Rigor

if you libs are so unhappy why dont you move to canada with moore.

JimmyTheHutt

However, for continued support from and for his party, he will have to continue to pursue their agenda. Thinking long term, he is just the first agent they have put into position. To maintain that position for his party beyond his administration, he will have to continue to win their loyalty. Therefore, he will push their agenda. He has so far attempted to push other items, but this is already causing them to become irate. Sooner ore later, he will start spewing the party line.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer

JimmyTheHutt

Because I love my country and do not wish to see it damaged by nonsensical agendas. Pretty simple, eh?

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer

trickyy

ok. i'm not saying he will be centrist. this thread addressed the idea that bush is going to be an unchecked wacko for four years.

i tried to imply that his main objectives were not social issues like gays and abortion. he wants to republicanize social security and tax laws, ho hum. my point was that no one voted for him based on those two issues; i don't recall much debate on them either. by now we know that bush and morals are like salt and pepper. but there are not obvious moral aspects attached to his stated monetary reforms.

civil unions? how is this different from kerry? evangelicals are not pleased. if civil unions grant sufficient rights, what is the point of an amendment banning marriage? maybe it's not ideal for gays, but civil unions are better than what they have now.

and what about abortion...when (and HOW) was he going to end that again? i don't see it happening under realistic circumstances. but i guess time will tell.

sure he's going to do some things that are controversial. i just don't think bush will be as evil as some people say.

tecoyah

Way to contribute productively.....

Rookie mistake....letting it slide

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

cbr9racr

>>>As for not being beholden to the religious right, he's already jumped right back on the same-sex marriage ban amendment train.<<<

This was his policy before the election...not exactly new.

>>>People may choose to live as conservatively as they like, but don't legislate your narrow morality on the rest of the country.<<<

Its not that easy. If you want conservative values in your home, and then your children get bombarded with liberal ideas at school and on TV, one must try to push conservative values outside the home. You can't be JUST conservative in your own home and expect that the world around you won't influence you and yours. *I have no kids*

>>> A 4 million vote margin out of 114 million votes does not grant the Right a mandate for that kind of oppression. <<<

So we've been oppressed since this country's inception? Seems like conservative values are what was pervasive throughout the country, only until recently...no?

roachboy

well, if you look at bush's nominee for attorney general--the guy who wrote the famous position paper that argued people held at guantanamo were not prisoners of war so the geneva convention did not apply--they could be held without trial, without council, without being charged, indefinitely, could be tortured if the whim arose--who argued that creating this kind of black hole is legal---a guy who referred to the geneva convention as "quaint"--then you can look at the relation of the first and second terms like this:

first time round you got a neocon core with a couple extremely conservative but ultimately ineffectual guys in the mix--ashcroft.

this time round, you'll get the real fascists--gonzalez.

what's to worry about?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

JimmyTheHutt

Or better yet, "What, me worry?", given Dubya's resemblance to a famous icon....

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer

Rigor

hey hey hey, i was just testing you... to see if you would catch me... good job BTW

seriously, this thread isnt anything but trash from the far left to try and make more people hate bush frther dividing our country. if people disagree, let them but dont let them make stuff up and give crazy theories as fact.

Ilow

well, this site works because people convene and share and debate ideas. Perhaps you could contribute something besides calling posters "far left Bush haters" with "crazy theories" and made up stuff. Like the reason moderate democrats should not be fearful of a conservative right-wing president who appears determined to undermine the constitution.

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

jack's liver

Are you trying to say no one has been killed by communism? If that's your best point about the nobility of evolution (an easier belief to be held by socialists or communists) you should really look at more history.

Did you read my post? Did I say "just give up - you loose!" I just said to go recharge your socialist battery in a socialist country so you can feel better. I'm just trying to give a sense of hope.

The best you can do is to attack me personally? Ok, yes I feel inferior to you - you got me (do you sense the sarcasm?).

The question of dinosaurs doesn't provide the "slam dunk" to your argument that you might think. There are plenty of ways to explain that away within the limits of creationism - the most plausible being the idea that God's creation of the earth in Seven Days was more of a simile than a literal statement. There are also suggestions from people that maybe god used parts of other worlds to create this one. Another one might be the simple faith challenge this "mystery" would bring to the less devout. In any event Dinosaur fossils only prove there are Dinosaur fossils. Let me put it this way, if there was a person on earth that demonstrated the same powers as Moses was purported to demonstrate. Say he performed some of the same miracles as were performed in that movie The Ten Commandments - would everyone accept this as proof? Of course they wouldn't, they would accept them just as Ramsees did - as sheer miraculous coincidence (those people would probably believe in evolution). Do I blame those people for their beleifs? No I don't - because I see believing in evolution as equatable to a religious belief.

So do you think you're proving your point yet? The funny thing is - I have yet to try and prove creationism to anyone or even say that evolution is an inferior arguement to creationism - I don't, no one theory is better than another. And to believe one is, is a mistake.

Back to the core arguement - the idea that somehow the re-election of GWB somehow brings this country closer to the bringing together of church and state is a big leap of faith on behalf of the "progressive left" (pun intended). All I know is I saw John Kerry in many more churches (this may have been biased news coverage, but the arguement still remains) campaigning for his election than George Bush - where was the concern/outrage? There wasn't much, mainly in my opinion, because everyone knows John Kerry has no christian beliefs - he's a poser. It was the same when he went duck hunting - did he sway the NRA to think he was pro gun rights? The fact is liberals know that GWB isn't a poser - and that scares them because when they see someone believe in religion they automatically equate that to "killing and oppression in the name of God/Allah." Instead maybe they should look at the benefits of Christian Charity to the world, or Jesus's admonition about peacemaking or turning the other cheek. But they don't because having an agnostic outlook at life is the same as having a pesimistic view of life.

Coppertop

Yes, that's exactly what I said in my post, isn't it? Oh, wait... no, it's not.

Yeah, sure. "Love it or leave it" has long since died. And please point out where I said I am a socialist. Oh, wait, I didn't...

Please point out... yeah, yeah, you get the point. You know, for someone who asks if I read your post you sure seem to fail to do it yourself.

The point about dinosaurs is that creationists claim the bible covers all of history (about 10,000 years). Surely someone in that time would have mentioned dinosaurs, hence they'd be in the bible. The only other option is that god put the fossils in the earth to fuck with our minds? Yeah, that makes sense.

Again, you cannot place evolution on the same plane as creationism. Creationism has 0 evidence for it. Evolution may very well be incorrect, or partially inaccurate, but the mounds of evidence for it are hard to ignore once the bilnders are off.

Liberals = agnostics? Nice leap there.

maestroxl

No, the surge of the power of the religious right started a little more than 30 years ago specifically in response to the abortion issue, then expanded to embrace a whole range of social issues. Our culture at the inception of our country was just as liberal for its time as it is now, perhaps more so. We are now the oldest secular republic in existence. The culture continues to progress and, like any growing organism, to test its boundaries against accepted norms. In reaction to this trend, the social conservatives have decided that everyone should live like them. The opposite view--the one that I promote--is we should all be free to live as we wish. Religious conservatives are free to worship in their way and be as open about their beliefs as they wish while respecting my right not to be. They have no right to censor my tastes no matter how it may offend them.

__________________
be the change you want

jack's liver

If Liberals (and I mean those people that would consider voting for John Kerry, someone who doesn't believe in abortion but won't stand against it, which is like saying I don't believe in murder but let's make it legal) aren't agnositc (and if you don't know what the word means go google it and then come back to this post) then they wouldn't be liberal. It's like saying I'm a conservative that wants to vote for Kerry (which makes no sense). In other words you should read the word agnositic in a book of synonomous terms when you look up liberal (this is kind of sarcasm of course because they don't technically mean the same thing, I'm sure not all liberals are agnostic, but if you're a self-defined agnositic you're definately liberal - like it or not). If you are a Liberal and are not agnositic - you are either very young and naive or confused.

JohnnyRoyale

Sen: It's called checks and balances. Basically, no-one in govenment has enough power to unilaterally dictate a course of action. Obviously, in some instances (Pear harbor, september 11, 2001), the country and the government is galvanized of immediate reaction, but in the long run, any one part of the three banches of government can stop the other two (The supreme court can strike down a federal law, the persident can veto, and the combined senate can vote down either of those two).

__________________
I'm gonna be rich and famous, as soon I invent a device that lets you stab people in the face over the internet.

Coppertop

Yeah, these two sentences make sense.

I would suggest that you look up the definitions of words you profess to know.

pedro padilla

If you have any kind of US banked savings you might want to convert them to Euros yesterday. I think all the paranoia is pretty well justified. Rampant is the understatement of the century.

JimmyTheHutt

Do you understand what a conservative really is? Because I AM A CONSERVATIVE and I VOTED FOR KERRY. A conservative, in political terms, subscribes to the belief that the government that governs best, governs least. Can you explain to me how GWB's policies support that agenda? Because they don't, in any way, shape, or form. And four more years of the mockery he and his cronies have made of true conservatism should have scared any true conservative away from the GOP. If you are endorsing GWB then you are not a conservative, because supporting his agenda is against everything a true conservative stands for.

Oh, yeah, BTW, I'm an atheist too. So are most of the other conservatives I know. There is not automatically a relationship between the existence of faith and one's political leanings. If you look at the actions of Christ, he was a liberal, technically speaking.

Veritas En Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

__________________
Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs....

"This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end."
-ShadowDancer

shakran

Would you care to explain the logic underlying that conclusion?

In order to be liberal one has to be uncertain as to the presence of a "higher being" of some sort? Why? What made you think this? Who told you this? What planet are they from?

And so forth.