NationStates Jolt Archive

An odd thing you tend to notice when you watch Democratic spin, consistency is apparently a bad thing (and I am not talking about the flip-flop mess, that has been overdone). Examples provided for your further edification:

2000 Bush Vs Gore = Gore won the popular vote and that means he is better than Bush and everything (including what breakfast cereal you get to eat in the morning) should be decided by popular vote. After all, only through the combined intellect of the majority can people realize what is truly right.

Bushes approval rating is below 50% = The American people are smart enough to know that they don't want Bush. They should be allowed to impeach Bush because the majority is always smart, and they know everything.

2004 Bush Vs. Kerry = Bush may have won the popular vote, but that is just because Americans are dumb hicks who wouldn't know there ass from a hole in the ground without a guided tour first. The U.S. is stupid and stinky, and the people in it wouldn't even be allowed to vote, the U.N. should anoint a President for Life for the U.S.A.

Funny how the facts work out, eh? Lets see another:

A large number of people voted for Bush for "Moral Leadership" = OMGWTF?!?!?! CHRIS7I4NZ 4R3 RUINING 73H C0N7TRY!!1!!!!!1!!1

George Bush is a Methodist, but is largely quiet about it = Watch out! He'll try and impose his beliefs on you!

John Kerry is a papist who promised to pray everyday in the Oval Office. Further, major democratic leaders made the rounds of black churches to deliver pro-Kerry speeches = This is apparently a good thing, as it shows John Kerry is a man of moral fiber (which helps him avoid the constipation of sin and reach the weight loss goal of righteous not being satanicalness). <I have yet to here someone defend Al Gore's preaching at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, so no comment there>

Wowee, great stuff, eh? Eh? Eh? EH!?!

George Bush is a Methodist, but is largely quiet about it

Hhaha. Bush most definately sucks God's cock every time he gives a speech. All of his domestic social issue policies are faith-based, instead of secular.

Is it just me or are ther a rash of new nations today with nothing more to add than nastiness?

2004 Bush Vs. Kerry = Bush may have won the popular vote, but that is just because Americans are dumb hicks who wouldn't know there ass from a hole in the ground without a guided tour first. The U.S. is stupid and stinky, and the people in it wouldn't even be allowed to vote, the U.N. should anoint a President for Life for the U.S.A.
LOL!!! How very true.

Thank you for that gross misinterpretation of my views.

Hhaha. Bush most definately sucks God's cock every time he gives a speech. All of his domestic social issue policies are faith-based, instead of secular.
And thank you for providing me with this example of the Liberal Viewpoint.
Note the sense of sadness and rage, observe the inability to acknowledge an opposing view point.
For bonus points, you may wish to see that he latches on to one aspect (Faith Based Initiatievs) of one thing (George Bush's Faith) and vainly tries to use it as a general purpose answer.
The astute may also notice the fact that it appears to ignore repeated Democratic pandering to the religious in America.

Thank you for that gross misinterpretation of my views.
Very, very welcome, goodsir! Although, I fail to see where I have misinterpreted anything, or would you accuse a mirror of misinterpreting your hair, should it be revealed that you are in possession of a cowlick the size of Montana? Not say you have one of course (you could be bald for all I know).

Hhaha. Bush most definately sucks God's cock every time he gives a speech. All of his domestic social issue policies are faith-based, instead of secular.

Mods: This post is very offensive and should be deleted and the poster warned. Will you be truly objective and faithfully fulfill the duties of a moderator?

Democratic pandering to the Religious nowhere near compares to Republican policy choices. When Bush envokes God, for any reason, within a policy speech, he is not being quite about his religion. Bush envokes God at every turn, so that, in turn the religious will support him. A Government is supposed to be secular, so that all views are taken into account, and not only those of an old book.

Is it just me or are ther a rash of new nations today with nothing more to add than nastiness?
Have you nothing better to do than mutilate the time-space continuum?
I have been around since July, I just dropped off for awhile to preserve my sanity (I doubt it worked, but one should always make the effort).
I announced that within the last couple hours, but promoting a vanity thread is kind of cheesy, so you'll just have to look back over recent threads if you care.

Domnonia's post is not even close to representing a liberal viewpoint, Hajekistan, and you should know that. Liberalism is based around the concept that people should be allowed to have a faith and express that, though perhaps when in public office some restraint should be shown, in an effort to acknowledge those that do not share you faith/values/morals whatever.

I believe that Bush is a Southern Baptist, not a Methodist btw. Then again the two may be the same thing, I'm not particularly sure about the more extreme sides/elements of christianity.

I believe that Bush is a Southern Baptist, not a Methodist btw. Then again the two may be the same thing, I'm not particularly sure about the more extreme sides/elements of christianity.

You plead ignorance, then smear the entire concept by calling it extreme. Very telling.

I believe that Bush is a Southern Baptist, not a Methodist btw. Then again the two may be the same thing, I'm not particularly sure about the more extreme sides/elements of christianity.
Irrelevant. Both groups are Christian fundamentalists like Bush.

America got what they deserved in this election, I mean, honestly. If people want to vote for this kid Bush, then whatever, they should have to live with him. I'm just going to Canada, it's like America without the South.

America got what they deserved in this election, I mean, honestly. If people want to vote for this kid Bush, then whatever, they should have to live with him. I'm just going to Canada, it's like America without the South.

Good riddance.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Not quite. I didn't explicitly state I did not know about the different particular versions/interpretations of christianity, I said I wasn't SURE. That is to say: I'm pretty sure they are different in the US, as they are here, but I may be mistaken, I would have thought Hajekistan wouldn't be posting a mockery of liberalism without actually getting his own facts right. Thus my uncertainty may be based upon, if anything, an overestimation of him.

In any event, you missed my point, is he actually a methodist or baptist?

Name calling and stereotyping gives you a false sense of superiority.

Man, you must feel so powerful now "just because Americans are dumb hicks who wouldn't know there ass from a hole in the ground without a guided tour first."

I guess that means since you know your ass from a hole in the ground without a guided tour first you are one of the "smart ones". Interesting.

Name calling and stereotyping is one of the reasons you are "voted off the island".

America got what they deserved in this election, I mean, honestly. If people want to vote for this kid Bush, then whatever, they should have to live with him. I'm just going to Canada, it's like America without the South.
Move to Alberta. I hear its great there.

In any event, you missed my point, is he actually a methodist or baptist?

What difference does it make? Is one good and the other "extreme", ergo bad? Or do you just hate ALL Christians? What about Muslims?

Good riddance.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Move to Alberta. I hear its great there.

Umm guys, are you so singleminded to have not noticed all the warnings thrown around today for this. Read the sticky at the top of the General Forum!

upsidedown and backwards with one eye closed!?

Umm guys, are you so singleminded to have not noticed all the warnings thrown around today for this. Read the sticky at the top of the General Forum!

I noticed. I just don't care.

What difference does it make? Is one good and the other "extreme", ergo bad? Or do you just hate ALL Christians? What about Muslims?

Oh for fucks sake. I cannot believe you just posted that.

Right, let me spell it out for you

I obviously am a social liberal, and implied that a previous posters anger towards christianity (in whatever form) was not a representation of liberalism, just bigotry. Then I stated true liberals (thus my own) tolerance of people's faith, whatever it may be and whatever it's position. I may have an aversion to said individual's attempts to mix his religion with his politics, but that is not an attack on his faith, that is an objection on his attacks on others.

In any event, I was wondering about the original poster's question of fact.

Stop having such a persecution complex, I frankly don't care what faith anyone has, it is their actions which are important.

Bush is a Baptist. As far as religion goes, he's very much a conservative, born-again Christian. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but he does base most of his social intiatives on the precepts of his faith and not what is necessarily the best for a secular political leader. (ie, gay marriage most particularly, but there's other examples)

Hajekistan ... Kerry is a 'papist' ... forgive me if I'm wrong, but that sounds more than vaguely anti-Catholic. If not, than you should not use a term that is basically one of derision. I don't mind if he prays in the Oval Office, or a Protestant president, or a Jewish or Muslim one ... but what I do mind is that a lot of Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) tend to do what their religion tend to go very strongly with their religious convictions, which aren't shared by everyone.

I think Jean Chretien (Canadian PM before Martin) had a good sense of the duty of a religious person (Catholic in his case) in a secular country. He made no real effort to stop the provincial attempts to allow civil unions for homosexuals and said that he would comply with a Supreme Court ruling. All this after the Pope ordered him to do otherwise. Because he believed it was his duty as the leader of Canada, regardless of his personal inclinations as a Catholic.

As for the system, I think that the Electoral College should be eliminated and that the vote should be by having the states broken up into regions. So there's not 49% people who voted one way or the other having their vote totally invalidated in a state because of the way the system is set up. Although generally, I prefer the parliamentary system to the US one anyway. Easier to follow. Logical. Although there are elements of the US system I like.

Namely impeachment. But there should be a provision for popular impeachment. And perhaps for forcing a referendum. But that's another topic, methinks.

BTW- What's up with 'liberal' being such a dirty word in the US? Really? And yeah, I'm definitely not in favor of Bush, heh. Although at least it'll be good for the Canadian dollar. Which is now 82 cents from a low of about 63 or so back in the days of Clinton.

[QUOTE=Hajekistan #1]
The Way Leftists See America

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An odd thing you tend to notice when you watch Democratic spin, consistency is apparently a bad thing (and I am not talking about the flip-flop mess, that has been overdone). Examples provided for your further edification:

2000 Bush Vs Gore = Gore won the popular vote and that means he is better than Bush and everything (including what breakfast cereal you get to eat in the morning) should be decided by popular vote. After all, only through the combined intellect of the majority can people realize what is truly right.

Bushes approval rating is below 50% = The American people are smart enough to know that they don't want Bush. They should be allowed to impeach Bush because the majority is always smart, and they know everything.

2004 Bush Vs. Kerry = Bush may have won the popular vote, but that is just because Americans are dumb hicks who wouldn't know there ass from a hole in the ground without a guided tour first. The U.S. is stupid and stinky, and the people in it wouldn't even be allowed to vote, the U.N. should anoint a President for Life for the U.S.A.

Funny how the facts work out, eh? Lets see another:

A large number of people voted for Bush for "Moral Leadership" = OMGWTF?!?!?! CHRIS7I4NZ 4R3 RUINING 73H C0N7TRY!!1!!!!!1!!1

George Bush is a Methodist, but is largely quiet about it = Watch out! He'll try and impose his beliefs on you!

John Kerry is a papist who promised to pray everyday in the Oval Office. Further, major democratic leaders made the rounds of black churches to deliver pro-Kerry speeches = This is apparently a good thing, as it shows John Kerry is a man of moral fiber (which helps him avoid the constipation of sin and reach the weight loss goal of righteous not being satanicalness). <I have yet to here someone defend Al Gore's preaching at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, so no comment there>

Wowee, great stuff, eh? Eh? Eh? EH!?!

Hear hear mon ami..!! :D

Can you IMAGINE if the "right" (a group that JFKerry belongs to by the way) acted like the left (the Bush haters)..?!

There would be cries of "sour grapes" and "DEMOCRACY WORKS!" to bring down the very heavens..!

My god people..! What have you become..!

(( Anti-American fascist hypocrits, that's what. ))

George Bush is a Methodist, but is largely quiet about it
when Bush was asked if he consulted his dad (bush sr) about ivnading iraq he said "no but i did consult another father"


bush is a damn bible thumpre and likes to throw it around

Move to Alberta. I hear its great there.

Actually, Alberta is sort of like the South of the Northwest.

BTW- What's up with 'liberal' being such a dirty word in the US? Really? And yeah, I'm definitely not in favor of Bush, heh. Although at least it'll be good for the Canadian dollar. Which is now 82 cents from a low of about 63 or so back in the days of Clinton.

A somewhat lower dollar value is good for America. It makes our goods more affordable in foreign markets. That makes it easier for us greedy capitalists to take over the world, don't you know...

That isn't how it works, sorry.

when Bush was asked if he consulted his dad (bush sr) about ivnading iraq he said "no but i did consult another father"


bush is a damn bible thumpre and likes to throw it around
So, that is his choice, and It is America's choice to re-elect him.

Bush is a Baptist. As far as religion goes, he's very much a conservative, born-again Christian. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but he does base most of his social intiatives on the precepts of his faith and not what is necessarily the best for a secular political leader. (ie, gay marriage most particularly, but there's other examples)

Hajekistan ... Kerry is a 'papist' ... forgive me if I'm wrong, but that sounds more than vaguely anti-Catholic. If not, than you should not use a term that is basically one of derision. I don't mind if he prays in the Oval Office, or a Protestant president, or a Jewish or Muslim one ... but what I do mind is that a lot of Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) tend to do what their religion tend to go very strongly with their religious convictions, which aren't shared by everyone.

I think Jean Chretien (Canadian PM before Martin) had a good sense of the duty of a religious person (Catholic in his case) in a secular country. He made no real effort to stop the provincial attempts to allow civil unions for homosexuals and said that he would comply with a Supreme Court ruling. All this after the Pope ordered him to do otherwise. Because he believed it was his duty as the leader of Canada, regardless of his personal inclinations as a Catholic.

As for the system, I think that the Electoral College should be eliminated and that the vote should be by having the states broken up into regions. So there's not 49% people who voted one way or the other having their vote totally invalidated in a state because of the way the system is set up. Although generally, I prefer the parliamentary system to the US one anyway. Easier to follow. Logical. Although there are elements of the US system I like.

Namely impeachment. But there should be a provision for popular impeachment. And perhaps for forcing a referendum. But that's another topic, methinks.

BTW- What's up with 'liberal' being such a dirty word in the US? Really? And yeah, I'm definitely not in favor of Bush, heh. Although at least it'll be good for the Canadian dollar. Which is now 82 cents from a low of about 63 or so back in the days of Clinton.

At the risk of sounding a little populist, Canadians do appear to present a consistently reasonable voice in the shouting match that seems to be global politics.

Good post, interesting thoughts mate.

Irrelevant. Both groups are Christian fundamentalists like Bush.See the beauty, people come and prove the original argument. Neither group is fundementalist in the sense you mean. Fudemantalists like Jesse Jackson and Jimmy Carter are Southern Baptists while Fundamentalists like George McGovern are Methodists. Both are large groups of people who share a religous denomination and some core religous beliefs but otherwise hold a diversity of opinions. One may be a member of these groups and be a fundmentalist, like Carter but one doesn't have to be. Instead, there is a perception among the liberal establishment that all religous people are fundementalists, I might go further and say the I see many liberals I have met have a blief that religous people of any persuation are either stupid or wrong in the head, they refuse to accept that intelligent, sane people can actually believe in G*d.

Name calling and stereotyping gives you a false sense of superiority.

Man, you must feel so powerful now "just because Americans are dumb hicks who wouldn't know there ass from a hole in the ground without a guided tour first."

I guess that means since you know your ass from a hole in the ground without a guided tour first you are one of the "smart ones". Interesting.

Name calling and stereotyping is one of the reasons you are "voted off the island".
I believe I may have been using a wee bit of sarcasm there, but then again, you seem to know that I am an arrogant leftist (something I wasn't aware of before now) so maybe I was serious, and it wook a great brain like yours to work it out.
And before anyone says it, yes, I am aware that so many people have decided that sarcasm is "a cant form of humor, never to be used in an attempt at actual wit." To which I will reply:
Just get over yourselves, and laugh, you know you want to.

Of course it IS America's choice to re-elect Bush. George Washington's predictions were right, strangely enough, that eventually The United States would begin to devolve. Other than Russia, the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that is reversing social progress, eventually this is going to lead to some form of political upheaval. China is expected to surpass the United States as the worlds super power by 2025, and my guess is that it will coincide with some major retooling of the United States.

Actually, Alberta is sort of like the South of the Northwest.
I know, thats why I suggested it :p

Nicely said Squi.

It seems sadly enough that both sides of politics - liberal/conservative- have a large amount of members who 'miss the forrest for the trees' with regards to religion. In the case of conservatives, I have frequently seen many who think that a person with a different faith, or indeed an agonostic/atheist cannot be 'moral', despite that person's prior actually actions being somewhat similar to what their religion may advocate.

Similiarly, I have noticed many liberals to miss one of the main points of liberalism- to allow and accept other people's faiths whatever they may be, so long as their actions are not harmful to unwilling others. They think that merely because someone may hold a even somewhat radical belief (Xtian, Judaism, Islam, whatever) other than their own that they are therefore not liberal, rather than observing that person's actual actions and THEN deciding whether that person is likely to impose beliefs on people, or not.

Is it just me or are ther a rash of new nations today with nothing more to add than nastiness?
yes, it makes nationstates look bad for folks like me with 600+ posts.

No it isn't.

Albertans may vote Conservative in our own federal elections, but that is because our Conservative Party isn't really all that conservative, especially when compared with the U.S. Republicans. According to The Globe and Mail, the majority of Albertans would have voted Kerry.

OOC> Aww, thanks Morroko! :) I also like Australia, not as much the current PM, but it's a good country. We Commonwealth folk must stick up for each other!

Yeah, I don't really like our Conservative Party, but all of Canadian politics is rather left of US politics. Which is to say that, in the context of the world, it's relatively centrist. American politics is, by the standards of the developed world, unusually right-wing. For example, almost all Canadians take government-funded health care as a given, even someone like Stephen Harper (the leader of the Conservative Party). There's talk in the right-wing parties about some privatization, but openly scrapping it would cause a riot.

What struck me in the debates was Kerry, supposedly left to Bush, seeming genuinely wounded when Bush made a remark about government health care. It all seemed a bit foreign to me. Then again, I'd probably classify the majority of the US Dems as moderate right-wing. But at the same time, there is a genuine leftist streak in the Democratic Party ... I guess there kind of has to be because of the two-party system.

Personally, I'd describe myself as centre-left by Canadian standards. I'm a member of the New Democratic Party (the Canadian left-of-centre party), but very part of that party's mainstream, not the fringes. Economically, I've become convinced that mixed economies on a mostly market-based model provide the best balance of security and dynamism. Government and the private sectors have their spheres ... (ie health care and utilities for the government, almost everything you could buy in a store for the private sector, etc)

I agree with you completely. I support any fiscally conservative/socially liberal policies and party's. I myself am a member of The Liberal Party.

On the religion issue... I don't care at all what a candidate's religion is, as long as that politician does not attempt to force the rules of his/her religion upon ME, or anyone else who does not share their beliefs. It's wrong for everyone to be forced to adhere to the rules of the religion of whoever is in power. Unlike your little stereotype of liberals, I don't view anyone who's religious in a negative light, as I'm religious myself. I do view those who would attempt to force their particular religion upon other people very negatively though.

About the election...
It was very close, and I'm not going to say Americans are all stupid or whatever, because they're probably no more stupid than the citizens of any other country. You win some, you lose some. I think many Americans, maybe because of our timid media, and relative isolation, still have the misconception that terrorists are afraid of Bush. They're not. In fact, they wanted him to win, because he's so hated in the middle east, as he's seen as the epitome of the "arrogant western imperialist," (an unfair stereotype), they'll get more recruits with him in office in America. Oh well, we've survived his first four years, we can survive four more. There'll always be another election.

I think many Americans, maybe because of our timid media, and relative isolation, still have the misconception that terrorists are afraid of Bush. They're not. In fact, they wanted him to win, because he's so hated in the middle east, as he's seen as the epitome of the "arrogant western imperialist," (an unfair stereotype), they'll get more recruits with him in office in America.

Cool! A target-rich environment! :mp5:

Seriously though, that's BS. They will hate us and attempt to kill us no matter who is President.

Man, you must feel so powerful now "just because Americans are dumb hicks who wouldn't know there ass from a hole in the ground without a guided tour first."
Well, since the Republicans control the presidency, the HOR, the Senate, and soon the Supreme Court, I doubt the American left feels remotely powerful.

Well, since the Republicans control the presidency, the HOR, the Senate, and soon the Supreme Court, I doubt the American left feels remotely powerful.

No political party "controls" the US Supreme Court. That is a misconception.

Unlike your little stereotype of liberals, I don't view anyone who's religious in a negative light . . ..
I cannot resist, no one (well besides some through example) has presented a stereotype of liberals as viewing religous people in a negative light. The closest would be my pointing out that many of the liberals I have met have difficulty believing sane, intelligent people can belive in G*d. In fact the stereotypical libral from the original post accepts religiosity in a hypocritical fashion, Kerry religous good / Bush religous bad.

Mods: This post is very offensive and should be deleted and the poster warned. Will you be truly objective and faithfully fulfill the duties of a moderator?

Only conservative get reprimands here.

No political party "controls" the US Supreme Court. That is a misconception.
Correct. However ideologies do control the USSC, and barring some major fights (which will happen) we are going to see more authoritarian rightists assigned to the court.

Correct. However ideologies do control the USSC, and barring some major fights (which will happen) we are going to see more authoritarian rightists assigned to the court.I doubt it, too many of the Republican majority are anti-authoritarian. Probably more anti-government original constructionists, maybe even federalists but an authoritarian wouldn't make it past the Republicans.

I cannot resist, no one (well besides some through example) has presented a stereotype of liberals as viewing religous people in a negative light. The closest would be my pointing out that many of the liberals I have met have difficulty believing sane, intelligent people can belive in G*d. In fact the stereotypical libral from the original post accepts religiosity in a hypocritical fashion, Kerry religous good / Bush religous bad.

Actually, someone did. However, it was in a very rantish form.

Cool! A target-rich environment! :mp5:

Seriously though, that's BS. They will hate us and attempt to kill us no matter who is President.

Not really. You can't simply pass anything you don't want to hear off as BS. The world simply doesn't work like that. I can pretend George W. Bush isn't president all I want, and say "that's BS" when the election results come in, but that won't change reality.

Damn... I tell ya, I try to act moderately concilliatory and less rabidly liberal than usual and see what happens...

John Kerry is a papist who promised to pray everyday in the Oval Office.

John Kerry is a far cry from a Papist (a derogatory term for Catholics, especially those who are, Heaven forbid, loyal to the Holy Father) he's been ignoring the popes warnings about Cathloic politician's stances on abortion.

I doubt it, too many of the Republican majority are anti-authoritarian. Probably more anti-government original constructionists, maybe even federalists but an authoritarian wouldn't make it past the Republicans.
Given the track record of the Bush admin so far, I see a strong lean towards pro-federal government rightwingers getting appointed.

John Kerry is a far cry from a Papist (a derogatory term for Catholics, especially those who are, Heaven forbid, loyal to the Holy Father) he's been ignoring the popes warnings about Cathloic politician's stances on abortion.
To be Catholic you have to be loyal to the Pope. The Pope, after all, is ordained by God with the Divine Right of Popes, and so everything he says is holy and correct. Anyway, Heaven forbids alot of things, I haven't read into all of them, but I am pretty sure that slashing your neighbors tires is one of them, so religion was pretty much a losing battle for me, and it all went over the edge in the Plastic Flamingo Incident back when I was 15.

Cool! A target-rich environment! :mp5:

Seriously though, that's BS. They will hate us and attempt to kill us no matter who is President.
Silly New Galtania, Callisdrun is right, terrorists are solely anti-Bush. Don't you remember the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole Oct 12, 2000? The terrorists new Bush would win, but they got a little overexcited and accidentally went early. And remember that barracks bombing in 1983? Even then the terrorists knew that Georg W. Bush would win, and that he would be mean and kill them.
But, Hajekistan, Bush wasn't president then, you say?
Think about it, who was vice president at the time George H.W. Bush!
Who was George H.W. Bush's son?
Thats right, Jebb Bush!
No, wait! I mean George W. Bush!
Silly New Galtania, Callisdrun is always right, because his liberalism transcends all other aspects of existence.

Silly New Galtania, Callisdrun is right, terrorists are solely anti-Bush. Don't you remember the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole Oct 12, 2000? The terrorists new Bush would win, but they got a little overexcited and accidentally went early. And remember that barracks bombing in 1983? Even then the terrorists knew that Georg W. Bush would win, and that he would be mean and kill them.
But, Hajekistan, Bush wasn't president then, you say?
Think about it, who was vice president at the time George H.W. Bush!
Who was George H.W. Bush's son?
Thats right, Jebb Bush!
No, wait! I mean George W. Bush!
Silly New Galtania, Callisdrun is always right, because his liberalism transcends all other aspects of existence.

I hope your being sarcastic.

To be Catholic you have to be loyal to the Pope. The Pope, after all, is ordained by God with the Divine Right of Popes, and so everything he says is holy and correct. Anyway, Heaven forbids alot of things, I haven't read into all of them, but I am pretty sure that slashing your neighbors tires is one of them, so religion was pretty much a losing battle for me, and it all went over the edge in the Plastic Flamingo Incident back when I was 15.
No, you don't. It sounds strange but as long as you don't do anything that warrants excommunication, the pope is not considered infallable except under the most extreme of circumstances, which have only been declared once, I think, in the last 200 or so years.

I hope your being sarcastic.
With me, you can never tell . . .

I hope your being sarcastic.
No, he's being truthful.


Terrorists never attack under Democratic Administrations, you know that.

An odd thing you tend to notice when you watch Democratic spin, consistency is apparently a bad thing (and I am not talking about the flip-flop mess, that has been overdone). Examples provided for your further edification:

When I think about criticisms about Dem consistency, I somehow always start conjuring up images of the Conservative "bastions of morality". Folks like Gingrich (cheated on his first wife; served her divorce papers while she was being treated for cancer in the hospital), Limbaugh (drug addict), and O'Reilly (apparently sexually harassed several women he worked with, is a big proponent of ye olde phone sex, and likes jacking off with the assistance of a vibrator).

Now, with the exception of Gingrich, I don't necessarily have a problem with these behaviors. The fact that these douchebags regularly rail AGAINST people who are drug addicts, or who have their own sexual proclivities, is what pisses me off.

everything (including what breakfast cereal you get to eat in the morning) should be decided by popular vote. After all, only through the combined intellect of the majority can people realize what is truly right.

Who made this argument?

They should be allowed to impeach Bush because the majority is always smart, and they know everything.

See previous comment.

2004 Bush Vs. Kerry = Bush may have won the popular vote, but that is just because Americans are dumb hicks who wouldn't know there ass from a hole in the ground without a guided tour first. The U.S. is stupid and stinky, and the people in it wouldn't even be allowed to vote, the U.N. should anoint a President for Life for the U.S.A.

Ibid.

Funny how the facts work out, eh?

Funny how you have such a loose definition for determining things "facts", eh?

A large number of people voted for Bush for "Moral Leadership" = OMGWTF?!?!?! CHRIS7I4NZ 4R3 RUINING 73H C0N7TRY!!1!!!!!1!!1

If one feels that Bush's morality is disctinct from what one's one moral position is, then I feel that critiquing both Bush's morality, as well as the "moral stances" of people who obviously share his own moral stance, is appropriate. Feel free to explain why this is not so.

George Bush is a Methodist, but is largely quiet about it = Watch out! He'll try and impose his beliefs on you!

People's concerns about Bush and religion have much less to do with his Methodism and much more to do with his history of courting the politically-far-right Evangelicals. See "Faith in the White House" to understand what I'm talking about.

John Kerry is a papist

A papist? Who uses this terminology anymore? Why don't you go ahead and call Guilliani a "dago" while you're at it? That'll be sure to get you props among your friends at the 1923 historical re-enactment society.:rolleyes:

who promised to pray everyday in the Oval Office.

This would distinguish him from Bush... how? Oh, right. Papist. I forgot.

Wowee, great stuff, eh? Eh? Eh? EH!?!

Um... yeah. Excellent "research".

A somewhat lower dollar value is good for America. It makes our goods more affordable in foreign markets. That makes it easier for us greedy capitalists to take over the world, don't you know...
No it makes our dollar buy less when buying from other countries. And we import much more than we export.
Unless you count the jobs we export then the exports might take the lead. :D

Silly New Galtania, Callisdrun is right, terrorists are solely anti-Bush. Don't you remember the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole Oct 12, 2000? The terrorists new Bush would win, but they got a little overexcited and accidentally went early. And remember that barracks bombing in 1983? Even then the terrorists knew that Georg W. Bush would win, and that he would be mean and kill them.
But, Hajekistan, Bush wasn't president then, you say?
Think about it, who was vice president at the time George H.W. Bush!
Who was George H.W. Bush's son?
Thats right, Jebb Bush!
No, wait! I mean George W. Bush!
Silly New Galtania, Callisdrun is always right, because his liberalism transcends all other aspects of existence.

Um, somehow I think you missed the forest for the trees here.

Did he say that Kerry would serve as a magic talisman to ward away terrorists? No. He said that Kerry's method of foreign policy (which sounds a lot closer to Theodore Roosevelt's maxim of "Speak softly and carry a big stick" than Bush's policy, which is usually to concentrate only on the stick and forget about everything else) might limit the perception among Arabs that we are trying to conquer Iraq purely to take their oil and subjugate Muslims in the process, thus necessitating jihad.

It might seem odd to you, but there are more ways of stopping terrorism than preemptorily blowing up everyone who might conceive of it, you know.

*Yawn*

Another thread of partisan hackery. Let me know when some of you get back to real issues.

Hhaha. Bush most definately sucks God's cock every time he gives a speech. All of his domestic social issue policies are faith-based, instead of secular.
HOLY JESUS! you win the blasphemy award of the century! Wow, if I was religious I would be totally pissed at you!

Bush is indeed a Methodist, not a Baptist as several people seem to think.

2004 Bush Vs. Kerry = Bush may have won the popular vote, but that is just because Americans are dumb hicks who wouldn't know there ass from a hole in the ground without a guided tour first. The U.S. is stupid and stinky, and the people in it wouldn't even be allowed to vote, the U.N. should anoint a President for Life for the U.S.A.

We are not all dumb hicks. That is one of those dumb stereotype of Americans.

And the U.N. does not have power over another nation.

Just think in four years, no more Bush.

Actually, someone did. However, it was in a very rantish form.
Am I missing something, I've looked through this thread six times now and can see only the original stereotype of liberals being presented? Could you point out this stereotype of liberals for me, I cannot see it.



***Assorted miscellany. TR's maxim was "Walk softly and carry a big stick," not "speak softly".

Papal infallibility is not the issue, but papal authority. Papal infallability is applied quite often, the most recent example of papal infallability (RC) I can think of was Human Vitae from 1968.

Papal authority over the actions of civil authoties has been declining since the 11th century and pretty much ceased to exist in the early 20th, although the issue was relevant as recently as the 1960 US presidential campaign. basically the church has conceded that in their role as civil authorities Catholics may act in a manner inconsistant with thier beliefs as Catholics provided it does not interfere with thier role as Catholics. This is not a formal doctrine, merely an accepted standard and it is an uneasy situation.***

To be Catholic you have to be loyal to the Pope. The Pope, after all, is ordained by God with the Divine Right of Popes, and so everything he says is holy and correct. Anyway, Heaven forbids alot of things, I haven't read into all of them, but I am pretty sure that slashing your neighbors tires is one of them, so religion was pretty much a losing battle for me, and it all went over the edge in the Plastic Flamingo Incident back when I was 15.

Holy shit, you are hella ignorant. This isn't the 15th century anymore. Beleive it or not, many Catholics, maybe even most (my dad being one) don't give a rat's ass about what the pope thinks. To them he is just a figurehead. I kid you not.

Perhaps you are just joking? Because this amount of bullshit is simply unbelievable. I don't see how you could think something like that without your head up your ass.

Very, very welcome, goodsir! Although, I fail to see where I have misinterpreted anything, or would you accuse a mirror of misinterpreting your hair, should it be revealed that you are in possession of a cowlick the size of Montana? Not say you have one of course (you could be bald for all I know).

Hahah yeah, the mirror misrepresents my hair (it's dead long at the front but pretty short at the back due to a minor fuckup on my part). I don't really think it misinterprets it, though :D

As a lamer Brit, I'm pretty shielded from the BS storm surrounding the election. Saying that, I really couldn't give a damn what the Democrats are saying about Bush, because that doesn't change his policies at all. Not all liberals are Democrats, y'see :D

To address your point, I really don't see how the viewpoints are contradictory at all (you seem to be concluding that the Democrats are for democracy only when it pleases them). Bush lost the 2000 election democratically, but was still made president: this is bad. This same person is subsequently voted into power four years later: surely you can allow them a few whines? If they were saying Kerry should be made president regardless, this would be hypocritical. So they do the only thing they can and blame the voters. Besides that most of them hate the man, their own guy didn't get in; they're likely a little pissed :D

You claim Bush is quiet about his religious beliefs; all we see here in England points to the contrary. When the most powerful nation in the world starts using religion as an excuse or, more worryingly, a reason to start invading other countries, the world gets a little scared. But the point about religion appears to have been done to death anyways.

Ta dude.

When I think about criticisms about Dem consistency, I somehow always start conjuring up images of the Conservative "bastions of morality". Folks like Gingrich (cheated on his first wife; served her divorce papers while she was being treated for cancer in the hospital), Limbaugh (drug addict), and O'Reilly (apparently sexually harassed several women he worked with, is a big proponent of ye olde phone sex, and likes jacking off with the assistance of a vibrator).
Ahem, just in case you haven't noiced, this is about democratic consistency. If you want to complain that 3 people may not be on the sttraight and level, than you go to anyone of the many, many "OMFG!!!1!! R3PUBLIC4NS SUXX0RSD!!!1!!shift+1!!1!" threads located on these wonderful boards.

Now, with the exception of Gingrich, I don't necessarily have a problem with these behaviors. The fact that these douchebags regularly rail AGAINST people who are drug addicts, or who have their own sexual proclivities, is what pisses me off.
See above.
Further, I am not arguing that Republicans are without blemishes and Democrats are somehow unholy. I am stating that they are very similar, and yet Leftists like to pretend that Republicans are stupid, filthy, religious hicks, while Democrats are wise and ennobled.

Who made this argument?
The bit you quoted was hyperbole! And many people did decide that the electoral college (which no one seemed to be all that concerned about pre-2000) was being decried as a mean way that for George W. Bush to win the office of President.

See previous comment.
I'll admit that the only time I ever saw this literally said was by NWV, and I suppose it isn't the best example of anything other than a flaming moron. However, Moore, whom the DNC knows and loves, is even now calling for Bush to be impeached on the grounds of him violating the part of the Constituion where it says:
"Michael Moore has the final authority over everything, and that includes the laws of gravity"

Funny how you have such a loose definition for determining things "facts", eh?
Funny how purposefully oblivious you are, eh?

If one feels that Bush's morality is disctinct from what one's one moral position is, then I feel that critiquing both Bush's morality, as well as the "moral stances" of people who obviously share his own moral stance, is appropriate. Feel free to explain why this is not so.
In case you didn't notice, that wonderful little 1st amendment would seem to have me believe "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (A shrewd observer of the written word would note that nowhere in here is there a "seperation of Church and State", merely a note that you can't create an official religion, or the banning of one, but that is an srgument for another day) Therefore, if someone feels religiously motivated to vote for anyone, even Mr. Ed (or, weirder yet, Ralph Nader), it is really none of your business. Further, should the majority of the nation want to vote based on religious preference, you may object, but it is fully within their rights and the laws of the U.S.

People's concerns about Bush and religion have much less to do with his Methodism and much more to do with his history of courting the politically-far-right Evangelicals. See "Faith in the White House" to understand what I'm talking about.
It is his option, see the above little constitutional quote.

A papist? Who uses this terminology anymore? Why don't you go ahead and call Guilliani a "dago" while you're at it? That'll be sure to get you props among your friends at the 1923 historical re-enactment society.:rolleyes:
The term papist doesn't apply to anything, and its stupid. Yet, Bush is an Evangelical, and that makes him somehow unclean?

This would distinguish him from Bush... how? Oh, right. Papist. I forgot.
It wouldn't, and if you paid attention to a damn thing I said, you might happen to notice that that, my dear Watson, is exactly my point!

Bush Quotes:

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

"Catholic schools carry out a great mission, to serve God by building knowledge and character.... By teaching the word of God, you prepare your students to follow a path of virtue."

"Tyrants and dictators will accept no other gods before them. They require disobedience to the First Commandment. They seek absolute control and are threatened by faith in God. They fear only the power they cannot possess -- the power of truth. So they resent the living example of the devout, especially the devotion of a unique people chosen by God."
(Blaming the holocaust on Ungodliness)

"I really appreciate leaders from around the globe who have come to share in prayer with us today. It reminds me that the Almighty God is a God to everybody, every person."

JESUS DAY:

"Throughout the world, people of all religions recognize Jesus Christ as an example of love, compassion, sacrifice and service. Reaching out to the poor, the suffering and the marginalized, he provided moral leadership that continues to inspire countless men, women and children today.
To honor his life and teachings, Christians of all races and denominations have joined together to designate June 10 as Jesus Day. As part of this celebration of unity, they are taking part in the 10th annual March for Jesus in cities throughout the Lone Star State. The march, which began in Austin in 1991, is now held in nearly 180 countries. Jesus Day challenges people to follow Christ's example by performing good works in their communities and neighborhoods. By nursing the sick, feeding the poor or volunteering in homeless shelters, everyone can play a role in making the world a better place.

I urge all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need. By volunteering their time, energy or resources to helping others, adults and youngsters follow Christ's message of love and service in thought and deed.

Therefore, I, George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, do hereby proclaim June 10, 2000, Jesus Day in Texas and urge the appropriate recognition whereof, in official recognition whereof, I hereby affix my signature this 17th day of April, 2000."


Quiet about his religion? Don't know the man too well do you?

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."
Crusade has gone pretty far from religious war, and is now somtimes used to refer to someone who is determined to fight, whatever the cost. Such is the bastardization of language.

"Catholic schools carry out a great mission, to serve God by building knowledge and character.... By teaching the word of God, you prepare your students to follow a path of virtue."
I'm an athiest and I acknowledge that a Catholic school will teach you Catholic virtues.

"Tyrants and dictators will accept no other gods before them. They require disobedience to the First Commandment. They seek absolute control and are threatened by faith in God. They fear only the power they cannot possess -- the power of truth. So they resent the living example of the devout, especially the devotion of a unique people chosen by God."
(Blaming the holocaust on Ungodliness)
So, then dictators must be, a good thing.

"I really appreciate leaders from around the globe who have come to share in prayer with us today. It reminds me that the Almighty God is a God to everybody, every person."
Again, I find no offense here. He just believes that God likes eveyone.

"Throughout the world, people of all religions recognize Jesus Christ as an example of love, compassion, sacrifice and service. Reaching out to the poor, the suffering and the marginalized, he provided moral leadership that continues to inspire countless men, women and children today.
To honor his life and teachings, Christians of all races and denominations have joined together to designate June 10 as Jesus Day. As part of this celebration of unity, they are taking part in the 10th annual March for Jesus in cities throughout the Lone Star State. The march, which began in Austin in 1991, is now held in nearly 180 countries. Jesus Day challenges people to follow Christ's example by performing good works in their communities and neighborhoods. By nursing the sick, feeding the poor or volunteering in homeless shelters, everyone can play a role in making the world a better place.

I urge all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need. By volunteering their time, energy or resources to helping others, adults and youngsters follow Christ's message of love and service in thought and deed.

Therefore, I, George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, do hereby proclaim June 10, 2000, Jesus Day in Texas and urge the appropriate recognition whereof, in official recognition whereof, I hereby affix my signature this 17th day of April, 2000."
You are damn right Vittos, how dare he believe in being beneficient to those in need. How the fuck dare that bastard try and create a day for helping out the less fortunate. I am one hundred percent against any cocksucking whore who would for one moment believe that anyone should help anyone else.
That is absurd!
That is dangerous!
And worst of all, it is unnatural!

Quiet about his religion? Don't know the man too well do you?
Anyway, I was refering to a comparison between his campaigning and John Kerry's. The fact that you seem unable to realize is that the both of them claimed to be religious. Therefore, you couldn't claim that Bush's religion was a bad thing and then support another man who pledged to be just as religious, without losing ssome credibility.

JESUS DAY:


Therefore, I, George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, do hereby proclaim June 10, 2000, Jesus Day in Texas and urge the appropriate recognition whereof, in official recognition whereof, I hereby affix my signature this 17th day of April, 2000."


Quiet about his religion? Don't know the man too well do you?
Lets be honest now. He did that because that is my birthday and everyone knows i'm awesome. It's not really that religious its just that i am so freaking cool. Vote for me 2008 :cool:

America got what they deserved in this election, I mean, honestly. If people want to vote for this kid Bush, then whatever, they should have to live with him. I'm just going to Canada, it's like America without the South.

Read the newspapers. canada doesn't want you.

Crusade has gone pretty far from religious war, and is now somtimes used to refer to someone who is determined to fight, whatever the cost. Such is the bastardization of language.

You could be right about that, but you know that Bush must know the connotation of the word.

I'm an athiest and I acknowledge that a Catholic school will teach you Catholic virtues.

It is his belief and stating that schools teaching religion and God leads kids down the right path in life that is unnerving to me.


So, then dictators must be, a good thing.

You know that is not the point I'm trying to make. There were so many issues to touch on with this quote, and that wasn't won of them. In fact, Bush never once says anything bad about tyrants other than they dislike religion, which is scary in its own right. However, he derides the separation of church and state, declares that believing in God is the "power of truth", and when you consider yourself a member of a "unique people chosen by God" you should not be allowed to lead the free world.

Again, I find no offense here. He just believes that God likes eveyone.

It shows his preference for predominantly Christian nations, and presumes that God is the God of everyone, a belief that has started many wars and killed a lot of people.

You are damn right Vittos, how dare he believe in being beneficient to those in need. How the fuck dare that bastard try and create a day for helping out the less fortunate. I am one hundred percent against any cocksucking whore who would for one moment believe that anyone should help anyone else.
That is absurd!
That is dangerous!
And worst of all, it is unnatural!

It is a government recognition of religion which is unconstitutional. He also encourages people to follow Christ's teachings, and no person in political office should use his power to pursuade people to a religion.

Anyway, I was refering to a comparison between his campaigning and John Kerry's. The fact that you seem unable to realize is that the both of them claimed to be religious. Therefore, you couldn't claim that Bush's religion was a bad thing and then support another man who pledged to be just as religious, without losing ssome credibility.

Yes, Kerry is religious, he freely admitted it as he is not ashamed of it. The difference is Kerry understands that religion is something that cannot be involved in the political process, because we are a nation of many religions, and that America was founded by people who left a nation that were left out by a government which endorsed religion. Bush doesn't grasp this.

Anyway, I was refering to a comparison between his campaigning and John Kerry's. The fact that you seem unable to realize is that the both of them claimed to be religious. Therefore, you couldn't claim that Bush's religion was a bad thing and then support another man who pledged to be just as religious, without losing ssome credibility.
Oh, come on dude. Surely you see a difference between someone who merely states his religious beliefs either out of truthfulness or as an honest, if a little crass, attempt to glean some support from religious voters, and someone who seemingly (at least from where I'm standing) claims everything he does as the will of God?

Ahem, just in case you haven't noiced, this is about democratic consistency. If you want to complain that 3 people may not be on the sttraight and level, than you go to anyone of the many, many "OMFG!!!1!! R3PUBLIC4NS SUXX0RSD!!!1!!shift+1!!1!" threads located on these wonderful boards.

You're trying to excoriate democrats for perceived hypocrisy and inconsistency when similar examples seem to exist among Republicans, as well. I fail to see why pointing this out is somehow illegitimate.

See above.
Further, I am not arguing that Republicans are without blemishes and Democrats are somehow unholy. I am stating that they are very similar, and yet Leftists like to pretend that Republicans are stupid, filthy, religious hicks, while Democrats are wise and ennobled.

And yet, your alleged claim towards balance seems nonexistent in your opening post. Instead, you attack Democrats for their faults and say nothing about Republican ones- not even alluding to the possibility of their existence.

The bit you quoted was hyperbole!

I noticed. I'm glad you're aware of it, too.

And many people did decide that the electoral college (which no one seemed to be all that concerned about pre-2000) was being decried as a mean way that for George W. Bush to win the office of President.

And yet, criticism of the latter does not translate into requesting the former.

I'll admit that the only time I ever saw this literally said was by NWV, and I suppose it isn't the best example of anything other than a flaming moron.

In other words, more hyperbole you can't actually attribute to anyone. You're quite good at this strawman thing.

However, Moore, whom the DNC knows and loves, is even now calling for Bush to be impeached on the grounds of him violating the part of the Constituion where it says:
"Michael Moore has the final authority over everything, and that includes the laws of gravity"

See above.

Funny how purposefully oblivious you are, eh?

You make up quotes that have no basis in fact and then attack liberals with them. How is pointing out your absurd debating tactics "oblivious"? Should I now attack Conservatives for not putting the unicorn on the endangered species list? Or for denying elves affirmative action?

In case you didn't notice, that wonderful little 1st amendment would seem to have me believe "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (A shrewd observer of the written word would note that nowhere in here is there a "seperation of Church and State", merely a note that you can't create an official religion, or the banning of one, but that is an srgument for another day)If one feels that Bush's morality is disctinct from what one's one moral position is, then I feel that critiquing both Bush's morality, as well as the "moral stances" of people who obviously share his own moral stance, is appropriate. Feel free to explain why this is not so.A large number of people voted for Bush for "Moral Leadership" = OMGWTF?!?!?! CHRIS7I4NZ 4R3 RUINING 73H C0N7TRY!!1!!!!!1!!1

An even shrewder observer might also notice that nothing in this response has anything to do with my point. But I guess you're not that shrewd.

Therefore, if someone feels religiously motivated to vote for anyone, even Mr. Ed (or, weirder yet, Ralph Nader), it is really none of your business.

Bullshit. If I disagree with someone, it is totally my business to say so. It's called freedom of speech, also part of that whole "first amendment" thing you just brought up.

They have the freedom to believe and vote how they want, and I have the freedom to criticize said beliefs and votes, just as they have the right to do so in regards to MY beliefs and vote. Similarly, I have the freedom to criticize the president's "moral values" if MY OPINION is that they differ from MY "moral values".

Further, should the majority of the nation want to vote based on religious preference, you may object, but it is fully within their rights and the laws of the U.S.

Again, nothing to do with my point, which was not about whether or not it is legitimate for people to vote according to their beliefs, but rather about whether or not it is legitimate for OTHER PEOPLE to criticize THOSE voters' beliefs.

It is his option, see the above little constitutional quote.

It's irrelevant to my point, see the above sentence. It's OVBIOUSLY his option, that doesn't mean the ideas are immune from criticism. You can believe in reading chicken entrails, or consulting astrological charts, or in praying to a holy dog food can; no one disputes that you have the RIGHT to do it, but that doesn't mean no one is allowed to challenge those beliefs, particularly when they are seen to impact public policy.

The term papist doesn't apply to anything, and its stupid.

And the reason you used it, therefore, is...? Or was this more of your excellent and uber-relevant hyperbole?

Yet, Bush is an Evangelical, and that makes him somehow unclean?

Again, who has made this argument?

It wouldn't, and if you paid attention to a damn thing I said, you might happen to notice that that, my dear Watson, is exactly my point!

So your point is that both Bush and Kerry wore religion on their sleeve? So what are you criticizing?

You called this thread, "How Leftists see America". Yet all you have done here is attack inaccurate stereotypes of how YOU THINK "Leftists" see America. It's nothing but the knocking down of strawmen.

I wish you a lot of luck with your shadowboxing.

I love how people who have no clue what "leftists" believe in spout off what they believe in... how stupid. :rolleyes: