Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Tuoder · 09:39 PM

Okok that is a total lure of a title. It is the name of a song available for free on iTunes. I was introduced to it recently. I would like to know what some contributors of this particular sub-forum think of the (obviously politically charged) song, if you would be so gracious as to download it.

Originally Posted by Mithras

Link for the lazy:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/M...441&i=41654270

I copied Mithras' post here for further conveinience.

christ · Nov 14, 2006, 08:31 AM

The President talking to God doesn't bother me - it is when the President hears a reply that I get worried.

Kevin · Nov 14, 2006, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by christ

The President talking to God doesn't bother me - it is when the President hears a reply that I get worried.

Most people hear replies in their own conscience.

Tuoder · Nov 14, 2006, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by christ

The President talking to God doesn't bother me - it is when the President hears a reply that I get worried.

There is something like that in the song.

vmarks · Nov 14, 2006, 07:54 PM

As far as the song goes, it was like a very weak old Bob Dylan song. Only with worse lyrics and worse music, and no wit for the political message.

Tuoder · Nov 14, 2006, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by vmarks

As far as the song goes, it was like a very weak old Bob Dylan song. Only with worse lyrics and worse music, and no wit for the political message.

I didn't think that the message was completely thought out either. The part of the song that keeps it in my playlist is the bit on Playstation.

Atomic Rooster · Nov 14, 2006, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Most people hear replies in their own conscience.

Rumor · Nov 14, 2006, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Most people hear replies in their own conscience.

And then the Bible was written.

flame on

Atomic Rooster · Nov 14, 2006, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by Rumor

And then the Bible was written.

flame on

Only after they ate mushrooms.

Tuoder · Nov 14, 2006, 08:58 PM

Well, that was a short thread.

Brien · Nov 14, 2006, 09:00 PM

Bright Eyes suck.

Tuoder · Nov 14, 2006, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by Brien

Bright Eyes suck.

Why do you think so?

and pray tell, who doesn't suck?

Brien · Nov 14, 2006, 09:15 PM

Something about Connor Obert's voice. Dunno. :/

villalobos · Nov 14, 2006, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Most people hear replies in their own conscience.

I think most is exaggerated.

ironknee · Nov 14, 2006, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Most people hear replies in their own conscience.

i think the medical term is psychotic

Tuoder · Nov 15, 2006, 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by Brien

Something about Connor Obert's voice. Dunno. :/

That is what I like about it. It doesn't sound produced. If you listen closely, he screws up. I use to play music. That is music.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 08:08 AM

Ahahha People Made Fun Of The Religious In This Thread.

Ahahahhaha

Ahah

U Guys R Funny

christ · Nov 15, 2006, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ahahha People Made Fun Of The Religious In This Thread.

Ahahahhaha

Ahah

U Guys R Funny

I'll concede that you shouldn't make fun of people that hear voices.

But you shouldn't elect them, either.

Ron Goodman · Nov 15, 2006, 02:06 PM

If if you should happen to elect one, doing everything he says to do might not be a good idea.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by christ

I'll concede that you shouldn't make fun of people that hear voices.

But you shouldn't elect them, either.

No one is hearing voices. You simply don't get it. Either willingly or otherwise.

Dakar² · Nov 15, 2006, 02:09 PM

We should institute a don't ask don't tell policy for presidents and religion.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 02:11 PM

Why? There is no ban on being religious when running for office.

Unless you plan on putting that policy strictly on Clinton. Who came up with said policy.

Dakar² · Nov 15, 2006, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why? There is no ban on being religious when running for office.

Just throwing out an idea. The issue of religion overshadows things too much.

If it worked for the military, why not the Pres?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Unless you plan on putting that policy strictly on Clinton. Who came up with said policy.

Nah, I wouldn't limit it to one person. Sad thing is his policy was a slight step forward.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar�

Just throwing out an idea. The issue of religion overshadows things too much.

If it worked for the military, why not the Pres?

If what worked? There was no such ban on religion with the military.

Nah, I wouldn't limit it to one person. Sad thing is his policy was a slight step forward.

His plan was very middle of the road trying not to upset one side or the other.

It had no substance. It was no different than what was happening before.

No one that was gay got kicked out unless they made it apparent.

The same thing happened when Clinton "changed" the law.

Dakar² · Nov 15, 2006, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

If what worked? There was no such ban on religion with the military.

Don't ask don't tell.

Originally Posted by Kevin

His plan was very middle of the road trying not to upset one side or the other.

Moderate, you say?

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar�

Don't ask don't tell.

Yes, but you worded it as if it was a policy against religion.

Moderate, you say?

Nope. He didn't have a belief either way. His decision changed nothing.

Gays that wanted to stay in the military were ALREADY "Not telling" those that did got kicked out.

The same thing happened after Clinton's decision.

That is why so the proponents for allowing gays in the military got upset.

It was just a spin.

He wanted to make the projection of him actually changing something, while keeping it just the same.

Dakar² · Nov 15, 2006, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes, but you worded it as if it was a policy against religion.

Actually, I just worded it thinking everyone knew what the original policy was.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Nope. He didn't have a belief either way. His decision changed nothing.

Gays that wanted to stay in the military were ALREADY "Not telling" those that did got kicked out.

The same thing happened after Clinton's decision.

That is why so the proponents for allowing gays in the military got upset.

It was just a spin.

I thought it stopped the military from looking for gays?

Rumor · Nov 15, 2006, 02:30 PM

Did a google image search for gay+military and found this.

I also found this.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar�

I thought it stopped the military from looking for gays?

Clinton basically said if you were gay and wanted to join the military just don't tell them you are gay. I do believe there was a question removed that specifically asked that.

But they can still kick you out for such things.

Dakar² · Nov 15, 2006, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Clinton basically said if you were gay and wanted to join the military just don't tell them you are gay. I do believe there was a question removed that specifically asked that.

But they can still kick you out for such things.

So it did make a change then. There was some type of progress.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar�

So it did make a change then. There was some type of progress.

But that wasn't what the complaint was. And I am not even sure that part is true. I will have to do some research.

It actually only made one side happy. Those against gays in the military.

Dakar² · Nov 15, 2006, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

But that wasn't what the complaint was. And I am not even sure that part is true. I will have to do some research.

It actually only made one side happy. Those against gays in the military.

Officially, the compromise dictates that the armed forces will no longer ask recruits about their sexual orientation, will not investigate any serviceman or woman's sexual orientation without solid evidence (thus preventing witch-hunts)

People who were completely against gays in the military didn't like that last part. Hence, it being a moderate compromise.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 02:56 PM

"Don't Ask, Don't tell" is the common term for the U.S. military policy which implements Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. � 654). The policy prohibits anyone who has sexual bodily contact with a person of the same sex from serving in the armed forces of the United States, and prohibits any homosexual or bisexual from disclosing his or her sexual orientation, or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The policy also requires that as long as gay or bisexual men and women in the military hide their sexual orientation, commanders are not allowed to investigate their sexuality.

"Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender." — quoted in "The Pentagon's New Policy Guidelines on Homosexuals in the Military", The New York Times (July 20, 1993), p.A14.

More generally, "Don't ask, don't tell" has come to describe any instance in which one person must keep their sexual orientation and any related attributes, including their family, a secret, but where deliberate lying would be undesirable.

Dakar² · Nov 15, 2006, 03:02 PM

Yes, that's the 'Don't Tell' part.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 03:05 PM

I covered the "Dont ask" part too.

The policy also requires that as long as gay or bisexual men and women in the military hide their sexual orientation, commanders are not allowed to investigate their sexuality.

Dakar² · Nov 15, 2006, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I covered the "Dont ask" part too.

The policy also requires that as long as gay or bisexual men and women in the military hide their sexual orientation, commanders are not allowed to investigate their sexuality.

I covered it in better detail, though.

Officially, the compromise dictates that the armed forces will no longer ask recruits about their sexual orientation, will not investigate any serviceman or woman's sexual orientation without solid evidence (thus preventing witch-hunts)

I think that last part is important.

christ · Nov 15, 2006, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

No one is hearing voices. You simply don't get it. Either willingly or otherwise.

You aren't following.

But I understand how that would be difficult.

I never said that anyone heard voices. I just said that there would be a problem if they did.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by christ

You aren't following.
I never said that anyone heard voices. I just said that there would be a problem if they did.

I was just pointing out when people saying that "God told them" they aren't being literal.

Most people that are taking it as such are only doing so because they think they can better make fun of the religious that way. Not that it has any bearing with the truth.

nonhuman · Nov 15, 2006, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I was just pointing out when people saying that "God told them" they aren't being literal.

I really hope that you can see the irony in that remark.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I really hope that you can see the irony in that remark.

If you see irony, you misunderstood what I meant. There are many ways God can speak to a person. It doesn't have to be vocal.

ironknee · Nov 15, 2006, 07:18 PM

how many people who pray to god have done it like this:

hi god it's me, but you knew that

nonhuman · Nov 15, 2006, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

If you see irony, you misunderstood what I meant. There are many ways God can speak to a person. It doesn't have to be vocal.

No, I understood exactly what you meant. I still find it ironic that you would claim that when some people claim to have been spoken to by God it's not meant to be taken literally. But when certain other people make that claim it is.

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

No, I understood exactly what you meant. I still find it ironic that you would claim that when some people claim to have been spoken to by God it's not meant to be taken literally. But when certain other people make that claim it is.

Spoken to God, and Having God speak to them literally is two different things nonhuman.

nonhuman · Nov 15, 2006, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Spoken to God, and Having God speak to them literally is two different things nonhuman.

Not necessarily. Whether I've actually heard God's voice from on high or just recognized the will of God as being clearly represented through some other means I've been spoken to by God. And unless someone actually says that they heard God's voice and God told them explicitly what it was that He wanted, you can't know which way it was that God spoke to them (or if, indeed, He did actually speak to them).

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 07:56 PM

Again when someone said God told them something, they aren't referring to an actual voice. My point still stands.

Rumor · Nov 15, 2006, 08:02 PM

Kevin · Nov 15, 2006, 08:04 PM

ironknee · Nov 15, 2006, 08:57 PM

is it telepathic?

Tuoder · Nov 15, 2006, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by ironknee

is it telepathic?

The sense that one "hears" God speak to them literally is imagination. I always assumed people were speaking figuratively when they say they hear God. Maybe I was wrong.

ironknee · Nov 15, 2006, 09:50 PM

so why would god have a mouth if he could "say" things without speaking?...just wondering