View Poll Results: Are you for or against vote ID to vote?

Voters
94. You may not vote on this poll
  • For

    60 63.83%
  • againt

    34 36.17%
Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021
Results 201 to 209 of 209

Thread: Are you for or against vote ID to vote?

  1. #201
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,050

    Re: Are you for or against vote ID to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Nah. Jesus went to lengths to be deliberately apolitical; probably so that in the future, people wouldn't try to use him for affirmation of their own or the degradation of another.
    You should let the Tea Party know that Jesus is apolitical because I really dont think that they agree with you. They seem to think that jesus/god is only on their side.

    It’s America, Christianity and Freedom not Internationalism :: TeaParty.org

  2. #202
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,672

    Re: Are you for or against vote ID to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    and the point I am trying to bring home to you is that

    A) this is a hyperbolic and ridiculous comparison of two things that are not of the same type. you could make the exact same comparison (that both wish to put their ideology into governance) between Democrats and Nazis.

    and

    B) you make yourself look like a fool by defending it. you are smarter and better than this, cap.


    And I think you have shown yourself to look like a fool by not recognizing and even denying the ideological similarities. Looks like we are at an impasse. Let's go get a beer. Nothing's cooler than two fools slamming down a pitcher of bubbly.

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  3. #203
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Are you for or against vote ID to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    You should let the Tea Party know that Jesus is apolitical because I really dont think that they agree with you. They seem to think that jesus/god is only on their side.
    most folks tend to. however here I suspect you are confusing a celebration with the Christian values of the founding with either an advocation of theocracy or a claim of Divine Mandate.


    as for me, I prefer Abraham Lincolns' reversal of the matter: "The question is not whether God is on our side, but whether we are on His."

  4. #204
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Are you for or against vote ID to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    And I think you have shown yourself to look like a fool by not recognizing and even denying the ideological similarities.
    I went one by one and demonstrated to you that that list was based in equal parts on ignorance of the Taliban as it was on ignorance of the Tea Party.

    Demonization of education? really? The word "Taliban" means "the students". The party emanates from the school system.
    Looks like we are at an impasse. Let's go get a beer. Nothing's cooler than two fools slamming down a pitcher of bubbly.
    Dude you just accused me of being the kind of guy who cuts up little children and sends them back piece by piece to their parents. No thanks.

  5. #205
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,050

    Re: Are you for or against vote ID to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    most folks tend to. however here I suspect you are confusing a celebration with the Christian values of the founding with either an advocation of theocracy or a claim of Divine Mandate.


    as for me, I prefer Abraham Lincolns' reversal of the matter: "The question is not whether God is on our side, but whether we are on His."
    Lets not kid ourselves there are many Tea Partiers that think that Christian morals must be mandated by the Government or the Government is invalid and doomed to fail. And I have heard many times now from Christian's that assert that there are more Christian's than non-Christians in America and that the majority is all that matters and everyone else should shut up or get out.


    The problem is that the Tea Party is Christian libertarianism not just libertarianism. Christian libertarianism is the view that mature individuals are permitted maximum freedom under God's law. In effect the Tea Party is fighting for a theology. You cannot enact a gods law without a theological approach period. So in reality gods law cannot be used as a bases of our laws since it would clearly go against the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    If you make any law based on Gods law you have gone against the Constitution.

  6. #206
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Are you for or against vote ID to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Lets not kid ourselves there are many Tea Partiers that think that Christian morals must be mandated by the Government or the Government is invalid and doomed to fail.
    You are oversimplifying. They want the law to reflect Christian values, and they want the American body politic to continue to honor God, which is very different from the government imposing Christian morals. In fact, in as much as the law currently imposes Christian morals, they are generally in favor of trimming it back.

    Consider, for example, the extent to which the government currently imposes the Christian virtue of charity.

    And I have heard many times now from Christian's that assert that there are more Christian's than non-Christians in America and that the majority is all that matters and everyone else should shut up or get out.
    Then you have heard fools - we live in a Constitutional republic, not a democracy.

    The problem is that the Tea Party is Christian libertarianism not just libertarianism. Christian libertarianism is the view that mature individuals are permitted maximum freedom under God's law. In effect the Tea Party is fighting for a theology. You cannot enact a gods law without a theological approach period. So in reality gods law cannot be used as a bases of our laws since it would clearly go against the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
    This claim is incorrect - legislators can have any personal motivation that they like when voting for or against a law, and the people may have the same when voting for or against referendum. Freedom of Religion is not Freedom from Religion, as the Founders (who used Congress to declare days of fasting and prayer) well knew.

    If you make any law based on Gods law you have gone against the Constitution.
    That is incorrect. Lots of decisions have been made based upon what was felt to be the values of Christianity. Having a social safety net, for example. The Civil Rights Movement was explicitly Church-organized and led. Prohibition measures. The Spanish-American War. Freeing the Slaves. etc.

  7. #207
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,050

    Re: Are you for or against vote ID to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    You are oversimplifying. They want the law to reflect Christian values, and they want the American body politic to continue to honor God, which is very different from the government imposing Christian morals. In fact, in as much as the law currently imposes Christian morals, they are generally in favor of trimming it back.

    Consider, for example, the extent to which the government currently imposes the Christian virtue of charity.
    Yes thats the official position but again lets not kid ourselves that that position in reality is what is being peddled by the Tea Party. Tea Party Fort Lauderdale: The Law of God and Public Policy - What is the purpose of law?
    And dont be silly charity is not solely a Christian virtue.



    Then you have heard fools - we live in a Constitutional republic, not a democracy.
    Oh no not the asinine argument about democracy again. Lol I did not argue for anything I said that most Christians feel that since they are the majority that everyone else should shut up and get out of their way.



    This claim is incorrect - legislators can have any personal motivation that they like when voting for or against a law, and the people may have the same when voting for or against referendum. Freedom of Religion is not Freedom from Religion, as the Founders (who used Congress to declare days of fasting and prayer) well knew
    . Nope did not say anything near "Freedom from Religion". Not even sure why you must share that tired parroted slogan here.



    That is incorrect. Lots of decisions have been made based upon what was felt to be the values of Christianity. Having a social safety net, for example. The Civil Rights Movement was explicitly Church-organized and led. Prohibition measures. The Spanish-American War. Freeing the Slaves. etc.
    I am not saying anything about personal views. Logically of course no one could dictate what someone else thinks. I am saying that you base laws on religious ideals then it becomes a legal issue. For example same sex marriage or abortion are both opposed to not one any actual legal might but by religious might alone. Hence why it is so difficult for anyone to overturn the existing abortion laws or new same sex marriage laws.


    Speaking of over simplifying: Prohibition measures. The Spanish-American War. Freeing the Slaves. Each of these issues were much more involved than just religious inspired endeavors. Or if you insist they were all illegal actions. The Civil Rights movement is much more complicated than just being a religious act. In fact sooner or later without any religious influence it was bound to happen. You just cannot treat sections of Americans like **** and not disrespect the Constitution.

    Let me clue you in I am not on the Left at all. And I am friends with many people on the Right. Having these friends on Facebook unfortunately has exposed me to a great deal of Tea Party spam. Perhaps you can believe that the Tea Party is not a cover for a push for a theology but hey I am not blind. Should I link photos and articles that prove my point beyond any reasonable doubt? DO you want to hear Tea Party leader espousing Christianity as a requirement for all Americans?

    McNaughton Fine Art

  8. #208
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Are you for or against vote ID to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Yes thats the official position but again lets not kid ourselves that that position in reality is what is being peddled by the Tea Party.
    oh yes, deep down in their secret heart of hearts they think this.

    that's unfalsifiable conspiracy-theory logic.

    While Social Conservatism certainly has heavy overlap with the Tea Party, the two are in no way synonymous.

    ...Support for the Tea Party is not synonymous with support for the religious right. An August 2010 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that nearly half of Tea Party supporters (46%) had not heard of or did not have an opinion about "the conservative Christian movement sometimes known as the religious right"; 42% said they agree with the conservative Christian movement and roughly one-in-ten (11%) said they disagree.3 More generally, the August poll found greater familiarity with and support for the Tea Party movement (86% of registered voters had heard at least a little about it at the time and 27% expressed agreement with it) than for the conservative Christian movement (64% had heard of it and 16% expressed support for it)....

    Roughly half of Tea Party backers said their religious beliefs are the most important influence on their views of gay marriage (53%) and abortion (46%).... By contrast, 37% of registered voters overall cited their religious beliefs as the most important influence on their views of same-sex marriage and 28% cited religion as the primary influence on their views of abortion...
    half. vice a third for the regular populace. Tea Party Backers have a differential of all of 16-18% off of registered voters, and from that you are creating a whole.

    And dont be silly charity is not solely a Christian virtue.
    no but it is a Christian one, and that is the predominant one that informed that policy debate. There weren't exactly a lot of references to the zakat.

    Oh no not the asinine argument about democracy again. Lol I did not argue for anything I said that most Christians feel that since they are the majority that everyone else should shut up and get out of their way.
    Then I think you should provide A) some support for that rather ridiculous claim and B) some explanation of how the simple-majority-rules concept you have outlined is not democracy.

    Nope did not say anything near "Freedom from Religion".
    No but that is what you described.

    I am not saying anything about personal views
    On the contrary, that is precisely what you are doing. Specifically you are saying that someone's religious views or morals should not inform their political decision-making.

    I am saying that you base laws on religious ideals then it becomes a legal issue.
    1. no it's not and
    2. when you base your support/vote for or against a law on your values ideals and morals, then those are the personal views you are bringing to bear.

    However, color me curious. Both the Abolition and Civil Rights movements were explicitly religious in nature. Are you arguing that they are illegitimate?

    For example same sex marriage or abortion are both opposed to not one any actual legal might but by religious might alone.
    On the contrary, in our system of government the states have rights, among them is the right to largely define whom they shall issue marriage licenses to, how they shall handle divorce, and under what conditions.

    Hence why it is so difficult for anyone to overturn the existing abortion laws or new same sex marriage laws.
    It is difficult for someone to overturn our idiotic abortion laws because of a badly written poor decision by the supreme court four decades ago. When the same-sex movement decides to start taking their case to the people (who are sovereign) they will see much better results than when they attempt to ride roughshod over them.

    Speaking of over simplifying: Prohibition measures. The Spanish-American War. Freeing the Slaves. Each of these issues were much more involved than just religious inspired endeavors
    Actually each one of those - most especially prohibition and abolition - were explicitly driven by religion. The faith of the voters and the legislators in each of those instances was powerful in informing their votes, and in the case of those particular two, overwhelmingly so.

    Or if you insist they were all illegal actions.

    The Civil Rights movement is much more complicated than just being a religious act. In fact sooner or later without any religious influence it was bound to happen. You just cannot treat sections of Americans like **** and not disrespect the Constitution.
    I like it. As soon as your claim that religion should not inform political movements is demonstrated to produce results anathema to modern America, you declare it "complicated" and therefore you are immune from criticism.


    Easy enough. Just because there is alot of religion in the Tea Party doesn't make it "just a religiously inspired endeavour". The Tea Party is "much more complicated than just being a religious act."


    The Tea Party is significantly less religious in nature than the Civil Rights or the Abolition movement.



    Let me clue you in I am not on the Left at all. And I am friends with many people on the Right. Having these friends on Facebook unfortunately has exposed me to a great deal of Tea Party spam. Perhaps you can believe that the Tea Party is not a cover for a push for a theology but hey I am not blind.
    no, it seems in fact you are more of the logical fallacy variety - you have looked at a sub-portion and extrapolated to the whole without supporting evidence.

    Should I link photos and articles that prove my point beyond any reasonable doubt? DO you want to hear Tea Party leader espousing Christianity as a requirement for all Americans?
    i'm sure you could find some. would you like me to post video of DNC delegates supporting banning corporate profit as proof that the Democrat Party's secret goal is socialism?

  9. #209
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,050

    Re: Are you for or against vote ID to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    oh yes, deep down in their secret heart of hearts they think this.

    that's unfalsifiable conspiracy-theory logic.

    While Social Conservatism certainly has heavy overlap with the Tea Party, the two are in no way synonymous.
    Lol no I am not using conspiracy theorist logic. Do you not know that the Tea Party is a more radical extension of Conservatism. Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Or if you prefer: Tea Party Movement - Conservapedia Conservepedia lists the Tea Party as Conservatism.

    Even better here is what a religious research group found: Conventional Wisdom: The Tea Party movement is a distinct from previous conservative movements like the Christian Right.

    Findings: Nearly half (47%) of Americans who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement also consider themselves part of the Christian conservative movement. Among the more than 8-in-10 (81%) who idnetify as Christian within the Tea Party movement, Neraly 6-in10 (57%) also consider themselves part of the Christian conservative movement.
    http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-co...ues-Survey.pdf

    half. vice a third for the regular populace. Tea Party Backers have a differential of all of 16-18% off of registered voters, and from that you are creating a whole.
    Spin things much? 69% of registered voters who agreed with the religious right also said they agreed with the Tea Party. It hardly matters since 81% of those in the Tea Party identify themselves as Christian's. http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-co...ues-Survey.pdf

    Of course though I did not assert that the Christian Right is the Tea Party. The Tea Party is the Libertarians that were in the Christian Right and some flip flop back and forth, while some are not religious but just the militia type that needed a political party to join that was close enough.

    no but it is a Christian one, and that is the predominant one that informed that policy debate. There weren't exactly a lot of references to the zakat.
    Zakat? WTF does Zakat have to do with the fact that religion is not the sole purpose behind charity? I am an Atheist yet I am charitable at times just like any other human being I do not need some lame as church to tell me to be kind to my neighbor.

    Ok what groups who are not Christian are in the Tea Party?

    Then I think you should provide A) some support for that rather ridiculous claim and B) some explanation of how the simple-majority-rules concept you have outlined is not democracy.
    Seriously I am not the one making the claim so I am not the one that needs to explain their views. And I suggest going having a look around in the Religious Discussions board.

    No but that is what you described.
    I was saying that I didnt mention the term freedom from religion I said that I did not even mention or imply the concept. Are you calling me a liar?




    On the contrary, that is precisely what you are doing. Specifically you are saying that someone's religious views or morals should not inform their political decision-making.
    No that is the argument that you are trying to argue against but it is not my argument.


    1
    . no it's not and
    2. when you base your support/vote for or against a law on your values ideals and morals, then those are the personal views you are bringing to bear.

    However, color me curious. Both the Abolition and Civil Rights movements were explicitly religious in nature. Are you arguing that they are illegitimate?
    Stop trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say.

    If a law is enacted that requires everyone to get their sons circumcised because of the laws writers were Jews and not because of any medical reasons. That law was religious in nature.
    If a circumcision law was enacted based on medical findings (for or against circumcision) then that was not a religious law.

    True that personal belief have some bearing on laws but in order to enact those laws they must pass legal tests. A law must not be passed that is entirely based on personal views and lacking any real legal backing. Again our Government does not work on majority rule which is where personal opinion comes in. A Representative of the people may be forced by the people to do things that they personally do not want to do because they are not dictators but Representatives of the people. Take Obama for example what do you believe he would do if he could work solely off of his personal opinions? And why can he not work solely off of his personal opinions?

    On the contrary, in our system of government the states have rights, among them is the right to largely define whom they shall issue marriage licenses to, how they shall handle divorce, and under what conditions.
    Cleaver choice of words there, by saying "On the contrary" you believed that you can assign your strawman argument onto my argument. I fully support state rights. And yes the legal system is involved in both of those topics. Constitutionally though same sex marriage and abortion are legal. So the argument comes back to a religious movement trying to impose on the Constitution religious views. The Constitution is entirely an legal document not governed by personal opinion. Not saying that personal opinions are dicouraged but if you are going to challenge the Constitution you better have a legal basis not just personal opinions.



    It is difficult for someone to overturn our idiotic abortion laws because of a badly written poor decision by the supreme court four decades ago. When the same-sex movement decides to start taking their case to the people (who are sovereign) they will see much better results than when they attempt to ride roughshod over them.
    Thank you for your opinion.



    Actually each one of those - most especially prohibition and abolition - were explicitly driven by religion. The faith of the voters and the legislators in each of those instances was powerful in informing their votes, and in the case of those particular two, overwhelmingly so.
    Yes things are driven in many cases by religion but they must pass the legal tests they are not special. American Government has made mistakes but the framers were smart enough to create a system that is resilient enough to take such screw ups in stride. Of course that takes a lot of work like all good things. Abolishing the Prohibition Amendment was was fixing an error caused by allowing personal opinion to supersede the Constitution. Prohibition of alcohol needed an Constitutional Amendment because without changing the Constitution banning alcohol was unconstitutional. In fact the Eighteenth Amendment still exists but has no power since the Twenty-first Amendment makes it powerless. Personally I find the Eighteenth Amendment a perfect example of why personal opinions should not rule this country and leave that power to the Constitution. I also see prohibition as a warning sign of what can happen when religion gets too much power in our Government.





    I like it. As soon as your claim that religion should not inform political movements is demonstrated to produce results anathema to modern America, you declare it "complicated" and therefore you are immune from criticism.

    Easy enough. Just because there is alot of religion in the Tea Party doesn't make it "just a religiously inspired endeavour". The Tea Party is "much more complicated than just being a religious act."


    The Tea Party is significantly less religious in nature than the Civil Rights or the Abolition movement.
    I am a debater I encourage criticism but only on my actual arguments not strawman arguments. Case in point your personal opinions are your own opinions of course they steer us in our decision making. But you have to take in account that other people have different opinions especially if you are a Representative of the people. If you want to stay in office you will not make heavily personally biased decisions despite what the people that you represent want. Those that do ignore the people find themselves not serving the people long.

    About us :: TeaParty.org The Tea Party includes those who possess a strong belief in the foundational Judeo-Christian values embedded in our great founding documents.

    [...]

    We stand by the Constitution as inherently conservative. We serve as a beacon to the masses that have lost their way, a light illuminating the path to the original intentions of our Founding Fathers.

    [...]

    We must raise a choir of voices declaring that America must stand on the values that made us great. Only then will the politically blind see and deaf hear!
    This part sounds like some of the conspiracy theorist logic that you were talking about.






    no, it seems in fact you are more of the logical fallacy variety - you have looked at a sub-portion and extrapolated to the whole without supporting evidence.
    You sound just like the occupiers crying that they are not all communists/anarchists, we are just concentrating on a minority in the movement. Guess what that weak argument did not work for them and it hasnt worked for the Tea Party either. lol I guess you guys have more in common than I thought?



    i'm sure you could find some. would you like me to post video of DNC delegates supporting banning corporate profit as proof that the Democrat Party's secret goal is socialism?
    Please post those videos since I do not like the DNC either. Though it makes me wonder why you should mention the Democrat parties exploits to a an Independent as if I would care? Did you not read where I asserted unconditionally that I was not on the Left nor even leaning Left? But I guess I should not be surprised that you would not be able to do anything but assume that if someone does not agree with you that they should obviously be your traditional enemy. Guess what I am very anti-Socialist/Communist etc. Just ask some of your Socialist playmates :P

    Im not sure why you are denying the obvious about religion and the Tea Party, frankly I do not care. But its a little insulting to have you trying to pull the wool over my eyes about something that is actually out in the open for all to see (just like the occupy movement and Communism/Anarchism). You can try and deny it all you want by all it does is discredit your movement when you deny something so damn obvious that everyone but you knows it. it really makes no sense to try and tell someone that hey despite the overwhelming evidence I personally assert the opposite of reality. You can try to ignore voting trends that show that Tea Party voters want highly religious figures to vote for all you want but it wont fool anyone.
    Christianity Today Politics: Tea Party and Christian Conservatives: Similar but Not the Same “The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government,” Campbell and Putnam concluded.





    So with that said I will wait to enjoy the anti DNC vids and for you to keep marginalizing yourself.
    Last edited by FreedomFromAll; 09-10-12 at 01:07 PM.

Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •