I would also like to address Syd's statement that this election was about economics. I disagree. This election was about the promise of change. Southpark got it right. Obama won because he represented change from the Bush administration.
Numbers don't lie.
Coming out of the RNC in August, McCain had strong numbers. Obama had won a bitterly contested Democratic primary, and there was a lot of bad blood between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters. Obama barely had the support of his party, let alone the support of the country. This changed when the economy suddenly took a nosedive. After that, Obama pulled ahead and never lost that lead. When the economy tanked, 6 out of 10 voters polled said they considered the economy the most important issue in this election; only 1 out of 10 said Iraq was. Make no mistake, the economy destroyed McCain in this election. If that hadn't become such a big issue, he could have energized his Christian base with the abortion issue, and won over independents with national security and attacks on Obama's healthcare plan. But in times of economic crisis, the ruling party always loses; the 1932, 1980, and 1992 elections are proof of this.
Ugh, this thread has gone awry. My bad for derailing it. I only wanted to say that Religion should be free of Government. Forget everything else I said. It's just too bad these Catholic folks won't get their tasty wafer and wine on Sunday. They'd better head over to the Lutheran church to get their fix....
In socialism, the greatest sin is success. If you are successful, you will be systematically punished for making it over the high hump of the bell curve and into the realm of the exceptional. You will be taxed into oblivion and denied the luxuries you have earned so that some high school dropout can have a government-sponsored condo.
You're going to love 2081:
Based on Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron," 2081 is set in a future world where people are handicapped into becoming each other's equals: Athletes have to wear weights, beautiful people wear masks, everyone is equal and being exceptional is unacceptable. The Handicapper General runs the show in the future doling out handicaps where he sees fit, until someone decides that enough is enough and that the extraordinary shouldn't be hid behind chains, weights, posts or masks.
GPFontaine
Joined: Dec 06 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 11244
Posted:
Nov 14 2008 05:32 pm
Tyop wrote:
Syd Lexia wrote:
In socialism, the greatest sin is success. If you are successful, you will be systematically punished for making it over the high hump of the bell curve and into the realm of the exceptional. You will be taxed into oblivion and denied the luxuries you have earned so that some high school dropout can have a government-sponsored condo.
You're going to love 2081:
Based on Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron," 2081 is set in a future world where people are handicapped into becoming each other's equals: Athletes have to wear weights, beautiful people wear masks, everyone is equal and being exceptional is unacceptable. The Handicapper General runs the show in the future doling out handicaps where he sees fit, until someone decides that enough is enough and that the extraordinary shouldn't be hid behind chains, weights, posts or masks.
Wouldn't the weights make them stronger?
Lottel
Title: of the Eternal BWOG
Joined: Sep 02 2008
Posts: 1123
Posted:
Nov 14 2008 05:37 pm
Not if the weights are kryptonite. (or slow kryptonite, seeing as they are normal people)
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 24887
Posted:
Nov 14 2008 06:06 pm
I am quite familiar with Vonnegut and his short story "Harrison Bergeron". We discussed it at great length in the Philosophy of Law class I took in college. I also referenced it, albeit for no real reason, here:
Heh, didn't look at this topic before because I assumed it was talking about the hosting of images online and such.
Anyway, I can understand why the church sometimes denies the Eucharist to Catholic Democrats. They are high profile laymen who can influence legislation on abortion and can influence others concerning the issue. But to punish the congregation as a whole is a bit silly. Unfortunately for the church, the majority of Catholics don't vote only on the issue of abortion. Like Syd said, the economy was the deciding factor in this election.
Tyop wrote:
You're going to love 2081:
Based on Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron," 2081 is set in a future world where people are handicapped into becoming each other's equals: Athletes have to wear weights, beautiful people wear masks, everyone is equal and being exceptional is unacceptable. The Handicapper General runs the show in the future doling out handicaps where he sees fit, until someone decides that enough is enough and that the extraordinary shouldn't be hid behind chains, weights, posts or masks.
Robert Bork touched upon this in his book "Sliding towards Gomorrah". He argued that conservatives advocate policies that advance liberty, while liberals advocate policies that advance equality. Unfortunately for liberals people aren't born with the same level of intellectual prowess, physical prowess, etc., so you can't and shouldn't compensate for that. This liberal ideology has resulted in women in physical demanding branches of the military which puts them and the rest of the unit in danger; it's logical conclusion would result in smart people wearing helmets to equalize their intelligence to compensate for their "unfair" advantage, like in Vonnegut's short story.
Sorry if that was a digression.
TheRoboSleuth
Title: Sleuth Mark IV
Joined: Aug 08 2006
Location: The Gritty Future
Posts: 2739
Posted:
Nov 14 2008 10:53 pm
I am so not touching this topic again.
Greg the White
Joined: Apr 09 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3112
Posted:
Nov 14 2008 11:23 pm
"Thus did a handful of rapacious citizens come to control all that was worth controlling in America. Thus was the savage and stupid and entirely inappropriate and unnecessary and humorless American class system created. Honest, industrious, peaceful citizens were classed as bloodsuckers, if they asked to be paid a living wage. And they saw that praise was reserved henceforth for those who devised means of getting paid enormously for committing crimes against which no laws had been passed. Thus the American dream turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with gas, went bang in the noonday sun.
"E pluribus unum is surely an ironic motto to inscribe on the currency of this Utopia gone bust, for every grotesquely rich American represents property, privileges, and pleasures that have been denied the many. An even more instructive motto, in the light of history made by the Noah Rosewaters, might be: Grab much too much, or you'll get nothing at all."
I think you guys missed something on Vonnegut's views
So here's to you Mrs. Robinson. People love you more- oh, nevermind.
Char Aznable
Title: Char Classic™
Joined: Jul 24 2006
Location: Robot Boombox HQ
Posts: 7542
Posted:
Nov 14 2008 11:39 pm
I thought the thread was about that when I saw the title, said "no way". Then I clicked on it. That is extremely fucked up.
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 24887
Posted:
Nov 15 2008 01:11 am
Cattivo wrote:
This liberal ideology has resulted in women in physical demanding branches of the military which puts them and the rest of the unit in danger
I disagree with this. Women are easily capable of most of the physical demands of the military, and those who are inclined to join the military are generally focused enough to compensate for any physical inequities they may have. The only time a problem arises is when they are not held to reasonably comparable training standards and given a free pass in the name of diversity.
Well, if I remember correctly, Bork argues that females are naturally weaker than males, if a women is wounded in a battlefield male soldiers might feel even more inclined to try to save them when it might be strategically unwise to do so, and they are weaker when captured and are thus more susceptible to torture.
Vonnegut is all over the map politically, but yes, he is mostly liberal. You really see it in his later writings that read more like memoirs than novels.
Lady_Satine
Title: Head of Lexian R&D
Joined: Oct 15 2005
Location: Metro area, Georgia
Posts: 7287
Posted:
Nov 15 2008 02:50 am
Seeing that clip for 2081 (when's it coming out btw?) kinda reminded me of Frequency albeit emotion was banned instead of exceptionality.
"Life is a waste of time. Time is a waste of life. Get wasted all the time, and you'll have the time of your life!"
Tyop
Title: Grammar Nazi
Joined: May 04 2008
Location: Sauerkrautland
Posts: 1414
Posted:
Nov 15 2008 08:55 am
lordsathien wrote:
Seeing that clip for 2081 (when's it coming out btw?)
It's just a 25 minute movie, so it's uncertain if we will ever see it in theaters. It could premiere at Sundance in January next year and then run the festival circuit for a few months. Provided that it generates enough buzz it might get a limited release. But we're more likely to see it on DVD than on the big screen. Second half of 2009 would be my guess.
mjl1783
Joined: Aug 13 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 131
Posted:
Nov 15 2008 11:25 am
Dammit, I hate getting to threads late, after they're all digress-y. I'll just add a few points.
1.) The notion that one's religion naturally informs one's personal politics simply does not hold up to scrutiny. The Bible has a hell of a lot more to say about following the teachings of false prophets than it does about abortion, but we don't see too many Christians wanting to outlaw Mormonism and Islam, do we? Maybe we should enforce the death penalty on people who are selfish with their money. Don't think God would do the same thing? Read the book of Acts. Religious believers pick and choose which parts of their faith they want to see represented in the law.
I submit to you that it is the other way around; that it is one's personal politics that inform one's religious beliefs. Just look at all the different sects and doctrinal hair splitting within Christianity. If you want Jesus to be permissive and liberal, you'll find a scriptural basis for that position. If you want him to be otherwise, there's plenty in the Bible to support that conclusion.
2.) I wonder if this preacher will continue to pass the collection plate to the Democrats in his congregation. If you're going to use the pulpit for political purposes, at least go all the way. If the host is reserved only for ideologically pure members, let those members keep the lights and heat turned on.
Cattivo
Joined: Apr 14 2006
Location: Lake Michigan
Posts: 3332
Posted:
Nov 17 2008 11:44 am
mjl1783 wrote:
Religious believers pick and choose which parts of their faith they want to see represented in the law.
Very true. In terms of following the rules themselves, the Catholic church calls those people "cafeteria Catholics", and I'm very guilty of it myself. Although, most of my reasoning is for the rules that have been made by the Vatican bureaucracy instead of from the bible.
mjl1783 wrote:
If you want Jesus to be permissive and liberal, you'll find a scriptural basis for that position. If you want him to be otherwise, there's plenty in the Bible to support that conclusion.
Another good point; I'm guilty of this as well. I think this holds true for a lot of different things.
mjl1783 wrote:
I wonder if this preacher will continue to pass the collection plate to the Democrats in his congregation.
