Bush - Man of God?

“The problems we have are much larger than Jr.

I hear he has to wear a defribillator at all times now (that's what the box on his back was) and apparently that was what caused his 'pretzel face smashing'... his heart stopped, he fainted and collapsed and hit his face.

So if Jr. had a heart attack and dropped dead or something, then Cheney would just be in charge. And he's got heart problems too, so he could drop dead, and then who would be in charge, is it Delay or something?

Jr. is hardly the problem at all. He's kind of inconsequential to be honest.

It's not like ANY of the things he's doing are his idea, LOL.
last edited: 1/07/05 12:14:18 PM”

“Ahhhh Bear-hopper, you have acheived much in a short time. Now if you can only learn to pick your nose with your little toe, you will be truly enlightened.”

“Nigal, the negativity of the left is what sustains them as a people.”

“

Is all lies concocted by western radical leftist fascist press to confuse American people. Is no Americans in Iraq.”

“Why don't people just shut up about Kerry?

Bush won the election.

Now, we need to focus on our current problems. How do we stop our soldiers and friends in Iraq from being killed at an increasing rate?

How do we, over the course of the next ten or 20 years, build an Iraq that will be Democratic? Or at least a country that will act as a secular hedge against Iran and Osama like Saddam used to?

And how do we accomplish all this within a balanced budget?

My hope is that the fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party rise up.”

“Maybe if we could all pick our nose with our little toes the world would be a happier place?”

“

Mission Accomplished!

We are winning the War on Terror!

The Deaths Mean Progress!

American can handle the deficits!

There is 500 tons of VX gas in Iraq!

I do not get royalties from a lumber company!”

“Beauty --”

“I think negativity perpetuates the left and the right, sort of a ying and yang thang, only with negative results instead of positive. Whenever I find myself leaning 1 way or the other, I whack myself in the head with a 2x4. That usually knocks the spindoctors out and clears my head. Either that or I go hiking...”

“I appreciate your point of view. If we focus on the positive things in life the negatives don't matter as much.”

“My sentiments exactly. Let's hope our troops come home safe, soon.”

“I hope they don't come home soon. I hope they stay there for a long, long time. Creating an Iraq that is successful will require many more troops, many more lives and much more money. And years and years of American involvement.

We, as a nation, believe that Iraq is important. We voted this way. We shouldn't run from this. We should send more troops and more money there.

We should forget social security reform and use the money for the "private accounts" to support the Iraq situation. We should use it to pay troops more and armor more vehicles.

We should abolish the prescription drug benefit we just gave the seniors and send that money to Iraq. We should take the money that we are spending on No Child Left Behind and send it to Iraq.

We will never make Iraq better unless we are willing to sacrifice some very painful things for a very long time. This means money. This means lives. This means permanent disability for many.

But we shouldn't fight this half-way. We made a commitment. Now we should live up to it. I'll bet a trillion dollars and 30,000 lives might make Iraq a pretty nice place in 20 years.”

“There's a lot to be said about "Don't worry be happy", but I am a realist, probably to a fault.

Sitting around 'praying our troops come home safe & soon' will not make it happen, I would argue that it is actually this attitude that creates the political climate for which people can get away with these things.

Daddy, Jr., and the GOP payees aren't going to make any decisions that cost them the oil, nor the contracts.

I suspect Jr. thinks of Iraq as his 'big score' for the mob family.

Do you know his history / when he became an alcoholic?

Most people know that Jr. started an oil company in Texas, but most don't know why / what happened. Seems Daddy Sr. had the view that he wasn't going to get any of his sons elected until they made it in the business world.

So Jr. started an oil company, and contrary to popular belief, he did actually acquire some oil fields with oil. Only one problem. Too much peace in the world, oil was only worth $9/barrel so he couldn't make enough to cover costs and he lost his ass... because oil was too cheap.

The year after the bankruptcy was when he became an alcoholic and shortly after got the DUI. Then he 'found God' became a born-again Christian and after two more bankrupt companies, some insider stock trading, then Daddy let him run for office.

The morale to this story is... cheap oil prices are at the root of Jr.'s failures as a person.

Jr. isn't ever giving up the oil in Iraq so long as he remains effective politically, and that means the Iraqis who refuse to give up on Democracy (where they choose THEIR leaders) are going to suffer horrifically and it also means our troops ain't ever coming home. ... not so long as Jr. is in office.”

“>We should abolish the prescription drug
>benefit we just gave the seniors

LOL, that's funny. The GOP didn't give squat to seniors, they gave $500B to the U.S. drug monopolies. These drug ads you see on T.V.? Who pays for them? Why you do!

We could have a Democracy in 30 days flat. All they have to do is allow the Iraqis to front their own candidates. They could've had a Democracy in Iraq 90 days after the invasion.

The people in the country, despite the way they are portrayed are actually very highly educated, and the people shooting at the troops? Most of them have higher education degrees than the poor rural kids Jr. has sent out there to catch the bullets.”

“TrailTurtle!

I respect your position.

But here's what I see going down. They'll hold these elections at the end of the month. Then, they'll slap a hundred thousand uniforms on some people and call it an army. Then, they'll wait for a month with minimal casualties and pull the troops out.

Now, I didn't believe in this war. I think it was a colossal mistake. However, we as a nation did vote to support the Bush administration on his Iraqi policy. I believe that this last election was almost completely a referendum on this.

And I believe that Colin Powell was right when he said that if we break it, we bought it. It is our responsibility now to stay there for as long as it takes, whatever the cost....until it either gets better OR we have exhausted all of our avenues to make it better. Then, we would just leave in disgrace.

But I don't think that the world will ever take us seriously again if we don't stay there. Bush better not pull those troops out.”

“Again, the war was wrong.

But Bush needs to stop focusing on social security and taxes and focus on the war. All available resources should be placed there. It means EVERYTHING.

And all the pantywaists out there who supported this war at the beginning and now have "questions" better sit themselves down and start talking sense again. The worst thing to do is to commit to something and then turn tail.”

“Turtle!

I think you do bring up a good point about all the people out there hoping the troops return home safely. Americans seem more focused on the safety of the troops rather than whether they are accomplishing the mission.

What's better? An army that loses a few soldiers per day, but spends all its time sitting in bunkers behind massive walls of concrete.

Or is it better to have soldiers out walking the streets, getting to know and help the Iraqis and taking many, many more casualties but building support for the occupation and ACCOMPLISHING THE MISSION.

Bush seems to have come to a realization that opposition to the war will not really be that strong as long as we only lose a handful of troops per day. So, he decides not to take risks that might actually result in a better outcome.

You might call it a slight turn of tail.”

“I want a little yellow magnetic ribbon for my car that says "Support the Mission."”

“And,the mission is?................build more bases.”

“Mission?

Capture The Oil

Ganster capitalism........one-oh-one”

“>Then, they'll slap a hundred thousand uniforms
>on some people and call it an army. Then,
>they'll wait for a month with minimal
>casualties and pull the troops out.

Welp, this is one place we can learn from Vietnam, and according to my Dad who was there, they tried for 10 years to train the Vietnamese to fight their own country man for us such that we could maintain control.

10 years they tried to do exactly the same thing as Jr. is trying to do in Iraq. You can't tell me that in 10 years time-span they didn't try every trick in the book. I mean the entire premise is ridiculous anyway.

If Russians invaded America and installed a Russian puppet to run the government. I don't care how mislead I think bbw and the others are, I'm not going to have a Russian telling me to go hunt him down and kill him. Now, he might piss me off enough on my own, LOL (just kidding)... but a Russian invader is not going to make me do it.

Only it's worse than this situation, as at least 40% of the Iraqis blame the U.S. *directly* for the downfall of their country since '91 largely because of the sanctions.

The Shiites want to be put in power, the Sunni used to be in power, but they are all unified in wanting the U.S. out. There is no disagreement there among any Iraqis, and the minute the U.S. is gone, they'll nationalize the oil, just like Mossadegh did in Iran when Iran had a 100% REAL arab Democracy, and a very successful one at that... at least until we replaced him and installed the Shah who brutalized the people.

I read an article that Jr. has been using racism to get the Iraqis to fight each other. I.e., he had the Kurd military involved in Fallujah (Sunni) which have racial hatred, kind of like the North / South in the U.S., but even then they didn't really take U.S. orders very well, they very much have their own plans and ideas...

They all do, and the U.S. isn't included in any of them.

Things will get very interesting after the so-called election where you don't elect anyone with any power. Because that's when the Shiites will be expecting real political power, oil revenue, etc., and they won't be getting it...”

“Read "Killing Hope" by William Blum.....more ugliness.”

“Read 'Citizen Soldier' by Stephen E. Ambrose.”

“Inauguration Controversy Widens

Crosses will be banned from this month's inaugural parade in Washington, D.C.

The Jan. 20 presidential inauguration is causing controversy—and religion is at the heart of the strife.

Not only is the phrase "under God" in the president's oath under attack from an atheist who has filed suit to stop any prayers from being said during the ceremony, now crosses have been banned from the inaugural parade.

Critics are calling it religious discrimination and censorship.

The Rev. Patrick Mahoney and the Christian Defense Coalition were granted a permit to hold a prayer vigil and demonstration during the parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day. In that permit the list of prohibited "structures" includes crosses—along with bicycles, crates, coffins, cages and statues.

Mahoney is outraged.

"Why were crosses singled out over any other religious symbol—the Star of David, Islamic symbols?" Mahoney asked. "This is offensive. It's, in my view, religious bigotry."

Apparently there would be no prohibition against a picture of a cross. A Secret Service spokeswoman, who would not consent to a formal interview, nevertheless said the ban is only against "structures" of a cross.

Erik Stanley of Liberty Counsel said he doesn't think the intent of the Secret Service is to ban a religious symbol.

"It was to ban a structure that could conceal a weapon," Stanley said." You know, in these days of terrorist threats after 9/11, the Secret Service is already on high alert, particularly where the inauguration of the president is concerned."

It is unfortunate, he added, that the word "crosses" was used. Mahoney, meanwhile, is unfazed.

"We will not rest or be comfortable," he said, "until they take crosses completely out of the prohibited list of props and structures."”

“Huh. I thought liberals liked freedom. Guess not.”

“You know, we all have to make sacrifices in the war against terror. I'd have to ask this Rev. Mahoney why he wants to help give Osama bin Laden and the terrorists assistance in hiding explosives. It's un-American, really.”

“Violink presents a liberal faith based initiative.”

“But seriously, I'm sure Americans would be willing to give up just a little bit of their freedom of religion for security against terrorists. I'm just not sure if this Mahoney guy is "with us" in the fight.”

“Wasn't the phrase under God (and the phrase In God We Trust to money) added in the 1950's as a measure against Soviet communism? The Soviets were notorious for being athiests, and those phrases represented a reluctance toward their principles.

Perhaps, in this sense, their purpose is obselete these days. But then again, I guess old habits die hard, don't they?”

“LOL... I was kind of wondering why the S.S. would ban the crosses and I think I realized why.

Bush's most zealotous supports most assuredly are the Christian contingent... imagine the background photo-ops with all the Bush people wearing crosses ... in the backgrounds.”

“I think the Democratic strategy to paint Christians as wacko's is a good one.”

“I think that they should change "under God" in the oath to "faithfully serving God and all his righteous principles in the battle against Satan." The founding fathers were, of course, all Christians. They probably just forgot to put that line in.

We've really had too many lawsuits from people trying to eliminate this kind of language. What we need is a movement to make the God references in government so outlandish that they'll just make everyone laugh.”

“Actually they weren\'t all Christians, there was one atheist. But the Christians back then seem to be a lot smarter than the ones today.



Ben Franklin, who was very religious, actually led the charge *against* integrating faith and government in many speeches for the reasons of practicality.

What was the main reason he was against it?

Because religion in government virtually guarantees endless conflict and instability.
last edited: 1/12/05 9:03:13 PM”

“It's in the courts too. What do you suppose you swear on when you take the stand? And even more importantly, what happens when a non-Christian takes the stand?

Didn't think of that one there, now did we?”

“What I find humorous is that conservatives seem to pride themselves on a passionate distrust of government.

Then, all they want is government funding and government connections for things like faith-based initiatives and religious schools.

Has anyone else come to the realization that what makes religion so strong and vibrant in America is the fact that it is completely private sector without the inherent inefficiencies of government?

When left to the free-market, religion will grow at a greater rate than when bound by the fetters of government.

Vote Jesus. Vote Separation of Church and State.”

“Wow, I can almost feel guys like Franklin and Jefferson rolling in their graves. I'm sure if the founding fathers wanted references to God in government charter documents, they would've put there in there, no?

I'm telling you, the "God" references in all the oaths, documents, etc. are purely (now obselete) political references against Soviet communists.

But enough about a measeley little phrase. I mean, seriously, who cares? Don't we have bigger things to worry about, like terrorists and the completely failing Dept of Homeland Insecurity, that appears to be doing nothing but scaring the be-jesus (pun intended -- hahahahaha...I made a funny) out of people? Or the fact that there are way too many people out there that cannot afford any healthcare?
last edited: 1/12/05 9:25:12 PM”

“Be aware, of course, that much of Europe has well-established religiously based parties - Christian Democrats and the like.

Are you for the American principle of free market religion?

Or are you for more European-based religious socialism?”

“

The more religious the person is, the darker their demons.

Jesus is basiclaly a drug for people who don't want to deal with the reality of the world for some reason or another.

On the whole, and from the rationalists' perspective, this is generally good. For instance religion does seem to be a viable long-term replacement for alcoholism, drug-use, and other things. Would you want someone thumping the Bible and going to church or driving drunk and shooting up?

*BUT* the bad side of religion is the effect of the escape from reality... they are indifferent to reality. Religion makes people unaware, stupid, and close minded.

The result is they are ripe for the picking of anyone who further's their fantasies (and thus their escape from reality).”

“The tide has turned. Republicans are screwed.”

“Trailturtle, that last post is crap.”

“The cartoon or my wording?

I'll stop thinking of religion as a drug to escape from reality the moment I meet a personal falsification to that theory.

I.e., when I meet a really really hard-core religious person who doesn't have either demons of some kind, or reality that they want to escape from.

Every ultra-religious person I know (not talking about the occasional church-goers & stepford people) that talks about God a lot has either had a substance abuse problem they are running from or some other issue (abusive husband, etc.)

Maybe someday I'll find someone whom that isn't the case.

Oh yeah, there is one other category of people that are ultra-religious and doesn't fit...

... those that make their money off of it.
last edited: 1/12/05 9:41:31 PM”

“Keep saying Jesus is a drug.

I think you have a platform slogan.”

“Naaah, if I keep saying "Jesus is a drug" instead of 52%, the GOP might end up with 70% or more. ... LOL”

“Whoa, dude. Just because we don't (aren't supposed to) promote any one religion doesn't mean the idea of religion should totally be condemned. If it works for you, then it works for you. Go for it. But hey, worship your own faith and don't push it on someone else.

Christianity and Socialism are completely independent factors. European governments are very openly pro-Christian, as a very large majority of Europeans are Christian. I don't think we should be looking to them for models, as it might be difficult to find something that equally tolerates other religions. As for the socialism, it seems to work for them, but on the flipside, it's also very expensive. Can we afford it, especially with a budget that as far in the red as it has ever been before? Besides, do they really have the resources and supply to actually back such a concept? More importantly, do we?”

“Ya think?

You might be under estimating your charisma and credibility.”

“Oh, I wouldn't condemn or ban *ANY* religion for almost any reason short of them putting a gun to people's heads and saying 'convert or die' (like what Jr. is doing in Iraq).

Religion lives in a world of knowledge and thought that is known as "meta-science" or "pseudo-science". It is science that can not be tested (and the corollary is because it isn't repeatedly testable you shouldn't use it for making decisions / etc.).

But all great ideas come from this space that religion lives in... the 'meta-science' as it were.

I.e., there are lots of great ideas in Christianity, particularly humanitarianism and other things that are very useful concepts and have driven social policy in many ways that have benefitted everyone.

So you'll never see me condemning or banning any kind of meta-science (except in the case I talked about above, like what Jr. is doing to the Iraqis... i.e., militant totalitarianism).... because I don't want to kill off the idea factories, even if what they are currently producing is pretty much useless B.S., LOL.”

“Hey, don't back off now. I think your anti-religion campaign is a winner.”

“Yeah! Your slogan could be ... "Liberals are open-minded ... (unless your opinion is different than ours)."

Hopefully you can pull in either the Nascar or the Oprah voter base.”

“Hysterical”