NationStates Jolt Archive

A new book reveals that the Bush administration used the Evangelical conservatives for votes but considered them crazy wackos. Just goes to show how this whitehouse considers everyone stupid enough to buy their lies. They lied about the threat Iraq posed, they lied about "no prior warnings" for 9/11, and now it seems they lied about being down with JC.

"Sadly, the political affairs folks complained most often and most loudly about how boorish many politically involved Christians were…. National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous' and 'out of control.' ''.

They're misleading every one of their supporters and betting that the regular folks are too stupid to notice.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-faith13oct13,0,3875008.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Bush administration........................................Thinks?
Sorry I'm not buying it! :p

One more reason it sucks to be on the Christian right, you're getting used by Bush and his crew.

So ... the Christian Right is a tool ....

Oh wait ... we all knew that already.

Some people have been sayignt his for years. What makes this such a big deal now is that it's one of their own saying it. David Kuo is a hard-core evangelical who worked in the White House for the Faith-Based Initiatives office, so it's not like he's a wild-eyed liberal or something.

I really hope this revelation makes the evangelicals stand up and recognize how the moderates have sold them out and they toss the moderates out of their party for good. Right into the arms of the Democrats

A new book reveals that the Bush administration used the Evangelical conservatives for votes but considered them crazy wackos. Just goes to show how this whitehouse considers everyone stupid enough to buy their lies. They lied about the threat Iraq posed, they lied about "no prior warnings" for 9/11, and now it seems they lied about being down with JC.



They're misleading every one of their supporters and betting that the regular folks are too stupid to notice.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-faith13oct13,0,3875008.story?coll=la-home-headlines


This book is supposedly about the alleged comments by some White House Aides and Staff members. the same internal squabbling was seen between Colin Powell's State Department and Rumsfeld's Defense Department.

Bush himself is an Evangelical Christian and he supports the issues they like. That is why they vote for him.

Yet another book out just before the elections. I am sure many would love to see the powerful Christian-Right vote disenfranchised in some way.

oh and I am pretty sure many Democratic leaders look at minorites with similar disdain...but it's all about the votes in politics.



I really hope this revelation makes the evangelicals stand up and recognize how the moderates have sold them out and they toss the moderates out of their party for good. Right into the arms of the Democrats

Translation: I hope the Republican party weakens, especially the Christian influence on public affairs, so Democrats run by the left wing can take control.

Wouldnt you realize they're using you when the only time they mention issues near to you are every two years?

They say they will ban gay marriage, but, its just another campaign promise.


And good for the guy who had the balls to put it in print.

Translation: I hope the Republican party weakens, especially the Christian influence on public affairs, so Democrats run by the left wing can take control.

Hey ... works for me!

Some people have been sayignt his for years. ]

I know I have.

The Republicans are a party of war and greed; how could they be "down with" a God of peace and love?


Translation: I hope the Republican party weakens, especially the Christian influence on public affairs, so Democrats run by the left wing can take control.
I'm an European Christian and from here it looks like even America's atheist left act more Christian than many American Christians on the right.

Translation: I hope the Republican party weakens, especially the Christian influence on public affairs, so Democrats run by the left wing can take control.
It would be a good thing for both religion and politics to be seperated. Individuals will always have their beliefs and will make decisions based on those beliefs but public policy should always take a stance that is based on no one religion.

Translation: I hope the Republican party weakens, especially the Christian influence on public affairs, so Democrats run by the left wing can take control.You're half right. I decidedly want the "Christian" influence on public affairs to wane, as I think it's a harmful influence on the nation as a whole. But you overestimate--which is not surprising, given your other posts--the influence the left wing of the Democratic party has on the party as a whole. I know it's a right-wing bogeyman, and I know that it's an article of faith that Democrats are really commies in disguise, but we really aren't, and you might as well get used to that fact of life.

The Republicans are a party of war and greed; how could they be "down with" a God of peace and love?


I'm an European Christian and from here it looks like even America's atheist left act more Christian than many American Christians on the right.

European Christian? That's like a Celibate Whore.


This book focuses on the Faith Based initiatives, which I am sure were politicized but Bush himself supports. The Faith Based Initiatives, the author complains, took a backseat when Democratic resistance and 9-11 proved a distraction. The author is upset about this. The author does not name anyone in particular though he does not seem to be fond of Karl Rove.

The publisher is Simon & Schuster who seems to be on a roll with anti-Bush books published in the months and weeks preceding the election.

Bush himself still sincerely believes in the faith based initiatives and according to the article, even the author believes this. Trying to dishearten the Evangelical Base like this will backfire. Careful guys, you're about to screw yourselves.

I know I have.

It's been painfully obvious to any honest observer of the scene. Republicans have been in charge of Congress for 12 years, and in charge of the government as a whole for the last 6--including two hard right appointments to the Supreme Court to replace a hard right and what passed for a moderate--and still no abortion ban? No gay marriage amendment? And no real push to make either of them happen. Just a lot of hand-wringing and blaming the problem on activist judges.

Why is that? Because evangelicals are useful to the party as a whole. They're the equivalent of labor unions to the Dems in 60s and 70s--lots of money and lots of get-out-the-vote mobilization. At least the unions got something for their money, though since Reagan, they've seen their power and influence wane.

But the evangelicals have been electing their own lately, and I'd imagine that since they make up more than half the party now (according to Kevin Phillips), they'll start demanding more allegiance from their elected officials, or they'll primary them out of office. And yes, I hope they do that, because it'll marginalize them as a power bloc in the US, and I think that's an unqualified good.

You're half right. I decidedly want the "Christian" influence on public affairs to wane, as I think it's a harmful influence on the nation as a whole. But you overestimate--which is not surprising, given your other posts--the influence the left wing of the Democratic party has on the party as a whole. I know it's a right-wing bogeyman, and I know that it's an article of faith that Democrats are really commies in disguise, but we really aren't, and you might as well get used to that fact of life.


The Nazz, i state my beliefs in my other posts. If I am somehow a radical, than you are unstable extremist so lets not try and cast dispersions here, understand?

And the reason i say the Democrats are influenced by the left, is because that is exactly where all the money is coming from. The left wing such as the moveon.orgs and Code Pinks are raising the most money. Hillary Clinton is even under assault for not being left wing enough...Hillary Clinton! Unless they are in the Deep South, a Democrat of today looks nothing like a Democrat of old. No more Harry Trumans or JFKs, just a bunch of George McGoverns and Michael Dukakis'.

but go ahead and deflect the attention as some "vast right wing conspiracy". Follow the money, a simple and proven trick.

European Christian? That's like a Celibate Whore.Nice. :rolleyes:

Bush himself still sincerely believes in the faith based initiatives and according to the article, even the author believes this. Trying to dishearten the Evangelical Base like this will backfire. Careful guys, you're about to screw yourselves.
Like I said above, I hope it doesn't dishearten them. I hope it motivates them to purge the party they now control of anyone that doesn't agree with them, because it'll marginalize them. They're 60% of the Republican party, but only about 32% of the voting population (and smaller than that in the total population). They have an outsized amount of influence right now, and I'd just as soon see that disappear.

Another issue raise in that book is that the Bush team used the Federally funded Faith Based Initiatives group to essentially campaign on their behalf during the last election.

Methinks that the FEC might want to do some poking around those allegations....

Hillary Clinton is even under assault for not being left wing enough...Hillary Clinton!I'll let that statement stand for itself :p

So ... the Christian Right is a tool ....

Oh wait ... we all knew that already.
everything,and everybody can become a tool
what to do when you all saw it comming(go to war?), no, my response is SPAM
Get something new,something we don't know.
Something we will fight against or for,gimme that

The Nazz, i state my beliefs in my other posts. If I am somehow a radical, than you are unstable extremist so lets not try and cast dispersions here, understand?

And the reason i say the Democrats are influenced by the left, is because that is exactly where all the money is coming from. The left wing such as the moveon.orgs and Code Pinks are raising the most money. Hillary Clinton is even under assault for not being left wing enough...Hillary Clinton! Unless they are in the Deep South, a Democrat of today looks nothing like a Democrat of old. No more Harry Trumans or JFKs, just a bunch of George McGoverns and Michael Dukakis'.

but go ahead and deflect the attention as some "vast right wing conspiracy". Follow the money, a simple and proven trick.I love how people like you bust out Hillary time and again as though she's a paragon of liberalism. What's been her most liberal stance since she's been in the Senate? Voting against the gay marriage amendment, maybe? Yeah, that was a hell of a liberal stance. :rolleyes:

And even before then, what was it? National healthcare, maybe? Yeah, the same idea that Harry Truman inserted into the party platform in 1948. No more Trumans, you were saying?

Face it--you've bought into the spin, unless you really believe that the half of the voting populace who doesn't go for your guy (and even more than that now, based on polls) is made up of fringe folks who want to turn the US into a hippie paradise. That's not the case, and any dispassionate observer will tell you the same thing.

A new book reveals that the Bush administration used the Evangelical conservatives for votes but considered them crazy wackos. Just goes to show how this whitehouse considers everyone stupid enough to buy their lies. They lied about the threat Iraq posed, they lied about "no prior warnings" for 9/11, and now it seems they lied about being down with JC.



They're misleading every one of their supporters and betting that the regular folks are too stupid to notice.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-faith13oct13,0,3875008.story?coll=la-home-headlines

You seriously think the LA Times in unbiased?Anyway,I'm tired of lefties running out the "moral values voters" argument.These people dont really exist-what the hell defines a "Evangelical Christian",anyway?The Left invented the Moral Values Voter as a means to deflect people from the truth-the fact that a rapidly decreasing number of Americans believe in socialist economic policies.Every time I log on here and read the forums,I see tons of people that are without a doubt far-right politacilly-they want taxes to be a lot lower,they want us to use much tougher methods in Iraq,so on and so forth.But then they say they voted for Kerry,because Bush was connected with "fundamentalist Christians":headbang: :confused: (Better put "fundamendalist" in front of it,it sounds scarier that way.It helps people conveniently forget the fact that 90% of the US populous in Christian,and the fact that if you boil down there political agenda,its stuff that no reasonable person would object to-stuff like family values,opposition to crime,patriotism etc.)The Kerry campaign failed precisely because noone could figure out what the hell was so bad about these people,they make up like 60% of the 2nd-most populous state in the country,you morons.Maybe if you left Vermont for a while youd realize just how mainstream Christianity is out there in America.

made up of fringe folks who want to turn the US into a hippie paradise

Those would be my people. :D

You seriously think the LA Times in unbiased?Anyway,I'm tired of lefties running out the "moral values voters" argument.
And I'm tired of posters like you who make assumptions about articles without actually reading them. :rolleyes:

Those would be my people. :D

Mine too. You want to talk about a minority group in this country? Liberal males.

The Nazz, i state my beliefs in my other posts. If I am somehow a radical, than you are unstable extremist so lets not try and cast dispersions here, understand?

And the reason i say the Democrats are influenced by the left, is because that is exactly where all the money is coming from. The left wing such as the moveon.orgs and Code Pinks are raising the most money. Hillary Clinton is even under assault for not being left wing enough...Hillary Clinton! Unless they are in the Deep South, a Democrat of today looks nothing like a Democrat of old. No more Harry Trumans or JFKs, just a bunch of George McGoverns and Michael Dukakis'.

but go ahead and deflect the attention as some "vast right wing conspiracy". Follow the money, a simple and proven trick.

This guy is right on the money.The Democrats is the real extremist right now,theyve been controllled by the hippie Left ever since the 70's.Nobody likes them for this,but a lot of there old power bases have died underneath them as the USA has evolved,and the anti-war,Moms Basement Resistance types are the only people they can get money from.Youve got people like George Soros in control of the party now,thats why im so scared of Democrats taking over Congress.:eek: God only knows what would happen.

I love how people like you bust out Hillary time and again as though she's a paragon of liberalism. What's been her most liberal stance since she's been in the Senate? Voting against the gay marriage amendment, maybe? Yeah, that was a hell of a liberal stance. :rolleyes:

And even before then, what was it? National healthcare, maybe? Yeah, the same idea that Harry Truman inserted into the party platform in 1948. No more Trumans, you were saying?

Face it--you've bought into the spin, unless you really believe that the half of the voting populace who doesn't go for your guy (and even more than that now, based on polls) is made up of fringe folks who want to turn the US into a hippie paradise. That's not the case, and any dispassionate observer will tell you the same thing.

Hillary Clinton has been grooming herself for a Presidential run. She had to move to the center on certain political issues tomake herself look more moderate. She is doing everything she needs to, but is being attacked for it now by the "true believers". She is a liberal. Universal Healthcare, Against Welfare Reform, Supports abortion on demand, raising taxes and disagreed with her husband on Free Trade...she is trying to center herself on alot of these issues through speeches and simple votes but she is still the Hillary you knew and loved. problem is she is a phony however you look at it.

I am not buying into any spin, you are just drowning in your own denial. The Democrats seriously considered making Howard "The Scream" Dean as their nominee but instead settled for John Kerry, the most liberal man in the Senate, because they thought his war record would help him win. Kerry lost, but Dean became head of the DNC. Nancy Pelosi, straight out of San Francisco, is the Democratic leader in the house and will be House Speaker if the Democrats win. While Joe Lieberman, a loyal Democrat who went against his party on issue he truly believed in, gets tossed out by some amateur one issue candidate who was heavily funded by left wing activist groups i referred to earlier.

it is not about "going for my guy". It is about protecting this country from Michael Moore politics. I do not believe half of the voting populace wants to elect "hippies". If anything, they will vote against republicans because they have lost their way. The problem is that the Democrats will be even worse as far as fiscal spending and partisan bickering is concerned, especially with the type of people who funded them into office now asking for their favors to be returned. Half the voting populace may be upset with the Republicans right now, as they should be, but that is in no way an endorsement of your Cindy Sheehans, Michael Moore and George Soros world view of things.

And I'm tired of posters like you who make assumptions about articles without actually reading them. :rolleyes:

Its the LA Times,for chrissake.They will right anything that shows Bush in bad light-even if they know it isnt true.

European Christian? That's like a Celibate Whore.

What are you trying to say?

You seriously think the LA Times in unbiased?Anyway,I'm tired of lefties running out the "moral values voters" argument.These people dont really exist-what the hell defines a "Evangelical Christian",anyway?The Left invented the Moral Values Voter as a means to deflect people from the truth-the fact that a rapidly decreasing number of Americans believe in socialist economic policies.Every time I log on here and read the forums,I see tons of people that are without a doubt far-right politacilly-they want taxes to be a lot lower,they want us to use much tougher methods in Iraq,so on and so forth.But then they say they voted for Kerry,because Bush was connected with "fundamentalist Christians":headbang: :confused: (Better put "fundamendalist" in front of it,it sounds scarier that way.It helps people conveniently forget the fact that 90% of the US populous in Christian,and the fact that if you boil down there political agenda,its stuff that no reasonable person would object to-stuff like family values,opposition to crime,patriotism etc.)The Kerry campaign failed precisely because noone could figure out what the hell was so bad about these people,they make up like 60% of the 2nd-most populous state in the country,you morons.Maybe if you left Vermont for a while youd realize just how mainstream Christianity is out there in America.

I object to curtailing the rights of gays, criminalizing speech, violating the establishment clause of the constitution, and using false patriotism to eliminate constitutional rights. Does that make me unreasonable or does that make me a real patriot who's loyalty lies with the USA instead of some creepy preacher like Rod Parsley?

Oh, and yeah the LA times is biased, like most news organizations. It's got a strong corporate bias. That's why the media lies. But they're not lying about this news story. Want to find out more about the real media bias? http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=192

Its the LA Times,for chrissake.They will right anything that shows Bush in bad light-even if they know it isnt true.

...Are you even going to read it?

She is a liberal.And how would that make her leftist?

Hillary Clinton has been grooming herself for a Presidential run. She had to move to the center on certain political issues tomake herself look more moderate. She is doing everything she needs to, but is being attacked for it now by the "true believers". She is a liberal. Universal Healthcare, Against Welfare Reform, Supports abortion on demand, raising taxes and disagreed with her husband on Free Trade...she is trying to center herself on alot of these issues through speeches and simple votes but she is still the Hillary you knew and loved. problem is she is a phony however you look at it.

I am not buying into any spin, you are just drowning in your own denial. The Democrats seriously considered making Howard "The Scream" Dean as their nominee but instead settled for John Kerry, the most liberal man in the Senate, because they thought his war record would help him win. Kerry lost, but Dean became head of the DNC. Nancy Pelosi, straight out of San Francisco, is the Democratic leader in the house and will be House Speaker if the Democrats win. While Joe Lieberman, a loyal Democrat who went against his party on issue he truly believed in, gets tossed out by some amateur one issue candidate who was heavily funded by left wing activist groups i referred to earlier.

it is not about "going for my guy". It is about protecting this country from Michael Moore politics. I do not believe half of the voting populace wants to elect "hippies". If anything, they will vote against republicans because they have lost their way. The problem is that the Democrats will be even worse as far as fiscal spending and partisan bickering is concerned, especially with the type of people who funded them into office now asking for their favors to be returned. Half the voting populace may be upset with the Republicans right now, as they should be, but that is in no way an endorsement of your Cindy Sheehans, Michael Moore and George Soros world view of things.

WOOt!Finally somebody here who is smart!:D

For some reason, that actually makes me like the Bush Administration more...they're using these clowns for political gain rather than actually believing what they say. It's rather admirably Machiavellian as a matter of fact.

WOOt!Finally somebody here who is smart!:D

Why is he smart? Because he agrees with you? :rolleyes:

Its the LA Times,for chrissake.They will right anything that shows Bush in bad light-even if they know it isnt true.

And still you prove your ignorance. Read the damn article. It's an article about a book written by a conservative evangelical who worked in the goddamn Bush White House in the Office of Faith-based Initiatives. For fuck's sake.

At least tell me you're not old enough to vote. Give me that much.

This is the part where you say "Oops. I guess I was a retard after all."

A new book reveals that the Bush administration used the Evangelical conservatives for votes but considered them crazy wackos. Just goes to show how this whitehouse considers everyone stupid enough to buy their lies. They lied about the threat Iraq posed, they lied about "no prior warnings" for 9/11, and now it seems they lied about being down with JC.



They're misleading every one of their supporters and betting that the regular folks are too stupid to notice.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-faith13oct13,0,3875008.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Like Mark Foley this comes out close too elections....It's not like this all is meant too undermine the republican congressional campaigning, no sir! ;)

On another note, I wouldn't feel too comfortable on the secular left either, thank you.

Like Mark Foley this comes out close too elections....It's not like this all is meant too undermine the republican congressional campaigning, no sir! ;)

On another note, I wouldn't feel too comfortable on the secular left either, thank you.

If the Republicans had acted on their pedo pal when they first heard about his emails LAST YEAR, it wouldn't come out close to the damn elections. The fact is that the REPUBLICANS are responsible for fucking up, not the democrats for pointing it out. Oh, and you want to talk about manipulating the elections? How about all those terror warnings near the last mid terms and the last presidential election? Why do they only make the news around the time the Republicans need some votes?

If the Republicans had acted on their pedo pal when they first heard about his emails LAST YEAR, it wouldn't come out close to the damn elections. In 2000, it seems like now. If this story had broken then, Gore would have cakewalked to victory, and the Republicans might have lost their majority then. They actually did quite well in keeping it quiet.


The fact is that the REPUBLICANS are responsible for fucking up, not the democrats for pointing it out. Oh, and you want to talk about manipulating the elections? How about all those terror warnings near the last mid terms and the last presidential election? Why do they only make the news around the time the Republicans need some votes?
Because the liberal media is really self-loathing? ;)

I object to curtailing the rights of gays, criminalizing speech, violating the establishment clause of the constitution, and using [b]false patriotism to eliminate constitutional rights. Does that make me unreasonable or does that make me a real patriot who's loyalty lies with the USA instead of some creepy preacher like Rod Parsley?

Oh, and yeah the LA times is biased, like most news organizations. It's got a strong corporate bias. That's why the media lies. But they're not lying about this news story. Want to find out more about the real media bias? http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=192

Curtailing the Rights of Gays = Last I heard they could vote, buy homes, get jobs, libe where they want, wear what they want and sleep with who they want. No where in the constitution is marriage written as a "right" and someone who does not want to redefine marriage to include gays but does accept civil unions (most of the country) is in no way anti-Gay.

Criminalizing Speech = Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Michael Moore and so many others not only criticize Bush's policies on a Daily base but also attack him personally. The New York Times publishes classified information about an NSA wire tapping program and a Bank Account Tracking system for overseas. None of them are thrown in the Gulag. What I do see however is minuteman and conservative speakers getting rushed at or shouted down on stage by those wishing to silence them at universities and other venues.

violating the establishment clause of the constitution = Exactly what are you referring to? This book even talks about how Faith Based Initiatives have NOT been passed yet and as far as I remember, there still is no prayer in school or sponsored state religion. The ACLU is certainly out there doing their part suing student prayer groups who want to meet on school grounds after hours though.


false patriotism to eliminate constitutional rights. = so now you're the judge on whatis patriotic and what is "american"? Maybe, just maybe, those who support the Patriot Act and the classifications of Taliban fighters as "military detainees" believe they are doing what is best for the country and therefore Patriotic.

or does that make me a real patriot = So now you're the real patriot?

I didn't know being a "patriot" involved sticking it to some preacher. are you pro-American, or are you just anti-fundamentalist. which really means more to you?

And how would that make her leftist?


Because Liberals are left of center and to the left of moderate Democrats and pretty far left on the overall American political spectrum. Therefore, she is a leftist.

:eek:

Like Mark Foley this comes out close too elections....It's not like this all is meant too undermine the republican congressional campaigning, no sir! ;)



Too bad for you that it was a Republican staffer (http://www.upi.com/video/Headline/view.php?VideoID=10-5-06KV512K_001) who leaked the story.... and that the story was first shopped around over a year ago! (http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/05/Opinion/Why_the_Times_didn_t_.shtml) .........


Otherwise you'd have a point!

Because Liberals are left of center and to the left of moderate Democrats and pretty far left on the overall American political spectrum. Therefore, she is a leftist.

:eek:Hillary is hardly a left of center liberal. Moderate, if not right of center. And the American political spectrum is hardly universal. Add a "left by American standards" behind it to avoid confusion.

Well we kinda knew this all along didn't we? :p

European Christian? That's like a Celibate Whore.

What are you trying to say?

Because Liberals are left of center and to the left of moderate Democrats and pretty far left on the overall American political spectrum. Therefore, she is a leftist.

Why are American politics so extremely right wing? Like 40s Japan.

Besides, every healthy democratic (small d) country should have left and right wing groups.

Another liberal book which spouts unsubstantiated allegations has been published?! Quick, get the camera!

If the Republicans had acted on their pedo pal when they first heard about his emails LAST YEAR, it wouldn't come out close to the damn elections. The fact is that the REPUBLICANS are responsible for fucking up, not the democrats for pointing it out. Oh, and you want to talk about manipulating the elections? How about all those terror warnings near the last mid terms and the last presidential election? Why do they only make the news around the time the Republicans need some votes?


Um...no. Your an idiot. He would have been exposed far earlier. Of course the Republicans knew, but so did the democrats. He grabbed a pages ass on the congressional floor, along with many other offenses. The dems knew pure and simple. Now, its a manipulation manuever. As for the terror warnings, how about the London subway bombing...The liquid explosive airliner incident...Hmmm wait...these didnt happen near elections...(along with ALOT of other scares) Maybe Bush forgot when elections were, and ordered his conspiracies in action too early...;)

Another liberal book which spouts unsubstantiated allegations has been published?! Quick, get the camera!From the people that brought you "Mark Foley: Democrat".

Too bad for you that it was a Republican staffer (http://www.upi.com/video/Headline/view.php?VideoID=10-5-06KV512K_001) who leaked the story.... and that the story was first shopped around over a year ago! (http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/05/Opinion/Why_the_Times_didn_t_.shtml) .........


Otherwise you'd have a point!


Hmm, you dont seem too be correct. When the Foley story came out a few weeks ago, THAT IS WHEN IT BROKE ONTO THE MEDIA. As for the staffer, he would have known sooner, and leaked it earlier. I call bullshit on your claim, its all too suspicous.

Curtailing the Rights of Gays = Last I heard they could vote, buy homes, get jobs, libe where they want, wear what they want and sleep with who they want. No where in the constitution is marriage written as a "right" and someone who does not want to redefine marriage to include gays but does accept civil unions (most of the country) is in no way anti-Gay. But they can't marry, make decisions for their partners if their partners are incapacitated, inherit from their partners like a spouse would even without a will, and file income tax jointly. The Supreme Court had to intervene to ban sodomy laws or they wouldn't even be allowed to fuck if it were up to the Christian right.

Criminalizing Speech = Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Michael Moore and so many others not only criticize Bush's policies on a Daily base but also attack him personally. The New York Times publishes classified information about an NSA wire tapping program and a Bank Account Tracking system for overseas. None of them are thrown in the Gulag. What I do see however is minuteman and conservative speakers getting rushed at or shouted down on stage by those wishing to silence them at universities and other venues. How about Greg Palast, threatened by homeland security for pictures that are available on google? How about the DOJ cracking down on ordinary adult websites in their war on "obscenity"? I'm not in favor of censoring anyone, minuteman or immigrant activist, conservative or liberal.

violating the establishment clause of the constitution = Exactly what are you referring to? This book even talks about how Faith Based Initiatives have NOT been passed yet and as far as I remember, there still is no prayer in school or sponsored state religion. The ACLU is certainly out there doing their part suing student prayer groups who want to meet on school grounds after hours though. You don't keep up with the news much, do you? Faith Based initiatives have been passed and have been funneling public money into religious institutions for years now. Bush got them in his first term. The ACLU fights to PROTECT christian students. It only opposes prayer when it's led by the school officials. Of course you wouldn't know that because the Right Wing alternative scumbag media have lied to you about it.


false patriotism to eliminate constitutional rights. = so now you're the judge on whatis patriotic and what is "american"? Maybe, just maybe, those who support the Patriot Act and the classifications of Taliban fighters as "military detainees" believe they are doing what is best for the country and therefore Patriotic.

or does that make me a real patriot = So now you're the real patriot?

I didn't know being a "patriot" involved sticking it to some preacher. are you pro-American, or are you just anti-fundamentalist. which really means more to you?
Being a patriot means upholding the constitution even when it's inconvenient. It means respecting other's rights even if they choose to do something your god thinks is icky. It means doing things that protect Americans' freedoms, not frightening them into giving up their freedoms.

From the people that brought you "Mark Foley: Democrat".

From those that brought you: Mark FOley, Pedophile! *cough* month before elecions *cough*

Um...no. Your an idiot. He would have been exposed far earlier. Of course the Republicans knew, but so did the democrats. He grabbed a pages ass on the congressional floor, along with many other offenses. The dems knew pure and simple. Now, its a manipulation manuever. As for the terror warnings, how about the London subway bombing...The liquid explosive airliner incident...Hmmm wait...these didnt happen near elections...(along with ALOT of other scares) Maybe Bush forgot when elections were, and ordered his conspiracies in action too early...;)

No, the fact that you don't know the Republicans knew about Foley for a while now shows you're the idiot.

London? Attacks on London don't scare the rubes like terror warnings in the USA. The Bush administration doesn't care about British elections. There's no profit in them.

European Christian? That's like a Celibate Whore.
*snip*


That's a flame, and a grossly unfair one. I suggest you apologize.

From those that brought you: Mark FOley, Pedophile! *cough* month before elecions *cough*The Greens are in congress? That's news to me.

WOOt!Finally somebody here who is smart!:D

TRNSLATION: "Finally, someone here who agrees with me!"

Personally, I don't give a fig what your beliefs are or how you vote. I object to your automatic assumptions that everyone, EVERYone who opposes you is somehow inferior. If that's how you feel better about yourself, so be it, but it doesn't make you smart, it makes you pathetic. You have my pity.

No, the fact that you don't know the Republicans knew about Foley for a while now shows you're the idiot.

London? Attacks on London don't scare the rubes like terror warnings in the USA. The Bush administration doesn't care about British elections. There's no profit in them.

So the fact that Britan is our closest ally, and technologically equal too us, in anti terrorism measures doesn't change anything? Also, the shoe bomber? That was in the US. Plus countless othr scares. The timing doesnt add up, smart one. And, Im saying Dems and Reps knew about Foley. It was only a matter of time before the dems released it. It was under there control, Mr. Moore.

The Greens are in congress? That's news to me.

Yea....Because the greens need the boot too take congress...

So the fact that Britan is our closest ally, and technologically equal too us, in anti terrorism measures doesn't change anything? Also, the shoe bomber? That was in the US. Plus countless othr scares. The timing doesnt add up, smart one. And, Im saying Dems and Reps knew about Foley. It was only a matter of time before the dems released it. It was under there control, Mr. Moore.

Nice try. You almost confused the issue. Stick to the subject. We were talking about the terror warnings just before the last mid term and the last presidential elections. What became of them? Nothing. No evidence, no threat, no suspects. They came and went and the only impact they had was to scare the suburban soccer moms. The scares you're talking about had some evidence to back them up. The ones before the elections just faded away. You're being played, pal. Smarten up.

Um...no. Your an idiot. He would have been exposed far earlier. Of course the Republicans knew, but so did the democrats. He grabbed a pages ass on the congressional floor, along with many other offenses. The dems knew pure and simple. Now, its a manipulation manuever. As for the terror warnings, how about the London subway bombing...The liquid explosive airliner incident...Hmmm wait...these didnt happen near elections...(along with ALOT of other scares) Maybe Bush forgot when elections were, and ordered his conspiracies in action too early...;)

If you can prove that Democrats knew Foley was fucking around with pages, you can make a lot of money right now. Of course, you can't prove that, so instead you slime by innuendo and false equivalency and prove yourself to be intellectually dishonest.

So here's your chance--prove it. Or shut it.

Curtailing the Rights of Gays = Last I heard they could vote, buy homes, get jobs, libe where they want, wear what they want and sleep with who they want. No where in the constitution is marriage written as a "right" and someone who does not want to redefine marriage to include gays but does accept civil unions (most of the country) is in no way anti-Gay.
No marriage, no inheritance, no joint taxes, no end-of-life or other medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse. You're wrong.

Criminalizing Speech = Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Michael Moore and so many others not only criticize Bush's policies on a Daily base but also attack him personally. The New York Times publishes classified information about an NSA wire tapping program and a Bank Account Tracking system for overseas. None of them are thrown in the Gulag. What I do see however is minuteman and conservative speakers getting rushed at or shouted down on stage by those wishing to silence them at universities and other venues.
The New York Times printed an article about a program Bush had mentioned AT A PRESS CONFERENCE months ago. You're wrong.

violating the establishment clause of the constitution = Exactly what are you referring to? This book even talks about how Faith Based Initiatives have NOT been passed yet and as far as I remember, there still is no prayer in school or sponsored state religion. The ACLU is certainly out there doing their part suing student prayer groups who want to meet on school grounds after hours though.
First Bush term saw faith-based initiatives galore. Read your own newspapers. The ACLU defends ANYONE whose civil rights have been violated, including your hero, Rush Limbaugh. You're wrong.

false patriotism to eliminate constitutional rights. = so now you're the judge on whatis patriotic and what is "american"? Maybe, just maybe, those who support the Patriot Act and the classifications of Taliban fighters as "military detainees" believe they are doing what is best for the country and therefore Patriotic.
Only if they know who they've detained and what they've actually done. Patriotism is not a uniquely American idea. It's been around for centuries and refers to anyone's love of their home nation/country. Dissent, according to founding patriot Thomas Jefferson, is patriotic. So silencing it with "free speech zones" blocks away from where an issue is being played out amounts to a violation of the 1st Amendment. Silencing it by appointing those in charge of the FCC, an unelected and even unconfirmed body whose job is to censor the free, public airwaves is also a violation (allowing the violence of Saving Private Ryan while increasing the fines for morally objectionable content tenfold because of a breast that was visible for half a second and covered with a huge ring is just sauce for the goose, hypocritically speaking).

or does that make me a real patriot = So now you're the real patriot?

I didn't know being a "patriot" involved sticking it to some preacher. are you pro-American, or are you just anti-fundamentalist. which really means more to you?

"Sticking it to some preacher"? Look, pal, I don't care how you satisfy yourself sexually, but your party sure as hell does. I'd watch that if I were you.

Um...no. Your an idiot. He would have been exposed far earlier. Of course the Republicans knew, but so did the democrats. He grabbed a pages ass on the congressional floor, along with many other offenses. The dems knew pure and simple. Now, its a manipulation manuever. As for the terror warnings, how about the London subway bombing...The liquid explosive airliner incident...Hmmm wait...these didnt happen near elections...(along with ALOT of other scares) Maybe Bush forgot when elections were, and ordered his conspiracies in action too early...;)
We're not talking about the future, this is about the past. And unless you can prove that "he would have been exposed far earlier", I suggest you drop out.

I think this is pretty indicative of American politics these days. Politicians care less about what's right, and more about what gets their supporters writing checks. This is only coming down on the Republicans right now because they're the ones in power. I'm sure if Kerry had won, there'd be leaked memos about him bad-mouthing High Times Magazine and the Lilith Fair. ;)

As for the Foley issue, it was sadly politicized. Foley is trash, and the Republicans should have jumped on him the instant they found out about it. If the Democrats did indeed know about Foley before this, then shame on them as well for turning it into a political issue, rather than watching out for the welfare of the pages.

When the revolution comes, I want politicians to be the first against the wall. :sniper:

Mine too. You want to talk about a minority group in this country? Liberal males.

Wohoo! I am a minority! Death to whitey!

I think this is pretty indicative of American politics these days. Politicians care less about what's right, and more about what gets their supporters writing checks. This is only coming down on the Republicans right now because they're the ones in power. I'm sure if Kerry had won, there'd be leaked memos about him bad-mouthing High Times Magazine and the Lilith Fair. ;)

As for the Foley issue, it was sadly politicized. Foley is trash, and the Republicans should have jumped on him the instant they found out about it. If the Democrats did indeed know about Foley before this, then shame on them as well for turning it into a political issue, rather than watching out for the welfare of the pages.

When the revolution comes, I want politicians to be the first against the wall. :sniper:


Speaking of foley, this whole issue with him made me realize what GOP really stands for: Gay Old Perverts;)

Nice try. You almost confused the issue. Stick to the subject. We were talking about the terror warnings just before the last mid term and the last presidential elections. What became of them? Nothing. No evidence, no threat, no suspects. They came and went and the only impact they had was to scare the suburban soccer moms. The scares you're talking about had some evidence to back them up. The ones before the elections just faded away. You're being played, pal. Smarten up.


No, you seem too ignore the fact that there is a new terror threat every month. If you knew that, and the fact that you simply wont post a link or refer me too an article or book, that gives credible evidence that those threats were a conspiracy, then...well hell, your a liberal. You dont need anything backing up your argument.

Speaking of foley, this whole issue with him made me realize what GOP really stands for: Gay Old Perverts;)

Hey, some of them are okay. I like McCain, for example. He strikes me as the kind of guy who could kill you with a hangnail and still appear grandfatherly.

We're not talking about the future, this is about the past. And unless you can prove that "he would have been exposed far earlier", I suggest you drop out.

Your not even making a valid point. The past? He wasnt exposed in the past, so the dems could keep the ace. Telling someone too drop out when you cant even make a point yourself. Please go outside and shoot yourself. Or at least read a book.

Your not even making a valid point. The past? He wasnt exposed in the past, so the dems could keep the ace. Telling someone too drop out when you cant even make a point yourself. Please go outside and shoot yourself. Or at least read a book.Again--prove it or shut your lying mouth. Suppositions don't fly in this kind of discussion. Neither do hypotheses. Prove it, if you can.

Again--you can't. You know it, and I know it, and so does everyone else on this board. The Republicans covered this up and never told a Dem about it. Unless you're trying to conflate Foley's sexual orientation with his contact with pages, you've got jack shit.

Edit: As Intangelon said, that suggestion for the poster to off himself is not only a flame, it's a deatable offense. I suggest you refrain from it in the future.

No, you seem too ignore the fact that there is a new terror threat every month. If you knew that, and the fact that you simply wont post a link or refer me too an article or book, that gives credible evidence that those threats were a conspiracy, then...well hell, your a liberal. You dont need anything backing up your argument.

No, you seem to ignore the fact that few of these "threats" have actually led to full-scale terror attacks. If you knew that, and the fact that you won't back any of your statements up with reason or factual evidence that gives credible evidence that he is wrong, then... well, hell, you're a Bush lover. You don't need anything backing up your argument.

No, you seem too ignore the fact that there is a new terror threat every month. If you knew that, and the fact that you simply wont post a link or refer me too an article or book, that gives credible evidence that those threats were a conspiracy, then...well hell, your a liberal. You dont need anything backing up your argument.

Really? Then why don't they tell us the terror threat level every month? Why don't we see than nice little rainbow threat meter every day on the news? They only dragged that thing out in the weeks before the last two elections. Still, that's another good try by you to confuse the issue. Keep it up. You might convince someone someday.

Your not even making a valid point. The past? He wasnt exposed in the past, so the dems could keep the ace. Telling someone too drop out when you cant even make a point yourself. Please go outside and shoot yourself. Or at least read a book.

Fair enough, the democrates may have kept the knowledge to themselves to make political capital from it, it something all political parties do from time to time.

You've still not managed to give a reasonable explaination for why the republicans didn't do anything about it though. They definatly knew about it for a long time.

Really? Then why don't they tell us the terror threat level every month? Why don't we see than nice little rainbow threat meter every day on the news? They only dragged that thing out in the weeks before the last two elections.
No kidding. Remember that thread I started a few months back with the pool for when the first terror alert of the season would come? I fully expected them to use that the way they did last election, and they didn't. They tried to make Bush look strong on national security by having him give speeches this time, and it got him barely above 40% until the Foley scandal and the NK bomb took him back down to the 30s. The alert system has been strangely silent this year, I believe because they knew the public was looking at it as a boy-who-cried-wolf sort of thing.

No, you seem too ignore the fact that there is a new terror threat every month. If you knew that, and the fact that you simply wont post a link or refer me too an article or book, that gives credible evidence that those threats were a conspiracy, then...well hell, your a liberal. You dont need anything backing up your argument.

Okay, Alertnessman, what was last month's threat? This month's? Can you name any?

Your not even making a valid point. The past? He wasnt exposed in the past, so the dems could keep the ace. Telling someone too drop out when you cant even make a point yourself. Please go outside and shoot yourself. Or at least read a book.

You stated that "he would have been exposed much earlier". He wasn't. I was simply pointing out that this mess already happened. I was commenting on what you said, not what someone else pointed out. You can't understand what I'm trying to say, so instead you attack me with vicious insults. If anyone is dumb, it's you.

Your not even making a valid point. The past? He wasnt exposed in the past, so the dems could keep the ace. Telling someone too drop out when you cant even make a point yourself. Please go outside and shoot yourself. Or at least read a book.

That's a flame. Please stop it.

You seriously think the LA Times in unbiased?Anyway,I'm tired of lefties running out the "moral values voters" argument.These people dont really exist-what the hell defines a "Evangelical Christian",anyway?The Left invented the Moral Values Voter as a means to deflect people from the truth-the fact that a rapidly decreasing number of Americans believe in socialist economic policies. Every time I log on here and read the forums,I see tons of people that are without a doubt far-right politacilly-they want taxes to be a lot lower,they want us to use much tougher methods in Iraq,so on and so forth.But then they say they voted for Kerry,because Bush was connected with "fundamentalist Christians":headbang: :confused: (Better put "fundamendalist" in front of it,it sounds scarier that way.It helps people conveniently forget the fact that 90% of the US populous in Christian,and the fact that if you boil down there political agenda,its stuff that no reasonable person would object to-stuff like family values,opposition to crime,patriotism etc.)The Kerry campaign failed precisely because noone could figure out what the hell was so bad about these people,they make up like 60% of the 2nd-most populous state in the country,you morons.Maybe if you left Vermont for a while youd realize just how mainstream Christianity is out there in America.

EVERY DAY eh? given that your join date is october of this year and all the posts you have made are in THIS thread, id say thats not much of a testimony. too bad you dont have the balls to say whose puppet you are.

i have over 10,000 posts and i dont recall anyone ever saying that.

no one is against christianity, we are against christian fundamentalist politicians (and those who pretend to be) who are trying to take their particular brand of religion to the laws of the united states. there are millions of christians whose opinions are not represented by these people.

I can imagine how they'll mobilize the votes.

"If you don't vote Republican in November, every good Christian man will get ass-raped like Ned Beatty on Deliverance by all those sinful homosexuals and liberals."

Of course Congressional Pages go "And so what's new?"

Really? Then why don't they tell us the terror threat level every month? Why don't we see than nice little rainbow threat meter every day on the news? They only dragged that thing out in the weeks before the last two elections. Still, that's another good try by you to confuse the issue. Keep it up. You might convince someone someday.

AHHH I'm being gang-banged by liberals!

Thats been up, the whole damn time. Of course you'd know that, had you tuned into Fox, or CNN and not Al-Jazerra.

AHHH I'm being gang-banged by liberals!

Thats been up, the whole damn time. Of course you'd know that, had you tuned into Fox, or CNN and not Al-Jazerra.
You wish. If you were being gang-banged by liberals, you'd be in a constant state of orgasm. We're the hedonists, remember? ;)

Again--prove it or shut your lying mouth. Suppositions don't fly in this kind of discussion. Neither do hypotheses. Prove it, if you can.

Again--you can't. You know it, and I know it, and so does everyone else on this board. The Republicans covered this up and never told a Dem about it. Unless you're trying to conflate Foley's sexual orientation with his contact with pages, you've got jack shit.

Edit: As Intangelon said, that suggestion for the poster to off himself is not only a flame, it's a deatable offense. I suggest you refrain from it in the future.

AHA! And Bush and the Republicans raising the terror threat isn't? You dismiss all conservative claims, (liberals) but when it comes to your accusations, meh? Who needs too back up thier argument on the left?

Im sorry for telling him too off himself- the mentally handicapped are very impressionable and it was wrong of me. But if thats really going too make you piss yourself, i;d hate too see how you deal with life outside the forums. yikes! :eek:

You wish. If you were being gang-banged by liberals, you'd be in a constant state of orgasm. We're the hedonists, remember? ;)

Ya, but once again, cyber gang-banging me on a forum, is pretty far from your wet dream. As for the constant orgasm thing, I think your overexagerating... Covering something up are we?

Your not even making a valid point. The past? He wasnt exposed in the past, so the dems could keep the ace. Telling someone too drop out when you cant even make a point yourself. Please go outside and shoot yourself. Or at least read a book.
Ya, but once again, cyber gang-banging me on a forum, is pretty far from your wet dream. As for the constant orgasm thing, I think your overexagerating... Covering something up are we?
AHA! And Bush and the Republicans raising the terror threat isn't? You dismiss all conservative claims, (liberals) but when it comes to your accusations, meh? Who needs too back up thier argument on the left?

Im sorry for telling him too off himself- the mentally handicapped are very impressionable and it was wrong of me. But if thats really going too make you piss yourself, i;d hate too see how you deal with life outside the forums. yikes! :eek:
Well New Ausha, we'll see how well you deal with life outside the forums. For the personal attacks exhibited above, you have earned yourself a 3-Day Forum Ban.

Erastide
~Forum Moderator

A new book reveals that the Bush administration used the Evangelical conservatives for votes but considered them crazy wackos. Just goes to show how this whitehouse considers everyone stupid enough to buy their lies. They lied about the threat Iraq posed, they lied about "no prior warnings" for 9/11, and now it seems they lied about being down with JC.



They're misleading every one of their supporters and betting that the regular folks are too stupid to notice.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-faith13oct13,0,3875008.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Just what do you think I am! A GOP nutcase pretending to be right-wing?! LOL!!! :D

No, I am an Independent, silly. Get over it. :p

A new book reveals that the Bush administration used the Evangelical conservatives for votes but considered them crazy wackos. Just goes to show how this whitehouse considers everyone stupid enough to buy their lies. They lied about the threat Iraq posed, they lied about "no prior warnings" for 9/11, and now it seems they lied about being down with JC.

Duh. Been saying this one for a couple of years now, myself. No one ever believes it, either.

I've heard enough from the Democrats in this discussion to know that they think of themselves as the underdogs in America. Despite the fact that their party has a history of degrading others and their beliefs, they still think that for some reason the Civil War can be blamed on George Bush.

I've heard enough from the Democrats in this discussion to know that they think of themselves as the underdogs in America. Despite the fact that their party has a history of degrading others and their beliefs, they still think that for some reason the Civil War can be blamed on George Bush.

History of degrading others? You mean the way we pretty much hamstrung the Clinton administration through false accusations and an impeachment hearing? Oh, wait, that was the Republican slander machine run by Richard Melon Scaife.

History of degrading others? You mean the way we pretty much hamstrung the Clinton administration through false accusations and an impeachment hearing? Oh, wait, that was the Republican slander machine run by Richard Melon Scaife.

Of course, just like everyone from your party, find one person and judge a whole group...Fail to look at your history of racism and prejudice. Abortion? Margaret Sanger was a racist. Slavery? Jefferson Davis was a Democrat. My point was, Democrats act as if they are being oppressed, when in truth, they run the media, they run the businesses, they run the government. Don't say something stupid like, "George Bush is the president, dipshit!" Because you know that it simply isn't true that Republicans have control. If they did, abortion would be illegal. Democrats act as if they have been personally wronged by the Bush administration.

Of course, just like everyone from your party, find one person and judge a whole group...Fail to look at your history of racism and prejudice. Abortion? Margaret Sanger was a racist. Slavery? Jefferson Davis was a Democrat. My point was, Democrats act as if they are being oppressed, when in truth, they run the media, they run the businesses, they run the government. Don't say something stupid like, "George Bush is the president, dipshit!" Because you know that it simply isn't true that Republicans have control. If they did, abortion would be illegal. Democrats act as if they have been personally wronged by the Bush administration.

So you're going to judge a political party by the behavior of it's followers some forty or more years ago? Remember, in 1964 racist Strom Thurmond switched from the Democrat party that had started pushing for equality to the Republican party.

Democrats don't run the media, corporations do. The media have a corporate bias. I posted a link earlier in this thread if you'd like to look it up.

Got a source for saying that Democrats run the businesses? Cheney ran Haliburton, Bush's pals ran Enron. What do Dems have? Heinz ketchup?

How do Democrats run the government? I wish they did, but currently we've got more Republicans than Dems in the House and Senate. We've got more Republican nominated justices than Democrat in the Supreme court, and we've got a Republican president. That's a dumb statement on your part.

Democrats have been personally wronged by the Bush administration. So have all Americans.

Of course, just like everyone from your party, find one person and judge a whole group...Fail to look at your history of racism and prejudice. Abortion? Margaret Sanger was a racist. Slavery? Jefferson Davis was a Democrat. My point was, Democrats act as if they are being oppressed, when in truth, they run the media, they run the businesses, they run the government. Don't say something stupid like, "George Bush is the president, dipshit!" Because you know that it simply isn't true that Republicans have control. If they did, abortion would be illegal. Democrats act as if they have been personally wronged by the Bush administration.

Abortion being illegal, would be wrong though. I mean, that it would be immoral. I don't understand why you would use that argument.

History of degrading others? You mean the way we pretty much hamstrung the Clinton administration through false accusations and an impeachment hearing? Oh, wait, that was the Republican slander machine run by Richard Melon Scaife.

So you're going to judge a political party by the behavior of it's followers some forty or more years ago? Remember, in 1964 racist Strom Thurmond switched from the Democrat party that had started pushing for equality to the Republican party.

Democrats don't run the media, corporations do. The media have a corporate bias. I posted a link earlier in this thread if you'd like to look it up.

Got a source for saying that Democrats run the businesses? Cheney ran Haliburton, Bush's pals ran Enron. What do Dems have? Heinz ketchup?

How do Democrats run the government? I wish they did, but currently we've got more Republicans than Dems in the House and Senate. We've got more Republican nominated justices than Democrat in the Supreme court, and we've got a Republican president. That's a dumb statement on your part.

Democrats have been personally wronged by the Bush administration. So have all Americans.


Now, I'll have to agree with you on your last paragraph...my opinion has just changed. GW has just come into my house and called my dad a bloody Mexican.

Like every single thread in NS General history, this topic has degraded to a dick-waving flamewar. Can't we all love eachother? :fluffle:

The answer is yes, because sodomy is legal.

Like every single thread in NS General history, this topic has degraded to a dick-waving flamewar. Can't we all love eachother? :fluffle:

And that surprises you why?

The answer is yes, because sodomy is legal.

Unless you live in Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas........:D

Just what do you think I am! A GOP nutcase pretending to be right-wing?! LOL!!! :D

No, I am an Independent, silly. Get over it. :p

You are definitely an independent and often an interesting read. You also happen to take alot of flak on these boards for your viewpoints yet put up with it pretty well, even though it gets ugly. You follow Christian morals but have very liberal fiscal policies. You are an all around offender to many on these boards.

:p

Bush is gonna burn in Hell for his sins ...the Fundies will make sure of it. Right after they burn him at the pyre. :D

My favorite part of both the Foley scandal and this new Kuo book ruckus is how many rightwingers are reduced to complaining about the timing of the revelations. Oooh, those evil liberals published this info right at election time!! No fair!

As if the timing makes it any less true. Yeah, their opponents took the opportunity to hit them when it would do them the most harm. Boo-frigging-hoo. It's called politics, baby. If the rightwing don't want to get hit with their own shit at election time, they should try not to leave their shit lying around where people can find it all the rest of the year.

And as for the Kuo book, considering that Mr. Kuo was the #2 staffer in charge of faith-based intiatives since Bush's first term (in the first months after the 2000 election, they trotted him out to the media to hawk the programs because he's a young, Christian, multi-ethnic poster-boy; that's where I remember him from), I think that gives him some credentials for knowing what went on. And why didn't he come forward sooner? He himself has been giving interviews on his book junkets in which he explains that he spent years trying to resist or at least work around the increasing political exploitation of the program by Bush and his administration, until finally he quit because he was so angered by what was going on. He didn't come forward sooner because he was trying to fix the system from within, until he gave up. Is this a "disgruntled employee" book? Yes, it is, but that doesn't make it false. Rather, considering the way Bush runs his team, it makes it a potentially valuable source of insider info about what our government is up to.

My favorite part of both the Foley scandal and this new Kuo book ruckus is how many rightwingers are reduced to complaining about the timing of the revelations. Oooh, those evil liberals published this info right at election time!! No fair!



Yep.

This from the people who brought us the Swift Boats for Bullsh*t.


Of course, they HAVE to complain about the timing. After all, unlike their smear campaigns they can't actually refute the facts......

Yep.

This from the people who brought us the Swift Boats for Bullsh*t.


Of course, they HAVE to complain about the timing. After all, unlike their smear campaigns they can't actually refute the facts......
Yes, let's fondly remember the month-before-election-day smear campaigns against McCain (they called him crazy and said he had a black child -- interesting that they thought that would be a "smear") and Max Clelland (those draft-dodgers dared to call that man a coward).

It seems the only difference between Democrat pre-election attacks and Republican pre-election attacks is that the Dems don't have to make up bullshit. The Republicans are giving them all the truth they need.

Because you know that it simply isn't true that Republicans have control. If they did, abortion would be illegal.
No, it wouldn't, because Republicans don't actually care about life, or about abortion as exhibited by their warmongering, and pro-suffering policies.

(I'm a European who is anti-war and anti-abortion so don't think I'm a Democratic hack or anything.)

You follow Christian morals but have very liberal fiscal policies. You are an all around offender to many on these boards.
Why the "but"? In my view Christian morals are more in line with socialism than capitalism (though not entirely in line with either).

Much as I may complain it is probably a good things that we Christians hold many different political ideologies, rather than being automatons.

Oh man I'm glad this topic was brought up. Now I'm going to go home and rethink my life and question whether I should be Christian or conservative... or both! Oh man, thanks. All these years I've been wasting my time, but now I see the light.

Translation: I hope the Republican party weakens, especially the Christian influence on public affairs, so Democrats run by the left wing can take control.

Sounds like what you're about due - seeing as all your fellowmen have been made to endure 6 years of unremittingly partisan control at the hands of the Republican's right wing. Fair is fair, no?