During his visit to the Golden Lamb Inn in Lebanon, President Bush stops to hug Ashley Faulkner, who lost her mom in the Sept. 11 attacks. Photo by Lynn Faulkner
In a moment largely unnoticed by the throngs of people in Lebanon waiting for autographs from the president of the United States, George W. Bush stopped to hold a teenager's head close to his heart.
Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president's hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:
"This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11."
Bush stopped and turned back.
"He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man," Faulkner said. "He looked right at her and said, 'How are you doing?' He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest."
Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera.
"I could hear her say, 'I'm OK,' " he said. "That's more emotion than she has shown in 21/2 years. Then he said, 'I can see you have a father who loves you very much.' "
"And I said, 'I do, Mr. President, but I miss her mother every day.' It was a special moment."
Special for Lynn Faulkner because the Golden Lamb was the place he and his wife, Wendy Faulkner, celebrated their anniversary every year until she died in the south tower of the World Trade Center, where she had traveled for business.
The day was also special for Ashley, a 15-year-old Mason High School student, because the visit was reminiscent of a trip she took four years ago with her mother and Prince. They spent all afternoon in the rain waiting to see Bush on the campaign trail. Ashley remembers holding her mother's hand, eating Triscuits she packed and bringing along a book in case she got bored.
But this time was different. She understood what the president was saying, and she got close enough to see him face to face.
"The way he was holding me, with my head against his chest, it felt like he was trying to protect me," Ashley said. "I thought, 'Here is the most powerful guy in the world, and he wants to make sure I'm safe.' I definitely had a couple of tears in my eyes, which is pretty unusual for me."
The photo has been circulating across the country, Faulkner said. Relatives have passed it on to friends, bosses and acquaintances. As they tell the story, they also share in Wendy Faulkner's legacy, which her family continues through the Wendy Faulkner Memorial Children's Foundation.
"I'm a pretty cynical and jaded guy at this point in my life," Faulkner said of the moment with the president. "But this was the real deal. I was really impressed. It was genuine and from the heart."
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
OZZY JOINS BUSH BASH WITH HITLER MONTAGE Thu Jul 15 2004 11:38:38 ET
Rocker Ozzy Osbourne took Jones Beach, NY last night on what is quickly becoming a predictable Bush-bashing express.
Osbourne opened his concert with the song "War Pigs," featuring a video portrait comparing Bush to Adolph Hitler.
The video featured Bush and Hitler on the same screen, with the caption: "Same sh*t different a**hole," says a source. Footage of bombs dropping and Hitler marching flashed as Ozzy screamed and guitars screeched.
Ozzy also flashed a picture of Bush with a clown nose, caption: 'The White House Circus."
Other bands in the OZzzFest lineup, such as Black Label Society, expressed support of the war.
The lead singer told the crowd in a profanity laced tirade against the terrorist: "Those f**kers crashed the planes into the Towers."
The concert featured a few dedicated songs to the our men and women serving overseas.
Developing...
Posted by BoondockSaint (Member # 67) on :
Actually funny bit of Bush audio, did you guys hear him up in Duluth?
"...I'd like to thank you Minnesotans from the Iron ridge..."
Attaboy!
At least he makes me laugh.
Old long-face just makes me hate politicians even more Posted by BoondockSaint (Member # 67) on :
After books critical of President Bush, including Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies and Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, topped the best-seller lists this year, Bush joked to reporters: "It really gets me when the critics say I haven't done enough for the economy. Look what I've done for the book publishing industry."
[ 08-04-2004, 12:21: Message edited by: BoondockSaint ]
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Nice article...
Speaking of books not so critical of Bush, I have just started American Soldier by General Tommy Franks about the Afgan and Iraq war. Wow, great read! Highly recommend - even for you Joe . $15 at Sam's
The Commander in Chief of the United States Central Command from July 2000 through July 2003, General Tommy Franks made history by leading American and Coalition forces to victory in Afghanistan and Iraq — the decisive battles that launched the war on terrorism.
In this riveting memoir, General Franks retraces his journey from a small–town boyhood in Oklahoma and Midland, Texas, through a lifetime of military service — including his heroic tour as an Artillery officer in Vietnam, where he was wounded three times. A reform–minded Cold War commander and a shrewd tactician during Operation Desert Storm, Franks took command of CENTCOM at the dawn of what he calls a "crease in history" — becoming the senior American military officer in the most dangerous region on earth.
Now, drawing on his own recollections and military records declassified for this book, Franks offers the first true insider's account of the war on terrorism that has changed the world since September 11, 2001. He puts you in the Operations Center for the launch of Operation Enduring Freedom just weeks after 9/11, capturing its uncertain early days and the historic victory that followed. He traces his relationship with the demanding Donald Rumsfeld, as early tensions over the pace of the campaign gave way to a strong and friendly collaboration.
When President Bush focused world attention on the threat of Iraq, Franks seized the moment to implement a bold new vision of joint warfare in planning Operation Iraqi Freedom. Rejecting Desert Storm–style massive troop deployment in favor of flexibility and speed, Franks was questioned by the defense establishment — including Secretary of State Colin Powell. Yet his vision was proven on the ground: Within three weeks, Baghdad had fallen.
American Soldier is filled with revelation. Franks describes the covert diplomacy that helped him secure international cooperation for the war, and reveals the role of foreign leaders — and a critical double agent code–named "April Fool" — in the most successful military deception since D–Day in 1944. He speaks frankly of intelligence shortcomings that endangered our troops, and of the credible WMD threats — including eleventh–hour warnings from Arab leaders — that influenced every planning decision. He offers an unvarnished portrait of the "disruptive and divisive" Washington bureaucracy, and a candid assessment of the war's aftermath. Yet in the end, as American Soldier demonstrates, the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq remain heroic victories — wars of liberation won by troops whose valor was "unequalled," Franks writes, "by anything in the annals of war."
Few individuals have the chance to contribute so much of themselves to the American story as General Tommy Franks. In American Soldier, he captures it all.
Item: 970965
[ 08-04-2004, 12:28: Message edited by: Klaus ]
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
LOL - download this song. Sunday bloody sunday redone with Bush sound clips.
Hey Pancake-head, are you done with that Tommy Franks book yet?
I'd like to borrow it if you are...
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Yep, you are welcome to it (great read).
I am reading some neo-conservative book at the moment, that is funny but not based entirely on reality. Guess who it's by?
Posted by flamingoamyjo (Member # 93) on :
We have Bill Clinton's book on CD if you would like to borrow that! Seriously though, it is actually very interesting.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
I might borrow that from you. I want to listen to it before I read Dick Morris' new book "Because he Could" - which tells the real story. (Morris was Clintons advisor and friend for many many years)
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Not familiar with this magazine.... whether its a mainstream Conservative zine or more on the fringe... but a interesting editorial nontheless...
There is little in John Kerry’s persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge—the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry—seems overdone, as Kerry’s contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.
But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.
It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America’s conservative party, he has become the Left’s perfect foil—its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’ budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.
Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.
During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course there has always been “anti-Americanism.” After the Second World War many European intellectuals argued for a “Third Way” between American-style capitalism and Soviet communism, and a generation later Europe’s radicals embraced every ragged “anti-imperialist” cause that came along. In South America, defiance of “the Yanqui” always draws a crowd. But Bush has somehow managed to take all these sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It’s the same throughout the Middle East.
Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.
These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists—indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Only the seriously deluded could fail to see that a policy so central to America’s survival as a free country as getting hold of loose nuclear materials and controlling nuclear proliferation requires the willingness of foreign countries to provide full, 100 percent co-operation. Making yourself into the world’s most hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.
I’ve heard people who have known George W. Bush for decades and served prominently in his father’s administration say that he could not possibly have conceived of the doctrine of pre-emptive war by himself, that he was essentially taken for a ride by people with a pre-existing agenda to overturn Saddam Hussein. Bush’s public performances plainly show him to be a man who has never read or thought much about foreign policy. So the inevitable questions are: who makes the key foreign-policy decisions in the Bush presidency, who controls the information flow to the president, how are various options are presented?
The record, from published administration memoirs and in-depth reporting, is one of an administration with a very small group of six or eight real decision-makers, who were set on war from the beginning and who took great pains to shut out arguments from professionals in the CIA and State Department and the U.S. armed forces that contradicted their rosy scenarios about easy victory. Much has been written about the neoconservative hand guiding the Bush presidency—and it is peculiar that one who was fired from the National Security Council in the Reagan administration for suspicion of passing classified material to the Israeli embassy and another who has written position papers for an Israeli Likud Party leader have become key players in the making of American foreign policy.
But neoconservatism now encompasses much more than Israel-obsessed intellectuals and policy insiders. The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in the Bush presidency—and President Bush has given not the slightest indication he would restrain either in a second term. With Colin Powell’s departure from the State Department looming, Bush is more than ever the “neoconian candidate.” The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.
If Kerry wins, this magazine will be in opposition from Inauguration Day forward. But the most important battles will take place within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. A Bush defeat will ignite a huge soul-searching within the rank-and-file of Republicandom: a quest to find out how and where the Bush presidency went wrong. And it is then that more traditional conservatives will have an audience to argue for a conservatism informed by the lessons of history, based in prudence and a sense of continuity with the American past—and to make that case without a powerful White House pulling in the opposite direction.
George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support.
November 8, 2004 issue
[ 10-21-2004, 11:38: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
That's one of many editorials in the issue you site - some are for and some are against Bush. It's no surprise to me that the hard core conservatives are against Bush (he isn't really that far to the right on the issues the neo cons really stand for). This mag seems very anti war etc and I have never heard of it before.
Posted by flamingoamyjo (Member # 93) on :
Interesting site. No matter if you're for or against Bush, you'll find humor in it i'm sure.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Good story - written by my bosses brother
Mark Stenglein: Differences clearly favor George Bush
October 29, 2004 As the only independent serving on the Hennepin County Board, I often find myself in the middle of contentious debates. And, as someone who has never caucused with either party, I view issues from a unique perspective.
It is from that unique perspective that I offer my reasons for supporting George W. Bush.
One, the war on terror is real. Crazed, militant terrorists want to attack and kill Americans. The attack on the USS Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing, and the devastating attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, are examples of their desire. President Bush understands this reality and knows the primary role of the federal government is to protect its citizens. He has pledged to fight the terrorists overseas, rather than fighting them here at home.
John Kerry claims that he will fight a more sensitive war on terror. Kerry hopes to enlist France and Germany as allies to help fight the war on terror. I appreciate his desire to build strong alliances, but I have news for John Kerry: The terrorists will not care whether the United States has 32 allies or 132. They will continue their attempts to terrorize and kill Americans. The United States must stand firm against this threat and not waver to the whims of Europe.
Two, actions speak louder than words. Nearly every pro-Kerry ad I see talks about Kerry's "plans" for America. So, I looked on his campaign Web site and, indeed, found more than 45 plans in 15 categories. I appreciate his hard work and enthusiasm in talking about the issues of the day. But I have a question for John Kerry -- what have you been doing for the last 20 years?
As a member of the U.S. Senate, Kerry has been a member of the most exclusive club in the world for 20 years and has no record of accomplishment. If Kerry really has a "plan" to improve health care, why didn't he offer it while in the Senate? If Kerry really has a "plan" to improve education in America's classrooms, why didn't he work to get legislation passed? If Kerry really has a "plan" to lower taxes for the middle class, why didn't he? What has John Kerry been doing in the U.S. Senate for the last 20 years?
Contrast Kerry's record against George W. Bush's.
Bush campaigned in 2000 on lowering taxes for working families. He brought forward an idea, worked with Democrats and Republicans, and increased the per child tax credit to $1,000.
Bush campaigned in 2000 on reforming education in America. He brought forward an idea, worked with Democrats and Republicans and signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act.
Bush campaigned in 2000 on providing a prescription drug benefit plan for America's seniors. He brought forward an idea, worked with Democrats and Republicans, and signed the Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act.
While Kerry plans, Bush delivers.
Three, St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly was onto something when he endorsed Bush earlier this year. Mayor Kelly rightly noted the extreme political hatred in opposition to George W. Bush.
Of those people who say they're supporting Kerry, more seem to be voting against Bush than for Kerry. That's too bad, but it says quite a bit about John Kerry.
Author Tom Junod captures this sentiment in an Esquire magazine article from August of this year.
Junod writes, "the reason Bush will be difficult to unseat in November is that his opponents operate out of the moral certainty that he is the bad guy and needs to be replaced, while Bush operates out of the moral certainty that the terrorists are the bad guys and need to be defeated."
There are clear differences in this election. These differences clearly favor George W. Bush.
Mark Stenglein, Minneapolis, is a member of the Hennepin County Board.
Posted by BoondockSaint (Member # 67) on :
Kerry's Afghan Amnesia By Charles Krauthammer Friday, October 29, 2004; Page A23 In the 1990s, Afghanistan was allowed to fall to the Taliban and become the global center for the training, indoctrination and seeding of jihadists around the world -- including the mass murderers of Sept. 11, 2001. This week, just three years after a two-month war that destroyed the Taliban, Afghanistan completed its first free election, choosing as president a pro-American democrat enjoying legitimacy and wide popular support. This represents the single most astonishing geopolitical transformation of the past four years. (Deposing Saddam Hussein ranks second. The global jihad against America was no transformation at all: It existed long before the Bush administration. We'd simply ignored al Qaeda's declaration of war.) But perhaps even more astonishing is how this singular American victory has disappeared from public consciousness. Americans have a deserved reputation for historical amnesia. Three years -- an eon -- have made us imagine that the Afghan war was easy and foreordained. Easy? In 2001, we had nothing there. What had the Clinton administration left in place? No plausible military plan. Virtually no intelligence. No local infrastructure. No neighboring bases. The Afghan Northern Alliance was fractured and weak. And Pakistan was actively supporting the bad guys. Within days of Sept. 11, the clueless airhead president that inhabits Michael Moore's films and Tina Brown's dinner parties had done this: forced Pakistan into alliance with us, isolated the Taliban, secured military cooperation from Afghanistan's northern neighbors, and authorized a radical war plan involving just a handful of Americans on the ground, using high technology and local militias to utterly rout the Taliban. President Bush put in place a military campaign that did in two months what everyone had said was impossible: defeat an entrenched, fanatical, ruthless regime in a territory that had forced the great British and Soviet empires into ignominious retreat. Bush followed that by creating in less than three years a fledgling pro-American democracy in a land that had no history of democratic culture and was just emerging from 25 years of civil war. This is all barely remembered and barely noted. Most amazing of all, John Kerry has managed to transform our Afghan venture into a failure -- a botched operation in which Bush let Osama bin Laden get away because he "outsourced" bin Laden's capture to "warlords" in the battle of Tora Bora. Outsourced? The entire Afghan war was outsourced. How does Kerry think we won it? How did Mazar-e Sharif, Kabul and Kandahar fall? Stormed by thousands of American GIs? They fell to the "warlords" we had enlisted, supported and directed. It was their militias that overran the Taliban. "Outsourcing" is a demagogue's way of saying "using allies." (Isn't Kerry's Iraq solution to "outsource" the problem to the "allies" and the United Nations?) And in Afghanistan it meant the very best allies: locals who had a far better chance of knowing which cave to storm without getting blown up. As Kerry himself said on national television at the time of Tora Bora (Dec. 14, 2001): "What we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will" -- i.e., not throwing American lives away in tunnels and caves in alien territory. "I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way." Now, as always, the retroactive military genius says he would have done it differently. Yet in the same interview, when asked about how things were going overall in Afghanistan, he said, "I think we have been smart; I think the administration leadership has done it well and we are on the right track." Once again, the senator's position has evolved, to borrow the New York Times' delicate term for Kerry's many about-faces. This election comes down to a choice between one man's evolution and the other man's resolution. With his endlessly repeated Tora Bora charges, Kerry has made Afghanistan a major campaign issue. So be it. Whom do you want as president? The man who conceived the Afghan campaign, carried it through without flinching when it was being called a "quagmire" during its second week and has seen it through to Afghanistan's transition to democracy? Or the retroactive genius, who always knows what needs to be done after it has already happened -- who would have done "everything" differently in Iraq, yet in Afghanistan would have replicated Bush's every correct, courageous, radical and risky decision -- except one. Which, of course, he would have done differently. He says. Now. letters@charleskrauthammer
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Bush is Gods Candiate...
What a bunch of friggin loonies...
Nice Party there... uh, ya... boy I love living in a theocracy...
Did God Intervene? Evangelicals are crediting God with securing re-election victory for George W. Bush.
By Deborah Caldwell On the day after President Bush was re-elected, he gave much of the credit to his political adviser, Karl Rove, whom he called "the architect" of his campaign. But in evangelical churches, on Christian radio, and in voter precincts dominated by conservative Christians, the credit is going instead to someone a whole lot more powerful: God.
The Almighty intervened in the U.S. election, these evangelicals believe, to allow Bush to remain president. They say God has "blessed" America with Bush--and had Sen. John Kerry been elected, God would have "cursed" the U.S. By allowing Bush to be re-elected, God has given America "more time" to stop its slide into evil. "This was Providence," evangelical leader and presidential adviser Charles Colson told Beliefnet. "Anybody looking at the 2000 election would have to say it was.a miraculous deliverance, and I think people felt it again this year." By allowing Bush to stay in office, Colson said, God is "giving us a chance to repent and to restore some moral sanity to American life."
Richard Land, a leading Southern Baptist who participates in a weekly strategy call between the White House and evangelical leaders put it this way: "Whoever won, it would have been God's will." But because Bush won, Land told Beliefnet, God has clearly shown America his blessings. If Kerry had won, it would have proved God was cursing the United States. "The Bible says godly leadership is a sign of God's blessings and a lack of godly leadership is a sign of God's judgment. I don't see Kerry as a godly leader."
Meanwhile, Paul Weyrich, founder of the Free Congress Foundation and one of the original engineers of the conservative Christian political revolution, wrote an essay claiming that "God gave this President and this President's Party one more chance.God heard the fervent prayers of millions of values voters to keep His hand on America one more time despite our national sins of denying the right to life, despite ignoring the Biblical injunction against acts which are 'an abomination unto the Lord' and despite the blatant attempt to remove God from the public square."
Jim Rogers of the group Mission America sent out an email the day after the election saying, "Yesterday America cried out and He heard from heaven and answered our prayers. PRAISE GOD!!"
Plenty of ordinary American evangelicals also believe that by allowing Bush to be re-elected, God has given the United States another chance. For months leading up to the election, many Christians nationwide prayed and fasted, in an effort led by Intercessors for America, to assist in Bush's re-election.
Among them was Diana Sheehan, a mother and housewife who led a weekly prayer group at her Pennsylvania church whose sole task was to pray about the election. For 40 days ending on Nov. 2, she also participated in a no-sugar fast. On Election Day, Sheehan paced back and forth reading the Bible in her church, Dove Christian Fellowship in Ephrata, Pa., as part of a round-the-clock 48-hour prayer vigil for the president. His reelection, she said, was God's signal that "he's giving us more time to get our act together. I think this nation is going down the tubes very quickly."
Across town at a local polling place, Republican committeewoman Anna Mae Ressler said Bush's re-election would mean that God has "answered our prayers and given us another chance." Ressler said she had been reading the Book of Jeremiah, which she believes parallels American history. "When that nation got so bad, the Lord sent them into captivity," Ressler explained. "We've done an awful lot of things in this country that are displeasing to God."
Now that God has given America extra time from which to be spared his wrath, evangelicals feel some urgency to buckle down to God's business. That is why, for example, a group called Christian Response has already sent out an email with the subject line "EMERGENCY!" to induce supporters to blast Capitol Hill with faxes condemning Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican Pennsylvania senator who said last week that judicial nominees who oppose abortion would face difficulty getting Senate confirmation. The Family Research Council and Focus on the Family followed within hours with emails entitled "Stop Specter."
Many evangelicals think America is secular and decadent and in cultural decline. Their role, they believe, is to stem that tide and renew the culture. Many of these Christians seem to believe that God will be angry with them-and with the entire nation-if they don't make big legislative changes. And so, they put themselves on a short leash with God, and they hope to convince other Americans to do likewise.
"God is not going to tolerate a nation that thumbs its nose at Him," Colson says. "This whole idea of scrubbing all religious influence out of public life and taking down the Ten Commandments and stopping prayer and not allowing people to talk about their faith for fear of offending someone--I don't think God honors that. God's patience runs out."
Their solution seems to lie in Bush's presidency. "He is one of those men God and fate somehow led to the fore in times of challenge," said New York Gov. George Pataki in the high-profile introduction of Bush at the Republican National Convention, an introduction almost certainly scrubbed if not written by the White House. Pataki and former New York Mayor Rudoph Giuliani both said twice that Americans should "Thank God" that Bush was in office after 9/11.
During the period after 9/11, Bush talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment, according to Time magazine. World Magazine, a conservative Christian publication, quoted White House official Tim Goeglein as saying, "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." Popular Christian broadcaster Janet Parshall told her listeners: "God picked the right man at the right time for the right purpose." And Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin, who got in trouble for derogatory comments he made about Islam, argued that it must have been God who selected Bush in 2000, since a plurality of voters hadn't. "He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."
It seems clear that the president himself believes that God is orchestrating American history. At the 2003 National Prayer Breakfast, for instance, Bush said, "we can be confident in the ways of Providence... Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God."
Barry Hankins, a historian at Baylor University, says these sorts of beliefs arose with the founding of the nation and persist among certain Christians. "There is a strong cultural belief among Protestant Christians that America is a vehicle for God's will," he says. "If you scratch people enough below the surface, there's this belief that Providence has a hand in everything that happens in America. And at times like this it comes out because it's in the back of people's minds or hearts."
The Puritans believed they were establishing the New Israel and that their enterprise was guided by God--that they were God's chosen people headed for the Promised Land. But that metaphorical idea, that America was a beacon, began to mutate by the early 19th Century into the belief that America was the literal instrument to lead a world transformation to Christian democracy.
"That's been a powerful idea in American history, and it usually lays dormant," Hankins says, "but at times, the language is so powerful that when positive things happen in the eyes of evangelicals, there's a tendency to fall back into that language."
The last time this triumphal view was common was during the Reagan Administration. Before then it was the Cold War struggle of the 1950s. "It was very difficult for evangelicals to stop short of saying God was on our side," Hankins says.
Not all evangelicals buy the argument, however. Erwin McManus, a rising evangelical leader who leads a Los Angeles church called Mosaic, believes this interpretation is short-sighted and isolationist. "What we really need to ask is, what choices do we make that serve humanity the best and reflect the value system the Bible teaches? How do I relieve the most suffering? How do I do the most good? How do I give people the best options to live the life they should live? How do I create a culture of life?"
McManus, a registered independent who voted for Bush, says members of his conservative, evangelical, Bible-centered church don't believe God intervened in the election. Their average age is 25 and they represent 57 nations. "They feel embarrassed when they hear language that sounds elitist, because that isn't Christian to them," McManus says.
But that isn't how many evangelicals understand their language. They consider it fair warning. Land looks to the Old Testament for proof. "When God's people were idolatrous and rebellious he sent justice--sometimes evil kings and sometimes foreign conquerors," he says. "I've said on numerous occasions, that if God would allow his chosen people to be taken off into captivity, don't think he won't judge the United States."
Deborah Caldwell is a senior editor and national correspondent at Beliefnet.
[ 11-10-2004, 16:50: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Mikey (Member # 42) on :
Go find the craziest shit you can find and attach it to a party Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
Who would you rather have behind you: these religious zealots or us gun nuts? Jo has hit it on the head in the past - you gotta take the good with the bad. The bad obviously is the religious right. Why don't we Atheists have a candidate we can stand behind? It certainly isn't the "Evil" Democrats. Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mikey: Go find the craziest shit you can find and attach it to a party
A) I didn't go find it.
B) Your head is in the sand if you don't know that this is a HUGE demographic of the GOP. This is not the fringe, this is the base of the GOP...
C) And the GOP doesn't try and attach stupid, crazy shit to the other party on a daily basis...
D) G.W. openly talked about how he doesn't read books, but talks to God... and think's he talks back..... He makes me want to puke everytime he brings up how "God's greatest gift is freedom... bla bla bla...."...
[ 11-10-2004, 18:46: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Keep it up Joe..... Keep looking for any excuse as to how Bush won. Eventully, you will have to accept the fact that 51% of the population voted for him, more then ever voted for Clinton.
Do you think the right would act like this if Kerry/Gore won? I mean some on the left want to join Canada..... Talk about sore losers.. What happened to all the talk about bringing the nation together Kerry was spouting? (lasted just past his concession speech)
Posted by BoondockSaint (Member # 67) on :
I saw a spray on CS the other day that said "I live with 59 million idiots." What I don't understand is how the people who LOST think that those of us who WON are the idiots.
Could it be that I actually live with 53 million idiots with impressionable minds who were easily swayed by the influence of the media?
Just a thought...
[ 11-11-2004, 08:29: Message edited by: BoondockSaint ]
Posted by flamingoamyjo (Member # 93) on :
Why can't EVERYONE here just accept that we all have different opinions on our "president"? Obviously Joe, Brad, and I are way outnumbered here, but you're NEVER going to sway us to the other side. We believe in what we believe, and you believe in what you believe.
Personally, I don't think W is religious at all, I think he is putting on a front for America. Secondly, I still don't see where the seperation of church and state came into play here. Thirdly, I don't believe in "God" (notice I didn't say "religion") and unless you have some hard core proof for me, I ain't gonna buy into it.
I absolutely agree that some people choose to believe the media instead of educating themselves, BUT that goes for both side. There is a LOT of mud slinging on both sides of the campaigns. Neither candidate is innocent on that account.
With that said: Go HILLARY 2008!! (he he, had to throw that in.)
Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
I think you will find 80% of those that post on this board are non-religious (or dont't believe in a higher power)....And probably 80% of those people voted republican...... So the whole the religious right is why W won arguement is silly.
And Amy I wasn't trying to sway you to the republician side. I was just trying to show you that there are some republican ideas/policies that will help you - it's not all bad. Just like there are things Clinton did that I thought were good for my life.
Posted by flamingoamyjo (Member # 93) on :
I honestly would venture to guess that about 70-80% of those who voted for Bush voted for him more out of religious issues than anything else. Look at the states he won, they were on the "bible belt" and are radical religious FREAKS. He really pushed the religious issues and the fact that he is a Christian a LOT during his campaign. Which I didn't think was really right, being that no deccisions should be made based on religion. Those religious FREAKS are very impressionable people and will believe anything that they hear or read. (My friend Stacy is a GREAT example of that!)
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
One word:
Denial.
There are many reasons you could site for the W victory/Kerry defeat, you are just picking one and trying to make it reflect negatively on the right.
What about the increase from 9%-11% blacks voting for Bush.
What about the large increase of Hispanics voting for Bush.
What about the fact that the 18-25 yr olds didn't turn out for Kerry like they were hoping. (didn't vote at all)
Security Mom's voting for Bush.
Maybe Kerry was a shitty Dem canidate?
Did you catch the O'Reily interview with Bush? He discussed his religious views at length. While he has strong views - it didn't come across to me that he was listening to a little voice in his head - like the dems would like you to believe.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
WHATEVER, your board deleted my first post cause I used too many so sorry I touched the sacred Bush Monkey.. but your oblivious to the world we live in if you don't know that fundamenalist Christians are a huge base of the GOP... THE BUSH CAMPAIGN OPENLY TALKS ABOUT THIS ALL THE TIME DURING THE ELECTION.... so whatever...I don't know what world your living in....This board is not a representative cross section of middle america Klaus...
I forget the the SOP of the GOP lately is damn the consequences, full steam ahead, and for GODS sake no CRITICAL ANAYLSIS WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT....
Thanks again for making me sorry I post something I thought some of you would be capable of objective discussion about it... thank you for proving me wrong again....
Not religiously based huh Klaus???? MORAL VALUES???? WTF is that and how do you at all gauge it... I call that ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS....
Yes BOON I do think that a significant portion of thos 59 mill people are sheeple idiots who think Iraq attacked us on 9/11 or some other such nonesense.. ....
DISCLAIMER: The following images contain trends based on a percentage of votes and avg edu level. There is no statistical analysis done on the comparison, it is completely anecdotal to compare the two trends observationally for the point of a discussion.***
which lines up pretty good to the results
I thought I'd use pictures, as I know the Bush supporters have a little trouble with big words...
Yes, there would of been plenty of sore loosers on the GOP side had Kerry one, but you probably wouldn't have heard as much, as they'd be busy figuring out how to get the supreme court to appoint their candidate again....(Since you bring up CLINTON all the time, voter fraud is at least as pertanent to this election as him... )
[ 11-11-2004, 15:33: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Hauserdaddy (Member # 50) on :
I wonder how the election would have went had lieberfart been the candidate? Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: One word:
Denial.
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: There are many reasons you could site for the W victory/Kerry defeat, you are just picking one and trying to make it reflect negatively on the right.
What about the increase from 9%-11% blacks voting for Bush.
What about the large increase of Hispanics voting for Bush.
What about the fact that the 18-25 yr olds didn't turn out for Kerry like they were hoping. (didn't vote at all)
Security Mom's voting for Bush.
All valid points, I would of loved to discuss all of the election results..
But a discussion would incorporate ALL sides of the issue, and thats certainly not allowed on here...
[ 11-11-2004, 13:03: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
WTF are you talking about since when has anything you said "been not allowed on here"?
I have no control over the number of similes you can use on this board - it's part of the software. (please smiley responsibly)
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: WTF are you talking about since when has anything you said "been not allowed on here"?
I said critical open discussion of ALL perspectives isn't allowed here without snide remarks, inuendo, and veiled insults...
I know its the board software, but its the only forum I've been on that has a image limit.
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Your the one that started it with the "jesus land" bullshit... Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
What did I start? How exactly is welcome to jesus land a direct attack on anyone here??? wtf?? I guess I didn't think I had to qualify that I know that that article does NOT represent the reasons you guys voted... or anything that I've ever brought up about politics.... Fer fucs sake it was just a bloody article, cant anything be interesting without it being a agenda...FUCK!!!!!!!!! WTF??? Thats the difference, I'm presumed to be supporting/pushing the DNC platform, just because I don't lockstep in with & question the GOP.... I do give ya'll more consideration than that whatever...
As far not picking on poor ol'georgie porgie because he's President that noise, didn't stop anyone on the right from dispariging Clinton when he was prez... Hypocracy.... Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
Joe, putting on even my most objective analytical eye, I do not see any significant trends to correlate education to political affiliation quantitatively or qualitatively using the graphical data on the maps you posted. There are some areas that trend the way you claim but it appears there are as many if not more regions that trend the opposite. The majoity of people that are claiming this now are the same ones that claimed it was all the right's fault that being a "minority" somehow makes it harder for you to GET a good education thus logically minorities should support the left....
My point being; it proves nothing.
I have nothing more to add to this discussion as none of this really maters. The sky is not falling and won't over the next 4 years. I do not particularly like organized religion.
BUT, when it comes to religious fanaticism, it is not the christians I am woried about...
[ 11-11-2004, 14:20: Message edited by: Chadwick ]
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
You posted the Jesus land map - which is a funny joke I agree. But lately the left (not saying you personally Joe) have started to really believe that's how the country is divided.
I agree with you that some of the republican base is made up of religious people (even zealots). But an equal number of the lefts support is from Michael Moore type of people. So what does that leave us with? The people like you and I that are in the middle or slightly to one side. So blaming the election results on "idiots" or religious people is silly.
Posted by Mikey (Member # 42) on :
Taken from Atlapedia.com: RELIGIONS: Mostly Christians with 53% of the population Protestant while 26% are Roman Catholic and 8% are other denominations. Other religious minorities include Jews, which account for 2% and Muslims for 2% of the population.
My less then 9 years of education (must be because I voted for Bush) tells me that the above equals 91%. While I respect everyone here in the right to not believe in a god, I think your heads would be in the sand if you refused to accept the fact that you are in the minority in this country.
Joe: If your logic from that article applied like I think you would like it to, the election results would have been 91% to 9%, and Kerry wouldn't have been a candidate (Kerry is Catholic). If that article was a serious attempt to affiliate all Bush supporters with radical religious extremism you only degrade your own ability to formulate a valid argument.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mikey: Taken from Atlapedia.com: RELIGIONS: Mostly Christians with 53% of the population Protestant while 26% are Roman Catholic and 8% are other denominations. Other religious minorities include Jews, which account for 2% and Muslims for 2% of the population.
My less then 9 years of education (must be because I voted for Bush) tells me that the above equals 91%. While I respect everyone here in the right to not believe in a god, I think your heads would be in the sand if you refused to accept the fact that you are in the minority in this country.
Ya, U.S. breakdown on Religion, I've seen it...but you left out that a very large percentage of the WORLD doesn't believe in the Chrisitan God?? So, are they wrong too???
FURTHRERMORE: Who said I don't believe in God or have any issue with the concept of God.... or that the article had anything to do with atheist vs people who believe in God....Back to the assumptions....
Catholics, Lutherans, and mainstream christians are NOT Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians... both fruit (no offense intended), but apples & oranges If you guys don't know the difference, and wont' acknowledge the desires of the religious right for the future of this country.. than really, GOD help us all (NOTE: just because I post a concern over this does not mean I think the world will fall apart in 4 years, I guess I have to put disclaimers on everything I say as well for some peoples benefit )
quote:Originally posted by Mikey: If that article was a serious attempt to affiliate all Bush supporters with radical religious extremism you only degrade your own ability to formulate a valid argument.
Like I said mike... where did I say that the article was "Gospel"????
Where did I say, OH HEY LOOKIE HERE THIS EXPLAINS THE WHOLE ELECTION AND WHY ALL BUSH SUPPORTERS VOTED THE WAY THEY DID... again.. whatever....??
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: Joe, putting on even my most objective analytical eye, I do not see any significant trends to correlate education to political affiliation quantitatively or qualitatively using the graphical data on the maps you posted. There are some areas that trend the way you claim but it appears there are as many if not more regions that trend the opposite. The majoity of people that are claiming this now are the same ones that claimed it was all the right's fault that being a "minority" somehow makes it harder for you to GET a good education thus logically minorities should support the left....
My point being; it proves nothing.
I have nothing more to add to this discussion as none of this really maters. The sky is not falling and won't over the next 4 years. I do not particularly like organized religion.
BUT, when it comes to religious fanaticism, it is not the christians I am woried about...
Will this suffice??
DISCLAIMER: The following images contain trends based on a percentage of votes and avg edu level. There is no statistical analysis done on the comparison, it is completely anecdotal to compare the two trends observationally for the point of a discussion.***
...in the future I'll be sure to include lengthy disclaimers on eveything I post here...
[ 11-11-2004, 15:36: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
Sure is fun to go back and adjust that you were implying......... Come on we all know what conclusion you and Amy.... (oops and I lumping you guys together) are trying to draw. Why else would you post the two graphics with the text (kinda looks the same)..... Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Do I think a significant # of Bush supporters are white trash uneducated yolkles & fundamentalist zealots... why certainly... (Disclaimer: Significant does NOT= ALL, the Majority, A high percentage, or any other word that could be construed as a sweeping generalization about all bush voters... boy this will be fun writing these... )
did they turn out in force more for this election in particular.. possibly...
does that imply ANYTHING about people here and should they have reason to take offense at it...
If you do.... I think your fucking nuts.... or you just think I do this to be a dick to ya'll....
and Chad says I take things personally... Posted by Mikey (Member # 42) on :
Directly under the education charts YOU posted there is a sentence that states something to the effect that Bush supporters have trouble with big words. It's obvious to me that this was not posted for just discussion, but posted as a graphic detailing how you see it as showing the majority of Bush supporters have less than 9 years of education as per your immediate comment. So, your disclaimer is false as you indicate that there isn't statistical analysis. There isn't an obvious stated analysis but you have done a “hidden” one as you try to slide one past us.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Just throwing a little of the mud back thats piled neck deep on my side.. Guess I need to be GOP PC
[ 11-11-2004, 15:49: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Mikey (Member # 42) on :
YOU are the one calling other people "fucking nuts".
And what support do you offer that indicates a significant number of Bush supporters are, "white trash uneducated yolkles & fundamentalist zealots"? I could easily say the same type of things about Kerry supporters, here, I'll try it: I think a significant number of Kerry supporters are god hating, terrorist loving, fanatical cowards. This statement is based on over-generalizations drawn by me because I don't believe in the same things as Kerry and his party. Saying them does not make them true, and makes me look like an idiot in the process.
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
Mike, he could probably get away with calling it "anecdotal observation" (albeit poor, biased, and certainly unsubstantiated). But, that could also be considered qualitative analysis as he is forming a conclusion, however facetious it may be. In either case it is still offered as an opinion, one he is entitled to, but is about as supportable as saying the sky is purple. Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mikey: YOU are the one calling other people "fucking nuts".
I call you nuts when you assume its somehow a attack on you, and not me trying to look at a portion of the electorate in open discussion...... Whatever... Sorry I've wasted our time again....
[ 11-11-2004, 16:04: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mikey: YOU are the one calling other people "fucking nuts".
And what support do you offer that indicates a significant number of Bush supporters are, "white trash uneducated yolkles & fundamentalist zealots"? I could easily say the same type of things about Kerry supporters, here, I'll try it: I think a significant number of Kerry supporters are god hating, terrorist loving, fanatical cowards. This statement is based on over-generalizations drawn by me because I don't believe in the same things as Kerry and his party. Saying them does not make them true, and makes me look like an idiot in the process.
I would like to offer that a significant number of kerry supporters are, euphorian, peacnik, pacafists whom either resent or completly chose to ignore that the freedom, peace, and rights they enjoy (regardless of skin color, religon, etc.) was fought for and died for MANY times throughout this country's history.
[ 11-11-2004, 16:06: Message edited by: Chadwick ]
Posted by Mikey (Member # 42) on :
Not a waste of time at all Joe. I was offering that up because you assume someone here is taking this personally and I don't see anyone else here calling others names like, "fucking nuts". I read through the posts and see good quality discussions and then you go and call others, "fucking nuts" for what I can see as no apparent reason. Just what I saw.
Posted by flamingoamyjo (Member # 93) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: In either case it is still offered as an opinion, one he is entitled to, but is about as supportable as saying the sky is purple.
Sometimes the sky IS purple! It was bright neon green the other night!
Joe, I am going to send you some Prozac to calm you down a little! (Or would you prefer an inflatable doll??) "They" will never understand our views, nor do they have to. Just as long as they respect them and you respect theirs!! Posted by Cremator (Member # 8) on :
I tell you all, there was a serious drought of entertaining posts when Joe was absent. I had feared that after the elections it would once again degenerate to me calling Hauser gay and him getting upset, but luckily my prediction was wrong! One day I'm going to get in trouble here at work for checking the forum so often, but until then: Flame On!
Disclaimer: Hauser IS gay.
Posted by Mikey (Member # 42) on :
I think I fully understand your views along with the direction the liberal agenda want's to take this country. That's why I'm fully against it! And I do not respect most of the liberal views, I respect the liberals' right to have them.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mikey: Not a waste of time at all Joe. I was offering that up because you assume someone here is taking this personally and I don't see anyone else here calling others names like, "fucking nuts". I read through the posts and see good quality discussions and then you go and call others, "fucking nuts" for what I can see as no apparent reason. Just what I saw.
Your first comment was that I was out just looking for Crazy shit to link to the party????? so whatever????
I said your nuts if you think I post this shit to somehow belittle or insult you... exactly HOW many times do I need to repeat that????
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
nevermind.
Posted by Mikey (Member # 42) on :
awwww, c'mon.... say it!
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jomama: I said your nuts if you think I post this shit to somehow belittle or insult you... exactly HOW many times do I need to repeat that????
I would echo that sentiment.
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
quote:Originally posted by flamingoamyjo:
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: In either case it is still offered as an opinion, one he is entitled to, but is about as supportable as saying the sky is purple.
Sometimes the sky IS purple! It was bright neon green the other night!
Joe, I am going to send you some Prozac to calm you down a little! (Or would you prefer an inflatable doll??) "They" will never understand our views, nor do they have to. Just as long as they respect them and you respect theirs!!
Ok, Plaid then... Posted by BoondockSaint (Member # 67) on :
Sorry, I've been working in Omaha all week...sorry I missed this fun.
quote:Originally posted by flamingoamyjo: Why can't EVERYONE here just accept that we all have different opinions on our "president"?
I do agree with you. But why is it that we're being called the idiots by those who were the MINORITY? Those who lost? Those who have no valid point that we are idiots? Those who might very well be the "my opinion is much more important than yours and I'll yell it in your face rather than listen to a word of yours" type?
quote:Originally posted by flamingoamyjo: ...but you're NEVER going to sway us to the other side.
Agreed, and I'm not trying to sway anyone. I'm just stating how silly it is for the group with less people to say that the group with more people are "idiots". That's like the 10 million people who hated Elvis saying that the 50 million Elvis fans were stupid...
quote:Originally posted by flamingoamyjo: I absolutely agree that some people choose to believe the media instead of educating themselves, BUT that goes for both side.
Agreed. I hate the media, I hate the infomercials, hate the mud slinging, and I absolutely HATE the fact that both candiates spent over a BILLION dollars. My point is that those who were actually swayed by the media's portrayal of W or Kerry, are the true fucking IDIOTS. Because if I believed them, I would have to believe that Kerry was a war hero, and the most perfect person in the world, and Bush was a draft dodging, silver spoon fed, cocaine addicted, war-mongering, incredibly stupid human being. Wow, I guess everyone's smarter than the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
quote:Originally posted by Jomama: Yes BOON I do think that a significant portion of thos 59 mill people are sheeple idiots...
Me too. But there's more than enough evidence to prove that Kerry's supporters had the exact polar opposite of our "sheeple idiots" supporting him. Namely: Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Green Day, and any other uneducated Hollywood piece of monkey shit who decided one morning that their opinion meant something because they could act or sing or...
But bottom line, I (for once) agree with you Joe, there were plenty of idiots on both sides. But that doesn't make all of us who supported ol' W the idiots...it makes us those who voted for the President...not the other guy who lost.
quote:Originally posted by Jomama:I thought I'd use pictures, as I know the Bush supporters have a little trouble with big words...
Is this one of your "I'm being the liberal you want me to be" snide comments?
quote:Originally posted by Cremator: Disclaimer: Hauser IS gay.
No shit, have you seen his dog?
Can't we all just
[ 11-11-2004, 17:51: Message edited by: BoondockSaint ]
Posted by Crack_Dealer (Member # 68) on :
quote:Originally posted by BoondockSaint: I saw a spray on CS the other day that said "I live with 59 million idiots." What I don't understand is how the people who LOST think that those of us who WON are the idiots.
This actually was taken from a magazine out of England. So, therefore THEY are the ones who think there are 59 million idiots in the US.
Posted by Crack_Dealer (Member # 68) on :
Oh, and thank GOD there isn't a GOD who is out there deciding elections and football games and who wins the grammys.
This kind of bullshit belief system does make people look like idiots, (whoever they may be).
Posted by Kitty (Member # 89) on :
Since I was actually "working" yesterday, this is the first time I could actually respond. So no offense to anyone, but where do you guys have the time to keep up with all of this?
First of all, I am religious, I and I do believe in God, but it is offensive to me to be called an idiot or a freak just for my beliefs. There are different types of religions, and different type of beliefs in God and a higher power. Not everyone Catholic/Christian believes that God determines everything in life.
I consider myself an independent and tend to lean towards democratic views (anyone can ask Scott or Eric on this one), but for this election I did vote for Bush, but just because I am Catholic and voted for Bush, does not make me or anyone else an idiot.
(By the way, many of the top universities in the county are religious universities, so I don't think you can fairly equate someones religion to their education level.)
As for the multiple statements of being out numbered, I actually think it is fairly even. Dems (Amy, Brad, and Joe) Reps (Scott, Chad, and Eric) I think Mike is fair and analyzes everything on both sides, but does pull Republican. Everyone else has had such few posts that I don't think they can truely be counted.
Third, I think overall everyone has good and fair arguements for there side, but here is my issue. For all you who are arguing, there is good in both candidates, otherwise, the election wouldn't have been so close. No offense to anyone, but I have not heard a good thing about the opposite candidate from anyone!
Fourth, this country is not going to suffer by having one person in the presidency over the other and some of you have stated that. What everyone should be concerned about is who is in the House and the Senate considering that nothing can get passed without their approval, rather then arguing over a president who really can't do shit.
Last, everyone needs to let it rest, otherwise this website will consist of Bush vs Kerry for the next four years until Hillary runs (God help us all!)
[ 11-12-2004, 09:39: Message edited by: Kitty ]
Posted by flamingoamyjo (Member # 93) on :
First of all Kitty, no one was calling YOU can idiot. That is the first problem here, everyone thinks that everyone is attacking them personally. I do think that there are definitely FANATICAL religious people out there that are "idiots".
Your comment about the religious schools, hmmm. Do you really think that everyone that attends these schools are religious?? Was everyone at St. Thomas a good Christian?? I doubt it. I went to Bethel which is an over-the-top religious school because it is a GOOD school. I didn't agree with the majority of their religious views, but I liked the teachers and the programs. I do NOT believe in "God" but I do believe in a higher powe; something had to create this world that we live in. (of if Bethel only knew! I'm going straight to hell! which I also don't believe in!)
As for your comment on the election being close: THANK YOU! No one seems to admit to the fact that Bush really didn't win by all that much. Obviously America is pretty closely divided between the parties! What I wish, it that next election they banned the negative bashing ads altogether as I think they're unfair to both sides. I also would like to see literature put together describing ALL side FAIRLY and EQUALLY so that America can actually educate themselves on the candidates instead of just believeing that is thrown in front of them.
It's just difficult when some people don't respect your views just like some don't respect your career. Mike commented that he respects the person but not their views, which I guess is what we're looking for here!!
[ 11-12-2004, 09:55: Message edited by: flamingoamyjo ]
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Posted by Hauserdaddy (Member # 50) on :
I think that if they would not have been able to sling mud, Bush would have won by a far wider margin. It is much easier for the person running against the incumbent to look at the last 4 years of that persons presidency to find things to sling. Bush also is able to use things and events the last 4 years as accomplishments that people are aware of (war/ tax cuts etc.) Kerry may have voted on issues, but they are not as publicly known to the layperson as issues the president is "seen" to work through in the public eye.
Posted by Kitty (Member # 89) on :
I agree that there was no personal attack on me and I didn't take it like that. I think that is the problem everyone is having; they are taking comments on general things as personal attacks, but I think that stating that a person's religious belief associated with who they vote for can make them an idoit I think is offensive to anyone who is religious. Religion=Idiot, not really. I think there are fanatics on everything out there. I agree with you, the fanatics are idiots whether it is political, religious (Islamic rebels), or other. But I do not consider Christian's, especially here in the US fanatics compared to all the other extremism of a religious nature that is going on in the world.
As for the religious schools, it is obvious that everyone that goes there is not necessarily religious. But the majority of people there are. At St. Thomas this is the standard breakdown 54% Catholic, 18% Lutheran 14% other 4% non religious, and 10% unknown. If it wasn't for equal rights, these schools could hold their enrollment strictly to those of the religion of the school. I know at St. Thomas, for it to get the funding it does for being a catholic school, over 50% of those enrolled need to be catholic.
I agree with you on the negative bashing ad's. As Eric stated, they only get the true idiots anyways. Those who are educated on the issues already know who they are voting for and why, they don't need an ad to encourage them.
Posted by flamingoamyjo (Member # 93) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jomama:
Joe, have you ever seen "Sliding Doors"??
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
I will repeat this for Kitty since you didn't appear to catch it based on your posts. To me the article is clearly dealing with zealots, and not mainstream Christians
quote:Originally posted by Jomama:
Catholics, Lutherans, and mainstream christians are NOT Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians... both fruit (no offense intended), but apples & oranges If you guys don't know the difference, and wont' acknowledge the desires of the religious right for the future of this country.. than really, GOD help us all
As far as fundamentalist in the U.S. being less of a threat to this country to each his own.... I won't give a pass to killing abortion doctors & ostrasizing gay people and pushing for this country to be run as a theocracy....... You may believe them benign... I think thats nuts.. Posted by Klaus (Member # 66) on :
quote:As far as fundamentalist in the U.S. being less of a threat to this country to each his own.... I won't give a pass to killing abortion doctors & ostrasizing gay people and pushing for this country to be run as a theocracy....... You may believe them benign... I think thats nuts..
I doubt anyone on here (well maybe Trany) would disagree with any of that.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by flamingoamyjo:
quote:Originally posted by Jomama:
Joe, have you ever seen "Sliding Doors"??
No
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jomama: As far as fundamentalist in the U.S. being less of a threat to this country to each his own.... I won't give a pass to killing abortion doctors & ostrasizing gay people and pushing for this country to be run as a theocracy....... You may believe them benign... I think thats nuts..
I see no hard evidence that the christian fundamentalists pose any real mass threat to this country. I see select individuals, whom are very sick, using their christan "faith" as an excuse which is picked up by the media and fed to us as a "cause". Further their rare actions of killing abortion doctors and commiting other violent acts are denouced heavily by all major christian denominations in this country and throughout the world.
All the above is a very different scale that the muslum fundamentalist movement throughout the world. And I do not feal that the muslum religous, as a whole, have gone far enough in denouncing the extemist agenda...
As far as gay marrage I think everyone is fairly blind on this issue. Call it a civil union and and get the word marrige out of anything that has to do with government. This is my view.
That said people fail to understand the first amendment for what it is. It's interpritation of separation of church and state in my opinion is takeing it further than it was written or intended verbatum. I don't see why a country can't have personal freedom of religion while still honoring its roots which is manly a christian herritage. That is fact. To try and rewrite that history is simply orwellian in my oppinion. That is the scary part of what is going on in this country and around the world. There is a vast movement in this country to erase that herritage and pretend that the government and formation of this great country was never influenced by christianity. People are trying to rewrite history.
The history of this country is rooted in a vast christian majority and was built on christian beliefs. That does not conflict or interfere with the right afforded by the constitution to have full personal freedom of religion.
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
Seperation of Church and State is intended to protect the state from the church.. Just look at what the Founding Fathers just fled when this country was created...
I guess this will be "revising" history...
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" James Madison Ref: http://www.secularhumanism.org/colum ns/history/madison.htm
"[God has bestowed] reason... as the umpire of truth." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:197
"Truth and reason are eternal. They have prevailed. And they will eternally prevail; however, in times and places they may be overborne for a while by violence, military, civil, or ecclesiastical." --Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Knox, 1810. ME 12:360
"The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800. ME 10:148
"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281
"Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:419
"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425
"I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith." --Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823. ME 15:434
"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.
"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." --Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237
"This doctrine ['that the condition of man cannot be ameliorated, that what has been must ever be, and that to secure ourselves where we are we must tread with awful reverence in the footsteps of our fathers'] is the genuine fruit of the alliance between Church and State, the tenants of which finding themselves but too well in their present condition, oppose all advances which might unmask their usurpations and monopolies of honors, wealth and power, and fear every change as endangering the comforts they now hold." --Thomas Jefferson: Report for University of Virginia, 1818.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21
this one right here.... its tbe best. remember that this was the person, democratically chosen by the constutional congress....
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119
thank you Thomas Jefferson.
Remember, the founding fathers chose this guy to write the important documents at the birth of this nation. Had they any intention of founding a christian republic, what was stopping them? Nothing at all.
It was called the age of reason guys, because people sought to break free from the chains of religious tyrany.
Also note the lack of mention of Jesus Christ in our oaths or documents. There is mention of God - but that is mentioned in even one of your quotes as the God of Nature - which is a Diest idea. Understand that Diest does not equal Christian - it is similar to saying that Christianity is Judaism, or that Judaism is Islam.
bah.. what am I thinking... just irrelavent details ...
[ 11-12-2004, 14:49: Message edited by: Jomama ]
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jomama: It was called the age of reason guys, because people sought to break free from the chains of religious tyrany.
Also note the lack of mention of Jesus Christ in our oaths or documents. There is mention of God - but that is mentioned in even one of your quotes as the God of Nature - which is a Diest idea. Understand that Diest does not equal Christian - it is similar to saying that Christianity is Judaism, or that Judaism is Islam.
bah.. what am I thinking... just irrelavent details ...
Joe I'm not going to take the bait but I will offer that the reason you encounter so much venom on this site (and likely elsewhere) is due to you way you write your arguments. You come off as talking down to people. (That is mainly why I seem to do so to you, as you don't see me talk to anyone else that way) You also read beyond and try to interpret what people mean and not what they say/write. At no point did I claim that our country was founded with christian doctrines. I do think that many of our laws are rooted in values of which many reflect chistian values. The separation intention is obvious but to try to erase all evidence of the herratige of this country having included christianity as a central part of it's earliest citizens values and thus reflected in parts of government throughout its history is a bad road to go down.
It is one thing to move forward with a separation of church and state but to erase and remove monuments from state flags and government buildings that reflect christian herratige is rewriting history.
[ 11-12-2004, 15:17: Message edited by: Chadwick ]
Posted by Hauserdaddy (Member # 50) on :
Joe doesn't state his opinion. Everything he says is the "truth" and us non-believers should be looked down upon...
That is exactly how you sound when giving your opinion. Generally Chad and Klaus state facts to back up their OPINION. Everyone here knows how strong your beliefs are Joe. If you want to have a discussion about this stuff, keep it a discussion and keep in mind that regardless of what any of us say, we aren't changing minds or saving lives.
Your frustration (read paranoia )really comes out in your writing...
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
I can't say I'm not guilty of that in the past but I feel as though I try to be aware of and listen to what I say, read what I write in the effort to eliminate that type of tone...All part of growing up...
quote:Originally posted by Hauserdaddy: Joe doesn't state his opinion. Everything he says is the "truth" and us non-believers should be looked down upon...
That is exactly how you sound when giving your opinion. Generally Chad and Klaus state facts to back up their OPINION. Everyone here knows how strong your beliefs are Joe. If you want to have a discussion about this stuff, keep it a discussion and keep in mind that regardless of what any of us say, we aren't changing minds or saving lives.
Your frustration (read paranoia )really comes out in your writing...
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: It is one thing to move forward with a separation of church and state but to erase and remove monuments from state flags and government buildings that reflect christian herratige is rewriting history.
Please show me where I supported this. To me, the "icons" are trivial and do reflect history and are beside the point..
Thats a different issue from the religious right pushing to legislate morality.
YOU brought up the rewriting history part??? and then you chide me for dealing with it.... it just makes your case better if you paint me as being aligned with this anyway doesn't it...?
my quotes are food for thought based on what you said, and apparently I misinterpreted you post, MY BAD.... <-PLEASE MAKE NOTE Jefferson and some of the other Federalist were more Diest than Christians, and its them we have to thank for religious freedom.
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: I see no hard evidence that the christian fundamentalists pose any real mass threat to this country.
What do you want as hard evidence, beyond their level of influence on local/national elections, their involvment in various legislative movements, etc...? I cant believe I actually have to provide proof the the influence of the religious right.... so whatever...
I honestly don't know why you reply to me, when you immediately and openly dismiss the concerns I raise as a non-issue, from the environment to this topic... thats not discussion
I'm not talking down to anyone HERE!! Not my problem anymore... dont reply then if you cant handle it... I'm not going to PC my comments anymore than anyone else... You want me to go find posts where you were patronizing and belittling to pretty much any conservation issue I presented???? I'll do it... Like I said, I might as well be the asshole liberal whipping boy I'm painted as....
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: the reason you encounter so much venom on this site (and likely elsewhere)
and likely elsewhere??? F.U.!!!! Would you like the link to the other forums I participate in???? ones with much more thoughtfull discussions from all different sides of the specturm and see how much I talk down to people that are open to discussing the issues of this world... Posted by Kitty (Member # 89) on :
If no one is going to say it I will! You guys have got to stop attacking each other! It started out political, which was understandable considering you two are on opposite sides, but now it is just personal attacks! Make the madness stop. Everyone is intitled to their opinion and the way they argue their opinion, but personal attacks and critisism does no good to anyone. I'll be honest, I stop paying attention once you two start going at it. I like you both, but God (that's been a popular term today)just stop already! I like boon's idea
[ 11-12-2004, 15:59: Message edited by: Kitty ]
Posted by Jomama (Member # 56) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hauserdaddy: Generally Chad and Klaus state facts to back up their OPINION.
If I post anything relavent, its dismissed as liberal propaganda based on the fact that its from the "liberal press" or it criticizes the sacred Bush Monkey, regardless the quality of the content.
quote:Originally posted by Hauserdaddy: Everyone here knows how strong your beliefs are Joe.
Um, no.... with some exception to Klaus, you don't really know what my beliefs are, so how do you know how strong they are....
quote:Originally posted by Hauserdaddy: keep it a discussion and keep in mind that regardless of what any of us say, we aren't changing minds or saving lives.
.... and I find this sad and one of the fundamental problems with the public in this country...... I definitly learn more, and change my mind on all types of things as the years go by and more information is availabe etc... etc....
I've learned from discussions with Klaus, friends, family, I've learned from discussions with the people who work around me.... and I can probably pin-point the discussions and moments when I have changed my mind about something.... So I find it extrememly sad that people preface a discussion with.... "Well I'm not gonna change my mind or vice versa..."
And from my perspective, proper conservation will not only save lives, it will save generations of lives.... But again... I see how thats a non-issue that we don't have to worry or be concerned about... Posted by Ender (Member # 55) on :
zzzzZZZZZZzzzzzZZzzZZZZzZZZZzzz.......
Posted by Mikey (Member # 42) on :
Christian fundamentalist are the only thing keeping this country afloat!
[ 11-12-2004, 16:19: Message edited by: Mikey ]
Posted by Chadwick (Member # 45) on :
This whole post is full of more gereralizations, hypocracy, and insinuations then there are words it is composed of.... ...enjoy!
quote:Originally posted by Jomama:
quote:Originally posted by Hauserdaddy: Generally Chad and Klaus state facts to back up their OPINION.
If I post anything relavent, its dismissed as liberal propaganda based on the fact that its from the "liberal press" or it criticizes the sacred Bush Monkey, regardless the quality of the content.
quote:Originally posted by Hauserdaddy: Everyone here knows how strong your beliefs are Joe.
Um, no.... with some exception to Klaus, you don't really know what my beliefs are, so how do you know how strong they are....
quote:Originally posted by Hauserdaddy: keep it a discussion and keep in mind that regardless of what any of us say, we aren't changing minds or saving lives.
.... and I find this sad and one of the fundamental problems with the public in this country...... I definitly learn more, and change my mind on all types of things as the years go by and more information is availabe etc... etc....
I've learned from discussions with Klaus, friends, family, I've learned from discussions with the people who work around me.... and I can probably pin-point the discussions and moments when I have changed my mind about something.... So I find it extrememly sad that people preface a discussion with.... "Well I'm not gonna change my mind or vice versa..."
And from my perspective, proper conservation will not only save lives, it will save generations of lives.... But again... I see how thats a non-issue that we don't have to worry or be concerned about...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[weep]](graemlins/weep.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. $15 at Sam's
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[crazy]](graemlins/crazy.gif)
![[lame]](graemlins/lame.gif)
boy I love living in a theocracy... ![[demon]](graemlins/demon.gif)
![[argue]](graemlins/argue.gif)
![[brd]](graemlins/brdflick.gif)
![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
![[shake]](graemlins/jpshakehead.gif)
(NOTE: just because I post a concern over this does not mean I think the world will fall apart in 4 years, I guess I have to put disclaimers on everything I say as well for some peoples benefit ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[horse]](graemlins/horse.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[shoot]](graemlins/shootout.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Is this one of your "I'm being the liberal you want me to be" snide comments? ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
![[fight]](graemlins/fight.gif)
Everyone is intitled to their opinion and the way they argue their opinion, but personal attacks and critisism does no good to anyone. I'll be honest, I stop paying attention once you two start going at it. I like you both, but God (that's been a popular term today)just stop already! I like boon's idea ![[topicsucks]](graemlins/topicsucks.gif)