Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (658497)	11/7/2004 7:42:42 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Respond to of 769670

It's spelled evangelical with no "T".

To: JDN who wrote (658497)	11/7/2004 7:55:12 AM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

Well, that's just silly. Even EVANGELITICAL CHRISTIANS don't vote entirely as a block. The voter surveys indicate that 20% of people who describe themselves as EVANGELITICAL CHRISTIAN voted for Kerry. Sure, he lost this vote overwhelmingly, and it's the main reason why Kerry lost key states like Florida and Ohio, but they don't vote as a solid block. Some did vote for Kerry over concerns about things like healthcare and the deficit. I have no problems with EVANGELITICAL CHRISTIANS. More power to them. I do have a problem with people who are fanatically religous and don't even pretend to practice what they preach. 1st of the 10 Commandments: THOU SHALL NOT KILL. It doesn't qualify that statement with: EXCEPT IN WARTIME. Anyone who really is concerned with following the teachings of Christ would never support a war. Just as they oppose abortion in all circumstances on the principle that killing GODs creatures is wrong, so too should the oppose war on principle as some religious sects like Quakers do. That's where the EVANGELITICAL CHRISTIANS lose my respect. Also, what the hell is so Christain and moral about Bush? As if Jesus, a man concerned with peace, brotherhood of man, and taking care of one's brother, would be in favor of Bush's agressive militarism, wasteful and glutoness military spending, and neglect of the poor at home?