2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[zachman]

If Bush wins I will have faith in fewer people, and I will develop more stereotypes.

[??????????]

Yes, having someone in office who destroys our enemies and gets reelected should lessen your faith in the people who re-elect him.

[zachman]

Kerry will destroy our enemies and he understands honesty and responsibility more than Bush.

Bush is unconcerned of our future past this election.

[??????????]

Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer. Do you think it was Clinton that made Qadafi change his mind about his WMDs? Those countries are scared of us now that we take action.

[minionofmidas]

MiamiU is neither hoping for a Bush win nor pessimistic, he's just outrageously superstitious.
He doens't want to jinx Kerry, so he'll always predict a Bush win. If you want his real prediction, just turn Pennsylvania, which btw makes that map much more internally consistent: NO way in HELL does Kerry lose PA but take Ohio.

[12th Doctor]

Ohio will go for Kerry, only if Pennsylvania does.

JOBS

Ohio don't got em

Ohio is far more socially conservative on the whole though.  Ohio even has major cities that are conservative.  ie Culumbus and Cinncinati

Pittsburgh is fairly liberal and Philadelphia is very liberal.  Not to mention the Hienz family connections in Pittsburgh.  It you look at my prediction map you will see that I grudgingly gave my homestate to Kerry.  I think he will win here.  On the other hand, I don't think that Kerry has much of a chance of taking West Virginia unless he puts a Pennsylvainian, Ohioan, West Virginian, Virginian or Kentuckyan on the ticket, which isn't likely.

W-A-R-N-E-R

N-E-V-E-R  H-A-P-P-E-N

[??????????]

MiamiU is neither hoping for a Bush win nor pessimistic, he's just outrageously superstitious.
He doens't want to jinx Kerry, so he'll always predict a Bush win. If you want his real prediction, just turn Pennsylvania, which btw makes that map much more internally consistent: NO way in HELL does Kerry lose PA but take Ohio.

I just have a funny feeling something is going to be very very odd in this election. I don't know what it is but I just have a strong feeling. We have 8 more long long months to wait and see. My wife hates election years because thats what she always hears out of me is political stuff .

[Siege40]

Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer.

It sounds like your saying if Americans re-elect Bush they can expect more Middle East Campaigning. Where do the Republicans want to turn next? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Dare I hope Saudi Arabia?

I was reading a piece about Bush's 2000 campaign from what I read on his perspectives he wanted to run on a policy of essentially isolationism. I don't know, that's what I got out of the message.

Siege40

[muon2]

I do not see a bad economy right now. Every since mid-2002 tourism is back up and they are flocking our state. The U.S. has taken a while to get over the 9/11 shock and the Clinton inherited recession.

It doesn't matter what you 'see' but how things actually are. I don't what you mean by 'Clinton inherited', but the economy was not actually going down when he left office. And 9/11 has little or nothing to do with the problems that the US and the rest of the Western world are expereinceing in economy.

Parts of the economy were already in decline by Jan 2001. In the tech sector, new starts and job projects for small firms and freelancers were diminishing starting as early as Jan 2000. The stock market reflected the loss of new contracts with its decline beginning in Mar 2000.

[??????????]

Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer.

It sounds like your saying if Americans re-elect Bush they can expect more Middle East Campaigning. Where do the Republicans want to turn next? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Dare I hope Saudi Arabia?

I was reading a piece about Bush's 2000 campaign from what I read on his perspectives he wanted to run on a policy of essentially isolationism. I don't know, that's what I got out of the message.

Siege40

I would say Iran or Syria would be the next ones. I agree Saudi Arabia should be on the list, but it's never going to happen. Bushs' 2000 campaign issues on National Security are irrelevant now. That was before 9/11. The nations of the Middle East need to be enlightened.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Here is what they are about. This is about where I stand in my religious beliefs.

http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm

Sounds like Jmfcst's church...

I've had about 15 minutes to browse the site, and honestly, I see little in common aside from the broad based belief that the bible is *the* standard.

[??????????]

All they are saying is believe what the bible says word for word and put the interpretations to the side.

[Siege40]

Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer.

It sounds like your saying if Americans re-elect Bush they can expect more Middle East Campaigning. Where do the Republicans want to turn next? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Dare I hope Saudi Arabia?

I was reading a piece about Bush's 2000 campaign from what I read on his perspectives he wanted to run on a policy of essentially isolationism. I don't know, that's what I got out of the message.

Siege40

I would say Iran or Syria would be the next ones. I agree Saudi Arabia should be on the list, but it's never going to happen. Bushs' 2000 campaign issues on National Security are irrelevant now. That was before 9/11. The nations of the Middle East need to be enlightened.

I was just curious is all.

Siege40

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All they are saying is believe what the bible says word for word and put the interpretations to the side.

They are saying a little more than that...:

1) the name on the church building is important and must come from the bible
2) Sunday replaced the Sabbath
3) Christ only shed his blood for one church and people need to seek out that one true church

Though I only read their page for a couple of minutes, I have to say I respectfully disagree.

[??????????]

Sunday did replace the Sabbath. Jesus said the old law was nailed to the cross. Thats in the bible.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Sunday did replace the Sabbath. Jesus said the old law was nailed to the cross. Thats in the bible.

I agree that Christians are not required to meet on the Sabbath, but where in the NT does it command Christians to meet on Sunday?

[??????????]

The first day of the week. In Jewish tradition the first day of the week is Sunday. Jesus rose on a Sunday. The whole point of going to church on Sunday is a rememberance of Jesus' death and ressurection.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The first day of the week. In Jewish tradition the first day of the week is Sunday.

Agreed, but that is not the issue.

---

Jesus rose on a Sunday. The whole point of going to church on Sunday is a rememberance of Jesus' death and ressurection.

1) Where does the NT say "whole point of going to church on Sunday is a rememberance of Jesus' death and ressurection"?
1) Where does the NT command Christians to meet on Sunday?
2) If the NT doesn't command it, how can a church justify making an issue out of it?

[dunn]

Shabath IS suterday, that the meanning of the word. it is redicouls what christians (sunday) and muslims (friday) did to copy judaism but to turn away from it

[??????????]

I didnt say it was required to meet on Sunday. This is the argument.

http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I didnt say it was required to meet on Sunday. This is the argument.

http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm

From your link:  "Sunday is not a Christian Sabbath or a day of rest, or a holy day to be kept. It is the day God requires all Christians to gather together to worship and eat the Lord's Supper (communion, break bread) Acts 20:7."

I agree with the first sentence, but the second sentence states that Sunday "is the day God requires all Christians to gather together", yet NOWHERE in the NT is thatt REQUIREMENT  given.

Just because the NT records the church meeting on Sunday does NOT mean that we are "required" to meet on Sunday.  

A further example:  The NT records the church meeting in people's homes.  So, does that mean the Christians are "required" to meet only in homes simply because that is what the early church did?  Absolutely not.  

[??????????]

I didnt say it was required to meet on Sunday. This is the argument.

http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm

I agree with the first sentence, but the second sentence states that Sunday "is the day God requires all Christians to gather together", yet NOWHERE in the NT is thatt REQUIREMENT  given.

Where was that at?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I agree with the first sentence, but the second sentence states that Sunday "is the day God requires all Christians to gather together", yet NOWHERE in the NT is thatt REQUIREMENT  given.

Where was that at?

It's in the first paragraph following the 10 listed points.  Here is the paragraph:

<<The record of history, from the Resurrection of Christ, Christians have always worshipped on the first day of the week (Sunday) and never on the Sabbath (7th day). Sunday is not a Christian Sabbath or a day of rest, or a holy day to be kept. It is the day God requires all Christians to gather together to worship and eat the Lord's Supper (communion, break bread) Acts 20:7. Christians do not keep the ten commandment law of Moses. This is not to say that Christians are free to steal, murder and commit adultery, just because the 10 commandments have been abolished. No! Christians are under a new law, a better Law, the law of Christ, (Gal 6:2) a better covenant (Heb 8:6-7).>>

[Gustaf]

Ohio will go for Kerry, only if Pennsylvania does.

JOBS

Ohio don't got em

Ohio is far more socially conservative on the whole though.  Ohio even has major cities that are conservative.  ie Culumbus and Cinncinati

Pittsburgh is fairly liberal and Philadelphia is very liberal.  Not to mention the Hienz family connections in Pittsburgh.  It you look at my prediction map you will see that I grudgingly gave my homestate to Kerry.  I think he will win here.  On the other hand, I don't think that Kerry has much of a chance of taking West Virginia unless he puts a Pennsylvainian, Ohioan, West Virginian, Virginian or Kentuckyan on the ticket, which isn't likely.

W-A-R-N-E-R

N-E-V-E-R  H-A-P-P-E-N

W-H-Y N-O-T-? H-O-W C-A-N Y-O-U B-E S-O S-U-R-E-?

[Gustaf]

Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer.

It sounds like your saying if Americans re-elect Bush they can expect more Middle East Campaigning. Where do the Republicans want to turn next? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Dare I hope Saudi Arabia?

I was reading a piece about Bush's 2000 campaign from what I read on his perspectives he wanted to run on a policy of essentially isolationism. I don't know, that's what I got out of the message.

Siege40

I would say Iran or Syria would be the next ones. I agree Saudi Arabia should be on the list, but it's never going to happen. Bushs' 2000 campaign issues on National Security are irrelevant now. That was before 9/11. The nations of the Middle East need to be enlightened.

I disagree. Even though I have little confidence in Bush, I don't think he is that stupid. Attacking Iran would be so stupid that I am lost for words at the mere suggestion of it.