| Author |
Message |
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
 Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:47 pm |
|
While I agree that religion should stay out of politics (and I say that in defense of both religion and politics), it is too mixed with politics now to demand that it stays out of it.
Think about it: You don't like abortion because it's a "sin". Ok, fine. You vote a President who is Christian (for most Americans preferably Protestant) because you believe he'll use his own "moral compass" (which is similiar to your own) to affect legislation/law. He will use his position to stack the Supreme Court, who will later on overturn Roe v. Wade.
It sucks, but that is the way people (most, not all) will vote. It isn't just religion either. Athiests will vote for someone with the least Christian or Liberal Christian beliefs. People want to vote, not because someone can get the job done, but because they'll get the job done in the manner that they themselves would handle it. Which of course is very dangerous because the average citizen, of any nation, is too dumb to deal with problems of this magnitude. That is why we elect leaders...
|
|
|
Omok
Lieutenant
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 170
|
| Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:19 pm |
|
| robbiewebster wrote: | | There's nothing wrong with voting based on religious beliefs. |
If your only concern is religion, then you're correct...but as LightningBoy points out, "The president is NOT pastor-in-chief".
| robbiewebster wrote: | | How many African Americans are going to vote for Obama because he's black. You wouldn't tell them that they're wrong to do so. |
Actually, yes, I would.
Voting for a President shouldn't be based on anything superficial or spiritual. IMHO it should be based on the candidates qualifications, experience and overall abilities to lead and govern.
| Quote: | | That is why we elect leaders... |
I must respectfully disagree...
Firstly, we elect leaders because we are a representative democracy, and we use that system because our founders believed it to be the best system at the time.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:31 pm |
|
| Omok wrote: | | Quote: | | That is why we elect leaders... |
I must respectfully disagree...
Firstly, we elect leaders because we are a representative democracy, and we use that system because our founders believed it to be the best system at the time. |
That doesn't even make sense. We don't elect leaders solely because we want a representative. That is just a nice thing to put on paper. Throughout history, we have chosen leaders to...oh I don't know...lead us. These are people who, often but not always, are exceptional people. They have the intelligence, the chasima, and the foresight to lead the nation on domestic and foreign matters that an average citizen can barely comprehend. Although, in today's age, the leaders of each nation have so many advisors and counter balances (Congress, etc), that we have a literal armada leading us. Which isn't a bad thing.
The point is that we should elect people on the basis that they can shape our (their) nation into the best country possible through all lawful means. Sadly, it is more important to people that they look/act like us then what I just described.
|
|
|
Omok
Lieutenant
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 170
|
| Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:41 pm |
|
| Quote: | | That doesn't even make sense. |
Well, pardon my lack of specificity.
| Quote: | | We don't elect leaders solely because we want a representative. |
I never said "solely".
| Quote: | | Throughout history, we have chosen leaders to...oh I don't know...lead us. |
Throughout history we have chosen our leaders? Oh, maybe since 1775, yeah.
| Quote: | | These are people who, often but not always, are exceptional people. They have the intelligence, the charisma, and the foresight to lead the nation on domestic and foreign matters that an average citizen can barely comprehend. |
I'm so glad you said "often but not always" because our current "leader" hardly fits your description, but you have managed to insult quite a few people.
| Quote: | | The point is that we should elect people on the basis that they can shape our (their) nation into the best country possible through all lawful means. |
Albeit extremely vague, I am inclined to agree.
|
|
|
squiggy
Stooge Two
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 3007
Location: Messing with the fabric of Video Game realities. I'll summon Shiva on you! I SWEAR!
|
| Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:49 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Omok wrote: | | Quote: | | That is why we elect leaders... |
I must respectfully disagree...
Firstly, we elect leaders because we are a representative democracy, and we use that system because our founders believed it to be the best system at the time. |
That doesn't even make sense. We don't elect leaders solely because we want a representative. That is just a nice thing to put on paper. Throughout history, we have chosen leaders to...oh I don't know...lead us. These are people who, often but not always, are exceptional people. They have the intelligence, the chasima, and the foresight to lead the nation on domestic and foreign matters that an average citizen can barely comprehend. Although, in today's age, the leaders of each nation have so many advisors and counter balances (Congress, etc), that we have a literal armada leading us. Which isn't a bad thing.
The point is that we should elect people on the basis that they can shape our (their) nation into the best country possible through all lawful means. Sadly, it is more important to people that they look/act like us then what I just described. |
And now... I find myself in agreement with you, Andy. On this item alone. I agree that we need proper leaders to lead us, as a society, however I think they need to do it from a non-religious way of doing things. Many people call that a 'pie-in-the-sky' candidate, but guess what? British Columbia has just such a premier, who has done nothing religiously biased. It can be, and should routinely be, done. I agree, with you again, Andy. Both Canada, and The US, and several other countries need to elect people based on thier abillities as an elected official.
Watching the elections debates in the US on CNN nearly on a daily basis((The cafe I eat most my meals at has it on... ALL the time...)), I find my opinions of the people in question continually changing. I believe that Obama has a good chance to make it. But I hope Hillary wins. I know McCain is going to be the other choice. Especially now that Huckabee endorsed him. I don't think he has quite what it takes to really DO anything for the country... much like Obama, I find him all talk, and no walk. Perhaps the country down south needs to look past the last name 'Clinton', and see that maybe, there is a completely different person there, then the last Clinton they elected.
If nothing else was learned from it, they should have picked THAT up from the last name "Bush"....
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:16 pm |
|
| Omok wrote: | | Albeit extremely vague, I am inclined to agree. |
Wow you really love to argue semantics don't you? For all intents and purposes, that is all you're doing here. The ironic thing is that I was initially agreeing with you and you're sitting here debating me. Funny how that turned out...
We're trying to say the same thing here, but somehow you turned it around to say that my opinion is not wholly correct. Which, it may or may not be, but seems pointless to argue. In this case, you're literally arguing simply for the sake of arguing, not trying to make a point at all.
No, you never said solely, but you are arguing that my point is incorrect on why we elect leaders. Perhaps I should have said that is why we "should" elect our leaders. Because they should be people that are exceptional in various arena(s). Although, I thought that maybe people would understand what I was trying to say there...
Oh good God. Yes, we didn't elect leaders in the past. They were often people propped up by blood line or the Pope(s). Happy? Let me reword it then since semantics is a popular thing for you. The concept of a leader should be that they are in place because they can take on the responsibility of leading a large number of people through the myriad of problems that exist as a result of civilization. That is why leaders should be elected.
Our current leader may not fit that description in your eyes, but he does in the eyes of others. Even if that is hard to believe.
I've managed to insult who and with what? The truth? If you took an average (I'll use the US as an example) American off the street and placed them in the White House for four years, are you honestly going to sit there and say that you think they can handle that job? No, they can't. I don't care if that is insulting. I would make this argument to any nation on this planet. A geneticist could be absolutely brilliant in their field, but that doesn't mean they can handle politics. A fireman can be absolutely brave and strong in their profession, but that doesn't mean they can tackle the Soviet Union through diplomacy. Every profession takes exceptional people within their own field. Why are politics any different? The average citizen can not handle such a difficult job.
Now, I'm sure sarcastically you're going to point out that Bush is supposedly a professional in this field and failed miserably. Um...yes, but then again he isn't much of a politician. He is more a corporate guy, then he is a president. People like JFK, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc. were real politicians.
| Quote: | And now... I find myself in agreement with you, Andy. On this item alone. I agree that we need proper leaders to lead us, as a society, however I think they need to do it from a non-religious way of doing things. Many people call that a 'pie-in-the-sky' candidate, but guess what? British Columbia has just such a premier, who has done nothing religiously biased. It can be, and should routinely be, done. I agree, with you again, Andy. Both Canada, and The US, and several other countries need to elect people based on thier abillities as an elected official.
Watching the elections debates in the US on CNN nearly on a daily basis((The cafe I eat most my meals at has it on... ALL the time...)), I find my opinions of the people in question continually changing. I believe that Obama has a good chance to make it. But I hope Hillary wins. I know McCain is going to be the other choice. Especially now that Huckabee endorsed him. I don't think he has quite what it takes to really DO anything for the country... much like Obama, I find him all talk, and no walk. Perhaps the country down south needs to look past the last name 'Clinton', and see that maybe, there is a completely different person there, then the last Clinton they elected.
If nothing else was learned from it, they should have picked THAT up from the last name "Bush".... |
Right, exactly. I kind of prefer Obama over Hilary, but I do agree with you on all the points. I don't think the US has the luxury of voting in a guy/woman solely because of their skin color and/or religion.
|
|
|
Omok
Lieutenant
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 170
|
| Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm |
|
| Quote: | | Wow you really love to argue semantics don't you? |
Heh...
Hopefully, without sounding too defensive, I wasn't really trying to "argue" anything, but if I say "I like blue", it's a much different thing than saying "I like blue fish", isn't it?
| Quote: | | Perhaps I should have said that is why we "should" elect our leaders. |
Well, that would've indeed changed then inferred meaning.
| Quote: | | If you took an average (I'll use the US as an example) American off the street and placed them in the White House for four years, are you honestly going to sit there and say that you think they can handle that job? |
But that's not what you said..."lead the nation on domestic and foreign matters that an average citizen can barely comprehend", that's not semantics, that's a different statement altogether.
| Quote: | | The average citizen can not handle such a difficult job. |
So, politicians are ordained at birth? I submit to you that yes, at some point they are in fact average citizens, most likely, right up until they begin their public service. 
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:05 pm |
|
| Omok wrote: | | Quote: | | Wow you really love to argue semantics don't you? |
Heh...
Hopefully, without sounding too defensive, I wasn't really trying to "argue" anything, but if I say "I like blue", it's a much different thing than saying "I like blue fish", isn't it?
Somewhat, although I'm unsure if what I said was as different.
| Quote: | | Perhaps I should have said that is why we "should" elect our leaders. |
Well, that would've indeed changed then inferred meaning.
| Quote: | | If you took an average (I'll use the US as an example) American off the street and placed them in the White House for four years, are you honestly going to sit there and say that you think they can handle that job? |
But that's not what you said..."lead the nation on domestic and foreign matters that an average citizen can barely comprehend", that's not semantics, that's a different statement altogether.
It is still the same thing, though. An average citizen can barely comprehend treaties (the intricate details of one), fiscal economics, military strategy against enemy forces, social policies, and much more. That is why we divide social, economic, and foreign problems in such neat divisions when they are so much more complicated. Abotion is monumentally more complicated when you're looking at it from a lawmaker's POV. However, to get votes, they have to simplifiy it for the voters. That alone shows that a citizen can not handle this job.
| Quote: | | The average citizen can not handle such a difficult job. |
So, politicians are ordained at birth? I submit to you that yes, at some point they are in fact average citizens, most likely, right up until they begin their public service. |
Of course they start off as a regular citizen, but at some point they show a propensity towards the field. They have the charism to lead. They have the strength to take on the sheer responsibility of being a world leader. So on and so on. Of course, there are citizens out there that have the potential to be a great leader. I'd argue that there are thousands who could probably lead better then the current U.S. President, but the bar is pretty low with him. The point is that it does and should take exceptional people to lead.
There was a great Bill Maher joke on it, but I'm prevented from saying it as it is no G-rated.
|
|
|
Omok
Lieutenant
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 170
|
| Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:10 pm |
|
| Quote: | | The point is that it does and should take exceptional people to lead. |
I completely agree with the bold portion.
|
|
|
squiggy
Stooge Two
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 3007
Location: Messing with the fabric of Video Game realities. I'll summon Shiva on you! I SWEAR!
|
| Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:41 pm |
|
| Omok wrote: | | Quote: | | The point is that it does and should take exceptional people to lead. |
I completely agree with the bold portion. |
Agreed. lol.
If it takes exceptional people to lead, I bring back this four letter word I've used in a few other agreements:
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
