What does "Democrat"/"Republican" mean to you?- Page 5

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 3:04pm

I consider myself a democrat though I do agree with some republicans. I am also religious, but I, unlike many, see the Bible as what it really is. The Bible is the religious BOOK of Christianity. A BOOK is written by a MAN (or woman), and all MEN (and women) are flawed. The Bible has been changed so many times through both translations, and direct changes to support one's views. Many people quote Revelations as a reason to be anti-gay. But the orriginal transcript (and a few modern editions) support slavery, rape, pre-marital sex, abuse of women, etc. Do the PEOPLE (not just republicans), who base their anti-gay views on the BIBLE also believe in these views. If you do than SHAME ON YOU, and if you don't than do a little more research.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 4:36pm

jacobtsf, many people have made observations similar to that, that the Bible recommends some very odd practices. There does seem to be some picking and choosing going on here. From my vast bottomless pit of downloads, here is a bit of an exchange on an episode of "The West Wing" a few years ago. The "Jenna" in question is a right-wing radio talk show host, who has been problematic earlier in the episode. The gathering is a reception for talk show hosts in the White House, and the episode is about mid-term elections during his first administration.
**********
"The Midterms"
__________

C.J.: Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen. The President of the United States.

[Everyone stands and claps (flashbulbs go off) as Jed enters the reception]

Jed: Thank you. Thank you, very much. Thanks a lot. I wish I could spend more than a few minutes with you but the polls don't close in the east for another hour and there are plenty of election results left to falsify. [Everyone chuckles]

You know with so many people participating in the political and social debate through call in shows, it's a good idea to be reminded....
[Jed loses his train of thought when something attracts his attention. The camera pans over to Jenna Jacobs]

....it's a good idea to be reminded of the awesome impact...the awesome impact....
[He finally gives up and addresses Dr. Jacobs]
I'm sorry, um...you're Dr. Jenna Jacobs, right?

Jenna: Yes, sir.

Jed: It's good to have you here.

Jenna: Thank you.

Jed: The awesome impact of the airwaves and how that translates into the furthering of our national discussions but obviously also how it can...how it can.....
[Finally gives up, sighs, and addresses Dr. Jacobs again]

Forgive me, Dr. Jacobs. Are you a M.D.?

Jenna: Ph.D.

Jed: A Ph.D.?

Jenna: Yes, sir.

Jed: In Psychology?

Jenna: No, Sir.

Jed: Theology?

Jenna: No.

Jed: Social work?

Jenna: I have a Ph.D. in English Literature.

Jed: I'm asking, 'cause on your show, people call in for advice and you go by the name of Dr. Jacobs on your show. And I didn't know if maybe your listeners were confused by that, and assumed you had advanced training in Psychology,Theology, or health care.

Jenna: I don't believe they are confused, no sir.

Jed: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

[Camera gets a shot of C.J. glancing over at Sam and Toby. And we get a shot of Sam looking at C.J. Toby isn't paying attention to Sam or C.J.]

Jenna: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

Jed: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

Jenna: 18:22

Jed: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. [small chuckles from the guests] She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, and always clears the table when it was her
turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath,Exodus 35:2, clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?

Here's one that's really important, 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes us unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
[Jenna fidgets uncomfortably]

Think about those questions, would you? One last thing, while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tightass Club, in this building, when the President stands nobody sits.

[Jenna squirms in her seat but doesn't rise. We get a close up shot of Jed glaring meaningfully at her. She finally rises out of her seat]

Jed: Toby

Toby: Yes, Mr. President.

Jed: That's how I beat him.

[Jed leaves the reception. Toby and Jenna exchange glances.]
*********
(I don't remember exactly who the "he" was, but it was someone with a great following he had run against long ago.) I really DON'T seem how one can pull the homosexuality ban from the bible when there are these others which are clearly ridiculous. Why is the homosexuality one not as ridiculous as the rest? Societies evolve, and religions evolve with them. Otherwise we wouldn't have a dozen different interpretations of the Bible, and we'd all be going to Mass and hearing it in Latin. Or for that matter, Aramic, since that was the original language of Christianity.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 4:43pm

and that's just one example of why aaron sorkin is a god. while i might disagree with his politics, when he is writing for film or telelvision or the stage, there's nobody better.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 4:44pm

Papa, we AGREE!!!!! Let's never talk again!!!! LOL!!

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 4:45pm

Sunfish-
I love that episode.
Papa-
I must agree, he is wonderful, the show hasn't been the same since he left.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 5:35pm

Wow.

I can't believe that at this time yesterday I was struggling to get someone aside from myself to respond to this thread.



Just curious, have any of you ever been a supporter from one side and then changed to the other? If so, why? (Just seems like there's so much arguing from both parties, but it goes no where in the sense that no one's stopped and said, "Actually, you're right. I'm gonna vote Bush now.")

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 5:38pm

It won't, Tiff. Most of the country already knows who they will vote for--and it will not waiver. No one is likely to change their mind on this board. I would be curious to hear from undecideds--just curious what issues have them in flux.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 5:52pm

Tiff, it's exactly for that reason that I don't affiliate myself with a specific party. I think it is impossible for me to ever agree 100% with the platform of either party. As a result, I've not put myself in either one and that way I'm free to do whatever I please without having to answer as to why I did or did not vote for or against a specific party. Then again, I also don't believe in telling people who I'm going to vote for, so I'm in the minority here.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 5:56pm

So do you still vote? Even if you don't agree with everything that the party to lean towards stands for? (We know Mr. Roxy's answer. )

Also, I was reading an article yesterday about the Dems failing to prevent Nader to get onto the ballot. How much do you think the strategic vote will have to do with this year's election, in light of 2000?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 6:09pm

jrb, i think for those undecideds it'll come down to what it almost always does in a presidential election: a personality contest. did reagan beat carter because he was so much better on the issues? nixon lost to kennedy was basically because nixon looked like a criminal at the debates (ironic, no?). bush 41 v. clinton, well, why even bother there. i really believe that presidential elections come down to who the people like more as a person and who they identify with. if jfk2 can come across as a human being in the debates, then he cane make this a race. if he comes across as a pompous blowhard (and why vern jordan ever agreed to letting them put an indicator on the screen that blinks up when a candidate goes over time on their answers like some bizarre fox sports graphic is beyond me) then he's looking at bush 41 electoral #'s numbers at best. the other thing he's got to be careful of is no matter how many people would love to see him dismiss bush completely, if he does that he'll doom what's left of his candidacy. johnny's problem is that he's got to come across as believing that gw is a legitimate rival and not a trained monkey.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 6:15pm

Kerry understands complexity so he can understand that Georgie can be both....a legitimate rival while being a trained monkey!

[bythesword84]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 6:19pm

Yes, Tiff, I do think voting is important. I believe that what you have to do is sit down and look at both platforms and, while you'll probably never agree with what one side says completely, pick whichever one you agree with on the issues which are more important to you. I just don't think you have to pledge yourself to one side or the other entirely because things change, and let's face it, what they say now and what actually will happen are two totally different things.

Besides, when all else fails, vote for Oprah.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 6:40pm

I would totally be on board for an Oprah 4 Prez 2008 campaign. Free Pontiacs to all her constituents!

Any Nader supporters around these parts? (Really similar to the problem with the NDP party on Canada vs. the Liberals/"Democrats"...It's too bad because I would've voted NDP and I feel like I kind of sold out by voting Liberal, just because I knew that voting for the NDP would mean the Tories would win.)

[Sunfish]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 7:01pm

bythesword, you'll be surprised, but I agree with you. So far, the Dems have by far been the best "match" for me, but if they (rather than the Republicans) had veered into the takeover by religion, I would be in quite a pickle. There are a lot of Republicans in that position now. this is the first time I have been involved in a campaign, giving money and time, since the 1970's. That's how important this election is to me. It is not loyalty to a party, but total dismay at what has been done to MY country in a few short years that has activated me.

In some local elections I have voted for Independent candidates and :gasp:gasp: even some Republicans according to the recommendations of the IVO/IPO.

Tiff, I think the only way to build a 3rd party is from the grass-roots up, starting with local and perhaps state legislature offices. It will be a long, hard climb and will take years. Putting one guy out there for President, no matter how famous, without the party machinery behind him is simply madness.

Nader has lost it, in my view. He is running simply out of ego, he knows there is no chance, and his line about bring issues up just isn't working. All that is ever discussed in the media when Nader's name is mentioned is "will he be a spoiler?" I remember when he was a great man, a wonderful icon in the progressive movement, but he has made himself a joke and has soured much respect he used to have. It is a pity, but he's made his choices.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 9:20pm

I think that what Nader does is edge the possibility of a third party closer and closer to reality. It's (hopefully) progress.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 9/26/04 at 10:51pm

But he has no party. He's just out there flappin' in the breeze.

He may have brought the thought of a 3rd party to the forefront, but I believe it still will not be successful until it has some political successes on the grassroots level. A few Senators and Congressional legislators wouldn't hurt either. They'd have to re-arrange the seating in the House and Senate into three sections and not two. Bring a whole new meaning to "across the aisle". Who would sit in the middle? Assuming the new party would be leftist, the Dems would have to move to the middle to survive, and Republicans are pretty far right already. Would be an interesting set-up.