Welcome to Gaia! ::

It's not that they don't know per se. It's that they refuse the believe that such an 'evil' religion could possibly be older than theres. No offence to you, I'm just being sarcastic to the uber bible-thumpers. Errg.

Yup, people like that bug me. One of my good friends is very Christian, her father is a pastor. I respect her religion and she respects mine, she my not agree with mine but she doesn't try to 'save my soul'.

My belief is that all positive religions are different paths the the same destination, all should be respected and none are 'right' or better than the others.

My belief is we're too damn stupid to know everything. So...we believe what we believe in, as long as we're good, what's the problem? Basically. I've got many thoughts on this.

Exactly. I have no problem with people talking about their religion, or telling me about it, I love learning and I think there are many things in the bible which are definitally awesome teachings and very positive.

The main difference between your religion and mine is I don't believe Jesus was the son of God. Which is mainly because I believe Spirit (aka 'God') is in everyone and everything, so we're all pieces of spirit and none are more important than the other.

uuuhhh sweatdrop sweatdrop not to soudn mean but wahts this got to do with bush lol prolly couild tie it in some how could someone do that then?

I really don't support Bush. How can you say he did exactly what he should have done after 9/11? He's spent more of your army on a wild goose chase than actually finding the man resposible for the attacks. At first the reason for invading Iraq was 'to find WMDs', which they never found. In fact, The UN inspectors did not find a hint of WMDs. Even if they DID possess WMDs, they were not an immenint threat. Osama is still on the loose and it seems Bush couldn't care less that the man responsible for the death of 3000 American people is running free. Now, Bush states the war on Iraq as 'liberating the Iraqi people'. ..... wait a minute ... that wasn't the reason he WENT INTO Iraq, so you can't justify the war saying, "we are doing the Iraqi people a favour."
And saying Kerry flip-flops, or doesn't stand for anything??? Hitler stood for something, he stood very strongly for something, would you vote HIM in? I really don't get it, I'm Canadian and it just seems everyday the American people become more and more like sheep.

First you are wrong, we didn't go in just for WMDs. Bush has said, even if there wasn't evidence of WMDs, he would have wanted to go in. Saddam was doing terrible things to his people. You may not consider us to be the police of the world, and we shouldn't be. But if someone is bullying people, and we can help, we should. And we did.

Also, there has been evidence of WMDs, just no actual weapons found. And, if you would read my earlier posts, I stated that this was a preemptive strike. Always was, always will be. We had to get in there before he has the weapons, because afterwards it's of little use: He can fire the bombs on us even if we get him in the end, and we lose thousands upon thousands of people who had no chance, not even an M-16 in their hands to use against their attackers. It is about liberating the people in Iraq. Not just about it, but still about it. It is also about keeping ourselves safe. It's the perfect blend: We are thinking of ourselves in getting Saddam before he can get us, and we are thinking of the Iraqi people in getting Saddam before he can do any more to them.

Second, we ARE STILL SEARCHING FOR OSAMA! People use the war in Iraq to say, "Well you are directing your efforts away from the guy who was the real problem on 9/11" as if Iraq has anything to do with it. When did Bush say, "Let's go into Iraq because Osama bombed our building"? Never. Not once. That has no direct link to it. Indirectly, it sparked our patriotic feelings, and caused a bunch of us to want to take out terrorists. We went into Afghanistan, did our thing, and sure Osama is still out there as far as we know. But as far as we know, he could be dead.

And as I said, and as anti-war people ignore, we are still looking for him. Just because we don't have our entire military force doing a line search across Afghanistan and Pakistan doesn't mean we aren't looking.

Thirdly: The thing is, that's right. Kerry doesn't stand for anything. He says that he believes that life starts at conception, and the fetus is human, and then he votes for abortion. He voted for the war in Iraq, and yet now he says we shouldn't.

I'm not saying, no one is saying, that we should vote for the strongest opinion. I'm saying that someone with no opinion is a weak leader. Americans are getting more and more like sheep: That's why Kerry has a chance in this election. The media says vote for Kerry, 'cuz Bush talks funny. The music industry says vote for Kerry because we can make you do it. Teachers tell their students, vote for Kerry because Bush is against our freedoms and is wasting time in Iraq.

Notice that no one said, "Vote for Kerry because Kerry is (insert here)." It's "Vote for Kerry because -Bush- is (insert here)."

And Hitler was a leader. He was good at leading, that's why he almost took over the known world. His strong opinion made it so he had something to go for, and people saw that. That doesn't mean he was a good person. Because most of his strong opinions were for bad things, he was a bad bad man. But because Bush's strong opinions are for good things, he's a good good man.

And because Kerry's opinion is whatever-the-public-wants-it-to-be-right-now-so-he-gets-into-office-it-can-just-change-when-the-opinions-of-the-people-change, Kerry is a very weak leader. In fact, he's a follower. A follower of the whims of the people. He will vote for whatever he thinks that the people are most for right now. If they want to obolish the army, good, so does he. If they want to open the borders and let mexicans try to take over Texas, good, so does he. If the people want abortion to be legal in all cases, up until the age of twenty-one, good so does he. Oh wait, now they want it to be made illegal? Good, so does he. Oh wait, now they want it legal again? It's a tie? What the hell is he supposed to do now?

Because a 'true' democracy doesn't work in the real world, at the government scale, Kerry would be an absolutely awful leader. The whims of the people change so much that a weak leader is very very bad. The reason we have a president is because the people can't lead themselves. The majority of the people are too stupid to take care of themselves. If they do we will descend into a pit of anarchy. So we need a strong president to grab the reins and steer us.

And that's why Kerry is bad, m'kay?

Like I said, the war and Bush v. Kerry get me all steamed up. sweatdrop I actually think that Bush is one of the best presidents we've ever had. Given that I haven't lived through many, and I don't read much history, I couldn't say, but I love Bush and what he does.

*Whistles* Shoo-bee! That's even bigger then I thought it was when I was typing it up. And I thought it was big!

I should save it somewhere and use it to apply for scholarships or something... ninja