| Can YOU campaign better than the US Presidents? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 20 2013, 09:58 PM (2,012 Views) | |
| Petar | Jul 24 2013, 11:56 PM Post #51 |
![]()
The General
|
Actually, I'd say there is. There is an argument that a Church marriage is sanctioned by God, while a state marriage/civil union isn't because it was not made before God or his representative, but the representative of the state. Edited by Petar, Jul 24 2013, 11:56 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Doctor_Strangelove | Jul 24 2013, 11:57 PM Post #52 |
|
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
|
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 10:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jul 24 2013, 11:58 PM Post #53 |
|
Again, it all just comes down to the purpose and desired ends of whatever you want to call the things. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jul 25 2013, 12:01 AM Post #54 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Well, there is, Petar, and there isn't. Someone pointed out to me recently that there is not a single example in the Bible of marriages being conducted by priests. I certainly can't think of any from the New Testament. It was purely a civil matter. At the same time, obviously religious people see in it a different meaning. Basically, I think we're talking about two different things. One has to do with civil rights, like being able to visit somebody in the hospital. (By the way, am I the only one who thinks those hospital rules and others like them are stupid anyway?) Then there is another issue, which is, what we want to sanction as a society. Obviously, if you want to sanction homosexuality, then any kind of equality, regardless of what you call it, is what you will want. You might say that equality is the problem. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jul 25 2013, 12:04 AM Post #55 |
|
Thats the thing, technically we could have no state-recognized unions of any sort and just have marriage be entirely a church thing, but I am not certain that would satisfy the homosexual lobby. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jul 25 2013, 12:10 AM Post #56 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Judging from the number of people who don't like churches that exclude homosexuals, I'd say not, Matt. It might satisfy some, but not all. Frankly, we're forgetting one thing. There are homosexuals (and heterosexuals for that matter) who believe the whole point of the sexual revolution was the destruction of marriage, which they regard as repressive and outmoded. And that is not some right-wing fringe mischaracterization. I've read academic articles by them. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jul 25 2013, 12:12 AM Post #57 |
|
It is something I have come across as well, and I think that this is why Christians get so defensive, simply because its position in society has been under assault in society (some would argue that this is a good thing, others not) and the entire gay marriage agenda seems like just another veiled attempt to push it to the fringes. If that is good or not is a different argument, however, but I do think it is something to bear in mind. |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jul 25 2013, 12:12 AM Post #58 |
![]()
The General
|
There is also not a single mention of marriage being strictly between a single man and a single woman. In the Bible, we can also find polygamous marriages, and in the Old Testament, there was a part which said that a rape victim was bound to marry her assailant. Bible, as a whole, should not be followed word by word. And there probably wasn't a debate like this in the age of Old and New Testament, which is why there probably isn't a distinction between church and civil marriages.
Edited by Petar, Jul 25 2013, 12:14 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Lewington | Jul 25 2013, 12:14 AM Post #59 |
|
The problem that irks me most about the homosexuality debate is that anti-homosexual is now synonymous with homophobic. At some point in the last little while it seems that the whole window has shifted from "If you are against homosexuality you are entitled to your beliefs but keep them to yourself" to "If you are against homosexuality you are a terrible human being". In my experience in every day life anyways. At the end of the day it's an issue that the religious are going to have to learn to simply ignore. It'll still be a bad thing, some liberal Protestant denominations will pander to their congregations and legitimise it, but it won't remain a vocal issue. It'll be like divorce itself; it can't be condoned by the church but you can't damn people for having one. This is a very unsatisfactory answer for people like Matthew or even myself, but reality is reality. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jul 25 2013, 12:16 AM Post #60 |
|
No, but considering that marriage itself is taken back to the way God set it up in the garden, the way God condemned polyamorous marriages, specifically in regards to the rules He set in place for the kings of Israel, and his view of homosexuality, I don't think it is wrong to draw certain principles from Scripture vis a vis the entire question of what Chrisitian marriage should look like. Edit: And Lew, yes, it has become very dangerous to hold a different opinion on the matter. So much for tolerance of diversity. I really don't see where the "phobic" came from, as I am not really afraid of homosexuals. I may dislike what those who push for homosexual marriage desire, but I certainly am not afraid of them. At any rate, it is not so much irrational anymore, considering how thinking different from the "consensus" can have your career ruined, your livliehood (and sometimes your children) taken away, and your life destroyed... Edited by Matthew, Jul 25 2013, 12:19 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Lewington | Jul 25 2013, 12:16 AM Post #61 |
|
Also, before I forget, it's been very nice chatting with you fine gentlemen again. |
![]() |
|
| Lewington | Jul 25 2013, 12:19 AM Post #62 |
|
. The thing is that back in the olden days homosexuality wasn't seen as an alternative to a heteronormative society. It would have been a sexual excess, after which committing you would return to your home a dutifully produce children with your spouse. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jul 25 2013, 12:20 AM Post #63 |
|
Its been good seeing you again Lew, you should pop around more often so that we know you are still alive.
|
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jul 25 2013, 12:25 AM Post #64 |
![]()
The General
|
I fully agree with that, and I didn't mean to contend with that. What I meant was that the Bible should not be taken as the be all and end all of Christian philosophy or Christianity as a whole. As for tolerance of diversity, rest assured that, in catholic Croatia, I - as a rather tolerant Catholic - receive the same treatment from 80% of the populace you get from the majority of the populace in secular Canada and America. I've been told several times that I'll burn in Hell simply because I don't think homosexuality is, by and of itself, a grave sin punishable by an eternity among the fiery inferno of Hell. And Lew, it's nice to see you again as well. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jul 25 2013, 12:33 AM Post #65 |
|
Well, at least I don't think you would burn in hell for holding that opinion, but lets not get into theology, as that is an entirely different kettle of fish. ![]() And yes, unwillingness to contemplate other viewpoints definitely goes both ways, which is why I am actually somewhat glad we have had this conversation as it has helped me think through some of the questions surrounding it. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jul 25 2013, 12:35 AM Post #66 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Yes, as Matt said, as early as Genesis 2:24. That it was not always followed that way is explained later in Mark 10: "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses gave you this law." But it was not intended so. It also says in the Bible that "no man can serve two masters" -- a condemnation of having two wives if ever there was one. ![]() I'm probably going to alienate or maybe even shock some by saying this, but there is a further reason given in the Bible. It is that the marriage relationship was intended to be symbolic of the relationship between Christ and the church. That is why Christians are called "the bride of Christ" and Paul talked about presenting them to him "pure, as a virgin to her husband." Thus there is a sense in which any sexual sin is spiritual adultery. That is why, similarly, in the Old Testament (Hosea for instance) you find Israel compared to an adulterous wife. Quite right, Lew, and it was also good talking to you again. I agree that the condemnation has reached almost the level of racist condemnation, as if when one does not agree with homosexuality, you must be irrational and bigoted. I should add, although I am not certain, that I think the law about rapes applied in cases where a man raped a woman in a city (not the country where no one else was around) and she did not even bother to scream for help. In other words, there would be some doubt as to whether she had been a willing partner and merely had remorse afterwards. Edited by Basil Fawlty, Jul 25 2013, 12:46 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jul 25 2013, 12:37 AM Post #67 |
![]()
The General
|
And that is, for all intents and purposes, one of the marks of a good discussion. And yes, theology can get rather complicated in a small amount of time...
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jul 25 2013, 12:48 AM Post #68 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Yes, it was an interesting talk, and probably the first "real" discussion we've had in a long time. Not that I don't enjoy talking about the size of the British fleet, but it can get a little one-track after a while.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jul 25 2013, 12:51 AM Post #69 |
|
For certain, and maybe now we can have more of them seeing as we have proven our maturity. ![]() This was good, and maybe oneday we can explore some of the side topics left untouched. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jul 25 2013, 12:53 AM Post #70 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Side topics? I like onions, soups and salads myself... oh, not side toppings. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jul 25 2013, 12:57 AM Post #71 |
|
I don't really care for fries, though I like potatoes generally. I find the colas (both pepsi and coke) a bit too strong, and prefer root beer, ideally A&Ws, the Mugs, then Barqs. |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jul 25 2013, 01:01 AM Post #72 |
![]()
The General
|
When it comes to potatoes, baked potatoes are my favorite. It's nigh impossible to find root beer here... that's a shame. Sparkling water is much to my liking as well. EDIT: It's really fascinating how quickly we've changed the topic from the US Presidential elections, to homosexual marriages, to food...
Edited by Petar, Jul 25 2013, 01:02 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jul 25 2013, 01:04 AM Post #73 |
|
Baked potatoes are definitely one of my favourites. Too bad about root beer, I drink far too much of it. |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jul 25 2013, 01:06 AM Post #74 |
![]()
The General
|
I read an interesting article about sodas and their role in the American culture a few days ago, I'll see if I can find it again. |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jul 25 2013, 01:13 AM Post #75 |
![]()
The General
|
Here's the link to the article itself: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2008/06/05/soda-connoisseur/ Edited by Petar, Jul 25 2013, 01:16 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jul 25 2013, 01:16 AM Post #76 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Interesting. That might have ramifications for WE, if Prohibition never passes. ![]() Raw egg drinks? That surely wouldn't have health benefits. |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jul 25 2013, 01:27 AM Post #77 |
![]()
The General
|
At any rate, I do know that, since I've started drinking water all the time and started moving more, I lost all the excess weight I had, so... that's some positive health benefits out of that.
|
![]() |
|
| John | Jul 25 2013, 05:23 AM Post #78 |
|
The issues of gay marriage, abortion, et al has troubled me for quite some time. Politically speaking, I walk a fine line between being firmly committed to one side or the other. I consider myself a Christian man who believes in the message, if not the particular methods of many other Christians and their organizations. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Well, how does that help us with these political issues? I think that part of loving your neighbor as yourself is doing things and standing for things that will create the very best society and provide the greatest opportunity for all of us to have happy and peaceful lives. For example, I love my (former) best friend from high school. I loved him so much that I was willing to risk our friendship to say that his drinking and drug use was a problem and that I couldn't support it. He disagreed and didn't want to be my friend anymore. Similarly, we have to decide how to love our neighbor with our political positions and beliefs, and people have to understand and accept that this is what most of us (I think) are trying to do. We want to advocate policy that we think is going to be the very best for our society and, by extension, our neighbors. As Christians, for most of us, this isn't something we do out of blind devotion. I don't think that most irreligious people realize just how much thought, soul-searching, and internal conflict that truly devout Christians go through each and every day trying to do the right thing. I don't know what the right thing is to do with many of these issues. I am very sympathetic toward all the interested groups, but ultimately, I feel very uneasy with the direction that this country (and the world) is headed. Many of my neighbors believe that the objective of our society should be to provide each citizen with the right and ability to indulge in anything that they wish, usually short of harming another person, at least without consent, all unbridled by a healthy fear of God's judgement. Because people generally cannot and will not restrain themselves, they need some convincing, whether that comes from religion or the law. Just because it might make you feel good or it may be easier and expedient does not mean that you should be allowed to do it. Are we destroying the institution of marriage by allowing homosexuals to marry, and it is worth it to do so for the sake of allowing them to feel good about themselves and as equals? Are we helping or harming society by allowing women access to abortions because the circumstances behind the pregnancy are less than ideal, imperfect, and inconvenient? Do these would-be individuals deserve a chance at life despite the added obstacles before them? Is drug and alcohol abuse really a matter of a victimless crime or is there more to it than that? Should we allow people to make up their own minds given that we already know that legalization will lead to trouble? Does the government have the right to legislate away certain liberties for the sake of the public welfare? I don't think that any rational person would say that it does not. So, what we are really talking about here is whether there is a net benefit to society as a whole by the prohibition or lack thereof with regard to these issues. I personally have no strong convictions either way, but I tend toward Matt's camp. My gut tells me that abortion is wrong. My gut tells me that allowing homosexuals to marry will cause problems. My gut tells me that legalizing drugs will do the same. There is a such thing as too much freedom. If people could generally be counted on to do the right thing, we wouldn't need laws, but that just isn't the case, and I think that suffering a little hardship, even if it turns out to be unjust, isn't going to kill anyone. Legalizing gay marriage, abortion, and drugs, among other things, are big decisions that will have a huge impact on society. We need to make sure that we get these decisions right, not rush into them for any reason, least of all out of hedonism. Edited by John, Jul 25 2013, 05:26 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jul 25 2013, 02:20 PM Post #79 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
I disagree vehemently that everything will float on fine and dandy towards some vague, liberal and beautiful future. I further disagree that 5 or 10% of the population should decree to the rest of the populace as to what their future course and morality should be. We owe not only a duty to what is popular and trendy at the moment, but to the history that we are custodians of - not masters. For the majority of human history, there was no such thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality. Only in the last 50-60 years have we sought to or been forced to quantify or bring such things to the fore as a society. I do find it rather bemusing that marriage is now the aim of the more vocal group of some homosexuals where once the abolition and or the forsaking of all normality was once the rallying cry. In the end, we are talking about the desires, at most, of 30-40% of 2-4% of society. It is not a basis for change, nor for anything beyond good and proper tolerance. I've yet to see the argument that extends beyond the sophomoric. I don't think that any sinners amongst us should be hurt or persecuted, save when they hurt others. It is up to the Lord to deal with us all ultimately, as we are all sinners. But we should not remake society because it seems nice to accomodate a new group of sinners. I don't believe that homosexuality is a choice, but I do believe that acting upon things that are sinful are a choice. It isn't a civil rights situation like blacks or women - no one is forced to do anything, no matter how they feel. That goes for heterosexual adulterers and abusers as well as other inclinations. Marriage has never been about love. The sooner we move from the self indulgent, the better we are off as a society. |
![]() |
|
| John | Jul 25 2013, 03:25 PM Post #80 |
|
That about sums it up for me. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jul 25 2013, 04:13 PM Post #81 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Quite salient points. As John indicated two posts above, I think there is something that is easily missed: the intention behind all these seemingly restrictive positions is not merely to create a laundry list of "no's". It is to enable people to enjoy life more fully. No good thing on earth is or should be forbidden. We don't live in Pharisaical times, where you can only walk so far on Saturdays or eat certain kinds of meat. But plainly not everything is good. This ties directly into the point EQ originally made, which initiated the long conversation. Too often I think American conservatives (and by extension the Republican Party) are seen as the "party of no." No to immigration, no to abortion, no to gay marriage, no to the healthcare law, no to tax increases. It is fine and necessary to oppose policies you believe are harmful, but you must also articulate your own positive vision. They haven't done that very well in recent years and have instead allowed themselves to be painted as angry old white men. Not all of it is their fault, with the media the way it is, but I think it would go a long way if instead of talking only about tax fairness and creating jobs, they would talk more about the other things that can be done with private capital -- like giving to charity. Much was made of Mitt Romney's tax returns last year. The whole controversy could have been dealt with if Republicans had only stressed a basic tenet of conservative philosophy: we believe paying a 30% income tax is worse than paying a 15% tax and giving 15% to charity, because we believe that private interests can do more with the same amount of money than the government can. Ronald Reagan understood how to do this, and do it with a sunny disposition, so that even people who disagreed could still admire the man. You knew he cared, even if you didn't like the policy. That is a major thing that won the election for Obama. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jul 25 2013, 07:36 PM Post #82 |
|
I think you made some good points, John. Speaking for myself, while growing up in a quite Christian home has undoubtedly shaped who I have become, we never really were taught anything about social issues, and it has only been in the last number of years where I have been able to consider the different questions, and determine where I think the right answers lay. I am still a long long ways away from being able to claim knowledge in the area, but its something I've approached intellectually as I have been a bit older, and certainly not something I was taught. I think that your last point, about getting the decisions right, i.e., taking the appropriate time to figure these things out carefully, gets at the heart of my own opinions on the matter. Tying it in with something Simon touched on, regarding the wisdom of generations past, I suppose I am just extremely reluctant to overturn old things simply because we do not understand the reasoning behind them, and especially for egalitarian ends. Change is neither good nor bad, in and of itself. It is entirely neutral, and if a change is good or bad depends entirely on the nature of the change itself. When we consider how many times in the past a generation has gotten uppity regarding its own intellectual capacity, and destroyed much in a short period of time, only to find out that the ancients were not so silly after all, we should be extremely cautious about any changes to what we have, and be reluctant to change things unless demonstrably necessary. Unfortunately change and the 'new' seemed to be used, these days, as justification in and of themselves, as if they are something good. It could be argued that one shouldn't argue against change, for the same reason, as if it were bad, and to some degree that is true, but it is far easier to destroy and dismember than it is to build and construct. I always come back to a quote about Evelyn Waugh regarding Kipling:
Finally, doing anything for egalitarian reasons just strikes me as poor judgement. Equality before the law, yes, and before God, yes, as we all are anyway. Beyond this, however, I prefer Burke's ordered liberty, I think it is a far more firm foundation on which to build a society. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jul 25 2013, 10:43 PM Post #83 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Being the party of 'no' is often the lot of a conservative party, in something of a patriarchal way. People don't enjoy being told they don't know what is good for them, but sometimes there is a lot of merit to taking things slowly and not forging ahead in the name of progress, be it left or right. Back in 2004, there was talk of permanent Republican majorities and the death of the Democrats in the USA. That didn't last. Similarly, in 1964, the Republicans were absolutely dead if they did not cast away conservatism, which had been consigned to the crypt. Politics in America and elsewhere tends to be cyclical. As a generalization, people will also go for bread and butter issues such as the economy before they go for social issues of either side. Swinging moderate will possibly gain a reasonable amount of votes for either a Republican or Democratic candidate, but at the expense of their base; the other problem is that the centre is fluid and keeps moving, just as there are developments in the nature of the electorate due to things like immigration. It is like dancing on one leg on a storm tossed ship with a wet deck. |
![]() |
|
| Lewington | Jul 26 2013, 01:56 AM Post #84 |
|
The Republicans could use a rational leader. Right now it seems like everyone can have a shot at the top if they scream "I'm the next Ronald Reagan" loud enough.
Edited by Lewington, Jul 26 2013, 02:12 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jul 26 2013, 02:32 AM Post #85 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Isn't that normally the refrain of the Republicans? "Big government claims it knows how to spend your money better than you do." There are plenty of rational leaders out there, but they largely sat out the last election cycle. Rubio is an oft-mooted name, and I still like Jindal, even though people still ridicule both of their state of the union replies. Both of them also happen to be people of color, which would dispel the lily white image of the "Grumpy Old Party." |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jul 26 2013, 07:12 AM Post #86 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
It is the refrain of both sides in different ways. There are economic libertarians and social libertarians. A clear leader usually doesn't emerge until later in the cycle. One thing to keep in mind is that the GOP ran moderate candidates in 2008 and 2012 and lost soundly. |
![]() |
|
| John | Jul 26 2013, 04:28 PM Post #87 |
|
And this is also essentially how I see liberals. There is a story of a man that came across a butterfly emerging from its cocoon. He watched it for a bit as the insect tried to break free. After watching it struggle for so long to get out and feeling pity for the poor creature, he decided to help by peeling away the cocoon himself. He would save the creature a tremendous amount of time and effort. Having done so and feeling good about himself, the creature crawled out. In this man's mind, he imagined that the butterfly even appeared grateful. He couldn't wait to see it spread its wings and fly away. But the creature did not fly away. The man thought to himself that it must be exhausted from its struggle. So, he waited. Minutes turned to hours and finally it became apparent that the butterfly had died. Later, he would come to find that butterflies, when inside the cocoon, have a coating of wax on their wings and they are also very weak. It is only through its struggle to get out of its cocoon that the wax coating is removed and its body strengthened enough to fly. This butterfly that he thought he had helped was unable to fly off and find food, and therefor starved to death. Despite our best intentions, there are just some things that we all have to suffer in order to grow stronger. That is something that liberals either do not understand or cannot accept. |
![]() |
|
| JBK | Jul 26 2013, 04:35 PM Post #88 |
|
Socialism is the way forward, it is the essential brake that capitalism needs to be succesfull. Without checks and balances economic liberalism is bound to fail. Excellent reading on this subject is Thinking the Twentieth century by Timothy Sneyder and Tony Judt. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jul 26 2013, 05:22 PM Post #89 |
|
I've heard that butterfly illustration before, though not in this context, and I think it works extraordinarily well. I don't think anyone likes struggles or pain, or the fact that they are necessary to shape us for the 'real world,' but that is the unfortunate reality. We live in a fallen, broken 'real world', and the biggest mistake of our post-Christian society is to think that it is in our power to change or reverse this. That is the inherent flaw in socialism, as well; socialism, in theory, is quite attractive, but it fails spectactularly because it does not take into account the flawed human nature. The only socialism that might work is voluntary socialism, but this has only worked on a small scale and rarely for very long. To implement it on any significant scale would require an element of compulsion, as history attests, and thus it treads on basic fundamental liberties, liberties which safeguard us from being abused by dictators and strong-men, be they socialist or democratic (and yes, there can be democratic strong men - the tyranny of the many can be a real thing.) This is not to say that capitalism, or more generally, liberalism in the old sense (not the 'new' sense), does not need its safeguards. Burke is far and away my go to guy in most of these matters, and he wrote "But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint." Our human nature makes unbridled liberty, as we have discussed before, just as dangerous as giving this liberty over to dictators. This, I am firmly convinced, is the true strength of Christianity, as it relates to a good society. As Burke wrote elsewhere, "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite he placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot he free. Their passions forge their fetters." A society of people who generally govern their lives with prudence and sobriety is a society which can be given great freedom without risking anarchy. People will not abuse their liberty, understanding that responsibilities come with being given such privileges. And regarding capitalism specifically, this is where it has gone wrong and become what I like to term, this modern day consumerism, which I will not defend. I simply argue that the answer is not less capitalism, or more socialism, but merely more Christian morality. |
![]() |
|
| Lewington | Jul 26 2013, 05:39 PM Post #90 |
|
What is your guys' opinion of Progressive Era leaders such as good old Teddy or Addams? |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jul 27 2013, 09:13 AM Post #91 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
I admire Roosevelt quite a lot but it is difficult to be fully connected to the policies of the time as much as for periods closer to our own time. |
![]() |
|
| John | Jul 27 2013, 01:41 PM Post #92 |
|
Very much this. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jul 27 2013, 07:18 PM Post #93 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
That is really such a deep topic it's worthy of separate discussion, Lew. Perhaps I'll start another thread later. I did a lot of reading on it for WE. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jul 28 2013, 01:58 AM Post #94 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Wrong Roosevelt, but something I ran across today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Over_the_White_House Strange film... |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jul 28 2013, 11:57 AM Post #95 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
I just love some of the combinations of candidates and answers that can be put together: (Playing as Obama) Q: This morning you went to an elementary school and read books to a class of second-graders. How did you enjoy yourself? A: I had a fantastic time. Days like today remind me of why we need to abolish the Department of Education. That one should really make the Carville head pop up.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jul 28 2013, 09:47 PM Post #96 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
That is hilarious! |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Aug 4 2013, 01:25 AM Post #97 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
![]() CandidateElectoral Votes Popular VotesPopular Vote % ---- William McKinley 271 7,189,740 51.54% ---- William Jennings Bryan 176 6,627,257 47.51% ---- John Palmer 0 133,295 0.96% Won SD, WA and Wyoming, but lost Kentucky. Came within 500 votes of taking Virginia. The real map for comparison: Edited by Basil Fawlty, Aug 4 2013, 01:26 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Aug 4 2013, 02:02 AM Post #98 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Tried 1968. Interesting thing. I lost the first time, forced a stalemate the second and won overwhelmingly as Nixon the third. CandidateElectoral VotesPopular VotesPopular Vote % ---- Richard Nixon 441 34,043,758 46.64% ---- George Wallace 53 10,927,680 14.97% ---- Hubert H. Humphrey 43 28,014,462 38.38% Nixon won every state except Wallace's historical states, and Humphrey won only Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii and D.C. However, Wallace flipped SC. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Apr 18 2016, 10:23 AM Post #99 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
They have options for a lot of other years now, including a speculative 2016 contest between Trump and Clinton. To play all of them, I needed a premium membership for a one time fee of 8 bucks or so, but it has been good value for me. There is 1844, 1860, 1896, 1916, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1988, 2000, 2012 and 2016 now. I'd like 1980 and 2004 for the next additions, but it is all fun. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Apr 18 2016, 02:57 PM Post #100 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Ah yes. The dreaded paid premium system. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · History · Next Topic » |










2:40 PM Jul 11