I am sick and tired of right-wing conservatives saying they somehow have a better understanding of Christianity, of the Judeo-Christian ethic, of values. We're talking about values? You show me where in the New Testament Jesus ever talked about the value of having taxes and taking money from poor people to give to the rich. The religious right refers to the left as "unholy", and other such nonsense. The truth is if you read Jesus' teachings, he was liberal before the word liberal was even invented.
Religious and Political labels
Kal,
>I am sick and tired of right-wing conservatives saying they somehow have a better understanding of Christianity, of the Judeo-Christian ethic, of values. We're talking about values? You show me where in the New Testament Jesus ever talked about the value of having taxes and taking money from poor people to give to the rich. The religious right refers to the left as "unholy", and other such nonsense. The truth is if you read Jesus' teachings, he was liberal before the word liberal was even invented.<
Interesting, but I have not a clue what you are writing about.
Bigger
>I am sick and tired of right-wing conservatives saying they somehow have a better understanding of Christianity, of the Judeo-Christian ethic, of values. We're talking about values? You show me where in the New Testament Jesus ever talked about the value of having taxes and taking money from poor people to give to the rich. The religious right refers to the left as "unholy", and other such nonsense. The truth is if you read Jesus' teachings, he was liberal before the word liberal was even invented.<
Interesting, but I have not a clue what you are writing about.
Bigger
Jesus was liberal???? I'm pretty sure Jesus was a gun toting conservative can of whoop ass, but whatever.
Originally posted by LambdaCalc:
That's the problem with the religious right. They changed what he meant to humanity and use his name to advance their radical right wing agenda. Jesus rejected greed, violence, the glorification of power, wealth without social balance, and judging of others' lifestyles' and beleifs'.
That's the problem with the religious right. They changed what he meant to humanity and use his name to advance their radical right wing agenda. Jesus rejected greed, violence, the glorification of power, wealth without social balance, and judging of others' lifestyles' and beleifs'.
9
9cyclops9
Guest
Kal-el,
I don't really want to get involved in a debate, as politics aren't really my thing, so I'll just say a few things. Firstly, I'm not going to associate myself with either "side," because, as I told millionman the other day, I'm pretty indifferent when it comes to this stuff. Whatever happens, happens. I'm a musician and I will continue to make music no matter the current social millieu. However, I am a Christian, so I feel I should call you out on a few things.
You make it sound like this is a rampant thing. Like all "conservatives" say that "liberals" are unholy and immoral. You're making HUGE blanket statements and generalizations. But I must say, I hear "religious right" far more often than I hear "unholy left" or anything of that sort. Liberals (and I don't intend to generalize, there's just not a "more fair" way to say it) tend to be very condescending toward people who do not share their political opinions. Note: I said opinions because that's what political thought boils down to.
And I hate the term "religious right." Firstly, because it's nearly always used in a negative way toward religious people (usually Christians). You make it sound like religion is a negative thing in our society. Secondly, because the term makes it sound like all conservatives are religious. This isn't the case whatsoever, and I'm sure you'd find just as many people on either side of the political fence (and everywhere in between) that claim to be religious.
Jesus never mentioned "taking from the poor to give to the rich," but he did say people should pay taxes. He was asked what if he thought the people should pay taxes, and he said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's." The thing is, taxes are a fundamental part of society. They have been for THOUSANDS of years. And I seriously doubt there's any way that's going to change anytime soon, at least not in our lifetimes.
My pastor did a fantastic series of sermons last year about the nature of Christ. And don't think "Oh here it comes, some right-wing blah blah"
because you'd probably like my pastor, regardless of whatever your beliefs may be. He's a professor at a seminary here in Boston, so I assure you, he isn't exactly conservative and he'll speak against Bush as much as anyone else in this city. During Christ's life, he challenged BOTH sides. He was neither "liberal" nor "conservative." He was somewhere in between, and yet something altogether different. Sure, you have conservatives who may interpret a passage of Scripture one way, and liberals may interpret it completely differently. But, and it's especially helpful in these cases to look at the original Greek, in most cases, if you look deep enough into what he was saying (and also the social situation at the time), you will find that neither side's interpretation really fits the bill. There is always rationality and balance in every single thing Christ taught. So I disagree with your assertation that he was liberal.
Ok so I got more involved than I intended. That's all, and like I said, I don't want to be dragged into an argument. Take my statements or leave them, because I understand there's not much point debating with someone on a forum (read: a block of text).
I don't really want to get involved in a debate, as politics aren't really my thing, so I'll just say a few things. Firstly, I'm not going to associate myself with either "side," because, as I told millionman the other day, I'm pretty indifferent when it comes to this stuff. Whatever happens, happens. I'm a musician and I will continue to make music no matter the current social millieu. However, I am a Christian, so I feel I should call you out on a few things.
You make it sound like this is a rampant thing. Like all "conservatives" say that "liberals" are unholy and immoral. You're making HUGE blanket statements and generalizations. But I must say, I hear "religious right" far more often than I hear "unholy left" or anything of that sort. Liberals (and I don't intend to generalize, there's just not a "more fair" way to say it) tend to be very condescending toward people who do not share their political opinions. Note: I said opinions because that's what political thought boils down to.
And I hate the term "religious right." Firstly, because it's nearly always used in a negative way toward religious people (usually Christians). You make it sound like religion is a negative thing in our society. Secondly, because the term makes it sound like all conservatives are religious. This isn't the case whatsoever, and I'm sure you'd find just as many people on either side of the political fence (and everywhere in between) that claim to be religious.
Jesus never mentioned "taking from the poor to give to the rich," but he did say people should pay taxes. He was asked what if he thought the people should pay taxes, and he said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's." The thing is, taxes are a fundamental part of society. They have been for THOUSANDS of years. And I seriously doubt there's any way that's going to change anytime soon, at least not in our lifetimes.
My pastor did a fantastic series of sermons last year about the nature of Christ. And don't think "Oh here it comes, some right-wing blah blah"
because you'd probably like my pastor, regardless of whatever your beliefs may be. He's a professor at a seminary here in Boston, so I assure you, he isn't exactly conservative and he'll speak against Bush as much as anyone else in this city. During Christ's life, he challenged BOTH sides. He was neither "liberal" nor "conservative." He was somewhere in between, and yet something altogether different. Sure, you have conservatives who may interpret a passage of Scripture one way, and liberals may interpret it completely differently. But, and it's especially helpful in these cases to look at the original Greek, in most cases, if you look deep enough into what he was saying (and also the social situation at the time), you will find that neither side's interpretation really fits the bill. There is always rationality and balance in every single thing Christ taught. So I disagree with your assertation that he was liberal.Ok so I got more involved than I intended. That's all, and like I said, I don't want to be dragged into an argument. Take my statements or leave them, because I understand there's not much point debating with someone on a forum (read: a block of text).
The problem arises when "religious" beliefs are used to manipulate the public in the name of politics. I don't want to get into tonight, but really there is a concern whenever (and it is not a new occurrence obviously..it's just happening in my state currently so it's heightened my attention) religious figures side with one political agenda or group. In 06 I doubt Ohio will have a fanatical republican Christian governor, but then again Taft does blow like NO OTHER. Should I want one of these guys to win...Nah. Seriously though does anyone like Taft? I mean seriously? Does anyone? Republicans? Do they really like him? Dems? Greens? Libertarians? NO!
There's hell to pay in Ohio BLACKWELL, TAFT, BUSH/CHENEY! sonsabitches
There's hell to pay in Ohio BLACKWELL, TAFT, BUSH/CHENEY! sonsabitches
Last edited:
9
9cyclops9
Guest
iwant8inches said:
Agreed, with emphasis on the quotation marks. Most times, if not all, throughout history, in a situation like this, the "religious beliefs" were taken way out of context or distorted to say something that really isn't there. I think the most obvious example would be the Crusades.
Of course, then there are those beliefs and traditions that are in the Church that really have nothing to do with Christianity. For instance, the "rule" in Catholicism that says priests can't marry. That was a law made by a king that got tired of having to give out land to the clergy, so he put a halt to their reproduction by making a law against marriage, which became ingrained in the Catholic religion and for whatever reason is still there today. It really has nothing to do with "keeping the mind off the flesh" like most Catholics think. But that's a different thread, I guess.
Originally posted by 9cyclops9:
Well, Cyclops, everybody has their opinion, but the truth is that Jesus contradicted basically everything that existed. If you say he wasn't liberal, are you implying that he was conservative? Or maybe you're saying he was somewhere in between. But when you follow his teachings, I just can't see how one can come to the conclusion that he was leaning toward the right.
Here's all the proof you need:
http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/
Well, Cyclops, everybody has their opinion, but the truth is that Jesus contradicted basically everything that existed. If you say he wasn't liberal, are you implying that he was conservative? Or maybe you're saying he was somewhere in between. But when you follow his teachings, I just can't see how one can come to the conclusion that he was leaning toward the right.
Here's all the proof you need:
http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/
9
9cyclops9
Guest
Kal-el said:
You're agreeing with me and disagreeing at the same time? Did you even read what I wrote?
me said:
Not only did I say he wasn't liberal, I also said he wasn't conservative, yet you seemed to miss that part. Yes, he contradicted EVERYTHING, the liberals and the conservatives. And where did you get that I was saying he was leaning toward the right? We are talking about the same post, aren't we?
BTW, it's fine with me if we disagree, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. But I don't like my words being twisted to mean something completely opposite from what I said.
Last edited:
9
9cyclops9
Guest
No prob at all bro. I have a feeling we have the same views about it, but simply use different terms.
I think the main point of the post was that the Republicans/Conservatives seemed to have the market on morality which is backed by Christian leaders who would have us believe those to the left do not have the same morals/are incapable of sharing the same morals. So, really the point is no matter what the topic is it has nothing to do with your political views. Whether it's the spectrum of morality or actual religious beliefs like with the Catholic Church and priests not allowed to marry anyone can hold these to heart.
This was key in the 04 elections because it got tens of thousands of people in Ohio alone to vote against something like Gay marriage, which is certainly not exclusive belief held by Republican Conservatives, but it tends to be that way it'd seem. It's funny how most of the states that passed laws against same sex marriage and civil unions like Ohio are not really states that would be known for their high population of openly gay people. It makes me wonder just how many gay men and women are out there if people are that against something like marriage for two men or two women. There's got to be a lot people in denial pushing such laws (quite a few have been found out also recently in the last year or two) or there are more gays out there than I thought that are making these people nervous for whatever reason.
This was key in the 04 elections because it got tens of thousands of people in Ohio alone to vote against something like Gay marriage, which is certainly not exclusive belief held by Republican Conservatives, but it tends to be that way it'd seem. It's funny how most of the states that passed laws against same sex marriage and civil unions like Ohio are not really states that would be known for their high population of openly gay people. It makes me wonder just how many gay men and women are out there if people are that against something like marriage for two men or two women. There's got to be a lot people in denial pushing such laws (quite a few have been found out also recently in the last year or two) or there are more gays out there than I thought that are making these people nervous for whatever reason.
Bush frequently invokes the name of god during major speechs, and usually in the context of either America being on the right side of the world view (axis of evil, ect.) or when discussing morality and national character. The people that write speechs are very intelligent, and every single word is selected for a reason, and they know very well what they're doing with the frequent god and spirituality references. The idea: god is on their side, so they must be right. So god is against the other guys? Or they're against god (liberals and terrorists, both holding hands on the naughty list!)? It's not a very subtle tactic, yet it doesn't garner anywhere near enough criticism, in my opinon. God needs to be left the hell out of US policies and especially the white house. Countries ruled by religious influenced policies and leaders (Bush is considered by many to be the the de facto head of the religious right, and the first president ever to have such a religious connection and significance) are generally the countries we end up having problems with.
I'm sure Jesus would speak out against many things the Republicans are pushing, but the "Jesus was a liberal/would be a stoner" crowd speaks a lot of shit.
Jesus taught how to live on an individual basis; how one man should treat another. Jesus DID NOT teach nations how to implement either domestic or foreign policy. For example, as unjust as some wars might be, to say that war is unbiblical because of the "turn the other cheek" passage is nothing short of heretical.
Jesus taught how to live on an individual basis; how one man should treat another. Jesus DID NOT teach nations how to implement either domestic or foreign policy. For example, as unjust as some wars might be, to say that war is unbiblical because of the "turn the other cheek" passage is nothing short of heretical.
iwant8inches said:
Gee...California? Massachusetts?
Swank said:
1. Yes, Jesus would in no uncertain terms consider the regimes of the Axis of Evil to be evil.
2. Bush may exploit the "religious right" for his political gain, but only a "scholar" with a radical left agenda would say he is the first President with a strong religious belief system, if you even buy that one. For starters, I would begin with Lincoln.
penguinsfan said:
How many areas allow civil unions or have a fairly high population that is in favor of them I should have said? The courts have been awash pretty much so to keep up with what the hell is going on has been on my back burner. Many states that would go that far as to pass a law banning it or actual right to marry are focusing on something that really wouldn't be noticed otherwise because well let's face it most governors/representatives aren't going to go against the "tradition" or "sanctity of marriage." These issues are dumb. Why does it concern people who have sex with the opposite sex whether or not people that have sex with the same sex can marry or be together legally/officially?
Last edited:
Iwant8,
>Why does it concern people who have sex with the opposite sex whether or not people that have sex with the same sex can marry or be together legally/officially?<
For me, and I think many others, it simply has to do with the history, and indeed, the definition of marriage. Where did the act of marriage begin? It was a religious ceremony, defined as exactly a union between a man and a woman. Anything else would not fit the definition, or would tend to broaden the original definition. This to me would lessen the sanctity of marriage. Make it less special, or in fact not special at all.
I would feel the same way if there were calls for the legalization of polygamy. Or for redefining marriage as a reltionship between any two or more entities, flora or fauna, mineral or vegetable. That the call is for redefining it between two men or two women makes no difference. The word marriage should continue to mean the bond between a man and a woman. If other relationships are found to be legal, then some other word, perhaps a new word, could be used to define that relationship.
With any other relationship, you cannot have the exact structure, interaction, etc, that is found in the relationship between a man and a woman. For example, you cannot have a child in the natural way, with any other relationship. It is particular, and unique, and is defined by the word 'marriage'.
As far as other relationships go, I care not a whit. Anyone can do whatever they wish, as long as it does not affect me in things such as taxes (polygamy), or in anything else significant. But make up your own word for these relationships. Marriage, in meaning, thoughts, and feelings, is already taken.
On the original subject, which I now understand, the left beats Bush over the head saying that the Iraq invasion was against Christ's teachings. Then, they acuse him of being too religious. I don't get it. Just some more weird logic I guess.
Bigger
>Why does it concern people who have sex with the opposite sex whether or not people that have sex with the same sex can marry or be together legally/officially?<
For me, and I think many others, it simply has to do with the history, and indeed, the definition of marriage. Where did the act of marriage begin? It was a religious ceremony, defined as exactly a union between a man and a woman. Anything else would not fit the definition, or would tend to broaden the original definition. This to me would lessen the sanctity of marriage. Make it less special, or in fact not special at all.
I would feel the same way if there were calls for the legalization of polygamy. Or for redefining marriage as a reltionship between any two or more entities, flora or fauna, mineral or vegetable. That the call is for redefining it between two men or two women makes no difference. The word marriage should continue to mean the bond between a man and a woman. If other relationships are found to be legal, then some other word, perhaps a new word, could be used to define that relationship.
With any other relationship, you cannot have the exact structure, interaction, etc, that is found in the relationship between a man and a woman. For example, you cannot have a child in the natural way, with any other relationship. It is particular, and unique, and is defined by the word 'marriage'.
As far as other relationships go, I care not a whit. Anyone can do whatever they wish, as long as it does not affect me in things such as taxes (polygamy), or in anything else significant. But make up your own word for these relationships. Marriage, in meaning, thoughts, and feelings, is already taken.
On the original subject, which I now understand, the left beats Bush over the head saying that the Iraq invasion was against Christ's teachings. Then, they acuse him of being too religious. I don't get it. Just some more weird logic I guess.
Bigger
iwant8inches said:
Why do we suddenly have to change marriage after 200 years in this country and thousands of years of human history? I could explain why this issue is important to me when I have more time. I'll just say I support measures such as a partner being able to make medical decisions and similar civil issues, but I am firmly opposed to marriage.
Look, this a losing issue. Gay marriage didn't even come close to passing in the liberal states and took a huge beating in the conservative states when it was voted on by the people. In case you didn't notice, the Democrats (a party I am considering switching to) have gotten hog-tied and buttfucked in no uncertain terms for about the last ten years in elections. Yes, the jackass has hardly been able to stand after the last few poundings from the elephant. HINT: The plays in the playbook are not working. Now, this may change with Howard Dean, but not if he keeps pushing the things that are not appealing to mainstream America. He is a brilliant man, despite torpedoing his Presidential aspirations with his "I Have a Scream" speech and his hypocrisy on Iraq.
If you think it will continue to work, try it again. But I suspect you'll be left with little more than trying to figure out how another election was "stolen" rather than acknowledging glaring failures.
Originally posted by penguinsfan:
We have had other religious speaking presidents', but no other President has so clearly thought of his calling in such epic biblical terms. For example 2 years ago when W said, "God told me to strike at Saddam", serves as further proof that he is a fanatic.
We have had other religious speaking presidents', but no other President has so clearly thought of his calling in such epic biblical terms. For example 2 years ago when W said, "God told me to strike at Saddam", serves as further proof that he is a fanatic.
The Jesus of the neo-conservatives is a muscular, aggressive Jesus; a preemptive Jesus, proud and judgemental.
Originally posted ny Bib:
Here ya go
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=854
Here ya go
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=854
Notice, it is the Palestinian Prime Minister saying Bush said "God told me to do it". It's not exactly credible.
Kal,
Unbelievable the things you will kling to, in order to justify your stance on Bush. Why not try to be honest with yourself for a change?
From your Washington Post source:
"The Arabic-speaking colleague's translation, was this: "God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him. Now I am determined to solve the Middle East problem if you help. Otherwise the elections will come and I will be wrapped up with them."
"Even then, there's uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English."
So the WP itself calls into question the reported statements. But you wish to believe them true, no matter the questions, because it fits your preconceived notions on Bush.
Isn't that true? You blindly believe a Palestinian source, which admittedly may or may not have been translated correctly?
The only even slightly credible source you gave was the liberal Washington Post. The others were obvious leftist blather, against Bush for any reason, and they reported the same event. Just look at them.
You make my point better than I ever could. The detractors of Bush will stoop to any level, drag up any bit they can, to try and paint him with their own brush. The problem is, none of this is honest.
Bigger
Unbelievable the things you will kling to, in order to justify your stance on Bush. Why not try to be honest with yourself for a change?
From your Washington Post source:
"The Arabic-speaking colleague's translation, was this: "God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him. Now I am determined to solve the Middle East problem if you help. Otherwise the elections will come and I will be wrapped up with them."
"Even then, there's uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English."
So the WP itself calls into question the reported statements. But you wish to believe them true, no matter the questions, because it fits your preconceived notions on Bush.
Isn't that true? You blindly believe a Palestinian source, which admittedly may or may not have been translated correctly?
The only even slightly credible source you gave was the liberal Washington Post. The others were obvious leftist blather, against Bush for any reason, and they reported the same event. Just look at them.
You make my point better than I ever could. The detractors of Bush will stoop to any level, drag up any bit they can, to try and paint him with their own brush. The problem is, none of this is honest.
Bigger
How much could have been lost in translation? God wasn't mentioned at all or what? No one can argue Bush doesn't use God is on our side or with us. Then again what political leader hasn't? At some point the President uses God to his advantage. It's politics. I don't care if he does or doesn't. It's stupid on more levels than I'd care to get into, but it's something that has worked for a long time. Now if he was saying things like "God made me President" that's a little scary because even if he believes this...who givesashit George? Keep it to yourself you freak. If I was a Buddist would I give two shits what you believe your god has done for you? No. But he hasn't said this. And one thing of note someone on here said that Lincoln was ...let me see if I remember right...a President that used "God" a lot. I'm not sure if he ever used the God is on our side tactic. I know he didn't for the Civil War in his 2nd IA anyway. Being religious and using your religion to your political advantage are different things. I do however see Bush as using God beyond merely stating he is a born again and all that. It's for votes and that old hey he said God again he must be doing good thing. If I'm wrong though about someone referring to Lincoln in that light correct me please because I want to know.
Hey, a while back I read some of GWB's autobiography (funny as it sounds), and according to that he got religion following a weekend with Billy Graham in 1986, an in '98 he was inspired by a sermon about Moses as a model of political leadership. (His mother later said to him, "He [the minister] was talking to you." So that's when W decided to take up Moses' mantle and enter the presidential race.
Well, go watch the documentary...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4320586.stm
Bush said it indeed. I wouldn't take a man literally either if he said something like that. I'd think he was loony. It's still about as scary if Bush did think God actually spoke to him and told him to do this, but anyone who says something like that obviously believes he's doing God's work. I would hope all these people who believe it is God telling them that risking or sacrificing innocent people's lives and torturing and holding people prisoner who are suspected of being the ones you want to kill are wrong. Both sides are guilty of these things and both sides apparently have God on their sides. Maybe one day at the least we'll not have to hear our leaders' religious beliefs as the lambs are lead to slaughter. It'll never end until it does and it has nothing to DO with God. So keep him out of it please.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4320586.stm
Bush said it indeed. I wouldn't take a man literally either if he said something like that. I'd think he was loony. It's still about as scary if Bush did think God actually spoke to him and told him to do this, but anyone who says something like that obviously believes he's doing God's work. I would hope all these people who believe it is God telling them that risking or sacrificing innocent people's lives and torturing and holding people prisoner who are suspected of being the ones you want to kill are wrong. Both sides are guilty of these things and both sides apparently have God on their sides. Maybe one day at the least we'll not have to hear our leaders' religious beliefs as the lambs are lead to slaughter. It'll never end until it does and it has nothing to DO with God. So keep him out of it please.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051006/ts_alt_afp/mideastbritainusiraq_051006214432
This is getting ridiculous. First off, a "mystical" entity is "allegedly" instructing him to launch a pre-emptive strike against a totally soveirgn nation, which never attacked us. I think W is confusing Satan for God.
This is getting ridiculous. First off, a "mystical" entity is "allegedly" instructing him to launch a pre-emptive strike against a totally soveirgn nation, which never attacked us. I think W is confusing Satan for God.
yeah I read that article today as well.
It even sounds like the way Bush speaks.
We have an imbecile for a President. He believes torture is okay and that alone to me is enough to see him for what kind of person he is. There's just so much to be disgusted about with the federal government policy wise and he's a huge reason why. Four years after 9/11 and we see how much of a difference has been made to ensure the public an effective emergency plan in the event of a catestrophie or attack. This after a campaign with overtones of uncertainty and fear for another attack. There are still questions surrounding 9/11. I'd think at some point the public would wake up and realize that people surrounding the President were not effective in doing their jobs 4 years ago and the "new" faces and names this President endorses are in position to be a disservice to the people again. I wonder if God told him to ignore intelligence briefings too and told him not to be proactiv about the concerns of the previous administration and I wonder if he and his staff was told not to have an eye out for commercial planes that would strike buildings and key infrastructure in D.C. and New York. With all that is known and all that is still begging to be answered how can one plane hit the WTC and the others be allowed to continue to fly off course?
I'm sorry for the rambling on, but I hate President Bush. I wish we had someone else...you know a real leader...someone who will man up to a mistake...someone who won't let the people down. While I didn't like the Kerry nomination...I wish at one point he would have looked right into Bush's eyes in one of their debates and said "America couldn't count on him in Vietnam and it can't count on him today."
Ask yourselves if you want an incompetent coward of a President who runs a re-election campaign as though he hadn't just been President the last four years?
That is what I asked my classmates during the debates. He is a fear monger and what's worse is he's not well read and obviously is very arrogant about these things and more such as being an elitest who has no problem with torture or war. But some day this administration (maybe 10,20,30 years from now) will be found to have been the most insidious, incompetent, self interest/serving, underhanded, and corrupt regimes the U.S.A. has ever endured. To think this is only year one of the second term...Poverty has significantly increased...jobs are being outsourced in unprecedented numbers...gas prices are unbelievable...yet tax cuts are still a priority...let's help the poor in this country and look out for those who WORK and still can't get out of the financial situations they are in...why do we have a class of people in THIS country that WORK 40-50-60 hours a week and barely make it to the next month??? I'm sorry but with the top 1 percent of the 1 percent having been the only percentage to have really experienced a significant economic growth and the top 5% have experienced some while the bottom (yeah the "bottom") 95% under Bush has not it looks like the elite are getting richer and the middle class and lower class are being SQUEEEEZED. Makes you wonder how that happens...or why. Can't wait for the rising aristocracy to start telling the rest of us how many kids we can have...they already have long since been able to influence the outcome of elections not to mention what candidates are chosen...and what issues will be top priorities. The good thing about this government is that it is dynamic...flexible...but we need to hold our government to higher standards especially at the federal level.
It even sounds like the way Bush speaks.
We have an imbecile for a President. He believes torture is okay and that alone to me is enough to see him for what kind of person he is. There's just so much to be disgusted about with the federal government policy wise and he's a huge reason why. Four years after 9/11 and we see how much of a difference has been made to ensure the public an effective emergency plan in the event of a catestrophie or attack. This after a campaign with overtones of uncertainty and fear for another attack. There are still questions surrounding 9/11. I'd think at some point the public would wake up and realize that people surrounding the President were not effective in doing their jobs 4 years ago and the "new" faces and names this President endorses are in position to be a disservice to the people again. I wonder if God told him to ignore intelligence briefings too and told him not to be proactiv about the concerns of the previous administration and I wonder if he and his staff was told not to have an eye out for commercial planes that would strike buildings and key infrastructure in D.C. and New York. With all that is known and all that is still begging to be answered how can one plane hit the WTC and the others be allowed to continue to fly off course?
I'm sorry for the rambling on, but I hate President Bush. I wish we had someone else...you know a real leader...someone who will man up to a mistake...someone who won't let the people down. While I didn't like the Kerry nomination...I wish at one point he would have looked right into Bush's eyes in one of their debates and said "America couldn't count on him in Vietnam and it can't count on him today."
Ask yourselves if you want an incompetent coward of a President who runs a re-election campaign as though he hadn't just been President the last four years?
That is what I asked my classmates during the debates. He is a fear monger and what's worse is he's not well read and obviously is very arrogant about these things and more such as being an elitest who has no problem with torture or war. But some day this administration (maybe 10,20,30 years from now) will be found to have been the most insidious, incompetent, self interest/serving, underhanded, and corrupt regimes the U.S.A. has ever endured. To think this is only year one of the second term...Poverty has significantly increased...jobs are being outsourced in unprecedented numbers...gas prices are unbelievable...yet tax cuts are still a priority...let's help the poor in this country and look out for those who WORK and still can't get out of the financial situations they are in...why do we have a class of people in THIS country that WORK 40-50-60 hours a week and barely make it to the next month??? I'm sorry but with the top 1 percent of the 1 percent having been the only percentage to have really experienced a significant economic growth and the top 5% have experienced some while the bottom (yeah the "bottom") 95% under Bush has not it looks like the elite are getting richer and the middle class and lower class are being SQUEEEEZED. Makes you wonder how that happens...or why. Can't wait for the rising aristocracy to start telling the rest of us how many kids we can have...they already have long since been able to influence the outcome of elections not to mention what candidates are chosen...and what issues will be top priorities. The good thing about this government is that it is dynamic...flexible...but we need to hold our government to higher standards especially at the federal level.
iwant8inches said:
Amen I want8. I bet if a hurricane hit his ranch in Crawford, he would probably make FEMA pay to fix it first, **** everyone else. But yea, after 9/11, the majority of the public were scared and struck with "awe". Hence, they let Bush have his way. Everything was wrapped in red, white, and blue. Even the Patriot Act was passed with just 5 weeks "Debate" in Congress. They didn't want to seem like pussies, or soft on terrorism. Just like this "war" if you wanna call it that. The UN was important as long as they went along with it. The fact is, the UN was to "rubber-stamp" it,or else be irrelevant. Hence, W launched an Anglo-American invasion practically unilaterally.
I really don't hate him, but I strongly dislike him,not to mention, his whole damn administration. I wish they would all dissapear. I actually liked Kerry, but I think his campaign was weak. But 51% isnot a mandate to radicalize this country to the extreme right.
I sure don't. Bush is the American dream though. He is proof that any imbecile with a former Pres as father and hundreds of fat-cat, big-spending buddies can become President.
Of course he is, and so is the media. Fear is what sells,and he very well knows this. If the Democrats can take back the Congress in 2006, you can almost bet that there could be impeacHydromaxent hearings talked about often.
I think the Dems will take back Congress in 06. They better not be satisfied with just cleaning house though. I think the government needs to have people who want to lead people to the best opportunities in life. to improve our welfare...and not have a one party system especially one that cares about tax cuts for the rich and whines about minimum wage increases. The people won't be able to stand on its own so we need to get rid of this mentality of having one small percentage of people having and eating all the cake, picking up the crumbs, waving the crumbs in the faces of all the others and then throwing them away. God probably tells him to say one thing and then do the opposite...it's nice that contractors OUTSIDE of the state of Louisiana are going to get the vast majority of the business for reconstruction of New Orleans...Man...and Halliburton where the fuck is the 9 billion dollars already? lol...It's funny we always hear Republicans bitching about how they deserve a tax cut, but we don't hear so much about Halliburton stealing our earned dollars...and the tax rate cut that Bush signed off on falls in line with everything else he does...HALF ASS and SHORT SIGHTED THINKING...the jobs are leaving the country...the wages aren't keeping up...people are working more hours...the dollar is doing horribly...our debt is still HUGE compared to what it was before the bastard got into office...another funny thing is how many people will argue that corporations should be able to make political contributions just like Penis EnlargementOPLE can...well if corporations are going to be considered Penis EnlargementOPLE then I think they should actually have to PAY TAXES...enough with corporate welfare already...fascism...fascism...fascism. One day we'll wake up with a corporate insignia branded on our foreheads and rise in the morning not to work for our living but to ensure production quotas are met. lol...it isn't that bad I know, but really our top level of government doesn't really want to think about the rest of us first. Human beings by nature tend to take care of their own. I'm not rich. My parents are rich. Quite a few of my relatives were born into poverty here and work two jobs...one family is on and off of welfare...most are too prideful...many of my cousins joined up the service...it's the same story all over but not at the top. I think it starts with knowledge...There is a NEED for major overhaul of the public education system and we could do it. The money is there even today available to appropriate it in the right places and there are people who KNOW how to do it. It'd take a good decade to get it all right, but right now the paying field isn't even and the only way to get it close is to educate and present opportunities. The more educated one is the more productive a citizen will become. Educated people are more likely to vote and be aware of the current and rising problems in the country. Crooked self serving government...not a good thing to have. There's always going to be corruption in the government, but when there's THIS many something needs to be done. Personally, I think Delay needs to go...Frist needs to be gone not just for the likely crime he committed but with his history with Medicaid...Rove needs to be axed...and man Bob Taft...after years of wanting to see him go down all they can find is that he stole money...man he and Tom Noe will get their's...hopefully...it's funny how many 2004 election campaigns for republicans particularly Bush are being noticed NOW for probable money laundering.
Here's just a tiny smidget of Tom Noe and Bob Taft connections... http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00269.htm
Here's just a tiny smidget of Tom Noe and Bob Taft connections... http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00269.htm
Bib said:
Other sources? O like Bill O'Reily, Insannity & Combs, or your buddy Rush? It's not like Bush doesnt have a history of this kind of thing, Bush had previously stated that he felt like God had picked him to be Governor of Texas and then the President. I think he gets a kick out of it personally, either that or he is definetly a fanatic.
My sources are first hand in some cases particularly on the Noe, Taft shit...lol
The Palestinians have had a reputation for years of saying one thing in English and another thing in Arabic. I wouldn't trust that source at all.
man. ok fine. Give him time though. I'm sure he'll eventually say it if he actually hasn't. It's not as if the guy is the sharpest tool in the shed or he hasn't said ridiculously puzzling shit before. Listening to him "speak" is just insanely annoying as it is. Can anyone tell him he should understand some of the things he is talking about before he addresses anyone? He's perfected the art of reading to an audience something written for him as though we're all children trying to understand what is going on in some children's book.
But there is enough bullshit on this incopetent ass of a President that is indisputable that one doesn't have to go making up shit or, almost as bad, citing ridiculous sources like a Palestinian PR pimp. It's obvious that you do not like the man. I do not like him either, for some of the same reasons you don't, and for many different ones, being a lean conservative. That is no reason to go so far into left field that your four blocks from the ballpark to get arguments of his misdoings. Kal-el and other can criticize Fox News programs all day long, but they are still far more mainstream than what the left is using to try and convince the swingvote. The verdict is in on Michael Moore, Jeannine Garafolo, and that stupid cunt Cindy Sheehan. America has spoke in the past few elections. That kind of bullshit only energizes the extreme base (of which you may be a part of) and partisan hacks who would call Bush the greatest thing since sliced bread, if he were the same man with a "D" next to his name. That will NOT get a candidate that can win nominated. And I would like to be able to vote for a real Republican, and if not a real Democrat, but not another dipshit like this.
Kal-el said:
This propaganda has got to stop too. Bush is the farthest thing from "extreme right", assuming by right you mean conservative, as most anyone would.
A real conservative believes in a real free market and entrepreneurialism, not an economic oligarchy of fortune 500 corporations. A real conservative would have pushed to break down the bureaucratic walls between intelligence and law enforcement agencies without threatening to wire tap people like myself at will. You name the issue and I could probably go on an on.
To call Bush a conservative is an insult to conservatives. I used to think he was kind of liberal. In some ways yes, in some ways no. One could argue his actions to be extreme right or extreme left, depending on how you slant it, but the point is he is radically out of the mainstream.
penguinsfan said:
Where does that come from? I know you have to realize Michael Moore and whoever else did not front any bills for Cindy Sheehan like so many other lies have been spread about the woman. She did what she did because she wanted to voice her question to the President. If you're not a parent then you'd never understand losing your child. Regardless of who'd exploit her for whatever reasons it makes no difference because what she started needed to be covered. It's insane when you pop on the tv and some hack is draggin her name through the mud insinuating she is some kind of wacko nut. And what is the difference between a REAL republican and a REAL democrat? I think we need to realize we've long been electing the guys with the most money invested in their campaigns. Whatever happens after the person is elected we can only hope that they do an adequate job taking into consideration the country's needs as opposed to a party's interest. Something must have happened in the last few years for this country to be split the way it is right now. I'll say it is the impregnation of the obscene right wing into middle america...don't know where the republican party went, but I'd like it back myself. I'll take any liberal over one of the so called "conservatives" that we see and hear so much from. The real conservatives are finally starting to wake up enough to SAY something rather than just hoping everything will work out in the end. You could barely hear the echoes from the conservatives a while back, last year you could kind of make out some of the words, and now you can really hear them and they are saying..DAMN we were told this guy WASN'T a Conservative...we might be far left, but I'd rather be that than someone that puts corporate interests before people's like no other we've seen in a long while.
iwant8inches said:
No, I think Ms. Sheehan loves her moment of glory, the cameras tracking every action, the politicians and celebrities speaking so fondly of her, and the possibility that she'll get a sentence or two in future history books and that every child in America will read about Cindy's grandstanding. When you project yourself into the limelight, you open yourself up to criticism by the hacks. That is just the reality...deal with it, if you want to play the game.
It is not about not having sympathy for one that has lost a child. No, I haven't lost a child in combat and I'm sure neither have you, given your young age. Many people have over the past couple of years. Some cope with it better than others. Only one has made a complete ass of herself. And I didn't feel that way initially. Sure, I disagreed with her methodology and knew it wasn't going to get her anywhere, but it's her right to protest. But you become a stupid cunt, IMHO, when you make a statement such as "This country is not worth dying for." Guess what. That extremist rhetoric doesn't hit home with John and Nancy American. Casey Sheehan is NOT bigger than America, no matter how tragic his death may be. I can't be so cynical as to say her actions are completely phony, as her son did die afterall, but if it were anything less, I would suspect her to secretly be on Karl Rove's payroll. After all, Rove is a sneaky bastard and he's downright good at what he does. But in the end, I'm sure she is really just a woman with some possible mental issues that has had a difficult time dealing with her loss, and she looks to be such a coolaid drinking partisan hack that she just can't stop herself.
Sheehan said she would be responding to Casey's death in the same manner if he had died in the hunt for bin Laden and there had been no Iraq. Now Casey Sheehan is, in her warped mind, bigger that all of those that died on 9/11. Hell, even that fuckin' screwball Ralph Nader said if he had been President that there would have been no choice but some form of military response to 9/11. Again, that doesn't hit home with the average American. That is being a stupid cunt. Her speeches have chastized Israel for its policies towards the Palestinians and said terrorism would stop if the U.S. would withdrawl from Iraq and Israel would give in to all Palestinian demands. That's just being plain stupid, cunt or no cunt. But her most downright stupid comment was probably when she demanded that the national guard withdrawl from "occupied New Orleans" as if the relief effort by those men and women was some form of warfare.
So, I don't want there to be any confusion about my sentiments: I think she's a STUPID CUNT.
penguinsfan said:
Bush a liberal? Dude, I was born at night, but not last night,ok? The only thing he does that even remotely classifies him as liberal is that he is spending money like a ****ing drunken sailor, and he seems to be perfectly happy borrowing money until the damn fiscal cows come home.
http://www.maple.net/~trowbridge/promises.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0613-02.htm
If I remember correctly, in the 2000 election, he fooled the hell out of me by campaigning as a moderate. His slogan seemed to be, "Run center, govern right". The day after inaguration, I, as was alot of Americans were in for a rude awakening. And his stupid "compassionate conservative" election strategy is probably the greatest deception in US history. It was coined to show that the American public had indeed moved to the left. I remember him saying, "I'm not Newt Gingrich." His deceptive strategy actually fooled many people and acted as a "trojan horse"- to smuggle into Washington the most radical far-right agenda in decades.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020430.html.
This link is straight from the White House, so I don't intend on hearing the stupid political football ****.
penguinsfan said:
Dude, I kinda agree with you on Cindy Sheehan, although any protesting of this bloodshed can't be bad. After the anti-protest rally's accross the nation, make no mistake about it, the media is definately conservative and definately pro-war. There was hardly any mention of the largest anti-war protests since the Vietnam War from any of the major media outlets. The ones that did mention it, barely had two sentences of reporting. Unless you deliberately went looking for it, you would hardly know of the historical events of 2 weeks ago. So I say to all media in the US, you suck!
If a liberal media bias did exist, there would have been a lot more coverage of what happened in Washington. Liberal media is a myth. Conservative media is a reality.
Well, conservative media...it's corporate media. Exclude Fox News from news outlets in general though. The heads over there for Bush and the right wing and money. The right wing is where their bread is buttered.
I think Sheehan has taken more shit for what little she has said that might seem ignorant than the damn leader of this country who says some of the most deceptive and manipulative shit. Never stop riding that jackass in the Oval Office.
But honestly the things the source has said sound exactly like George W. Bush. The use of God to get votes is the oldest trick in the political handbook. Only idiots vote for those that use God and religion as a basis for taking a stand on any issue especially the dumb shit some people like to focus on banning or illegalizing. That being said, Bush is as full of himself as anyone we've seen lead this country in a long while. He'd like to think he's changing the WHOLE world for the better. It's too bad he can't see the shit he's caused HERE let alone abroad.
I think Sheehan has taken more shit for what little she has said that might seem ignorant than the damn leader of this country who says some of the most deceptive and manipulative shit. Never stop riding that jackass in the Oval Office.
But honestly the things the source has said sound exactly like George W. Bush. The use of God to get votes is the oldest trick in the political handbook. Only idiots vote for those that use God and religion as a basis for taking a stand on any issue especially the dumb shit some people like to focus on banning or illegalizing. That being said, Bush is as full of himself as anyone we've seen lead this country in a long while. He'd like to think he's changing the WHOLE world for the better. It's too bad he can't see the shit he's caused HERE let alone abroad.
Last edited: