NationStates Jolt Archive

True Christians within the GOP are worried the kind of Christian fanaticism that Bush promotes and panders to in America parallels the kind of Islamic fanaticism that enslaves so many Arab countries and is a direct threat to American Democracy at a time when Bush is trying to claim to be fighting for Arab Democracy-- (even though Bushs invasion of Iraq has given that country a govt more in line with Iran)-- Maybe Bush and Osama are alot more alike then anyone wants to think about...


Jack Danforth wishes the Republican right would step down from its pulpit. Instead, he sees a constant flow of religion into national politics. And not just any religion, either, but the us-versus-them, my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God, velvet-fist variety of Christian evangelism.

As a mainline Episcopal priest, retired U.S. senator and diplomat, Danforth worships a humbler God and considers the right's certainty a sin. Legislating against gay marriage, for instance? "It's just cussedness." As he sees it, many Republican leaders have lost their bearings and, if they don't change, will lose their grip on power. Not to mention make the United States a meaner place.

Danforth is no squalling liberal. He is a lifelong Republican. And his own political history shows he is no milquetoast.

A man of God and the GOP, he is speaking out for moderation -- in religion, politics, science and government

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102393.html

Maybe Bush and Osama are alot more alike then anyone wants to think about...

Well said...

But did you realize that JUST NOW? O_O

No

I realized it on 911:(

Well said...

But did you realize that JUST NOW? O_O

Aye, for how messed you are, I'd have expected a theocracy conspiracy theory out of you before it made sense,

Maybe Bush and Osama are alot more alike then anyone wants to think about...

That's nonsense! Bush is totally different from Osama. Bush is white, Osama isn't. Osama has a beard, Bush doesn't. Bush controls a nation, Osama controls a group. And... er... Uhm... to name another difference... er... I... Uhm... Er... Anyways, that's nonsense!

Aye, for how messed you are, I'd have expected a theocracy conspiracy theory out of you before it made sense,
but clearly there is a theocracy conspiracy goin on right now under Bush and even other republicans can see it

[QUOTE=Romulus Os]Maybe Bush and Osama are alot more alike then anyone wants to think about...[quote]

That's nonsense! Bush is totally different from Osama. Bush is white, Osama isn't. Osama has a beard, Bush doesn't. Bush controls a nation, Osama controls a group. And... er... Uhm... to name another difference... er... I... Uhm... Er... Anyways, that's nonsense!
now lets list the similarities---Bush is a religious zealot so is Osama--Bush believes in Theocracy so does Osama--Bush wants regime change in the Arab world to be replaced with puppet regimes so does Osama--Bush exploited 911 to advance a political agenda so did Osama--Bush kills as many people as he possibley can in a day so does Osama--Bush believes in torturing people so does Osama --Bush thinks God is on his side in his "Holy War" against the infidel so does Osama--Bush doesnt know that HES an infidel and neither does Osama--the list is endless

Aye, for how messed you are, I'd have expected a theocracy conspiracy theory out of you before it made sense,
What? For how messed I am?

You lost me there. How exactly am I messed, and how does condemning religious fanaticism imply a theocracy conspiracy theory?

Here's a couple of big differences between Bush and Bin Laden. G.W. doesn't convince people to fly planes into buildings, doesn't make them blow themselves up in a crowded market, and doesn't order people to cut off other peoples heads.

Here's a couple of big differences between Bush and Bin Laden. G.W. doesn't convince people to fly planes into buildings, doesn't make them blow themselves up in a crowded market, and doesn't order people to cut off other peoples heads.
No, instead he gets people to fly missiles into buildings, drop cluster bombs in urban areas and torture people with things like waterboarding or worse.

[QUOTE=Heikoku][QUOTE=Romulus Os]Maybe Bush and Osama are alot more alike then anyone wants to think about...
now lets list the similarities---Bush is a religious zealot so is Osama--Bush believes in Theocracy so does Osama--Bush wants regime change in the Arab world to be replaced with puppet regimes so does Osama--Bush exploited 911 to advance a political agenda so did Osama--Bush kills as many people as he possibley can in a day so does Osama--Bush believes in torturing people so does Osama --Bush thinks God is on his side in his "Holy War" against the infidel so does Osama--Bush doesnt know that HES an infidel and neither does Osama--the list is endless

To drive the point home: I agree withyou ;)

Romulus: Everyone on NS is now dumber for having read this topic. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

No, instead he gets people to fly missiles into buildings, drop cluster bombs in urban areas and torture people with things like waterboarding or worse.
Oh, but those are merely the acts of some unruly soldiers. Little more than fraternity pranks, nothing to be concerned about! :rolleyes:

Romulus: Everyone on NS is now dumber for having read this topic. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

Says the guy that lacked the courage for a suicide. What are you to decide who God sides with? God? You've posted so many inane theories in this topic that you've earned a reputation, Emo-boy.

Here's a couple of big differences between Bush and Bin Laden. G.W. doesn't convince people to fly planes into buildings, doesn't make them blow themselves up in a crowded market, and doesn't order people to cut off other peoples heads.
But Bush lied to start a war that killed alot more people then Osama ever did in ALL of his terrorist attacks combined and Bushs excesses has recruited far more people in the arab world to join the terrorist ranks then Osama ever couldve by himself and Bush has ordered people not charged with any crimes to be tortured in medieval dungeons after being kidnapped in violation of international law which is just as bad as chopping peoples heads off

Romulus: Everyone on NS is now dumber for having read this topic. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
Of course, your ad hominem attack on the original poster instead of trying to refute his arguments has convinced us all. We now see the light. All Hail the thruth of your words!

[/sarcasm]

Says the guy that lacked the courage for a suicide. What are you to decide who God sides with? God? You've posted so many inane theories in this topic that you've earned a reputation, Emo-boy.

Somebody's never seen Billy Madison.

http://www.rsthree.com/orly/billy-madison.jpg

Says the guy that lacked the courage for a suicide. What are you to decide who God sides with? God? You've posted so many inane theories in this topic that you've earned a reputation, Emo-boy.
[Insert comments similar to his last post about attacking the poster and not his message]

[QUOTE=Romulus Os][QUOTE=Heikoku]

To drive the point home: I agree withyou ;)
Hail ^5:cool:

Romulus: Everyone on NS is now dumber for having read this topic. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
then my mission is accomplished here:cool:

[Insert comments similar to his last post about attacking the poster and not his message]

Okay, so sue me, I have this dark side of me that likes to tease the mentally disabled. :P

Okay, so sue me, I have this dark side of me that likes to tease the mentally disabled. :P
*sigh* No comments.

Romulus: Everyone on NS is now dumber for having read this topic. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.Good. I give you -1000 points for trolling. :rolleyes:

Geez, now I got -20 for feeding a troll. :D

Maybe Bush and Osama are alot more alike then anyone wants to think about... I've thought about that, but this was the first time in NS General that someone actually said that.

it can be said that political activism and mass protests and displays of People Power is a form of trolling too against authority---if it wasnt for trolls we'd all be slaves

I've thought about that, but this was the first time in NS General that someone actually said that.
we must speak the unspeakable or we'll end up living the unthinkable

True Christians within the GOP are worried the kind of Christian fanaticism that Bush promotes and panders to in America parallels the kind of Islamic fanaticism that enslaves so many Arab countries and is a direct threat to American Democracy at a time when Bush is trying to claim to be fighting for Arab Democracy-- (even though Bushs invasion of Iraq has given that country a govt more in line with Iran)-- Maybe Bush and Osama are alot more alike then anyone wants to think about...
Then again, perhaps you have less of a grip on reality than anyone wants to think about. There is no "Christian Taliban." "Christian fanaticism" is largely a myth. American Democracy is alive and well, and is under no threat whatsoever either from American Christianity or the Christians of any other country. You need a really, really strong dose of reality.

--the list is endless
Only in the minds of those with a decided turn for dementia.

Then again, perhaps you have less of a grip on reality than anyone wants to think about. There is no "Christian Taliban." "Christian fanaticism" is largely a myth. American Democracy is alive and well, and is under no threat whatsoever either from American Christianity or the Christians of any other country. You need a really, really strong dose of reality.
Oh, please. Christian fanaticism isn't a myth: what about all we hear about religion directing the realms of law and politics? What about all that anti-abortion in North(South?) Dakota? Those anti-same-sex-marriage bills? Those schools being forced to teach "Intelligent Design" side by side with evolution?

Christianty isn't the problem, granted: it's the fundamentalists who try to bring their religion into law who are. But saying there's no encroaching of religion in american politics or judiciary is just blindness.

Pat Robertson?... Bushs desecration of Science in favor of religious based superstitions?...Bush legislating the "moral" agenda of the hardcore Christian Right on abortion creationism mercy killing and gay rights?...Bush ruling like hes some kind of infallable moral authority above all human laws?..how can you say that our Democracy isnt under siege by Theocratists in light of all this?

Oh, please. Christian fanaticism isn't a myth: what about all we hear about religion directing the realms of law and politics? What about all that anti-abortion in North(South?) Dakota? Those anti-same-sex-marriage bills? Those schools being forced to teach "Intelligent Design" side by side with evolution?

Christianty isn't the problem, granted: it's the fundamentalists who try to bring their religion into law who are. But saying there's no encroaching of religion in american politics or judiciary is just blindness.
Ever hear of "the people?" In America, they get to vote. A great many of them are Christians who tend to vote their consciences. You have a problem with that, you need to take it up with the electorate. See? Reality can be your friend when you become acquainted with it. :D

how can you say that our Democracy isnt under siege by Theocratists in light of all this?

That's pretty simple, actually: He ignores all evidence contrary to his previously-held belief.

Pat Robertson?... Bushs desecration of Science in favor of religious based superstitions?...Bush legislating the "moral" agenda of the hardcore Christian Right on abortion creationism mercy killing and gay rights?...Bush ruling like hes some kind of infallable moral authority above all human laws?..how can you say that our Democracy isnt under siege by Theocratists in light of all this?
Easy. I just ask myself what freedoms I have lost as a result of Pat Robertson, et al. The only answer I can come up with, being acquainted with reality as I am, is that I haven't lost any of the freedoms guaranteed to me by the Constitution. See? Reality can be your friend if you're willing to shed your liberal brainwashing and join the rest of us in actually ... you know ... thinking! :D

Ever hear of "the people?" In America, they get to vote. A great many of them are Christians who tend to vote their consciences. You have a problem with that, you need to take it up with the electorate. See? Reality can be your friend when you become acquainted with it. :D
So you're telling me there is only one sort of christian in the US, and that Bush and the elected fundamentalists are representative of them?

I prefer to think of the average US citizen as less vindicative, but maybe my perception of them is flawed.

Nevertheless, let us not forget that little more than 25% of americans voted for Bush and his cronies, so excuse me if I remain skeptical that all of them agree with his religious-based political moves. And let us not forget either that he wasn't elected by the people, but rather by the supreme court.

Ever hear of "the people?" In America, they get to vote. A great many of them are Christians who tend to vote their consciences. You have a problem with that, you need to take it up with the electorate. See? Reality can be your friend when you become acquainted with it. :D

Yeah, too bad that line of thought tends to result in tyranny by majority. If you can call fundies a majority.

Oh, please. Christian fanaticism isn't a myth: what about all we hear about religion directing the realms of law and politics? What about all that anti-abortion in North(South?) Dakota? Those anti-same-sex-marriage bills? Those schools being forced to teach "Intelligent Design" side by side with evolution?

Christianty isn't the problem, granted: it's the fundamentalists who try to bring their religion into law who are. But saying there's no encroaching of religion in american politics or judiciary is just blindness.
I never said any such thing. All I said was that Christians have the same rights to vote as anyone else. Is this not true? Or perhaps you would prefer to deny the same rights to Christians as those guaranteed to you? Is that your stand?

Ever hear of "the people?" In America, they get to vote. A great many of them are Christians who tend to vote their consciences. You have a problem with that, you need to take it up with the electorate. See? Reality can be your friend when you become acquainted with it. :D
What reality? That those Christians are trying to legislate their religion by trampling on the principles your nation was founded upon?

That's pretty simple, actually: He ignores all evidence contrary to his previously-held belief.
ROFLMFAO!! Oh that's priceless! You, my fine-feathered friend, are projecting. Get real.

So you're telling me there is only one sort of christian in the US, and that Bush and the elected fundamentalists are representative of them?

I prefer to think of the average US citizen as less vindicative, but maybe my perception of them is flawed.

Nevertheless, let us not forget that little more than 25% of americans voted for Bush and his cronies, so excuse me if I remain skeptical that all of them agree with his religious-based political moves. And let us not forget either that he wasn't elected by the people, but rather by the supreme court.
Like I've said before ... you have a serious, serious problem discerning reality. If people don't vote, their vote can't count. Duh.

Anyway, if Bush was a Christian fanatic, you'd be living in a theocracy right now.

Yeah, too bad that line of thought tends to result in tyranny by majority. If you can call fundies a majority.
Well? Which is it? If fundamentalists aren't a majority, and they're the only ones who want to indulge in tyranny by majority, they're kinda SOL, yes?

Easy. I just ask myself what freedoms I have lost as a result of Pat Robertson, et al. The only answer I can come up with, being acquainted with reality as I am, is that I haven't lost any of the freedoms guaranteed to me by the Constitution. See? Reality can be your friend if you're willing to shed your liberal brainwashing and join the rest of us in actually ... you know ... thinking! :D

Pretty comfortable for someone that would like war protesters to have their rights denied.

So you're telling me there is only one sort of christian in the US, and that Bush and the elected fundamentalists are representative of them?

I prefer to think of the average US citizen as less vindicative, but maybe my perception of them is flawed.

Nevertheless, let us not forget that little more than 25% of americans voted for Bush and his cronies, so excuse me if I remain skeptical that all of them agree with his religious-based political moves. And let us not forget either that he wasn't elected by the people, but rather by the supreme court.
the average American is to the left of Fundamentalists -and fundamentalists are a tiny but highly vocal and powerful ($$$) voice in the GOP and society at large

Easy. I just ask myself what freedoms I have lost as a result of Pat Robertson, et al. The only answer I can come up with, being acquainted with reality as I am, is that I haven't lost any of the freedoms guaranteed to me by the Constitution. See? Reality can be your friend if you're willing to shed your liberal brainwashing and join the rest of us in actually ... you know ... thinking! :D
Alright, you haven't lost any freedom. Does that mean that no one has?

No, it doesn't. Thank to Pat Robertson and the likes of him, some women are increasingly losing their right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Some gays and lesbians have the right of being recognized by the state. Some people have lost the right to live their lives without fear of having their phones tapped for no other reason than the color of their skin or their religion.

Besides, Eut, I really find insulting and patronizing your remarks questioning other's ability to think just because they disagree with you. If you're not capable of having a conversation without resorting to childish taunts and insults at your age, please tell me now and I won't bother answering your posts anymore.

Easy. I just ask myself what freedoms I have lost as a result of Pat Robertson, et al. The only answer I can come up with, being acquainted with reality as I am, is that I haven't lost any of the freedoms guaranteed to me by the Constitution. See? Reality can be your friend if you're willing to shed your liberal brainwashing and join the rest of us in actually ... you know ... thinking! :D
A little more "centrist" dogma?

What reality? That those Christians are trying to legislate their religion by trampling on the principles your nation was founded upon?
LOL! The very fact that you have to ask such a question as "what reality" indicates that you're out of touch with the common reality the rest of us share. How is it possible for what is obviously a minority to tample on the principles my nations was founded on?

ROFLMFAO!! Oh that's priceless! You, my fine-feathered friend, are projecting. Get real.

Eutrusca, you took a licking the last time we argued precisely for refusing to admit to contradictions on your part. As for "fine-feathered", I'll pretend it's not an insult not to humiliate you some more by proving you need ad hominem to survive...

Anyway, if Bush was a Christian fanatic, you'd be living in a theocracy right now.
we ARE:rolleyes:

Pretty comfortable for someone that would like war protesters to have their rights denied.
You are really, really good at putting words in the mouths of others, aren't ya? Prove this.

Ever hear of "the people?" In America, they get to vote. A great many of them are Christians who tend to vote their consciences. You have a problem with that, you need to take it up with the electorate. See? Reality can be your friend when you become acquainted with it. :D

That is true. I learned to never underestimate the power of stupidity in great numbers.

Well? Which is it? If fundamentalists aren't a majority, and they're the only ones who want to indulge in tyranny by majority, they're kinda SOL, yes?

They can easily (and did) hijack the Republican Party to this very end. So, no, they DO can make it a tyranny.

LOL! The very fact that you have to ask such a question as "what reality" indicates that you're out of touch with the common reality the rest of us share. How is it possible for what is obviously a minority to tample on the principles my nations was founded on?
Well trying to legislate religious matters really doesn't help the seperation of church and state.

Anyway, if Bush was a Christian fanatic, you'd be living in a theocracy right now.

The fact that the Constitution forbids that does not mean he isn't.

A true theocracy will never happen here.

Although we will have many aspects of it.

LOL! The very fact that you have to ask such a question as "what reality" indicates that you're out of touch with the common reality the rest of us share. How is it possible for what is obviously a minority to tample on the principles my nations was founded on?
Say, by taking over one of the two political parties in a two-party system? And then leaning on the support of their fondamentalist base that, when added to the party's previous supporters, hand them total power over governmental institutions?

Perhaps by having powerful acquantainces in the media?

This is politics, Eutrusca, this has been going on for centuries. And it's certainly not the first time religion has meddled into politics.

You are really, really good at putting words in the mouths of others, aren't ya? Prove this.

"Peaceful protesters is an oxymoron", remember? Trying to paint someone as a violent criminal because of protesting is an attempt to curtail their rights.

it is an undisputable fact that the Christian Fundies DID hijack the GOP starten in the 80s and republican moderates have been increasingly shunned within their own party

Alright, you haven't lost any freedom. Does that mean that no one has?

No, it doesn't. Thank to Pat Robertson and the likes of him, some women are increasingly losing their right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Some gays and lesbians have the right of being recognized by the state. Some people have lost the right to live their lives without fear of having their phones tapped for no other reason than the color of their skin or their religion.

Besides, Eut, I really find insulting and patronizing your remarks questioning other's ability to think just because they disagree with you. If you're not capable of having a conversation without resorting to childish taunts and insults at your age, please tell me now and I won't bother answering your posts anymore.
Guess what! I don't really give a rat's ass whether you "bother" to answer anything I have to say. You can't see to think because your mind is blinded to any concept of reality other than the one you have been brainwashed into. I feel sorry for you. I really do.

Pat Robertson is an idiot and any votes he may control are so limited as to be insignificant, and you know it. So why keep bringing him into it? And to toss racism into the mix is disengenuous in the extreme. That's a sign of liberal desperation. "Well, we can't find enough voters to believe our bullshit, so let's just accuse Bush of tapping the phones of everyone with a religion he doesn't like or a skin color darker than native British!" Oh, bullshit!

I wonder if the same people who support the amount of religion that Bush is bringing into government, would adhere to those same arguments if an athiest were elected president and did away with all the religion that has filtered into it? I mean, after all, the American people would have voted for him.

Well trying to legislate religious matters really doesn't help the seperation of church and state.

Well you see the problem is the fact that the country was never completely void of Religion. You find it mentioned in a few of the State Constitutions.

Seperation of Church and state still still doing the job. If it wasn't then the Dover case would never have gone to court. Manditory prayer would be a reality.....

I wonder if the same people who support the amount of religion that Bush is bringing into government, would adhere to those same arguments if an athiest were elected president and did away with all the religion that has filtered into it? I mean, after all, the American people would have voted for him.

I call your atheist and raise a Wiccan one making Beltane a national holiday...

Eutrusca, you took a licking the last time we argued precisely for refusing to admit to contradictions on your part. As for "fine-feathered", I'll pretend it's not an insult not to humiliate you some more by proving you need ad hominem to survive...
In your dreams, young phoole. You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag. The day I "take a licking" from the likes of you is the day pigs learn to fly. Simply saying something you would like to be true does not make it true. I suspect this belief is at the root of your problems, which are many.

I wonder if the same people who support the amount of religion that Bush is bringing into government, would adhere to those same arguments if an athiest were elected president and did away with all the religion that has filtered into it? I mean, after all, the American people would have voted for him.
or would they tolerate all this religion Bush is attempting to legislate if say it was Witchcraft?

I call your atheist and raise a Wiccan one making Beltane a national holiday...
I forsee a lot of Christians running for the Constitution for perhaps their very first time.

it is an undisputable fact that the Christian Fundies DID hijack the GOP starten in the 80s and republican moderates have been increasingly shunned within their own party

Hmmmm it might be argued that it started with the defection of the Dixicrats to the party back in Trumans time.

Hmmm are the moderates "oppressed" if they fall in line with what ever the party spews?

we ARE:rolleyes:
Oh brother!

Theocracy (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/theocracy): A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

In your dreams, young phoole. You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag. The day I "take a licking" from the likes of you is the day pigs learn to fly. Simply saying something you would like to be true does not make it true. I suspect this belief is at the root of your problems, which are many.
How about quitting the ad-hominims and make an actual argument. Insulting people's intelligence only makes you look dumb.

Hmmmm it might be argued that it started with the defection of the Dixicrats to the party back in Trumans time.

Hmmm are the moderates "oppressed" if they fall in line with what ever the party spews?
yes--any GOP moderate who dares to act too independent of the Bush-bots clearly remebers what happened to Trent Lott

In your dreams, young phoole. You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag. The day I "take a licking" from the likes of you is the day pigs learn to fly. Simply saying something you would like to be true does not make it true. I suspect this belief is at the root of your problems, which are many.

You see, not only you failed at any attempt to explain your own contradictions in the last thread we discussed in, but you also were just as willing to use ad hominem on people as you are right now. Yet, after being called on to explain your utter lack of coherency, you failed to respond. So, what's your point? Are you trying to make it into the "Troll that posts a lot" awards?

or would they tolerate all this religion Bush is attempting to legislate if say it was Witchcraft?
Please be so kind as to let us unenlighted scum in on what legislation Bush is attempting to legislate. And while you're at it, please enlighten us as to how a President can legislate anything.

You see, not only you failed at any attempt to explain your own contradictions in the last thread we discussed in, but you also were just as willing to use ad hominem on people as you are right now. Yet, after being called on to explain your utter lack of coherency, you failed to respond. So, what's your point? Are you trying to make it into the "Troll that posts a lot" awards?
Alas, that is a forlorn hope. You have that title all sewn up.

yes--any GOP moderate who dares to act too independent of the Bush-bots clearly remebers what happened to Trent Lott

Trent Lott? Trent Lott shot himself in the ass when he talked about how great america would be if we had followed Strom Thrumonds "approach" to racial issues.

How about quitting the ad-hominims and make an actual argument. Insulting people's intelligence only makes you look dumb.
LOL! I have repeatedly posted an argument. Just because you either don't like it, or can't understand it ( which is more likely ), doesn't mean that it isn't "an actual argument." Try reading the entire thread.

Edit: One cannot insult that which apparently does not exist.

Alas, that is a forlorn hope. You have that title all sewn up.

Not really, Eutrusca, I only insult people that are WAY down in the evolutionary line.

You idiot. :)

Guess what! I don't really give a rat's ass whether you "bother" to answer anything I have to say. You can't see to think because your mind is blinded to any concept of reality other than the one you have been brainwashed into. I feel sorry for you. I really do.

I don't recall ever being anything but civil towards you, so forgive me for saying so, but your comments are increasingly insulting. I shouldn't need to tell you that if you disagree with me, attacking me personally and being condescending says a lot more about you than it does about me.

I'm surprised and saddened by the lack of respect your seem to have toward anybody who doesn't share your point of view on this matter. You always struct me as a mature and reasonable individual, and I believe you are getting way too worked up over this than the discussion warrants.


Pat Robertson is an idiot and any votes he may control are so limited as to be insignificant, and you know it. So why keep bringing him into it? And to toss racism into the mix is disengenuous in the extreme. That's a sign of liberal desperation. "Well, we can't find enough voters to believe our bullshit, so let's just accuse Bush of tapping the phones of everyone with a religion he doesn't like or a skin color darker than native British!" Oh, bullshit!
Then disprove my assumption that phone tapping hasn't been abused by his administration. Show me evidence or testimony that it only ever was used as a measure to counter terrorism, and that terrible screw-ups towards so called "individuals suspected of terrorism" who happened to have nothing to do with terrorism didn't happen.

And please adress all the other issues I've mentionned. Have a portion of the american population not lost some of their rights on those issues specifically pursued by the religious fondamentalists?

Not really, Eutrusca, I only insult people that are WAY down in the evolutionary line.

You idiot. :)
ROFLMFAO! Whatever you say, oh Great Font of All Wisdom!

Please be so kind as to let us unenlighted scum in on what legislation Bush is attempting to legislate. And while you're at it, please enlighten us as to how a President can legislate anything.
Legislation aside...

Here's something to read:

Americans United Criticizes Bush Push For 'Faith-Based' Funding
Friday, March 10 2006 @ 01:18 AM EST

Views: 208

AU's Lynn: Bush Faith-based Intitiative 'is a scam'

AU via BBSNews 2006-03-10 -- Americans United for Separation of Church and State today blasted the Bush administration for its relentless effort to steer federal funds to religious organizations, charging that the “faith-based” initiative undermines civil rights and civil liberties.

President George W. Bush renewed his push for the initiative today in a speech in Washington, D.C. A new administration report claims that $2.15 billion in tax aid was directed to faith-based groups for social services during the last fiscal year.

James Towey, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, asserts that Bush is breaking down barriers that prevented religious groups from accessing government funds.

“The president seems to have little or no regard for the separation of church and state,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “This initiative clearly rolls back constitutional safeguards and civil rights protections that people count on.

“Bush is slashing social service spending across the board and using the faith-based initiative to divert attention from the cuts,” said Lynn. “This initiative is a scam, and I hope America’s religious leaders and the American people don’t fall for it.”

Lynn added, “Bush persists in claiming that religious charities have a better success rate than governmental and private secular programs. However, there is no proof that this assertion is true.

“It is particularly deplorable that Bush boasts about rolling back civil rights protections for government employment,” Lynn continued. “This initiative lets religious groups run publicly funded programs that openly discriminate in hiring on religious grounds. That’s an outrage.”

Under executive orders issued by the president, tax dollars can go to religious groups to operate social services even if they discriminate in hiring on religious grounds. Thus, taxpayers are being required to pay for programs where they would not be allowed to work or even volunteer.

Lynn charged that far from trying to create a level playing field for faith-based groups, Bush wants to tilt the process toward favored religious groups and leaders.

“I don’t think it’s coincidental that TV preacher Pat Robertson, a prominent Bush backer, received $1.5 million in faith-based funding,” said Lynn.

The initiative, Lynn said, has clearly been used for partisan purposes. He noted that in February, Towey spoke at a conference on the initiative for religious leaders in Pennsylvania, where U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, who is locked in a tight re-election bid, appeared via video.


###

http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20060310011836483

ROFLMFAO! Whatever you say, oh Great Font of All Wisdom!

Oh. Oh, no. I don't see myself as the best arguer there is, nor as the most intelligent person there is. However, your sheer presence makes it look that way.

Legislation aside...

Here's something to read:

Americans United Criticizes Bush Push For 'Faith-Based' Funding
Friday, March 10 2006 @ 01:18 AM EST

*snip*

Ahhh a fellow AUer! Well met! ;)

Whoops the BBC link just sunk in.....

Then again, perhaps you have less of a grip on reality than anyone wants to think about. There is no "Christian Taliban." "Christian fanaticism" is largely a myth.

You really should tell that to the evangelicals. I'd pay money to see you walk up to Pat Robertson and say "Hello Pat, you're a myth"

Or maybe go to the Mormons. Or the "pregnancy as punishment" loonies. Tell them that their cause is a myth right in their faces.

And take pictures of the aftermath too.

Keep telling yourself the bus is a myth Eut. I'm not the one in the kill zone.

Easy. I just ask myself what freedoms I have lost as a result of Pat Robertson, et al. The only answer I can come up with, being acquainted with reality as I am, is that I haven't lost any of the freedoms guaranteed to me by the Constitution. See? Reality can be your friend if you're willing to shed your liberal brainwashing and join the rest of us in actually ... you know ... thinking! :D

What rights have you personally lost? Probably none. Unless you were gay. Or a woman.

Nice to see you apply the "it's not me" mentality.

I don't recall ever being anything but civil towards you, so forgive me for saying so, but your comments are increasingly insulting. I shouldn't need to tell you that if you disagree with me, attacking me personally and being condescending says a lot more about you than it does about me.

I'm surprised and saddened by the lack of respect your seem to have toward anybody who doesn't share your point of view on this matter. You always struct me as a mature and reasonable individual, and I believe you are getting way too worked up over this than the discussion warrants.

Then disprove my assumption that phone tapping hasn't been abused by his administration. Show me evidence or testimony that it only ever was used as a measure to counter terrorism, and that terrible screw-ups towards so called "individuals suspected of terrorism" who happened to have nothing to do with terrorism didn't happen.

And please adress all the other issues I've mentionned. Have a portion of the american population not lost some of their rights on those issues specifically pursued by the religious fondamentalists?
No. I have to keep asking this question until it finally sinks in: what rights have been lost? List all the rights in the Constitution and then point out to me which ones have been lost. Is that not simple to do? Just list them and then prove to me that some of them have been lost. Easy, yes???

As I recall, that statement with which you seem to have such a problem was directed at another poster. If you like, I can scroll back through the thread to see to just whom it was directed. Yes, I do get rather vociferous when people who claim to be intelligent allow themselves to misattribute, misquote, misunderstand, or just plain ignore facts, logic and reason.

One example from many in just this thread alone: the Christian fundamentalists are just like the Taliban. No one who can read and think could possibly believe this! One reason I get so excitable about this sort of thing is that some of these statements are so preposterous that they shouldn't have to be refuted ... ever! They should be illogical on their face. But then ... here they are again! Being posted by people who really should know better. It's almost enough to leave me speechless.

What rights have you personally lost? Probably none. Unless you were gay. Or a woman.

Nice to see you apply the "it's not me" mentality.
Ok. Well then, let's not talk about anyone but the gays and women. What rights have they lost? Seriously. I truly want to know.

No. I have to keep asking this question until it finally sinks in: what rights have been lost? List all the rights in the Constitution and then point out to me which ones have been lost. Is that not simple to do? Just list them and then prove to me that some of them have been lost. Easy, yes???

As I recall, that statement with which you seem to have such a problem was directed at another poster. If you like, I can scroll back through the thread to see to just whom it was directed. Yes, I do get rather vociferous when people who claim to be intelligent allow themselves to misattribute, misquote, misunderstand, or just plain ignore facts, logic and reason.

One example from many in just this thread alone: the Christian fundamentalists are just like the Taliban. No one who can read and think could possibly believe this! One reason I get so excitable about this sort of thing is that some of these statements are so preposterous that they shouldn't have to be refuted ... ever! They should be illogical on their face. But then ... here they are again! Being posted by people who really should know better. It's almost enough to leave me speechless.
The idea is inflammatory and it is a bit off base to say that we have the equivalent in America of such a practice as throwing acid in a woman's face. But the exaggeration aside... there is a point being made. Our government was not meant to lean towards any one religion and that is definitely happening.

Ok. Well then, let's not talk about anyone but the gays and women. What rights have they lost? Seriously. I truly want to know.

Abortion, including rape or incest.

Attempts to constitutionally ban gay marriage.

And no, I won't limit myself:

Wiccans in the military you like so much were insulted by Dubya, who wanted its status as a religion stripped off.

Cases of people manifesting against Bush and getting visits from the Secret Service.

Guantánamo becoming a legal black hole.

Administration officials supporting torture.

No. I have to keep asking this question until it finally sinks in: what rights have been lost? List all the rights in the Constitution and then point out to me which ones have been lost. Is that not simple to do? Just list them and then prove to me that some of them have been lost. Easy, yes???

Again, rights to abortion are, if not outright lost yet, severely restrictedby new legislation. See those new North(South?) Dakota laws on the matter.

What about the illegal phone tappings? Regardless of whose phone is being tapped, american's rights to privacy have been severely diminished. The state used to have to justify to a court why it thought someone's phone had been tapped: the court then accepted the measure once it had seen evidence of the necessity of surveillance on that person. Now anyone can have their conversations spied upon.

What about people's right to dissent? The US administration have grown increasingly repressive against anyone who doesn't agree with their politics and decisions.

What about the right to education? How is it that religion gets to have a place into a science class? Creationism, Intelligent Design or whatever has it's place in school, but in a theology,religion or philosophy class, not a science class.

The list goes on.


As I recall, that statement with which you seem to have such a problem was directed at another poster. If you like, I can scroll back through the thread to see to just whom it was directed. Yes, I do get rather vociferous when people who claim to be intelligent allow themselves to misattribute, misquote, misunderstand, or just plain ignore facts, logic and reason.

One example from many in just this thread alone: the Christian fundamentalists are just like the Taliban. No one who can read and think could possibly believe this! One reason I get so excitable about this sort of thing is that some of these statements are so preposterous that they shouldn't have to be refuted ... ever! They should be illogical on their face. But then ... here they are again! Being posted by people who really should know better. It's almost enough to leave me speechless.
This doesn't justify going all out and attacking their intelligence. Disprove the point, don't disrespect the poster.

Ok. Well then, let's not talk about anyone but the gays and women. What rights have they lost? Seriously. I truly want to know.

Lets see. Now then, was it Dakota with that bit of "no abortions regardless of excuse" legislation that was passed recently? Tell me that's not a religiously motivated bit of legislation?

So if you were a woman who was stuck in Dakota for some reason and had a pregnancy complication that would result in you being dead guess what, the law says "too bad. you should die"

That one is legislation that takes us one (or maybe a dozen) steps closer to turning women into baby factories, no more, no less.

As for gays, there's plenty of religiously based discrimination or just plain old "eeew, gays are icky" discriminations that either the law supports or ignores.

Take for example the military. You're a gay? Don't tell anyone, cause if they find out, you get the boot. Not even an honorable discharge.

How about adoption? Religious loonies there with the kind of power and money it takes to say "you're a gay, you can't adopt" and make it stick.

Marriage? Just the same kind of loonies but dressed a little differently.

Tell me that doesn't happen in America Eut. Tell me that the religious fundamentalists aren't behind it.

Go on. Do it. Let us see how far you are willing to deny this.

You really should tell that to the evangelicals. I'd pay money to see you walk up to Pat Robertson and say "Hello Pat, you're a myth"

Or maybe go to the Mormons. Or the "pregnancy as punishment" loonies. Tell them that their cause is a myth right in their faces.

And take pictures of the aftermath too.

Keep telling yourself the bus is a myth Eut. I'm not the one in the kill zone.
If Pat the Bat were here, I would happily tell him to his face that he's a blithering idiot. How's that?

As for the "pregnancy as punishment" digbats, I have told all those who have said that sort of idiocy in my presence that God himself will rebuke them, since they claim to put their trust in him. I told one the other day that when he dies, God is going to say "Who the hell are you???"

What "bus?" What "kill zone?"

Guantánamo becoming a legal black hole.

That one is tough to argue as it conviently falls into a grey area on the matter of US law.

Nobody really imagined this type of situation. In time we will correct it.

That one is tough to argue as it conviently falls into a grey area on the matter of US law.

Nobody really imagined this type of situation. In time we will correct it.

Other states also have claimed the right to "disappear" people. North Korea and Iraq come to mind.

Lets see. Now then, was it Dakota with that bit of "no abortions regardless of excuse" legislation that was passed recently? Tell me that's not a religiously motivated bit of legislation?

So if you were a woman who was stuck in Dakota for some reason and had a pregnancy complication that would result in you being dead guess what, the law says "too bad. you should die"

That one is legislation that takes us one (or maybe a dozen) steps closer to turning women into baby factories, no more, no less.

As for gays, there's plenty of religiously based discrimination or just plain old "eeew, gays are icky" discriminations that either the law supports or ignores.

Take for example the military. You're a gay? Don't tell anyone, cause if they find out, you get the boot. Not even an honorable discharge.

How about adoption? Religious loonies there with the kind of power and money it takes to say "you're a gay, you can't adopt" and make it stick.

Marriage? Just the same kind of loonies but dressed a little differently.

Tell me that doesn't happen in America Eut. Tell me that the religious fundamentalists aren't behind it.

Go on. Do it. Let us see how far you are willing to deny this.
We seem to have a problem with our communication here. I asked you to tell me what rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States have been lost, removed, revoked or whatever. You reply with a state law that was designed to be a test case, not a federal anything. And this after the OP blamed Bush for everything except tectonic plate movement. You do understand the difference between a federal law and a state law, yes?

The Constitution does not guarantee that anyone will get into the military, gay or not. The Constitution does not guarantee that anyone can adopt a child, gay or not. The Constitution does not guarantee that anyone can get married, gay or not.

Now, don't use this argument as a means of accusing me of being anti-abortion or anti-gay. Any cursory reading of posts I have made in threads about abortion would prove that I favor giving women the choice as a matter of sheer practicality. Any cursory reading of posts I have made in threads about gays would prove that I favor giving gays the same opportunity to adopt or marry as anyone else. Just wanted to get that clear before someone decides to strawman me.

Please be so kind as to let us unenlighted scum in on what legislation Bush is attempting to legislate. And while you're at it, please enlighten us as to how a President can legislate anything.
Der Fuhrer stumbles incoherently thru one of his unintelligable speechs repeats add nauseum "STAY THE COURSE" and the group think fascists in the GOP goosestep blindly to all his commands

Trent Lott? Trent Lott shot himself in the ass when he talked about how great america would be if we had followed Strom Thrumonds "approach" to racial issues.
correct--they set him up to be removed and replaced by the corrupt money grubbing Bush-bot Frist

We seem to have a problem with our communication here. I asked you to tell me what rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States have been lost, removed, revoked or whatever. You reply with a state law that was designed to be a test case, not a federal anything. And this after the OP blamed Bush for everything except tectonic plate movement. You do understand the difference between a federal law and a state law, yes?


Yes, I do understand the difference between federal and state law. However, if the state makes a law that goes against the constitutional right to life (legislation that translates to a death penalty if you have a certain medical condition), how can you argue that it does not take away said right, even if it is piecemeal in the state rather than wholesale in the nation?

If Missouri made it illegal to have the right to free speech today, would it not also go against the constitution?

Okay, folks, have fun with poor Eut, I gotta go to bed. 3 AM here.

Other states also have claimed the right to "disappear" people. North Korea and Iraq come to mind.

Got proof about people born here?

1. Again, rights to abortion are, if not outright lost yet, severely restrictedby new legislation. See those new North(South?) Dakota laws on the matter.

2. What about the illegal phone tappings? Regardless of whose phone is being tapped, american's rights to privacy have been severely diminished. The state used to have to justify to a court why it thought someone's phone had been tapped: the court then accepted the measure once it had seen evidence of the necessity of surveillance on that person. Now anyone can have their conversations spied upon.

3. What about people's right to dissent? The US administration have grown increasingly repressive against anyone who doesn't agree with their politics and decisions.

4. What about the right to education? How is it that religion gets to have a place into a science class? Creationism, Intelligent Design or whatever has it's place in school, but in a theology,religion or philosophy class, not a science class.
1. See the portion of my last post above which deals with this.

2. This is so far the only partially valid item in this entire thread. I don't have an answer for this yet because it has yet to be determined whether this was authorized by law or not. The jury's still out.

3. Prove this.

4. There is no "right" to education, and so far as I know every attempt to introduce "Creationism" into classrooms has been thrown out, either by the voters electing new school board members or by the courts. Besides, this is a state and local level issue, not a federal one.

funny how republicans dont recognize states rights when a state votes to legalize marijuana and mercy killing

correct--they set him up to be removed and replaced by the corrupt money grubbing Bush-bot Frist

The fact he was stupid doesn't make it oppression.

George W. Bush doesn't have the attention span to be a religious fanatic.

Got proof about people born here?
So it's okay if they're born in another country?

Der Fuhrer stumbles incoherently thru one of his unintelligable speechs repeats add nauseum "STAY THE COURSE" and the group think fascists in the GOP goosestep blindly to all his commands

Hmmm?

Can there ever be a debate without a Godwin?

The fact he was stupid doesn't make it oppression.
But the fact that Bush didnt stand behind him no matter what (like he does with all his Bush-bots) and let him be replaced with someone more loyal to him was a message sent to any other repub who dared to act too independent

Hmmm?

Can there ever be a debate without a Godwin?

There's a reason it's a law, you know.

George W. Bush doesn't have the attention span to be a religious fanatic.
but like a good puppet he dances whenever his master tug on the strings

So it's okay if they're born in another country?

Again the grey area of the laws.

Hmmm?

Can there ever be a debate without a Godwin?
its hard not to when the debate is about fascism:)

There's a reason it's a law, you know.
collecting more data are we?;)

But the fact that Bush didnt stand behind him no matter what (like he does with all his Bush-bots) and let him be replaced with someone more loyal to him was a message sent to any other repub who dared to act too independent

He couldn't even if he wanted to. The repubs are trying to court the black vote. Lott pretty much would have killed it if he did.

Lott was a publicity hazard nothing more.

1. Abortion, including rape or incest.

2. Attempts to constitutionally ban gay marriage.

3. Wiccans in the military you like so much were insulted by Dubya, who wanted its status as a religion stripped off.

4. Cases of people manifesting against Bush and getting visits from the Secret Service.

5. Guantánamo becoming a legal black hole.

6. Administration officials supporting torture.
1. See my earlier post in response to this issue.

2. Key word: "Attempts." The liklihood of anything like this becoming an amendment approaches zero as a limit.

3. So what "rights" were lost???

4. The Secret Service has a charter to investigate anyone, anywhere, anytime who they have reason to believe may promote violence against the Presidency.

5. Say more, and please explain what rights of American citizens are being violated.

6. I am on record in this Forum as being opposed to this, as is the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefts of Staff.

He couldn't even if he wanted to. The repubs are trying to court the black vote. Lott pretty much would have killed it if he did.

Lott was a publicity hazard nothing more.
Bush has exactly 2% support in the Black community--was he planning on courting the black vote anytime soon?

Lott didnt blindly follow Bushs bidding they were looking to get him and the opportunity arose

Okay, folks, have fun with poor Eut, I gotta go to bed. 3 AM here.
Any pity you may have is totally lost on me. I need it not. Goodnight. :)

funny how republicans dont recognize states rights when a state votes to legalize marijuana and mercy killing
You really should read more than just your own posts, you know?

1. I am not a Republican.

2. The legalization of marijuana and mercy killing were overthrown in court. The revocation of the opportunity for women to have an abortion will be as well. Stay tuned.

George W. Bush doesn't have the attention span to be a religious fanatic.
ROFLMAO! You know, that may very well be not only the funniest thing you have said on here, but the closest thing to the truth you have said on here. :D

collecting more data are we?;)

Yes. I'm actually an Xyphraxian from the Planet Xyphrax. We have faster than light drives, teleportation devices, and anti-matter dildos. I have come here to observe the planet you call Earth. Instead of abducting and anally probing several high ranking world government officials, I choose to plug my spaceship into what you call the "Internets", and come to a "Forum" where you talk incessantly about the same topics. A particularly common topic would be what you humans apparently call "Sex". Quite too barbarous for my refined Xyphraxian tastes.

A particularly common topic would be what you humans apparently call "Sex". Quite too barbarous for my refined Xyphraxian tastes.
You probably think sex is too "barbarous" due to overuse of your "anti-matter dildos". You know what happens when matter and anti-matter get together. :p

At any rate, this isn't one of those "sex threads" so you can move along until you find one. I am sure that religion and human rights would bore you to tears.

... anti-matter dildos.

Brief, unstable, but what a climax!

I am sure that religion and human rights would bore you to tears.
Hell, they bore me to tears and I'm human ( or at least I was until I started posting on NS General )! Heh!

Yes. I'm actually an Xyphraxian from the Planet Xyphrax. We have faster than light drives, teleportation devices, and anti-matter dildos. I have come here to observe the planet you call Earth. Instead of abducting and anally probing several high ranking world government officials, I choose to plug my spaceship into what you call the "Internets", and come to a "Forum" where you talk incessantly about the same topics. A particularly common topic would be what you humans apparently call "Sex". Quite too barbarous for my refined Xyphraxian tastes.
well Im glad you evolved to come here to be bored with us instead because theres this chatroom on AOL called "Abducted by UFOs" where people are devoted to talking about anal sex issues 24/7/365 because of all your prior probes--I sometimes go in there to laugh at them incessantly:)

You probably think sex is too "barbarous" due to overuse of your "anti-matter dildos". You know what happens when matter and anti-matter get together. :p

At any rate, this isn't one of those "sex threads" so you can move along until you find one. I am sure that religion and human rights would bore you to tears.
I think Bush bashing is a sexy topic

It's almost enough to leave me speechless.

Then why do you have such a tough time shutting the hell up??

It's amazing to me how much of a patronizing a@#%$&e you can be. Why do you constantly feel the need to talk down to people? And, if you start losing the argument, which does inevitably happen if you stick around long enough, you use the dual club of "liberatarian" and "army service" to try and squirm out of it? Pathetic, just pathetic. Shove off!

Hell, they bore me to tears and I'm human ( or at least I was until I started posting on NS General )! Heh!
whats good about politics is how its so revealing of human nature

I dont bear any ill will towards Eutrusca---hes just as much a victim of Bushs policys as the world is--the fact that he doesnt know it tho makes me sadder

whats good about politics is how its so revealing of human nature
So revealing indeed. ;)

So revealing indeed. ;)
;)

You are really, really good at putting words in the mouths of others, aren't ya? Prove this.

Even better, it's you putting your words in your own mouth Forrest. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10520039&postcount=82)

Keep practicing that aim on your foot, it's getting better.

Nice how you bitch and whine about having fought for American freedom when it you think it's only the freedom to fellate the military and the Bush Administration without question.

:rolleyes:

I think Bush bashing is a sexy topic
It is really sad that it had to come down to this level.

It is not so much an issue that Americans are losing their "rights" per se. It is more an issue that Americans are losing their country.

It is really sad that it had to come down to this level.

It is not so much an issue that Americans are losing their "rights" per se. It is more an issue that Americans are losing their country.
Im glad its come to this--its all coming to a head now and I couldnt be happier--we're finally cutting thru all the BS and the naked ugly face of this Empire is laid bare for all to see--the only way to save America is to Restore the Republic

It is really sad that it had to come down to this level.

It is not so much an issue that Americans are losing their "rights" per se. It is more an issue that Americans are losing their country.

The situation can be analogized by a scene from Erik the Viking:

Erik's men (the Bush Administration) has spilled blood on the Island of Hybrasil (Invaded Iraq under a series of fabrications and spent the United States into a record deficit). The Island is now sinking (Iraq on the brink of civil war, United States deficit and related matters).

However, the King of Hybrasil (The American public, especially Busheviks) is insisting that the Island is in fact not sinking and that everything will be absolutely, perfectly fine even while he's submerging completely under the water with everyone else on the Island.

The situation can be analogized by a scene from Erik the Viking:

Erik's men (the Bush Administration) has spilled blood on the Island of Hybrasil (Invaded Iraq under a series of fabrications and spent the United States into a record deficit). The Island is now sinking (Iraq on the brink of civil war, United States deficit and related matters).

However, the King of Hybrasil (The American public, especially Busheviks) is insisting that the Island is in fact not sinking and that everything will be absolutely, perfectly fine even while he's submerging completely under the water with everyone else on the Island.
the American public does NOT support Bush--dont believe the American media cause its more controlled then Pravda was during the USSR

the American public does NOT support Bush--dont believe the American media cause its more controlled then Pravda was during the USSR

I don't think the American Public as a whole can be described either way.

I imagine there's a small faction that would support Bush no matter what, a slightly larger faction that leans toward him but see many flaws, a large central mass that care little, a moderate group that feels he's gone too far, and a small faction that will oppose him no matter what.

I think he's probably lost a fair chunk of the middle.

So you're telling me there is only one sort of christian in the US, and that Bush and the elected fundamentalists are representative of them?

I prefer to think of the average US citizen as less vindicative, but maybe my perception of them is flawed.

Nevertheless, let us not forget that little more than 25% of americans voted for Bush and his cronies, so excuse me if I remain skeptical that all of them agree with his religious-based political moves. And let us not forget either that he wasn't elected by the people, but rather by the supreme court.

Excuse me? 25% the vote was counted, he won the electorial college, and he held 56% of the popular vote - he was voted in with a majority.

Those who didn't vote? tough shit, they were given the opportunity, and thery CHOSE not to exercise their democratic right of voting on election day. If you want someone to blame for Bush getting in, blame those who sat on their ass watching television with a tub of ice cream under their arm, rather than going out and voting.

True Christians within the GOP are worried the kind of Christian fanaticism that Bush promotes and panders to in America parallels the kind of Islamic fanaticism that enslaves so many Arab countries and is a direct threat to American Democracy at a time when Bush is trying to claim to be fighting for Arab Democracy-- (even though Bushs invasion of Iraq has given that country a govt more in line with Iran)-- Maybe Bush and Osama are alot more alike then anyone wants to think about...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102393.html
There's a theocratic conspiracy in America for sure. But I don't think Bush is in on it. He uses religious imagery and references in his speeches and passes some token laws to ensure that Christians keep voting for him, but mostly he's quite a secular leader.

Phelps is so extreme he makes Bush look moderate.

This Christian Taliban trend was started by Bush's father trying to get Christian votes for re-election, but these people are slowly taking over the GOP. When people like Pat Robertson ran for elections, it's a sign.

Does Bush represent the "Christian Taliban" of America?

From a middle-eastern muslim's point of view (and not just fundamentalist muslims... moderate muslims also), Neoconservative groups like the PNAC are equal to the Al-Qaeda and George Bush is equal to Bin Laden. This is basic, and whoever denies this does not have in my opinion a clear view on how to deal with the war on terror. The war on terror can only be fought (nevermind winning) with a different view and direction in the whitehouse that what the Bush consortium has cursed his nation and the western world with.

Excuse me? 25% the vote was counted, he won the electorial college, and he held 56% of the popular vote - he was voted in with a majority.

56% of about 50% of americans that did vote amounts roughly to 25% of the total of US citizens.


Those who didn't vote? tough shit, they were given the opportunity, and thery CHOSE not to exercise their democratic right of voting on election day. If you want someone to blame for Bush getting in, blame those who sat on their ass watching television with a tub of ice cream under their arm, rather than going out and voting.
Believe me when I say I do. And I do blame equally all the Canadians who didn't vote in our last elections for the resutling conservative goverment. Voter apathy is a plague that needs to be eradicated if we want to be called democracies.

Hell no; honestly, Bush isn't even particularly religious...he just played to those peoples' beliefs to get himself (re)elected. He's a savvy politician, not some evil mastermind out to impose a theocracy on us.

Even so, the overwhelming majority of the religious righ bloc is nothing like a version of the Taliban. It's a few nutjobs and fringe groups that paint the entire group in a bad light.

The Taliban itself was also remarkably full of individuals who werent particularly religious but felt the whole thing was such a wonderful bandwagon.
( former commie generals , drugtraffickers )
Not that that is particularly uncommon in fundamentalist movements....

The Taliban itself was also remarkably full of individuals who werent particularly religious but felt the whole thing was such a wonderful bandwagon....

I think, however, that there are major differences between Afghanistan and the US; the Taliban promised stability, and in a country that had seen incredible instability over the past few decades, it was welcome no matter the cost. Also, the US doesn't have the economic difficulties Afghanistan had, which was a major motivator for supporting that regime.

56% of about 50% of americans that did vote amounts roughly to 25% of the total of US citizens.

Believe me when I say I do. And I do blame equally all the Canadians who didn't vote in our last elections for the resutling conservative goverment. Voter apathy is a plague that needs to be eradicated if we want to be called democracies.
Uh ... votes not cast are votes not counted. Duh.

I'm not sure comparisons to the Taliban are really accurate. Bush is hardly totalitarian. I'd say he's more of the Christian Microsoft.:D

The Taliban itself was also remarkably full of individuals who werent particularly religious but felt the whole thing was such a wonderful bandwagon.
( former commie generals , drugtraffickers )
Not that that is particularly uncommon in fundamentalist movements....
I personally define fundamentalists as people who use religion in order to justify their actions. Whether we talk about the taliban extremists or christian extremists, it's always about power, and control over others.

The talibans want to use fear to control western, non-islamic people. The christian extreme right wants to use the western political and legal systems in order to control what the population may or may not do regarding sexuality, morality and freedom.

Uh ... votes not cast are votes not counted. Duh.
True.

But the fact remains that only 1 in 4 american citizens did vote for him.

True.
But the fact remains that only 1 in 4 american citizens did vote for him.

At the same time, only 1 in 4 voted for Kerry. Either way, neither of them would technically represent all Americans.

I personally define fundamentalists as people who use religion in order to justify their actions. Whether we talk about the taliban extremists or christian extremists, it's always about power, and control over others.

The talibans want to use fear to control western, non-islamic people. The christian extreme right wants to use the western political and legal systems in order to control what the population may or may not do regarding sexuality, morality and freedom.

*shrug* what fundamentalists want isn't really the point.
The point is what they do.

And guess what? Decisions about sexuality, morality and freedom HAVE to be made - one way or the other. And no matter which option you pick, coercion will enter the equation.

What else? Fear will be a factor as well. Regardless of who holds the reigns of power - or the platform - fear WILL be used. No way around it.

What made the Taliban so... dangerous... was the way all negative feedback mechanisms - no democracy can exist without those - were removed. This would mean that any change would always go in the same direction.

Notice that this phenomenon isn't restricted to fundamentalists.
All... defenders... of diversity have a strong tendency to restrict negative feedback as well. I consider the outre attempts by New Labour to restrict negative feedback ( think: hatespeak ) as potentially the worst internal danger democracy has faced in the last 30 years.

It's not that I see any danger in government persuasion that, say, homosexuality should be condoned ( After all, I tend to agree ).
The danger lies in the fact that there are ongoing attempts to outlaw public disagreements with such ideas.


To summarise:
there is no danger when there is a vociferous, heated, extreme, debate on, say, abortion, in the United States.
But the danger is clear and present when such a debate stops.
As was the case in Afghanistan.

For the Taliban/Osama to be the same as the current Republican government/Bush the current Republican government/Bush would need to do the following:

(1) Outlaw adultery and punish adulteresses with death by stoning.

(2) Chop off gay people's heads.

(3) Destroy any non-Christian literature.

(4) Ban music.

(5) Forbid women from leaving the house unless accompanied by a male relative or husband.

(6) Amputate limbs for theft.

(7) Exile/kill non-believers.

(8) Preach indiscriminate violence against non-believers.

(9) Seek to spread this form of government to every other nation in the world.

Since I do not see the US government doing any of the above things, no I do not believe in a "Christian Taliban" in the USA equivalent to Osama/Al Qaeda/the Taliban.

For the Taliban/Osama to be the same as the current Republican government/Bush the current Republican government/Bush would need to do the following:

(1) Outlaw adultery and punish adulteresses with death by stoning.

(2) Chop off gay people's heads.

(3) Destroy any non-Christian literature.

(4) Ban music.

(5) Forbid women from leaving the house unless accompanied by a male relative or husband.

(6) Amputate limbs for theft.

(7) Exile/kill non-believers.

(8) Preach indiscriminate violence against non-believers.

(9) Seek to spread this form of government to every other nation in the world.

Since I do not see the US government doing any of the above things, no I do not believe in a "Christian Taliban" in the USA equivalent to Osama/Al Qaeda/the Taliban.

Another difference is that the Taliban was in complete control of Afghanistan, a country with little to no history of democratic principles so there was no cultural pretense of civility they had to defer to when ruling the country.

The American Taliban, while they are not in complete control of the United States- a country which was founded on and has a tradition of democratic and republican principles, it does not mean that some if not all of them wouldn't love to impose a theocratic regime that includes decapitating gays and confining women to home as houseslaves and babymakers if there was some way of legally doing so within the system.

Bush is certainly the nominal advocate of the Taliban in America, it wont be clear whather or not he really does support there interests until we see how the new SC judges vote on religious questions like abortion.

Excuse me? 25% the vote was counted, he won the electorial college, and he held 56% of the popular vote - he was voted in with a majority.

Those who didn't vote? tough shit, they were given the opportunity, and thery CHOSE not to exercise their democratic right of voting on election day. If you want someone to blame for Bush getting in, blame those who sat on their ass watching television with a tub of ice cream under their arm, rather than going out and voting.
(not counting the thousands of democratic voters disenfranchised by Diebolt computer software in Ohio, Bush never truely won an election in his life)

There's a theocratic conspiracy in America for sure. But I don't think Bush is in on it. He uses religious imagery and references in his speeches and passes some token laws to ensure that Christians keep voting for him, but mostly he's quite a secular leader.
hes more of a retarded puppet

Phelps is so extreme he makes Bush look moderate.
Phelps is quite obviously possessed by a multitude of anti-social demons

This Christian Taliban trend was started by Bush's father trying to get Christian votes for re-election, but these people are slowly taking over the GOP. When people like Pat Robertson ran for elections, it's a sign.
slowly taking over? Its ON full throttle

From a middle-eastern muslim's point of view (and not just fundamentalist muslims... moderate muslims also), Neoconservative groups like the PNAC are equal to the Al-Qaeda and George Bush is equal to Bin Laden. This is basic, and whoever denies this does not have in my opinion a clear view on how to deal with the war on terror. The war on terror can only be fought (nevermind winning) with a different view and direction in the whitehouse that what the Bush consortium has cursed his nation and the western world with.
I totally agree

Phelps is quite obviously possessed by a multitude of anti-social demons

Phelps will eventually take the Westborough Baptist Church and seal themselves in an Indian Burial Ground which will then have cheap houses built on top of it.

Hell no; honestly, Bush isn't even particularly religious...he just played to those peoples' beliefs to get himself (re)elected. He's a savvy politician, not some evil mastermind out to impose a theocracy on us.

Even so, the overwhelming majority of the religious righ bloc is nothing like a version of the Taliban. It's a few nutjobs and fringe groups that paint the entire group in a bad light.
whether Bush is truely religious or not personally doesnt matter--he panders to these freaks and advances their agenda so in my book that makes him one of them whether its an act or not

I'm not sure comparisons to the Taliban are really accurate. Bush is hardly totalitarian. I'd say he's more of the Christian Microsoft.:D
Bush is a total totalitarian and like every Dictator he runs a secret Govt

Phelps will eventually take the Westborough Baptist Church and seal themselves in an Indian Burial Ground which will then have cheap houses built on top of it.
Phelps enslaved his own kids growing up--he forced them to sell cheap candy and if they didnt come home with a certain quota of money he used to beat them to within an inch of their lives--hearing all the horrible screams coming from that house the neighbors never knew whether to call the police or an ambulance

Hell no; honestly, Bush isn't even particularly religious...he just played to those peoples' beliefs to get himself (re)elected. He's a savvy politician, not some evil mastermind out to impose a theocracy on us.

Even so, the overwhelming majority of the religious righ bloc is nothing like a version of the Taliban. It's a few nutjobs and fringe groups that paint the entire group in a bad light.

And yet you see him with Dobson, Robertson, and hell I forget the womans name.

He can't do a theocracy but he can still empower the religious aspects. Heck when was the last time you saw tax money going to religious groups(well make that Christian) that provide "social" servies?

Bush IS the Christian Taliban--he joined them when he was trying to recuperate from his numerous addictions to substances--this was right around the time when he became an Ex-Gay and married his Beard Laura

56% of about 50% of americans that did vote amounts roughly to 25% of the total of US citizens.


Believe me when I say I do. And I do blame equally all the Canadians who didn't vote in our last elections for the resutling conservative goverment. Voter apathy is a plague that needs to be eradicated if we want to be called democracies.

True, hence the reason I still vote; I'm in an MMP system, and sure, my one vote for the libertarianz appears to be a throw away vote, but there is one thing I get when I vote, the ability to whine afterwards over the result.

Too bad that the people who complain about the status quo, don't vote either. The US has the religious nuts rounding up people to vote, in New Zealand we have the unions rounding up the white trash the lower dredges of society to vote, the net result, the centre left have New Zealand by the balls with their 'government knows best' mantra.

Oh, for the love of...

Bush does NOT represent the "Christian Taliban." There is no such thing. Has religion occasionally poked it's disgusting head into politics lately? Yah. Have some of his policies been influanced by his beliefs? Yah. But who ISN'T influanced by one's beliefs? Fuck, if I were president I'd be dropping any and all support and funding for anything with a basis in religion, because I'm an athiest. I'd be directing that funding towards more scientific ventures instead.

Romulan OS, please, for your own sake, educate yourself, man. Please.

(not counting the thousands of democratic voters disenfranchised by Diebolt computer software in Ohio, Bush never truely won an election in his life)

Oh pulease, conspiracy theories abound. If GWB was such a crap leader (which he is), Kerry should have won a land slide victory, and heck, even won over some 'heart land' states as well.

The simple fact, you have a large number of adults who DON'T VOTE and a large number of uneducated hicks and religious nutcases that are rounded up and pushed into voting booths, thus giving a disproportionate representation of the US population as a whole.

Whose to blame? those who sit on their ass with a tub of ice cream whilst watching tv on election night rather than getting out and voting.

And yet you see him with Dobson, Robertson, and hell I forget the womans name.Ann Coulter?

He can't do a theocracy but he can still empower the religious aspects. Heck when was the last time you saw tax money going to religious groups(well make that Christian) that provide "social" servies?Well, depends on what "tax money" means. There still is a "Religionssteuer" (religious tax) that officially recognized churches can collect from their members in Germany...

Bush is a total totalitarian and like every Dictator he runs a secret Govt

I'm not sure I see how. Wouldn't that mean he considers any dissent to be a capital crime and regulates the media into oblivion like China and the USSR? I can see how he qualifies as an authoritarian, but I think calling him totalitarian is very much an exaggeration.

Ann Coulter?

No. She is just a harpy.

The woman I am thinking about yabbers on about family values and God. She is the same realm as the two I mentioned.


Well, depends on what "tax money" means. There still is a "Religionssteuer" (religious tax) that officially recognized churches can collect from their members in Germany...

Federal tax money going to Church groups that provide "compassionate" services.

And yet you see him with Dobson, Robertson, and hell I forget the womans name. He can't do a theocracy but he can still empower the religious aspects. Heck when was the last time you saw tax money going to religious groups(well make that Christian) that provide "social" servies?

Bush is a politician in the Republican party; he has to be with these people because they are influential. It's pretty much all politics; these people have the money, the networks, and the connections he needs, and they are willing to give it to him if he espouses their ideology at least publically.

In reality, Bush has pursued very few of their policies relative to the amount of pandering he does to this group.

hes more of a retarded puppet
No I don't believe that Bush is retarded. He's a good actor.

No I don't believe that Bush is retarded. He's a good actor.
They're not mutually exclusive. Corky was a good actor too.

Bush is a politician in the Republican party; he has to be with these people because they are influential. It's pretty much all politics; these people have the money, the networks, and the connections he needs, and they are willing to give it to him if he espouses their ideology at least publically.

In reality, Bush has pursued very few of their policies relative to the amount of pandering he does to this group.

Ahh but now he is in his last term. He doesn't need to pander to them anymore and yet he continues.

Ahh but now he is in his last term. He doesn't need to pander to them anymore and yet he continues.

Well, those states are also vulnerable to Democratic victories, moreso than they've been in a decade. With so many people alienated, he's drawing on effective last reserve of supporters and he has to work twice as hard to hold on to them since even they are starting to question him.

Oh pulease, conspiracy theories abound. If GWB was such a crap leader (which he is), Kerry should have won a land slide victory, and heck, even won over some 'heart land' states as well.

The simple fact, you have a large number of adults who DON'T VOTE and a large number of uneducated hicks and religious nutcases that are rounded up and pushed into voting booths, thus giving a disproportionate representation of the US population as a whole.

Whose to blame? those who sit on their ass with a tub of ice cream whilst watching tv on election night rather than getting out and voting.
the Beast media is to blame too

I'm not sure I see how. Wouldn't that mean he considers any dissent to be a capital crime and regulates the media into oblivion like China and the USSR? I can see how he qualifies as an authoritarian, but I think calling him totalitarian is very much an exaggeration.
He IS a Totalitarian--within the law of course (but not always)

They're not mutually exclusive. Corky was a good actor too.
:D :D :D

They're not mutually exclusive. Corky was a good actor too.

Now now, not even Down's Syndrome can explain the ineptitude of Bush in his two terms. Also, Chris Burke is/was rather likeable and he didn't send anyone to die for a lie either.

:D

The time i called Bush and his ilk Taliban, somebody called me an idiot:rolleyes: well at least now i have company:p

The time i called Bush and his ilk Taliban, somebody called me an idiot:rolleyes: well at least now i have company:p
the Truth has always been unpopular and the people who call people who speak it "idiots" are not the kind of people who change history