|
Post by Emperor Cupcake on Mar 9, 2004 19:17:23 GMT -5
I love Mike with all my heart, but he says Bush SHOULD win... WHY? By any standard he is a horrible, horrible president. As was Reagan. Maybe he should stop reading the New York Post. Heh.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Mar 9, 2004 22:29:44 GMT -5
I think the general perception is that most entertainers are liberals.
But yeah that was an interesting article, nice to read his views on different subjects. And while I'm not a Bush backer (I don't know what I am politically. Probably a moderate) Mike sounds like an intelligent, well read person whose able to formulate an educated opinion. I respect him for that, even if I disagree with certain views.
|
|
yousonuva
Moderator Emeritus
I'm not insane but I am King of the Universe
Posts: 14,309
|
Post by yousonuva on Mar 10, 2004 2:56:52 GMT -5
Ha! I knew he was. Poe said that he was definatly democrat, but in the last interview he was in (see Satellite News) he supports Bush, and he even likes Ronald Reagen. The debate is over. I win. This means the shrine you built of him isn't a total waste. You just got lucky though.
|
|
|
Post by Blurryeye on Mar 10, 2004 11:55:23 GMT -5
I love Mike with all my heart, but he says Bush SHOULD win... WHY???? By any standard he is a horrible, horrible president. As was Reagan. Maybe he should stop reading the New York Post. Heh. Here's something that bothered me: Mike said Bush should win, especially after Dean's big scream in Iowa. Gee, I really love it when people use the behavior of one person to characterize a large group of people. I mean, hello, Dean isn't in the race anymore! John Kerry will be the Dem. candidate, so why keep talking about Dean? I know Mike was probably being a bit facetious, not completely serious, or maybe he was ticked off that the interviewer seemed to assume that Mike doesn't approve of Bush, so he was being extra brisk. Now that I think about it, that's probably what it was. B/C the first question asked about it was, "Do you think America deserves the current administration?" and he replied, "I think about 48.5% of America deserves it [because that's the % who voted for Bush]." Then he said Bush should win. And he likes Reagan over Carter. That pretty much hammers home the fact that Mike is Republican. The interviewer stopped making assumptions about his political views after that. So I have mixed feelings about Mike these days. I love him on the show, and his writing frequently makes me laugh harder than any other writer, but I don't care for the whole "Christian, Republican" moralizing that is present in some of his work. But, that is what he believes in, and he's an intelligent, thoughtful person, so I guess I should just take the bad with the good, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Mar 10, 2004 12:51:56 GMT -5
What I never understand is why so many people (not necessarily you, Blurry) passionately defend an artist who puts his or her values into their work (even rap artists who glorify violence, drugs, and prostitution). Yet if that artist happens to be a Christian, somehow they're not allowed to put their values into their work. Because now they're "forcing their beliefs on us". For example: Mel Gibson, Christian bands, or *gasp* Mike Nelson.
Seems like a double standard to me.
|
|
yousonuva
Moderator Emeritus
I'm not insane but I am King of the Universe
Posts: 14,309
|
Post by yousonuva on Mar 10, 2004 12:57:00 GMT -5
LS: Your writing shows a wonderful attention to detail - it's obvious how much care you put into choosing the correct word or turn of phrase, and what a keen eye you have for the writing you parody ("Young Master Chillingshead", for example). Why is there so much bad and sloppy writing getting published? Is it really worse now, or are we just more aware of it?
MN: You're very kind to say it, and yes, I do agonize over the prose. Here's my high-handed and probably completely misguided theory as to why sloppy writing is so popular: I believe that Americans have a terrible fear of being seen as Bourgeois in any way, consequently, we tend to admire those about whose work we can say, "Hey, I could do that." It's true in art and music, too. If Beethoven produced his 9th symphony today, we'd say, "Who does that guy think he is, getting all above himself? Get him!" Then they'd tear him apart like a baked chicken. (Okay, perhaps not.)
Man! Mike was right on target there! Even if I don't agree with his political standpoint, Mike is certainly a bright fellow (like myself)
|
|
|
Post by CherokeeJack on Mar 10, 2004 15:40:04 GMT -5
This doesn't disturb me at all. I would like to know why Mike supports Bush. Just as long as on the new DVD set he says "Your either with Mst, or your with the terrorists." ... well ok, that would be funny. anyway...
You don't have to be a liberal to not like Bush.
I "might" consider the teachings of christianity if christians were much more like Jesus (Im pagan). This eye for an eye thing doesn't seem very christian with the Bush administration. I don't understand why the religious right is backing him. You would think Christians would be above supporting war in any form. I can understand self defense, but the whole stance the adminstration is taking is peace through war.
I could be over stepping my bounds here, but I was christian once and hey.. msg boards dont have to be formal.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Mar 10, 2004 15:46:32 GMT -5
It's tough to balance Christianity and capitalism. That's why I have such a hard time with the religious right and Republicans in general. The church in the first century was about as communistic as you can get.
The "turn the other cheek" teaching instead of "taking an eye for an eye" was in regards to personal injury. Sometimes war is unavoidable and the right choice. I don't think anyone who stormed the beach at Normandy would like to hear that war is always wrong.
I really enjoyed that interview. It's nice to know Mike and I read the same authors (William Lane Craig, Greg Koukl, C.S. Lewis). Those writers have some good stuff, and great defenses (historical and philosophical) of Christianity.#nosmileys#nosmileys#nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by CherokeeJack on Mar 10, 2004 15:50:58 GMT -5
It's tough to balance Christianity and capitalism. That's why I have such a hard time with the religious right and Republicans in general. The church in the first century was about as communistic as you can get. The eye for an eye was in regards to personal injury. Sometimes war is unavoidable and the right choice. I don't think anyone who stormed the beach at Normandy would like to hear that war is always wrong. I really enjoyed that interview. It's nice to know Mike and I read the same authors (William Lane Craig, Greg Koukl, C.S. Lewis). Those writers have some good stuff, and great defenses (historical and philosophical) of Christianity. Like I said, I can understand self defense. Normandy was needed.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Mar 10, 2004 15:54:14 GMT -5
Yes, but Normandy wasn't self-defense for Americans. Germany never attacked us. Protecting and rescuing people from a murderous tyrant was the right thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by CherokeeJack on Mar 10, 2004 16:10:51 GMT -5
Yes, but Normandy wasn't self-defense for Americans. Germany never attacked us. Protecting and rescuing people from a murderous tyrant was the right thing to do. Ok, I see where you are getting at. I've read between your lines . Hitler does not equal Saddam. Hitler was 100 times worse than him. Hitler was actually invading other countries (when that happens the UN does get involved today as seen in desert storm). You cant even beging to compare the two. Saddam is small, tiny, microscopic, compared to him. Why didn't we invade Russia when Stalin was killing more than hitler then? Hitler was abitious. He would of not stopped with Europe, he didn't want to. Unless we are talking about Stalin or Pol Pot, dont even begin to compare today's dictators with Hitler. Saddam was horrible, don't get me wrong, but he's no Adolf.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Mar 10, 2004 16:20:57 GMT -5
I didn't compare Saddam with Hitler. As far as I'm concerned, comparing someone to Hitler in a debate is like putting yourself into checkmate in chess.
I only used the Normandy invasion as an example to disprove the statement that "Christians would be above supporting war in any form."
If you're looking for precedent for the Iraq invasion, you need to look for someone else who was under UN discipline who ignored the sanctions and was dealt with through military force. Someone like Slobodan Milosevic.#nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by lemminkimmen on Mar 10, 2004 16:25:18 GMT -5
Ha! I knew he was. Poe said that he was definatly democrat, but in the last interview he was in (see Satellite News) he supports Bush, and he even likes Ronald Reagen. The debate is over. I win. Not to be an ass, but this tone could be a reason why your "friend" slammed you with his bag after you held the door for him-maybe you took this attitude with him one too many times. If you're right about something, does it make you more right to gloat... You know what, Forrest? Forget it-you've got it all together boy,more power to you!
|
|
|
Post by CherokeeJack on Mar 10, 2004 16:25:35 GMT -5
I didn't compare Saddam with Hitler. As far as I'm concerned, comparing someone to Hitler in a debate is like putting yourself into checkmate in chess. I only used the Normandy invasion as an example to disprove the statement that "Christians would be above supporting war in any form." If you're looking for precedent for the Iraq invasion, you need to look for someone else who was under UN discipline who ignored the sanctions and was dealt with through military force. Someone like Slobodan Milosevic. but wasn't jesus an ultimate pacifist?.. man this is way off topic.. oh well The UN didnt invade Iraq however. The UN did stop Slobodan.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Mar 10, 2004 16:37:51 GMT -5
That's because the U.N. was inconsistent and failed to enforce their sanctions on Iraq, thereby forfeiting any semblance of authority. There was just as much, if not more, justification for UN military action in Iraq as in the Balkans. So when Bush went before the UN and called them ineffective and powerless, he wasn't being a rebel, he was stating a fact.
As for Jesus, he wasn't a pacifist by any means. His pacifistic statements were about personal injury and revenge. But he never said anything about ignoring justice. So while I am no one's judge personally, I do believe the government has a responsibility to dispense justice for its people and in protection of its people.
|
|