*sigh* Even we Democrats have idiots as voters.

[fishface]

from news story link below:

"My biggest impression is that John Kerry never answered the questions," said Dan Roberts, a 45-year-old Democrat from Vancouver, Wash. "He went off on why Bush was wrong, but he never said what he would do to change things."


For Roberts, Kerry's failure to give more details on Iraq "probably cemented my decision" to vote for Bush.


Craig Morrison, who is in business with his wife Marilyn, said Kerry still has trouble explaining his positions on the issues in everyday terms.


"He's still going to get hammered," said Morrison, a 54-year-old Democrat considering a vote for independent Ralph Nader (news - web sites). "I don't think he explains himself that well. He missed an opportunity to explain his votes for and against the money for Iraq."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=5&u=/ap/20041002/ap_on_el_pr/persuadable_voters

[Catfight]

1. He's a ZELL Miller democrat...big difference! I bet he is not educated.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. I know lots of Zell Miller Dems with advanced degrees...

...so IMHO, this is not an issue involving achieved educational levels, but is instead one of cultural and religious upbringing. Those that have had certain beliefs pounded into their heads from a very early age tend to reject ANY new or "contradictory" thinking.

Some of the most close-minded people I know come from the evangelical Christian community who believe that their way is the only way. They seriously believe that all other religious beliefs, including ALL other Christian beliefs, doom their worshippers to Hell. And that kind of thinking includes people in ALL age-groups.

[Catfight]

7. So true, maybe someday 'christians' will be considered mentally

ill, there has to be a reason people choose fantasy over reality.

[hamugbo]

13. Citing Christians as mentally ill

I thought part of the rules for these forums were as follows:

Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger.

The message of 'Christians' being mentally ill, choosing fantasy over reality is very rude, very bigoted and totally devoid of any respectful discussion. It attacks the messenger directly.

Are there no Christians in the democratic party? The proofs of Christianity are plentiful, ancient dig sites which uncover events that occurred in the Bible, writings of the ancients from Greek and Roman sources that attest to the growth of the Christian religion which match those believed by Church sources as historically true.

This post is a dangerous trend, one that reeks of the abolishment of freedom of speech and religion for it wants to treat one particular group as not fit for having either, but instead chooses to limit them to the realm of unwanted and undesired in society, much like the subject of abortion does. The democratic party has changed since I was young, how I remember my grandfather recalling fondly the democratic party of his youth, he would not even recognize it today.

[shrub chipper]

15. Hmmmm!!

Enjoy your brief stay here!

[hamugbo]

19. "Hmmmm!!"

Thank you, I probably will not, but thank you anyway.

The sad thing is the democratic party has changed and it is now a bandwagon for anything that goes, it did not used to be this way and any search into history, into the history of this country will show a party platform that appealed to all, not just a select group, not just liberals or conservatives but both for it stood for principles. If a post about Christians being mentally ill had appeared in a discussion between democrats 50 - 60 years ago, there would have been a chorus of shock and disbelief, mainly because all the democrats would have been Christians or at least respectful of the people who comprised that belief system. Try saying the Muslims are mentally ill and choose fantasy over reality and you will have a firestorm of protest and correctly so. The trend has far reaching implications.

[JohnKleeb]

28. wtf are you talking about, he has a point

Fundies are one thing but Christians as a whole aren't the enemy.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. I got your respect for you, right here....

...if you can't handle criticism, you're in the wrong place.

Got a question for you...how many wars have been fought throughout history in the name of Christianity? Did you know that the NeoCons believe that's what we're doing in the Middle East?

While you're counting, the rest of us can continue to discuss issues important to this campaign. One of those issues has to do with the impact the evangelical Christians has had, and continues to have, on the politics of the far rightwing.

[hamugbo]

42. ...if you can't handle criticism, you're in the wrong place.

I can handle criticism, I also can handle the rules being followed on the forum. That was the point of my original post, ignoring that is the problem.

While I am counting, how about you count how many wars have been fought in the name of Allah, or Buddha, or Hare Krishna, how many conflicts have had religious overtones together.

The evangelical Christian base has been played to by the Republicans largely because the Democrats pulled away from them. It could have easily been the other way around. It is not really evangelical Christianity that is having an impact, it is Republicans who appeal to this voter base to get an impact. I really think it is manipulation more than anything.

But you have no respect for my thoughts or my posts really. If you truly respected all, then you would see where the rules were not followed, that means little. If you want to bash Christianity by using the NeoCons, who cares? They are as wrong as the Muslims who like to be filmed killing someone while chanting Allah.

[HuskerDem]

45. Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message,

Calling for ALL Christians to be considered mentally ill is rude and bigoted. There is a difference between rude bigotry and genuine criticism. Allow me to give you an example of a genuine criticism:

Your response to this persons post is both weak and fraught with irrelevancy. The person who posted is not likely to have started any of the historical wars you mention. War was not the topic of discussion in regards to Christianity, mental disease was the topic. The media has misused the term evangelical Christians when in fact they should be using the term fundamentalist Christians when speaking of the small collection of viciously fervent power hungry control freaks that have taken over vast portions of the Republican party, but that doesn't really matter either, because it wasn't the point the poster was making.

The point the poster was making was that calling ALL Christians mentally ill is rude and bigoted. The poster was correct.

[Arkana]

44. Hmmm...

I don't think he meant the Christian religion in general, but rather the rabid fundies who think that everyone who doesn't read the entire New Testament before lunch every day is going to burn in hell.

No one wants to insinuate that Christians are mentally ill...there are plenty of them on this board.

[mhr]

46. I Disagree Totally, The Fundamentalist Christians Are The Biggest

Threat to our Democracy today.

By inference the last poster was implying fundamentalists Christians.

I agree with his comments.

[Johnny 99]

14. And maybe someday

atheists will stop acting like pricks. But I'm not holding my breath.

[JohnKleeb]

29. I just wish they'd respect us

I know its not easy but I can respect them why cant they do the same.

[MissB]

33. Oh, you know how it goes JohnKleeb

some do, some don't. It is as unfair to lump all atheists in with that poster as it is to lump all Christians in with the fundamental zealots.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

39. Why don't you set a good example for the rest of us....

...I don't guess we ought to hold our collective breath, should we?

[hamugbo]

20. 'Christians' will be considered mentally ill

I am going to post one more bit of information in response to this and then I will most likely be deleted for I guess I really do not belong here. However, let the facts of history speak about why God is included in America. The phrase 'In God We Trust" is probably viewed as some right-wing conservative plant on our currency, an attempt to 'Christianize' our Country. This is not true. The history of the motto "In God We Trust" followed requests during the Civil War from many devout citizens urging the recognition of God on our currency. These people were not 'mentally ill' far from it. They were among the most educated persons of their day. In response to their requests, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:
"Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins." The phrase "In God We Trust" was passed by Congress within a couple of years and has been ever since anytime it has been voted on. Is this a 'mentally ill' society? America is about freedom, freedom of speech and religion. If you want to squelch that then perhaps one needs to also realize this Country has a history of being formed, developed and nurtured as a Christian nation. If you do not want to be a part of that, then exercise another freedom, the freedom to leave America.

[MissB]

21. You may well take issue with what the other poster said

But then you go on to say that America is "about freedom, freedom of speech and religion". It is rather ironic, then, for you to suggest that the poster should leave America if one does not agree with those that believe that America is a Christian nation.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

[hamugbo]

23. "You may well take issue with what the other poster said"

The issue is citing Christians as mentally ill. America is about freedom of speech and religion but having people relegated to the area of mentally ill takes away that freedom. How could people that are mentally ill be fit to have an opinion or the right to vote? The implication is there. I stated historically America is a Christian nation, that is proven by our history. We were founded on Christian principles. If someone had the belief that is a sign of mental illness, then they are in the realm of not having mental illness, I propose they look at living elsewhere, plain and simple. That is not hypocrisy, that is a suggestion. I have not attacked the person as being ignorant of history, I have stated they are rude and bigoted and not respectful and this is because of the rules of the forum not being followed. This is a reasonable deduction and your cry of hypocrisy is not founded. The person can disagree with those that believe that America is a Christian nation but they have not at this point. You are jumping the gun so to speak to just make a point and cry foul. If you think I am guilty of any wrong, then hit the alert buttons on my post. I certainly have on the two that denigrate Christianity. And I have also decried any attack on Muslims being tolerated so it is not just Christianity I am upset about. It is ruling a people who have a belief system should be considered mentally ill, in particular when this country was founded upon that particular system. Try being a citizen of Saudi Arabia and saying one day all Muslims will be considered mentally ill. You would get a lot worse than an individual poster saying if you don't like it, leave.

[MissB]

24. "if you don't like it, leave"

That statement isn't exactly within the lexicon of the Democratic Party.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy in your first post. I am quite surprised to see it again in your reply.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion do not equal "if you don't like it, leave".

[hamugbo]

30. ""if you don't like it, leave""

I am sorry, I did not read in the rules that I had to follow the imaginary lexicon of the Democratic Party.

No one, except my own posts have attacked as wrong the statements about Christians and cited the rules as being the reason. So, let us make the person who was offended the victim. Bravo.

Again, there is no hypocrisy. If the person wants a country that may one day call Christians mentally ill, then they can have that today. China is one such example and they would probably be very happy there. I am just concerned with this person's happiness for they are wanting to rewrite alot of American history to get to the point where mentally ill is the name stuck on a particular religious belief.

Freedom of speech and religion do not equal "if you don't like it, leave" but neither does it equal saying Christians should be considered mentally ill.

Play that spin on hypocrisy and look in the mirror on the issue. What about the hypocrisy of the original post? Democratic, Democracy, Fair to all? I voted for Gore and was saddened to see Bush take office. But if being a democrat means you can slam a religious belief system and not a soul raise one eyebrow about it, then maybe I need to find another party. For truly today's Democrats have become a party of hypocrisy.

[MissB]

31. If you're questioning your party affiliation based on a post

on a message board, then you may want to figure out what each party has to offer, exactly. I hope you are able to find one that does not offend your sensibilities.

How on earth can you discuss freedom of speech and freedom of religion and then in the next breath say "if you don't like it, leave"? How? Do you not see the hypocrisy in your post?

I don't give one tinker's darn about the OP's statement of Christians being mentally ill. This argument has been played over and over - and it does not belong in GD2004. Take issue with what he/she has to say, but suggesting that they leave the country if they don't agree with you is astoundingly unAmerican.

[hamugbo]

37. "If you're questioning your party affiliation based on a post"

Actually it is not just one post, but the idea of the post is something I have come across more and more and that is what is troubling me. It is as wrong and as dangerous a sentiment as the one I sometimes hear, God is a Republican. Hogwash. Same goes with a Christian can only be a Republican.

After the emotions die down, I can see what you are saying and honestly, I was wrong for saying that. I let the heat of the moment get the best of me. Thank you for the discussion but I still stand by my original argument. I do believe the original post is very un-American, using your phrase now.

[MissB]

25. And of course you do know

that not every American believes that America was founded on Christian principles. Some people find that suggestion downright offensive. Just sayin' ;)

[hamugbo]

34. "And of course you do know"

Fair enough, and that is true, but I certainly would not say that individual was suffering from mental illness. Christianity is not a sign of mental illness, the original poster has a right to think it and I have a right to disagree and I do most strongly. That is why I offered an historical observation showing how important the belief system is to this country. I am trying to get away from the emotional and often thoughtless rhetoric and I am probably not doing a very good job of it, but at least I am trying to provide some objective facts and not subjective emotional banter.

I am just really troubled that more individuals do not see how devastating an impact this would have. Citing any religion that is a genuine belief system as mentally ill is very dangerous. The implications are far reaching and very detrimental to society in general.

[MissB]

36. I think what you are widely missing

and what someone else has already pointed out is that the poster was painting a pretty broad brush of evangelical Christians, when the person very likely meant fundamentalist Christians.

It is really not useful to get so bent out of shape when one says something untoward about Christians on this board or in real life. Democrats are a diverse lot - that is part of the appeal of the party. It is more useful to gently point out that not all Christians are that way. Sometimes people need that reminder.

It works much better than the love it or leave America point.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

40. Take this to the "Evangelical Christian Forum"....

...while you're there, why don't you discuss how many innocent Muslim women and children have been killed In Afghanistan and Iraq based on the illegal orders given to our military by the illegally chosen Squatter-in-Chief?

While you're at it, bring up the subject of how we treated the Native Americans from the day the first white man landed on this continent.

Is this what makes you so proud of this so-called "Christian nation"?

I actually consider myself to be a Christian, but I guess I'm more of a New Testament guy as opposed to folks like yourself.

[hamugbo]

43. "Take this to the "Evangelical Christian Forum"

How many innocent Christians were slaughtered by the Muslims when they first came out of the desert and attacked under the leadership of the Prophet? Count that.

Native Americans, hmm. Desperate attempt, you must be fuming. I don't know how many. I really don't think the people who did that to the Native Americans were really Christians but if you are so convinced they were and since you want to label me as a non-New Testament guy who belongs to the Church of 'folks like yourself', then why don't you follow the Lord's advice. Go and sell everything you have, all property, your car(s), and give it to the poor. In this case, let it be retribution for what happened to the Native Americans, you can call a Reservation and donate all the money to them.

Don't label or attack my Christianity. The problem was the original post, if you don't like my posts, that is one thing, but don't start the snide remarks. It just shows you don't know how to debate and you know little in the way of engaging a conversation.

[Cha]

18. george gallup jr. is an

"evangelical Christian"..I read somewhere on the internet yesterday.

And I agree with you..some of the most educated minds in the country are seriously lacking in intelligence!

[AspenRose]

27. You're confusing evangelical with fundamentalist

"Some of the most close-minded people I know come from the evangelical Christian community who believe that their way is the only way. They seriously believe that all other religious beliefs, including ALL other Christian beliefs, doom their worshippers to Hell."

That's fundamentalist...evangelicals do not believe that and there's a thread in the Meeting Room addressing this if you want to take a look. ("Ask an Evangelical Dude" thread)

[Owlet]

2. Age Factor

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that most of the non-thinking types on both sides are in the 35-55 age bracket. Voters either side of that range seem to be able to process what they hear, but these 'middle aged' folks seem to filter things through a mental preset. I'm not saying that all people 35-55 are close-minded - far from it - but the majority of the 'don't-bother-me-with-the-facts-my-mind's-made-up crowd seems to fall in that age range.

[fishface]

3. Being in that age bracket, I'd take umbrage with your statement

but I believe the same could be said about all age brackets. The voters in the country just don't pay attention.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

4. Speaking of "non-thinking types", you just stole the show....

....what kind of mental preset filter are YOU using? I can't believe that anyone on this board would make such a broad generalization in regards to an age range. I'm not going to get ugly with you, but I'm VERY curious to see what some of my other age-group peers have to say about your post.

By the way, I'm 53, and I thought we as a country had learned our lessons about fighting this kind of limited action war from Vietnam. Evidently not, because here we are again.

IMHO, most of the people I know who fall into the 35-55 age-range are VERY critical of ANY events that lead this country into war. We've seen and heard too much in the way of lies used by our government to justify wars in foreign lands. The older one gets in that range, the more apt we are to question what the government tells us.

[Owlet]

6. ...and you evidently didn't read my post very well

to quote myself: "I'm not saying that all people 35-55 are close-minded - far from it - but the majority of the deon't-bother-me-with-the-facts-my-mind's-made-up crowd seems to fall in that age range."

I don't see how you could have read that as a blanket criticism of folks in that age group.

To quote you: "IMHO, most of the people I know who fall into the 35-55 age-range are VERY critical of ANY events that lead this country into war." I couldn't agree more.

Just try this for me: whenever some moronic remark is made by a either side, note the age of the person. Okay? :-)

[BlueMole]

8. It was a "blanket criticism"

45 years old. Forward thinker. The past is "history"

Kerry is our only hope.

:beer:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. I read it very well...evidently, you didn't state your position very well.

[ibegurpard]

9. I'm 36 and nothing anyone says will change my mind.

Bush is evil and he has to go.

[HuskerDem]

47. You think 35 is middle aged? Holy Crap!

Ok Jr. Sonny boy, time for your bath. You've got school tomorrow.

< sarcasm off >

[OnionPatch]

10. I read this guy yesterday

and I truly believe someone looked long and hard to find a Dem that's voting *.

[gardenista]

11. How long did they have to beat the "bushes" to find those losers? nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. Ya gotta love the last paragraph

"I thought Kerry presented himself very well last night," said Walenga, who voted for Bush in 2000. "Kerry was very presidential in his demeanor, I thought he was a class act.

"And I had already reached that conclusion before the people on TV told us what to think."

[girl gone mad]

16. Odds are..

this "Democrat" is a registered Republican.

[salin]

17. That does seem to be the "game" these days

wouldn't surprise me an iota.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

26. Yep

I've found 10 times out of 10 these "Democrats" are anything but Democrats.

[ClassWarrior]

22. So WHO is telling you these people are Dems??

Did you say the corporate whore media?? Okay, just checking.

23.

[progdonkey]

35. exactly

This is what I always hate about reading quotes from turncoats (on either side) and undecideds. Are we supposed to believe that these reporters demanded to see their voter registration? Is it more likely the reporter with the deadline just takes the quoted at his word?

I think it's pointless to read quotes from Republicans for Kerry or Democrats for Bush, or, the lowest of the low, Undecideds. What's to stop a Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) from claiming to be a Democrat and saying he'll be voting for Bush this time? The one exception are the high-profile individuals who are well-known as being Republicans or Democrats who switch parties (especially considering we get Generals and Admirals switching parties; they get Zill Miller... :) ).

[GreenInNC]

32. Democrats voting for Democrats

In 2000, millions of Democrats voted for Bush, 200,000 in Florida alone. As long as the party can keep their own voters in the fold, Kerry should have no problem winning