I'm a pastor, I'm not a prophet, so I would not predict how evangelicals are going to vote. I will tell you they're not monolith. That's a big myth. They're going to make up their minds based on the hierarchy of their values. For many evangelicals, of course, if they believe that life begins at conception, that's a deal breaker for a lot of people. If they think that life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have voted. They would call that a holocaust and for them it would like if I'm Jewish and a Holocaust denier is running for office. I don't care how right he is on everything else, it's a deal breaker for me. I'm not going to vote for a Holocaust denier...
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:22 PM, <LLP...@aol.com> wrote: > ** > *Logic quote from the "reverend" Rick Warren.*
> I'm a pastor, I'm not a prophet, so I would not predict how evangelicals > are going to vote. I will tell you they're not monolith. That's a big myth. > They're going to make up their minds based on the hierarchy of their values. > For many evangelicals, of course, if they believe that life begins at > conception, that's a deal breaker for a lot of people. If they think that > life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million > Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have > voted. They would call that a holocaust and for them it would like if I'm > Jewish and a Holocaust denier is running for office. I don't care how right > he is on everything else, it's a deal breaker for me. I'm not going to vote > for a Holocaust denier...
-- ------------------------------------------------ Trance Gemini Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:22 PM, <LLP...@aol.com> wrote:
> > **
> > *Logic quote from the "reverend" Rick Warren.*
> > I'm a pastor, I'm not a prophet, so I would not predict how evangelicals
> > are going to vote. I will tell you they're not monolith. That's a big myth.
> > They're going to make up their minds based on the hierarchy of their values.
> > For many evangelicals, of course, if they believe that life begins at
> > conception, that's a deal breaker for a lot of people. If they think that
> > life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million
> > Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have
> > voted. They would call that a holocaust and for them it would like if I'm
> > Jewish and a Holocaust denier is running for office. I don't care how right
> > he is on everything else, it's a deal breaker for me. I'm not going to vote
> > for a Holocaust denier...
> So people should go a head and vote for an insane moron as long as that
> insane moron is against abortion.
> That's theist "intelligence" and theist "moral values" in action for you.
> Lol.
It also means that they can vote from whoever they want from the two
options, after removing the second one.
But they are not monolith, that's just a myth. :-)
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> Trance Gemini
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> --Voltaire
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:22 PM, <LLP...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > **
> > > *Logic quote from the "reverend" Rick Warren.*
> > > I'm a pastor, I'm not a prophet, so I would not predict how evangelicals
> > > are going to vote.
Translation.... prophets work for Free, Im in it for the money! He
won't predict, but give him a second and he'll tell them ;)
> > > I will tell you they're not monolith. That's a big myth.
Like everything else they believe!
> > > They're going to make up their minds based on the hierarchy of their values.
Ah yes, the values given to you through the hierarchy of the church.
> > > For many evangelicals, of course, if they believe that life begins at
> > > conception,
And that the world is only 6000 yrs old, and that a talking snake
ruined it for everyone, etc., etc,
> > >If they think that life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million
> > > Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have
> > > voted.
More sheep he could have exploited for power and money!
> > > They would call that a holocaust and for them it would like if I'm
> > > Jewish and a Holocaust denier is running for office.
Invoke Nazi's, Commies, Islam, etc., any other evil boogiemen.
> > >I don't care how right he is on everything else, it's a deal breaker for me. I
> > > 'm not going to vote for a Holocaust denier...
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:22 PM, <LLP...@aol.com> wrote:
> > **
> > *Logic quote from the "reverend" Rick Warren.*
> > I'm a pastor, I'm not a prophet, so I would not predict how evangelicals
> > are going to vote. I will tell you they're not monolith. That's a big myth.
> > They're going to make up their minds based on the hierarchy of their values.
> > For many evangelicals, of course, if they believe that life begins at
> > conception, that's a deal breaker for a lot of people. If they think that
> > life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million
> > Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have
> > voted. They would call that a holocaust and for them it would like if I'm
> > Jewish and a Holocaust denier is running for office. I don't care how right
> > he is on everything else, it's a deal breaker for me. I'm not going to vote
> > for a Holocaust denier...
> So people should go a head and vote for an insane moron as long as that
> insane moron is against abortion.
> That's theist "intelligence" and theist "moral values" in action for you.
> Lol.
If a candidate claimed to support a policy -- either currently
implemented or to be implemented -- that you felt killed even
thousands of innocents unjustly, how bad would the other candidate
have to be before you'd vote for the first candidate? Or don't you
think "supports killing innocents" would be a deal breaker itself?
Seems to say more about your "intelligence" and "moral values" than
his, and it's an even harder road to get to all theists from that ...
On Aug 19, 7:05 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 1:59 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So people should go a head and vote for an insane moron as long as that
> > insane moron is against abortion.
> > That's theist "intelligence" and theist "moral values" in action for you.
> > Lol.
> It also means that they can vote from whoever they want from the two
> options, after removing the second one.
> But they are not monolith, that's just a myth. :-)
Do you think that if people care about environmental issues and say
that because of that one candidate is unacceptable because of their
absolutely deplorable record on the environment, that all people who
care about environmental issues agree on all or most unrelated issues?
> On Aug 19, 7:05 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 1:59 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So people should go a head and vote for an insane moron as long as that
> > > insane moron is against abortion.
> > > That's theist "intelligence" and theist "moral values" in action for you.
> > > Lol.
> > It also means that they can vote from whoever they want from the two
> > options, after removing the second one.
> > But they are not monolith, that's just a myth. :-)
> Do you think that if people care about environmental issues and say
> that because of that one candidate is unacceptable because of their
> absolutely deplorable record on the environment, that all people who
> care about environmental issues agree on all or most unrelated issues?
Of course.
The voter's priorities on a list of issues will influence his vote,
that's what it should do.
However, that only works if you set the priorities yourself.
If someone states that the top priority of the group you belong to is
a very specific issue, intentionally or not, he is causing a unified
vote of the group.
The only question is how many people actually listen to him.
> On Aug 19, 5:46 pm, Vaarsuvius <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 7:05 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 19, 1:59 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > So people should go a head and vote for an insane moron as long as that
> > > > insane moron is against abortion.
> > > > That's theist "intelligence" and theist "moral values" in action for you.
> > > > Lol.
> > > It also means that they can vote from whoever they want from the two
> > > options, after removing the second one.
> > > But they are not monolith, that's just a myth. :-)
> > Do you think that if people care about environmental issues and say
> > that because of that one candidate is unacceptable because of their
> > absolutely deplorable record on the environment, that all people who
> > care about environmental issues agree on all or most unrelated issues?
> Of course.
> The voter's priorities on a list of issues will influence his vote,
> that's what it should do.
I'm not sure you meant to say this here, since the "of course" would
seem to imply that you agree that these people would agree on
UNRELATED issues, which is absurd on the face of it and seems to
contradict what you say below. So I need some clarification.
> However, that only works if you set the priorities yourself.
> If someone states that the top priority of the group you belong to is
> a very specific issue, intentionally or not, he is causing a unified
> vote of the group.
> The only question is how many people actually listen to him.
And if the person is indeed an authority for that group, or can derive
the stance from the stated principles of that group, is that a
problem? Are you against any organized special interest group at
all? And, still, how does that show that the people in the group are
monolithic, which was your original claim?
> On Aug 19, 11:04 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 5:46 pm, Vaarsuvius <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > On Aug 19, 7:05 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 19, 1:59 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > So people should go a head and vote for an insane moron as long as that
> > > > > insane moron is against abortion.
> > > > > That's theist "intelligence" and theist "moral values" in action for you.
> > > > > Lol.
> > > > It also means that they can vote from whoever they want from the two
> > > > options, after removing the second one.
> > > > But they are not monolith, that's just a myth. :-)
> > > Do you think that if people care about environmental issues and say
> > > that because of that one candidate is unacceptable because of their
> > > absolutely deplorable record on the environment, that all people who
> > > care about environmental issues agree on all or most unrelated issues?
> > Of course.
> > The voter's priorities on a list of issues will influence his vote,
> > that's what it should do.
> I'm not sure you meant to say this here, since the "of course" would
> seem to imply that you agree that these people would agree on
> UNRELATED issues, which is absurd on the face of it and seems to
> contradict what you say below. So I need some clarification.
> > However, that only works if you set the priorities yourself.
> > If someone states that the top priority of the group you belong to is
> > a very specific issue, intentionally or not, he is causing a unified
> > vote of the group.
> > The only question is how many people actually listen to him.
> And if the person is indeed an authority for that group, or can derive
> the stance from the stated principles of that group, is that a
> problem? Are you against any organized special interest group at
> all? And, still, how does that show that the people in the group are
> monolithic, which was your original claim?
If a group has one issue in common, they will take into consideration
on the day they vote. Nothing wrong here, that's the natural thing for
a Democracy.
If a group has one issue in common, and a leader that they agree to
who says this one topic is of top priority, then the result is a
unified vote.
Good? Bad? It depends. But you can't both claim that your group isn't
monolithic AND that there is one issue that is crucial to them above
other issues.
> On Aug 19, 6:08 pm, Vaarsuvius <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 11:04 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 19, 5:46 pm, Vaarsuvius <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 19, 7:05 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 19, 1:59 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > So people should go a head and vote for an insane moron as long as that
> > > > > > insane moron is against abortion.
> > > > > > That's theist "intelligence" and theist "moral values" in action for you.
> > > > > > Lol.
> > > > > It also means that they can vote from whoever they want from the two
> > > > > options, after removing the second one.
> > > > > But they are not monolith, that's just a myth. :-)
> > > > Do you think that if people care about environmental issues and say
> > > > that because of that one candidate is unacceptable because of their
> > > > absolutely deplorable record on the environment, that all people who
> > > > care about environmental issues agree on all or most unrelated issues?
> > > Of course.
> > > The voter's priorities on a list of issues will influence his vote,
> > > that's what it should do.
> > I'm not sure you meant to say this here, since the "of course" would
> > seem to imply that you agree that these people would agree on
> > UNRELATED issues, which is absurd on the face of it and seems to
> > contradict what you say below. So I need some clarification.
> > > However, that only works if you set the priorities yourself.
> > > If someone states that the top priority of the group you belong to is
> > > a very specific issue, intentionally or not, he is causing a unified
> > > vote of the group.
> > > The only question is how many people actually listen to him.
> > And if the person is indeed an authority for that group, or can derive
> > the stance from the stated principles of that group, is that a
> > problem? Are you against any organized special interest group at
> > all? And, still, how does that show that the people in the group are
> > monolithic, which was your original claim?
> If a group has one issue in common, they will take into consideration
> on the day they vote. Nothing wrong here, that's the natural thing for
> a Democracy.
> If a group has one issue in common, and a leader that they agree to
> who says this one topic is of top priority, then the result is a
> unified vote.
> Good? Bad? It depends. But you can't both claim that your group isn't
> monolithic AND that there is one issue that is crucial to them above
> other issues.
The issue is critical for that one event, and impacts that one event.
What in the world did you mean when you said "monolithic"? For impact
one vote, that would apply to any defined group with a leader who they
all accept can influence. Even for environmental issues, Al Gore
could apply for Americans. But when people use "monolithic", they
tend to mean at all times, on all issues, in all votes or events. And
there is nothing in his quote or your argumentation that justifies
that statement in this case.
