Bush. Not to say he isn't capable of pulling it off, but he did a lousy job with that aspect tonight. I saw no real relevations with the issues, same ol' stuff shuffled around, although I did take note of the "Out of context" flipflopping that conservatives are attempting to pin to Kerry. I thought his arguement was well (Even if his standpoint was wrong) and his wordings were appropriate. Yep, blatantly liberal as usual.. I will allow more intelligent people to pick apart words and ideas for the meantime. :-p

Watching the recap as I was out, but on an "outlook" more so at this very moment, Bush needed to stand up straight :-p

Blah, choose a side -*BAD WORD*- Nah.. I'm just !@#$%^&*in with you.The arguement was well enough, and my prior views still stand that I would rather accept ignorance than unproven theology. I am with soldier on this one. I have stated many times that religion in general is needed greatly, but not in the public eye of education, business and all things of that nature. Find and accept faith in churches, at concerts, or in the privacy of your own home. (The places where you have a greater choice of going to or not.) I don't like the paragraph for one solemn reason. Not all religion requires you to help the poor in mass I don't see one single difference between the church and state and who "recieves" the oppurtunity to help the poor. You donate, they get it. Simple story. What is the difference from anti-christ joe millionaire donating $100,000 and 72 middle aged women doing a bake sale to ac!@#$%^&*ulate the same amount. It all goes to help others in the end. The government has problems doing it because they try to elaborate and create a better way. New innovations are always flawed and only get better in time.

I don't think the examples are too well due to different understandings of different people. Some people believe blowing up people with clean water will help them get their own water supply. We can view that as the wrong route, but to tell someone that is hopeless.

Learning is to become aware of. We learn science by discovering it.As said already, I do not debate the very existance of a god like force. But to alott him credit for everything past and present is completely inane. To believe that no matter your choice, you are fated to one divine plan breeds hopelessness. There was no cause for me to turn away from religion, I am very much into it. I choose not to speak openly about my invisible unproven beliefs. These are my personal ethics. Religion is no where near God created. Someone says or does something, and until it is acknowledged by other people (Who essentially are giving life and creating it) it is nothing. Murder is not murder until Jake at BurgerKing claims it is. It was just killing at the time. The idea of religion was proposed to human, and when they accepted, that is when its initial creation took place. Without acknowledgement, it was just a floating idea. This is where our "logic" differs greatly. Machine vs organism. Because I accept that adaptation and evolution DO take place, you simply cannot make a comparison. The same animals we have today were different from those found in the past. Why would there be any reason humans would be exempt from this. A machine holds no qualities of an organism, and that is why it is classified as such. That is perfectly fine, but to me, using god as a scapegoat of sorts for our own ignorance isn't how I want to convey myself. I would rather say, "I don't know the answer at the moment, but when I figure it out, I will be sure to tell you." rather than "The problem is too hard, God is behind it."

Science is acknowledged as the superior factual part. We aren't taught religion in schools, but science sure is. Both have holes yes, but overall, science will take priority for me. It's more of a innocent until proven guilty idea at the moment; Only, Unproven until proven (With people whom think as I do) vs proven until unproven. (Like most religious followers are.)

Whoa there sparky. Get it out of our legal system completely in 90 years. Get it away from the public scene. Not abolish it completely.. rofl It lasted how many thousand years and I want it gone in 90? Not bloody likely. "In my mind" It is unproven. Whats going to happen after you die? Is god real? Is god fake? Questions you can't answer. Unproven facts are things you cannot answer. It isn't my opinion, it is reality. Your !@#$%^&*umptions on the idea are not fact, those are opinions. Sure, you can cite individual things and pick out what has been historically accurate and what not. But overall, you have no way of proving anything. You can prove Jesus was real, but can you prove he was the son of god? Not a chance. Hense the reason everyone in the world isn't one religion. I respect the amount of faith you have, but if it isn't reality, I will exclude it. I appologize before hand for that. Drake, I have no qualms with you, a few bumpy disagreements.. but all is well. I also believe in a divine en-*BAD WORD*-y, as something somewhere had to create the very elements it took for the universe to be created. Were humans created in his likeness? Not at all, I trust the statement is one of the highest in ignorance ever discussed. Divine plan? Possibly, but who has proof. Just like greeks and romans created diety's so that they may have an understanding of the world, so did we create god in our likeness. Can't explain something? God was behind it. Only as time moves on, we are uncoverring things that disprove these faiths. (Evolution) Opinion, and extremely valid, so pick my words apart and post what you want me to clarify.

lol, whoa there mate... At least I never said take religion from society completely. Just take it far enough from public eye so that my grandchildren can get rid of the !@#$%^&* thing when I am 90. As said earlier, faith is great... But to build a society on something unproven and faith based is just ridiculus. I say unproven in the manner that, if it were true fact (That god took every thursday off and talked to people.. So on and so forth) that everyone would believe he existed and there would be no doubt about that said religion what so ever. I don't want my real life laws to get entangled any which way with that of something I cannot see or talk to. When I choose to worship that of what I do, I do it in private. I respect people around me and quietly note they are all going to burn in -*BAD WORD*- (Or whatever my diseased afterlife is.) I don't want to go out and post my 'rules' on schools or public buildings. I don't try and convert non believers. I don't try to dictate someone elses life according to the invisible force I trust in. That's just the way I am, and I appologize if that hinders my arguement in any way.