the outcome of the election

[JustAGuy]

Ignorant is not realizing all values are based on nothing but some sort of "faith" oin the end.

That's not true. Faith is, to quote the dictionary, "a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Your statement insinuates that people derive their values from something other than logic, that they must rely on something else to determine what is right and wrong.

My beliefs were learned from observation of the world and are ever evolving. My values are based in reason. Science and that which is provable dominate my beliefs. My values stem from causality; I know not to kill because I would go to jail, or be killed myself (I put myself in danger). It's the fear of reprisal. Also the fact that I am kind-hearted stops me from doing nasty things. I don't do things that are evil because of my moral compass. It's not a faith that my moral compass will tell me what I am doing is right or wrong, it's knowledge that what I am doing is right or wrong, my compass just affirms it. It just so happens that what I know about how to live my life coincides with how I feel about it. No faith in anything is required.

Reason is a great tool, but but it serves no purpose without direction.

So, where do we get the direction? Some choose religion to guide them. I choose what directly applies to me; my own survival, in a dignified manner (after all, we are in a civilized society). The fact that I am kind-hearted also paints my outlook. People have their own choices to make regarding that.

Ill give anyone room to disagree with my values(although I may not respect them), but people who are take nonsense positions and do it rudely as Justaguy did, deserve scorn and anmity from my perspective.

Such is the wonder of a free society. One is free to agree, disagree and to offend whom he/she pleases. So I leaned heavily on the religious bit, and in doing so it came off very rude. It's understandable that such a view comes off as offensive or rude. It happens, no big deal to me. You can be as hostile to me as you wish, that's the beauty of a democratic society.

My view is simple. Religion is a crutch. It answers the difficult questions for you, tells you what to do, and how to do it, all in one convenient package. That's my view, and that's not going to change.

To claim as though my position is nonsensical is false. I've examined my own existence, and I've derived that aforementioned position. I'm sticking with it, unless something comes along that blows my whole mindset away. If that were the case, then it's self-examination time once again. I can understand how someone would be unwilling to change, especially when they've devoted their lives to something that is potentially incorrect, but it's hard to respect a religion when there's so much evidence to the contrary, cold hard irrefutable evidence at that.

I answered a question, albeit very verbosely, but I did. The question posed was: "why did [Americans] vote for Bush?" Not being from the United States, I could only derive an answer from the available data; my conclusion is that Bush won by directing his campaign at the religious right. I threw in some jabs at organized religion (namely evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity, because I believe differently from what they believe) because many people, as I do, believe that the world is less safe with George W. Bush in office. Bush made is seem that his preemptive strike without provocation or evidence was an act that made the world safer. Some people voted for him under the pretense that he was indeed solely responsible for making the U.S. and the world safer. It is arguable that the world is more dangerous now, after the Iraq debacle.

You speak of rationality -- those that voted for Bush because of Religion didn't use a proper rationale. They simply voted for him because he appeals to their skewed sensibilities. That's not another jab at religion (Christianity), their morals and sensibilities are skewed toward the faith they believe, just as a Mulsim has his/her morals and sensibilities skewed to another direction by their faith. Bush exploited the Christian vote, as he should, to win the election. The United States has a large population of Christians, and by appealing to them, he clearly garnered more votes than last time. Kerry put forth a good platform, one based in logic and a sound strategy to rectify the problems of the current administration. The problem is, he didn't have enough personality, or that aura of having "god" on his side. Bush is clearly very religious, and that resonated with the voters. It worked very well for him.

Bush also had an excellent campaign, despite it being so negative. It distresses me when politicians resort to negative campaigning, but it clearly works. Carl Rove should be commended for shaping the will of the people as he has. I applaud the work he has done, as it is a testament to his craftyness, but it is distrubing to see him use his ability for the side of big business.

There's a clear conflict of interest between Cheney and Haliburton, and Bush and the Saudis. There was also evidence of voter fraud in the last election, and more conflicts of interest. They use scare tactics (see the terror alert bar) to get the people to do as they wish. They use those tactics to get favourable legistlation to pass (see the Patriot Act). They invaded a country that did not provoke America and had no tie to the 9/11 terrorists. I suppose the War in Iraq isn't a mistake, it's more of an attack on a sovereign nation to further a hidden agenda, something that is compeltely intentional. A vote for Bush says that it's ok, and to keep up the good work. Doesn't it?