PDA

View Full Version : Unite not Divide


American
11-12-2004, 01:42 PM
Seems like a lot of people on here spread nothing but hate and propaganda. I think that we need to focus more on love and the truth. So what if Bush won. So what if Kerry lost. The people on the right need to quit acting childish and trying to rub it in the face of the left. The people on the left need to understand that not everyone feels the same way you do and maybe you should try and look at it from another angle. There are always 2 sides to every story and unfortunately people on the right and left only see it their way. One of the biggest problems in this country is our 2 party system. Decisions aren't based on what is good for America. They are based on what will make one party or the other look good. For the parties it is less about America and more about power. The sooner the average American realizes this, the sooner we will be able to get our politicians to start doing what is right for our country, not for their party. I see people on here using terms that they say are too emphasize their point when in actuality they are misconstruing the truth to exaggerate their point. Quit focusing on the sub-sub-sub issues and focus on what the root of the problem is. Division. The sooner we unite as Americans, the better we will be. I'm so sick of Asian-Americans, African-Americans, Irish-Americans, Jewish-Americans. This is America. If you want to live here and be a citizen and be proud of your country, then be AMERICAN! Be proud of your heritage, I am. But I am more proud of who I am. An American. These political parties pit us against one another to continue their power struggle. The only minority we have in this country are the ones that see past republicans and democrats and see America. I know that it is unrealistic to think that we can all unite as Americans and agree on everything but we can all unite as Americans. 2 of the best lessons that I learned as a child were, you can't win every time, and you can't always have your way.

Space
11-12-2004, 02:03 PM
*moderate*

D_Raay
11-12-2004, 02:43 PM
Seems like a lot of people on here spread nothing but hate and propaganda. I think that we need to focus more on love and the truth. So what if Bush won. So what if Kerry lost. The people on the right need to quit acting childish and trying to rub it in the face of the left. The people on the left need to understand that not everyone feels the same way you do and maybe you should try and look at it from another angle. There are always 2 sides to every story and unfortunately people on the right and left only see it their way. One of the biggest problems in this country is our 2 party system. Decisions aren't based on what is good for America. They are based on what will make one party or the other look good. For the parties it is less about America and more about power. The sooner the average American realizes this, the sooner we will be able to get our politicians to start doing what is right for our country, not for their party. I see people on here using terms that they say are too emphasize their point when in actuality they are misconstruing the truth to exaggerate their point. Quit focusing on the sub-sub-sub issues and focus on what the root of the problem is. Division. The sooner we unite as Americans, the better we will be. I'm so sick of Asian-Americans, African-Americans, Irish-Americans, Jewish-Americans. This is America. If you want to live here and be a citizen and be proud of your country, then be AMERICAN! Be proud of your heritage, I am. But I am more proud of who I am. An American. These political parties pit us against one another to continue their power struggle. The only minority we have in this country are the ones that see past republicans and democrats and see America. I know that it is unrealistic to think that we can all unite as Americans and agree on everything but we can all unite as Americans. 2 of the best lessons that I learned as a child were, you can't win every time, and you can't always have your way.

I am a bit surprised. Especially considering your post the other day. You seem to make your right wing position known. However, this a good post it is just asking too much as long as we are continually fed the massive amount of bullshit on a daily basis.
I think the real issue is integrity. It seems to be a forgotten ideal. As you put it, the exaggerations, are just as bad the outright lies. The Bush administration is festering boil on the idea of integrity which is why I have gone so far to the left. Past the left even.

I like your position, I just don't see it happening...

Whois
11-12-2004, 02:59 PM
Maybe when the Dems and Repubs decide to start sharing power (with the rest of us) we can have some peace.

Until then, they can rot.

ASsman
11-12-2004, 03:07 PM
Hitler and the Jews should have united. I mean c'mon they were living in the same country....

Whois
11-12-2004, 04:03 PM
Seems like a lot of people on here spread nothing but hate and propaganda.


What, like this:

"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." - AG John Ashcroft

Ace42
11-12-2004, 05:46 PM
Seems like a lot of people on here spread nothing but hate and propaganda.

How is embarking upon an illegal war NOT spreading hate and propoganda?

The people on the left need to understand that not everyone feels the same way you do and maybe you should try and look at it from another angle.

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=35796&highlight=bush+supporters+touch

As refreshing as looking at the situation from a misinformed and brainwashed standpoint is, it seems to be the right's fallacy that "the truth is subjective."

A very tenuous standpoint to try to maintain without resorting to some very liberal philosophical wrangling.

drobertson420
11-12-2004, 08:43 PM
Hitler and the Jews should have united. I mean c'mon they were living in the same country....





So is this what Hitler told the Jews? We have to unite.
.


Allright, ASs: Are You saying that Republicans and Democrats are like Hitler and The Jews? You've mentioned it more than once..... ;)

ASsman
11-12-2004, 09:45 PM
Not exactly. Using that analogy loosely. Im just trying to show that it's stupid to think we should "unite" when one side believes they are let soldiers get killed for just reasons, while the other believes these soldiers are just sent off to die for no actual reason except greed. Also applies to other aspects, not just soldiers.. Use your imagination.

American
11-12-2004, 10:21 PM
I am a bit surprised. Especially considering your post the other day. You seem to make your right wing position known.

I have right and left wing positions. I see good in both sides. I also see bad in both sides. I feel that it is important to point out the good in both and build on it. It is also equally important to point out the bad IN BOTH SIDES, not just I hate Bush or I hate Kerry. I know it seems like it will never happen and that is something that is very possible. Seems like most Americans don't want anything if they have to work hard for it. They would rather bitch and moan hoping someone else fixes the problem. That will never happen. We have to get off of our lazy asses and work to make this happen. EVERYONE! This is why I feel that it will not happen. The rich will still look for breaks from the republicans and the poor will still look for handouts from the democrats.

American
11-12-2004, 10:25 PM
How is embarking upon an illegal war NOT spreading hate and propoganda?



http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=35796&highlight=bush+supporters+touch

As refreshing as looking at the situation from a misinformed and brainwashed standpoint is, it seems to be the right's fallacy that "the truth is subjective."

A very tenuous standpoint to try to maintain without resorting to some very liberal philosophical wrangling.
So you are telling me that ONLY republicans authorized the war in Iraq? And you are also telling me that everyone that supports Bush is a moron and everyone that supported Kerry was a realist? Your post doesn't even deserve a reply. It only adds to the problem. QUIT FOCUSSING ONLY ON THE NEGATIVE!

American
11-12-2004, 10:30 PM
Not exactly. Using that analogy loosely. Im just trying to show that it's stupid to think we should "unite" when one side believes they are let soldiers get killed for just reasons, while the other believes these soldiers are just sent off to die for no actual reason except greed. Also applies to other aspects, not just soldiers.. Use your imagination.
You should quit trying to be sarcastic and understand my point. This country is The UNITED States of America. Not the 2 Parties of America. We need to quit focussing on which party may be right or wrong and focus on what is right for our country. Both parties are right on some issues and wrong on others. Why should we have to settle for the lesser of 2 evils? We need to push for alternatives to either a republican or a democrat. Maybe just an American.

ASsman
11-12-2004, 10:39 PM
Sounds to me like you are the one being sarcastic... Also you are simply repeating things that have been said on these boards already. Not acting on your beliefs is hypocracy so.. And you have caught the boards in a Bush nut-job frenzy. All these idiots have swarmed these boards shooting nothing but bullshit from their mouths. Like most people before you, you assume. Yah we see that there are things wrong with both parties. Guess whose in charge now..... Guess who we have to critisize the most... Also who got us into this war, who is fucking us all over. I see your point, there needs to be change, and alot of it. But not by making concessions. You want concessions then join the Democractic party, they know all about that.

American
11-12-2004, 10:51 PM
Sounds to me like you are the one being sarcastic... Also you are simply repeating things that have been said on these boards already. Not acting on your beliefs is hypocracy so.. And you have caught the boards in a Bush nut-job frenzy. All these idiots have swarmed these boards shooting nothing but bullshit from their mouths. Like most people before you, you assume. Yah we see that there are things wrong with both parties. Guess whose in charge now..... Guess who we have to critisize the most... Also who got us into this war, who is fucking us all over. I see your point, there needs to be change, and alot of it. But not by making concessions. You want concessions then join the Democractic party, they know all about that.
I refuse to join any party. I'm happy just being an American concerned with what is wrong with my country, not what party is in charge. And what have I assumed? Why do you attack me when all I am asking for is a little cooperation between the people in our country? Are you that filled with hate? If so you don't have to spread it. I'll tell you who got us in to this war and it is a long list. Saddam, Osama, every terrorist in the world, EVERY REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT THAT VOTED YES, not just Bush. The president is not much more than a fall guy. The congress runs this country and as aparent by a lot of the posts in this forum, we need someone to blame. That is where the president comes in to play. I blame a 2 party power struggle and lazy Americans that bitch and moan instead of taking action! Please quote me where I said we need to concede. You oviously misunderstood me. I said nothing of concessions, but rather take action! People like you that is not afraid to voice an opinion is a good place to start. We just need to focus on the issues that can bring about change.

ASsman
11-12-2004, 10:58 PM
Ah there we go. I dug far enough and found it. This argument has been made, and has been shot down. I will stop being the spokeperson for truth on these boards. Read up if you wish, but most posts around here assume a knowledge base.


Also yes you could say I am filled with hate, for some odd reason your country has that effect on me. Not to say I don't see any hope, hell if a civil war didn't destroy us, another one shouldn't. Also I assumed what you meant from such a vauge statement, guessed wrong... Im wasn't sure what you meant by unite. Again I have already said the President is not the only to blame, but it seems presidents get us into undeclared wars... Or do you have some proof that congress has actually declared war. And you are right the President isn't the only one to blame, I agree with you and Chomsky. The problem starts deeper than that. But let's take baby steps, shit half of voters chose Bush, something is really fucked up. And by this again don't assume I am blaming him solely. Im just saying all these people with very limited knowledge of the rest of the goverment have already started off on the wrong foot.

For starters.... http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=22958

Also who is dividing who? I don't understand who you are blaming and why? Is it people like me? Should I not expect more from people and my government? Should I simply go with the flow?

American
11-12-2004, 11:10 PM
Ah there we go. I dug far enough and found it. This argument has been made, and has been shot down. I will stop being the spokeperson for truth on these boards. Read up if you wish, but most posts around here assume a knowledge base.


Also yes you could say I am filled with hate, for some odd reason your country has that effect on me.

But let's take baby steps, shit half of voters chose Bush, something is really fucked up.

What did you find? What arguement? Most posts in here are filled with propoganda lies.

What country are you from?

Half of the voters chose Bush? Over half of the voters chose Bush. Looking at Bush and Kerry made me think of one thing. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit. We were fuct either way you look at it. If you drive a piece of shit car but you know it runs, are you going to take a chance by trading it in on another piece of shit that you aren't sure if it runs? I guess over half the people in America wouldn't take that chance.


On a side note, placing blame solves nothing. Pointing out what is wrong is a place to start but without a solution you get no where with it.

ASsman
11-12-2004, 11:15 PM
What did you find? What arguement? Most posts in here are filled with propoganda lies.
Yes we like to refrer to real news as propoganda lies (of course this is as much a generalization as yours). That is all I needed to know. I can see clearly now where you are coming from. I hope you atleast clarify your argument first.


On a side note, placing blame solves nothing. Pointing out what is wrong is a place to start but without a solution you get no where with it.
The same could be said about arguing the same thing with every idiot who comes here.

On a sidenote.. Ignore the link I posted, really it will only prove many of the arguments you believe to be true. Of no real relevance.

American
11-12-2004, 11:27 PM
At least I tried ASSman. I tried to have a civil discussion with you and tried to understand your point of view. Too bad it was blurred with hate and sarcasm and a lack of respect for my opinion. Your arrogant, your view is right and everyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong and everyone that doesn't automatically know what your view is is stupid will only continue to add to the problem. I guess you are smart and I am not. At least I can say that I tried.

American
11-12-2004, 11:31 PM
Also who is dividing who? I don't understand who you are blaming and why? Is it people like me? Should I not expect more from people and my government? Should I simply go with the flow?
The parties are dividing American with their struggle for power. We are lazy so we just go with one or the other instead of saying, "Hey, wait, neither one of you are worth a shit. We deserve better." And I try not to place blame. It solves nothing. People like you are what we need more of. We need people to stand up and speak their mind. I just feel like you are focussing on the wrong issues. You are focussing on the issues that BOTH sides lie about. This is why I feel that we need to focus on what is right and build from there. Obviously I have not been the least bit clear. The entire point to my thoughts is that we should expect far more from our people and our government. FAR MORE! I just don't see anyone doing anything about it but bitching and moaning the way the generation before us did and the one before that and the one before that and so on. Am I making more sense? If not I will continue to try and clarify because I feel that this is important.

Don't hate me because I have trouble expressing myself in words on a forum. I could do like many others and not even try.

ASsman
11-12-2004, 11:31 PM
Didn't a very good job at it though. Im sure if anyone else gave half a shit they would have done a better job. As for civil discussions... Sorry I couldn't be more helpful, except for this entire board, and the link I pointed you to. Really sorry, you seem to not have your head up your ass, just in the wrong direction.

But really speaking of respecting opinions.

Most posts in here are filled with propoganda lies.

Hehe, hypocracy tickles me. Also opinions are bullshit, arguments are something else, they require facts to back them up. Take your opinions were they are worth something, and when you do come back and tell us about this magical land.

I could waste my time breaking down your arguments and refute them if possible. But why do that. Ill leave that up to you.

In the meantime act on what seems to be your opinion. Join the Army, lock and load soldier. SandNiggers wait for no one.

American
11-12-2004, 11:42 PM
Please see my post right above yours. Must have submitted at the same time. No need for me to join the Army. I already served my country in the Navy about 9 years ago. As far as the propoganda I am talking about the bullshit links to false war crimes and bogus news sources. I am not talking about anyone's opinion. Do not assume this. Be real. There is a lot of propoganda on this site. One thread with an opinion does not disprove this. Everyone on here assumes that when someone says there is propoganda we are talking about the Bush haters. Either they are way too uptight or they are struggling with a guilty conscience. I see propoganda as propoganda not matter what side it is on.

American
11-12-2004, 11:46 PM
I could waste my time breaking down your arguments and refute them if possible. But why do that. Ill leave that up to you.


My argument has and continues to be that there is a problem in our country and it comes from both sides. Part of the problem is that we have 2 sides instead of one united country. My argument also continues with, something needs to be done other than bitching and moaning and placing blame to correct these problems. PLEASE, BY ALL MEANS, BREAK THIS DOWN AND REFUTE IT!!!!!

D_Raay
11-13-2004, 02:24 AM
Seriously American, I think we all agree with your sentiments, but you are swimming against the tide here. You might be anywhere else too. This country was bought, sold and paid for a long time ago and all the uniting in the world isn't going to do any good.

You want to know why? The very people we elect into office are the ones who are dividing us. They want it that way, it's good for business and good for re-elections. If we had nothing to bitch about there jobs would be rather pointless don't you think. But even most politicians have limits to hypocrisy.

The reason I started posting here and being active in politics started just after 9/11. I spent two weeks there (I am from Virginia) helping the authorities in any way I could, even if it was just to bring them water. The feel on the streets of New York was amazing I have to say. Their was palpable unity and resolve in the air. You could feel it. And then...... came the Bush administration. We went from candlelight vigils in the streets of IRAN, yes I said Iran who Bush shortly after that called part of "the axis of evil" boogidy boogidy, to thousands protesting in the streets over the direction these "people", and I use that term loosely with them, had taken us. We had a chance to become a really great nation after 9/11 and our powers that be didn't allow it. They stonewalled investigations into 9/11, giving the impression they had something to hide or someone to cover for, they invaded a sovereign nation causing countless innocent civilian deaths, in our names mind you, on constantly changing sets of rationale, again raising the doubts over the real reasons behind it. I could go on but I think you get the idea.

So American when you say we shouldn't put a face to the evil, you have to wonder whether evil hasn't already chosen it's face and it fits him quite nicely. Just my opinion, bud, I am not quite as surly as good ol' ASsman.

American
11-13-2004, 03:13 AM
Seriously American, I think we all agree with your sentiments, but you are swimming against the tide here. You might be anywhere else too. This country was bought, sold and paid for a long time ago and all the uniting in the world isn't going to do any good.

You want to know why? The very people we elect into office are the ones who are dividing us. They want it that way, it's good for business and good for re-elections. If we had nothing to bitch about there jobs would be rather pointless don't you think. But even most politicians have limits to hypocrisy.



You say it isn't going to do us any good? Well what will? If coming together as one strong nation with one purpose isn't going to do us any good then we should just give up now and quit bitching. We have already lost.

If you read through my posts, I stated that the politicians want it this way. They pit us against one another. They love the power struggle even if they are on the losing end right now. Just because this is fact doesn't make it right and doesn't mean that we can't do something about it. It just takes time and a majority of people on the same page as one another.



As far as the war in Iraq goes, I wish people would get over it. There are far more issues that affect us each day. There are more ways than one to look at it. And guess what, no matter how much you hate it, think that it is wrong, and wish that it never happened,,,,, it did. There is nothing you can do about it. Pissing and moaning about it does nothing. It didn't stop Vietnam and it will not stop this war. History teaches us valuable lessons if we want to learn. All of you that hate this war need to take a different approach than the ones that are proven to fail. I am the type of person that looks for the good in everything. I refuse to get into an argument over the war but I have to say there are good things happening over there. Sure there are bad things as the media is happy to point out but there are also good things. You may ask yourself why the media doesn't show you these good things if they really do happen. If they don't show it in our own cities and towns, they damn sure aren't going to show it from another country. Since when does news focus on anything good anywhere. People are so quick to base their opinions on what the media tells them and ignore everything else. I place a lot of blame on how the media covers everything. They should be required to show equal positives to negatives.
I guess I got a little off topic, but oh well. The fact still remains, nothing has changed. We are all still doing what the political parties want us to do. The American people have really never changed their tactics. We have it stuck in our heads that if we talk enough shit about a president or a war, or spread enough propoganda, or protest, or feel sorry for ourselves, or place blame in rediculous places (the South), then things will finally change. Well they haven't and they never will. People are trying to fix all of the negativity with negativity. It hasn't worked and never will!

D_Raay
11-13-2004, 04:53 AM
Well then you have come to an agreement with me. Don't expect the left to compromise with the right on this. As long as there are the neocons there is someone out there to oppose them. I am not a person who believes our morals and views and religion, if you will, should be forced upon other people. It's what our country is all about. Separation of church and state. The founding fathers understood this. Do you really expect me to believe that a bunch of christian fundamentalist people like the fake cowboy and Jerry Falwell should encompass the world's view of our nation as a whole? I don't think so. There are really real people in this country. People who have common sense and a sense of what's right and wrong. We cannot let our standing as a nation be twisted by these individuals. And if you had the common sense that I have spoken of you would understand that the single greatest threat to the American way isn't Osama Bin Laden, Communism, or terrorists, it is George Bush.
I don't mean to be rude man but it is all right there. Read between the lines.

You know even if George Bush is just an unwitting pawn he is still the worst kind of person imaginable. He is undeniably aware of the wrongdoing but is a completely willing part of it's whole. Which makes him worse. The reason we have a president is to be our final moral blockade on anything that would threaten our way of life and our freedom. This guy is blowing those blockades up, and smiling and lying while as he does it! This is our country, not George Bush's and his cronies. They have made it quite clear now that that is not the case, and the most important thing to do now is to take our country back. That is the priority, then we talk about uniting.

Ali
11-13-2004, 06:02 AM
QUIT FOCUSSING ONLY ON THE NEGATIVE!Yeah, let's focus on positive things, like war & terror. That's why you voted for Bush, right? He scared the shit out of you and then promised to save you.

ASsman
11-13-2004, 08:24 AM
Yah this has gone far. Just like I suspected. Meh, you want to unite us all. Pay for some damn TV Air time showing the "other" side the truth.

Bullshit like this is "dividing us" http://werenotsorry.com/. Unless you believe we should all ignore the truth and simply concede. WHICH IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY! Just unable to put into such short sentences for you.

yeahwho
11-13-2004, 09:44 AM
Whoa! WTF is that? Yikes! People actually posing with their SUV's, guns and shit. Some people have no caption, it's like they cut out a pic in the ads or something. I'm going to send in a real goofy pic today with some sappy ass line of crap, got any witty lines of "I'm not sorry because_____________!


besides........

Victory means GOP should say it's sorry
Now that they've won, it would be admirable if the Republican leadership would say something like, "We're sorry that we remained silent when our supporters called you a traitor, Sen. Kerry. We knew that you fought bravely and honorably for your men and country and deserved your medals. The end justified the means, but even so, we hope you'll forgive us."

Creeps.

American
11-13-2004, 11:36 AM
Yeah, let's focus on positive things, like war & terror. That's why you voted for Bush, right? He scared the shit out of you and then promised to save you.
So I guess that you ASSume that I voted for Bush. Be careful, you could be wrong.

Cashew
11-13-2004, 11:40 AM
I will not stand beside bigots, xenophobes, homophobes, and war mongers. Sorry, anit happening.

SO WHAT? SO WHAT IF BUSH WON?!

Start reading http://www.theocracywatch.org

American
11-13-2004, 11:47 AM
it is George Bush.

So you are telling me that all of America's problems are because of Bush? I guess you are young enough to know that this is the first war this country has ever been involved in. And you are young enough to know that there were no unemployed or homeless people before Bush took office. Or maybe it is because we were all rich and prosperous before Bush took office. Yes, life was SOOO much different before ol' Bush took over the white house. I find it amazing that all of a sudden this country has gone from Perfect-Land to what it is today. I guess Watergate is just a myth. Maybe Clinton committing adultery in the white house was a lie also. And that Vietnam War, wow, that was the best movie I have ever seen. Just ask Jane Fonda. Too bad Bush has turned our perfect country into a big pile of stinking shit all by himself with no one else to blame. DO YOU PEOPLE NOT SEE THAT SITTING IN HERE BLAMING BUSH FOR EVERYTHING CHANGES NOTHING? IT SOLVES NOTHING. WE GET NOWHERE! IF YOU REALY WANT CHANGE THIS DAMN SURE ISN'T THE WAY TO GET IT. Oh yea, I should have mentioned that Kerry never voted yes for the war in Iraq. Kerry has never lied. And Mass is the best state in the world with no economic problems, no crime, and everyone there is happy and wealthy.

I guess that the younger people in my country are only intelligent enough to blame a face or a name and not the problem.

Cashew
11-13-2004, 11:52 AM
So you are telling me that all of America's problems are because of Bush? I guess you are young enough to know that this is the first war this country has ever been involved in. And you are young enough to know that there were no unemployed or homeless people before Bush took office. Or maybe it is because we were all rich and prosperous before Bush took office. Yes, life was SOOO much different before ol' Bush took over the white house. I find it amazing that all of a sudden this country has gone from Perfect-Land to what it is today. I guess Watergate is just a myth. Maybe Clinton committing adultery in the white house was a lie also. And that Vietnam War, wow, that was the best movie I have ever seen. Just ask Jane Fonda. Too bad Bush has turned our perfect country into a big pile of stinking shit all by himself with no one else to blame. DO YOU PEOPLE NOT SEE THAT SITTING IN HERE BLAMING BUSH FOR EVERYTHING CHANGES NOTHING? IT SOLVES NOTHING. WE GET NOWHERE! IF YOU REALY WANT CHANGE THIS DAMN SURE ISN'T THE WAY TO GET IT. Oh yea, I should have mentioned that Kerry never voted yes for the war in Iraq. Kerry has never lied. And Mass is the best state in the world with no economic problems, no crime, and everyone there is happy and wealthy.

I guess that the younger people in my country are only intelligent enough to blame a face or a name and not the problem.

You have the blame the leader of something, typically when you change leadership it changes everything. He is the leader of the New-Christian Right, therefore he becomes the target, he deserves it. As long as he is in power, he has veto power, he controls the house and senate and will soon control the supreme court. Therefore, things cannot change until he is gone... logic, it's sound.

I am 17 years old, I figured it out, you call me stupid again, I will unleash a wave of facts that will bury you and your weak argument for all enternity.

American
11-13-2004, 12:02 PM
I am 17 years old, I figured it out, you call me stupid again, I will unleash a wave of facts that will bury you and your weak argument for all enternity.
quote me where I called you stupid. And please, prove me wrong that Bush is the only thing that is wrong with this country. Show me the facts that prove everything was perfect before Bush came along and ruined it. Show me that he is the fist President that led us into a war that people felt we had no business in. AND PLEASE,,,,, PLEASE,,,, PLEASE,,,, PROVE ME WRONG WHERE I SAID THAT EVERYONE BITCHING ON THESE BOARDS CHANGES NOTHING AND THAT YOU SHOULD FOCUS YOUR ENERGY ON MORE PRODUCTIVE METHODS. PLEASE.

Cashew
11-13-2004, 12:03 PM
"I guess that the younger people in my country are only intelligent enough to blame a face or a name and not the problem."

As doing something that actually changes something, I constantly write my congress men, I protested bush when he came to town (I was put in a free speech zone, how about that?) I have started a local chapter of Americans United For Seperation of Church and State (www.au.org) and I am active member of the Libertarian party, and I am not even old enough to vote! (www.lp.org)

I told you that, we can't change anything, he controls veto, the house, the senate, and soon the supreme court, we cannot change while he is in power therefore he is the cause of the problems. It's not hard to see what he is doing. Here is one fine example.

The Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign: Christian Coalition Is in the White House
One can feel the hand of Ralph Reed in the Bush-Cheny '04 campaign. Reed was hired to chair the southeastern region, but his reach seems to be national. He's working through the Churches much the way he did for Christian Coalition. This page will link to articles about the tactics of Bush-Cheney campaign and Republicans in Congress as they strive to strengthen the ability of churches to participate in partisan politics without risking their tax-exempt status.

Will the Real Republican Party Please Stand Up

Beliefnet reports that Christian nation activist, David Barton, is a paid consultant with the RNC:

The Republican National Committee is employing the services of a Texas-based activist who believes the United States is a "Christian nation" and the separation of church and state is "a myth."

For more on David Barton: "Who Is David Barton, And Why Is He Saying Such Awful Things About Separation Of Church And State?"

This is a long, but very important article from Ron Suskind, New York Times, October 17, 2004, Without A Doubt.

This flyer was not sent out by some extremist
group. It was sent out by the Republican National Committee. If anyone doubts who controls the Republican Party, they need only look at this flyer. If Kerry wins, the Bible will be banned!

"The Rev. Jerry Falwell said yesterday that evangelical Christians, after nearly 25 years of increasing political activism, now control the Republican Party and the fate of President Bush in the November election." (From the San Diego Union-Tribune, September 25, 2004)

Now on DVD, The Passion of the Bush, Frank Rich, New York Times, October 3, 2004.


Bishop William Boyd Grove, a Methodist Bishop who served as the Bishop of The West Virginia Conference and is now retired, wrote: RELIGION AND THE ELECTION, A Caution Against Blasphemy.

Follow the Money, The Nation, November 1, 2004, shows how the Bush administration has used prosecutions, audits and obscenity investigations against organizations that don't share its ideology while sending millions of dollars to organizations of the Christian Right.

September 10, 2004, Keeper of the Faith? God's Will, According to the Bush Administration, from Counterpunch:

"An omnipresent consideration for Christian fundamentalists is the "Great Commission" biblical mandate, in the book of Matthew, of "go therefore and make disciples of all the nations." The felt responsibility to live out this command, both locally and globally, has become intertwined in the eyes of the Religious Right with support for the principles of political freedom and liberty."

"The Bush administration, therefore, has offered a dangerous combination: the president claims to know God's wishes and presides over a global landscape in which the administration believes that it can act upon such beliefs without compunction."

September 5, 2004, South Carolina's The State.com wrote:

A June study by The Barna Group, a Christian polling organization, said 86 percent of self-described evangelicals plan to vote for Bush in November.

September 4, 2004, the LA Times, Christian Conservatives Leave Convention in Great Spirits:

"President Bush supports God, and God supports President Bu]sh, absolutely," said Judith H. Manning, an alternate delegate from Marietta, Ga., explaining the fervor for Bush.

Writing the Platform

Two articles from the New York Times, August 31: Party Centrists Find Places on Stage but Not on Agenda, New York Times, and Social Conservatives Wield Influence on Platform.

The 2004 Republican Party Platform was developed in secrecy, behind closed doors, much the way the Bush White House and Republican-dominated Congress has operated the government these past three and a half years. From the New York Times, August 27, 2004:

But the closely controlled process left sore feelings outside of the committee room, even from the conservatives who now dominate the party.

"Why can't we get a list of the platform committee members?" asked Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum and a veteran conservative who led the efforts to revise the platform planks on immigration, stem cell research and other issues. "What is the big secret? They not only don't want them talking to me, they don't want them talking to each other."

"Why did drafting this political manifesto resemble the Manhattan Project developing the atomic bomb?" the conservative commentator Robert Novak asked in a column published yesterday. "The process fits the Bush White House's authoritarian aura that has tempered enthusiasm within the party on the eve of its national convention."

Conservatives Grumble on Planks Reflecting Bush Agenda, New York Times, August 26, 2004, reveals tension between social conservatives and moderate pragmatists within Republican Party.

The Republican Make-over

"We still have moderates in our party,'' said Representative DeLay, a Texas conservative. "We have so many moderates that that is all that is speaking at our national convention.'' G.O.P. Centrists to Speak at Convention, but Will They Be Heard? (New York Times, August 23, 2004)

August 30, 2004, a Repubulican explains the Republican make-over: Bush Agenda Is AWOL by Michael Cudahy.

The genuine leaders of the Republican Part

The Council for National Policy has operated in secrecy since 1981. Its membership consists of hard-core religious leaders such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy and the late Rousas Rushdoony. Ralph Reed claims to have learned his craft there at the feet of the Reverend Tim LaHaye who was co-founder of the organzation. Other members include policitcal operatives, and big financiers of the Religious Right. At their three-times-a- year meetings they plan strategies. Because of their secrecy, the media has paid very little attention to the organization. It is therefore remarkable and encouraging that the New York Times has reported on them this year, calling the Council "Club of the Most Powerful." (New York Times, August 28, 2004)

"The real crux of this is that these are the genuine leaders of the Republican Party, but they certainly aren't going to be visible on television next week," Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said.

From Buzzflash, August 17, Conventional Facades: Why the Republicans Have to Hide their Agenda

Yes, in lieu of the GOP Congressmen who've been peddling Christian nation legislation , Democratic ideologue Zell Miller will appear on the stump. Instead of agenda-maven Tom DeLay , we'll see stoic Rudy Giuliani. And rather than the less-than-conventional John Ashcroft , John McCain will be selling the GOP soap.

Jim Crow and the GOP

Jim Crow's New Party, Julian Bond, August 26, 2004:

People For the American Way Foundation, the NAACP and our coalition partners intend to field an army of 25,000 volunteers, including 5,000 lawyers, to monitor precincts in 17 states.

The Long Shadow of Jim Crow , a special report from People for the American Way Foundation, gives many specific examples of the many ways minority voters are disenfranchised.

Groups Say GOP Moves to Stifle Vote , Washington Post , August 26, 2004:

The NAACP and other civil rights leaders yesterday charged that recent events suggest the Republican Party is mounting a campaign to keep African Americans and other minority voters away from the polls this November.

"A Chill in Florida" by New York Times columnist Bob Herbert describes the Republican strategy of disenfranchising black voters in Florida. (August 23, 2004)

Indian Health Agency Barred New-Voter Drive from the Washington Post, October 6, 2004, on efforts to ban voter registration on government property of a constituency important to the Democrats.

Black Pastors Backing Bush Are Rare, but Not Alone, from the New York Times, October 5, 2004.

Preaching to the Choir

From the New York Times, "On the Road, Bush Fields Softballs From the Faithful," August 16, 2004, reports that while a series of forums the candidate is holding appear to be spontaneous, the audience is carefully selected:

Whatever the case, Bush campaign officials readily say that they carefully screen the crowds by distributing tickets through campaign volunteers. "Our supporters hand them out to other supporters and people who may be undecided,'' said Scott Stanzel, a campaign spokesman.

The result is often a love-in with heavily Christian crowds. Mr. Bush relaxes, shows off his humor and appears more human than in his sometimes tongue-tied and tense encounters with the press. He clearly relishes the sessions.

From the LA Times, August 15, 2004, "The president aims to appeal to mainstream voters while keeping his religious base happy."

From the Washington Post, August 15, 2004:

Bush prefers the "Ask President Bush" sessions, the campaign equivalent of the infomercial, with an audience designed to look as if it's been plucked randomly off the street, delighted anew at each twist and turn of the master's demonstration, irrepressibly bursting with questions and comments.

From the AP, August 12, 2004, Top Evangelicals Still Await GOP Invite

Better-known Religious Right leaders such as Falwell and Robertson have not been invited to the Republican National Convention, possibly to make the party appear more moderate than it really is. The real movers and shakers of the party, however, will be attending, not as religious leaders, but as party insiders.

"Evangelicals are likely to be strongly represented at the convention, but within the ranks of the GOP and the Bush campaign," Green said. "Key movement leaders, like Ralph Reed and Gary Bauer, may well attend, but as party leaders, not evangelical figures."

"We'll have a huge presence there," said Roberta Combs, President of Christian Coalition. "We have the president."

Ralph Reed is At It Again

The New York Times, September 23, 2004:

The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible.

The New York Times, August 9, 2004:

The Bush campaign sent Mr. Reed to recruit pastors at the annual meeting of the conservative Southern Baptist Convention. According to campaign memorandums, it has asked "people of faith team leaders" to help identify thousands of "friendly congregations" around the country. It asked religious outreach volunteers to petition their pastors to hold voter registration drives, and to speak on behalf of the campaign to Bible studies and church groups.

The campaign has asked volunteers to send in copies of congregational directories for comparison with voter registration rolls - a move some conservative religious leaders have denounced as a violation of the privacy of the church and its members.

The Republican Party has sent has organized a special Catholic outreach tour, including a speech by the party chairman, Ed Gillespie, in St. Charles, a St. Louis suburb.

President Bush Lobbies the Vatican, Reported from Church and State, July/August, 2004, Critical Mass:

In mid-June, The New York Times reported that during his trip to Rome Bush sought help from Vatican officials in urging more American bishops to rally to his side in the political arena.

The newspaper cited a column by John L. Allen, a correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter , in which a Vatican official stated that Bush made the request in a June 4 meeting with Vatican Secretary of State Angelo Sodano. According to Allen, other officials who attended the meeting confirmed that Bush pledged he would wage a robust battle this election season on touchy cultural issues, and he requested the Vatican's help in spurring more American bishops to join his cause.

The article points out that only five of 178 American Bishops are joining the effort to use communion as a campaign tool by denying communion to candidates who don't support Church doctrine. In addition forty-eight Catholic members of Congress signed a letter charging that bishops who deny communion on political grounds are "miring the Church in partisan politics."

Group of Bishops Using Influence to Oppose Kerry, New York Times, October 12, 2004

September 8, Washington Post on the Vatican and Catholics voting:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's arbiter of doctrinal orthodoxy, has given Roman Catholic voters leeway under certain circumstances to vote for politicians who support abortion rights, U.S. Catholic officials said yesterday.

Susan Gibbs, spokesperson for Washington's Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, head of a commission of U.S. bishops on Catholics in political life said, "the church speaks on issues, not on individuals. The church never tells someone who to vote for."

Arkansas Church's Partisan Politicking Needs Irs Investigation, Says Americans United.
Wednesday July 21, 2004.

The Green Bay News, July 19, 2004:

" .. for any political rally to feature one type of religion exclusively is not only wrong on its face, it's something that makes me wonder how politically smart the organizers are. I always believed politics was to be all-inclusive. It was meant to bring all of us together, to debate the issues fairly, to make sure all viewpoints were heard, and to respect each other.

Well, that died a long time ago, and now we have rallies aimed at one type of religion. Were I Jewish, or Buddhist - or even a more mainstream Protestant denomination that believes religion is a more personal thing - I would have felt out of place, perhaps not wanted .. "

New York Times Editorial, July 14, 2004: Onward G.O.P. Soldiers

The Bush-Cheney campaign is buttonholing Christian churches nationwide to serve as virtual party precincts in the Republican drive to turn out voters in November. The campaign has sent congregation volunteers marching orders - a schedule of 22 "duties," beginning with the submission of local church membership directories to party headquarters, the better to compare them with voter registration lists.

The Guardian UK, Bush Poll Campaign Courts Religious Right, July 3, 2004: "Evangelical 'mega-churches' may hold the key to the White House:"

Protestant mega-churches are spreading exponentially. There are now 850 in America. They each have congregations of more than 2,000 and a combined total of 3 million.

John Vaughan, whose organisation Church Growth Today monitors and encourages their expansion, says a new mega-church appears in America every four days.

New York Times, Party Appeal to Churches for Help Raises Doubts, David Kirkpatrick, July 2, 2004

Washington Post, Churchgoers Get Direction From Bush Campaign By Alan Cooperman, July 1, 2004

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Bush Campaign Targets Churches For Election Outreach
"Politicizing Houses Of Worship Is Shameless Abuse Of Sacred Space, May Violate Federal Law, Says AU's Lynn," July 1, 2004.

The Seattle Times, Bible Belt churches putting Bush in more than prayers By Geneive Abdo, Chicago Tribune, June 30, 2004

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Philadelphia Church That Endorsed Bush Gets $1 Million 'Faith-Based' Grant, June 23, 2004

New York Times, Bush Allies Till Fertile Soil, Among Baptists, for Votes By David Kirkpatrick, June 18, 2004

Republicans woo Jewish and Catholic voters, New York Times, September 3, 2004: Republicans Try to Expand Appeal to Religious Voters

Objections from Religious Leaders

From Yahoo News, September 1, 2004: Jewish Groups Irked by Cross on Republican Podium.

From the Washington Post, August 18, 2004:

Ten teachers of Christian ethics at leading seminaries and universities have written a letter to President Bush criticizing his campaign's outreach to churches, particularly its effort to gather church membership directories.

From The Jewish Week, August 9, 2004:

The First Amendment, however, also ensures the separation of religion and state in order to protect people of faith and nonbelievers alike from domination by any favored creed and to protect religion itself from state coercion.

Thus it was especially troubling to learn that the Bush-Cheney campaign has sent a letter to some of its conservative Christian adherents that is in effect a 22-point partisan organizing guide. It asks them to perform specific tasks by specific dates, such as to send church directories to Bush-Cheney '04 headquarters, identify other conservative churches that could be organized for Bush-Cheney, distribute issue guides, hold two campaign-related potluck dinners and conduct targeted voter registration drives, among other assignments.

Here are the Interfaith Alliance's, Do's and Don'ts for candidates listed in "Running for Office in a Multi-Faith Nation."

Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism issued the a statement in response to a campaign instruction sheet sent out to religious volunteers by the Bush-Cheney reelection team containing a list of campaign activities to be performed in churches. "Efforts aimed at transforming houses of worship into political campaign offices stink to high heaven," says Rabbi Saperstein.
Legislation from The House

New York Times, A Bill Eases Vote Curb on Churches By David Kirkpatrick, June 8, 2004

From the AP, June 7, 2004 Bill Allows Mixing of Religion, Politics. Bush '04 Re-election Campaign is openly taking down the wall of separation between Church and State.

Associated Press, Bill Allows Mixing of Religion, Politics, By LARA JAKES JORDAN, June 4, 2004

Religion in the White House
From a New York Times Op-Ed, October 28, 2004 about Bush's daily Word:

Every morning President Bush reads a devotional from "My Utmost for His Highest," a collection of homilies by a Protestant minister named Oswald Chambers, who lived a century ago. As Mr. Bush explained in an interview broadcast on Tuesday on Fox News, reading Chambers is a way for him "on a daily basis to be in the Word."

In the new book by journalist Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack, based on taped conversations with the President, Bush describes himself as a "messenger" of God who is doing "the Lord's will." From Los Angeles Times reporter Robert Scheer:

So, it was a holy war, a new crusade. No wonder George W. Bush could lie to Congress and the American public with such impunity while keeping the key members of his Cabinet in the dark. He was serving a higher power, according to Bob Woodward, who interviewed the president for a new book on the months leading up to the Iraq invasion.

From BuzzFlash, an interview with Mark Crispin Miller, July 23, 2004:

What we're confronting now, in other words, is something wilder, something much harder to deal with, than mere political corruption ...

This may sound odd, but I wish that Bush and Cheney were all about the bottom line, and nothing else.

What's most significant here, and yet gets almost zero coverage in our media, is the fact that Bush is very closely tied to the Christian Reconstructionist movement. The links between this White House and that movement are many and tight. Marvin Olasky -- a former Maoist who is now a Reconstructionist -- coined the phrase "compassionate conservatism," and was hired by the Bush campaign in 2000 to serve as their top consultant on welfare. Olasky's entire career has been financed by Howard Ahmanson, the California multimillionaire who has said publicly that his life's goal is "to integrate Biblical law into all our lives." Ahmanson funded the far-right seizure of the California legislature back in '94, and is also the main force behind the schism in the Episcopalian church. Also, he appears to be the most important advocate of the so-called "intelligent design" movement, which is creationism. Ahmanson backed Bush in 2000 -- with exactly how much money we don't know -- and is supporting him again.

The Christian Taliban
March 28, 2004, By Stephen Pizzo, AlterNet

During the Taliban rule of Afghanistan the world got a good look at what happens when religious zealots gain control of a government. Television images of women being beaten forced to wear burkas and banned from schools and the workplace helped build strong public support for the President's decision to invade Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11.

But even as President George W. Bush denounced the brutal Islamic fundamentalist regime in Kabul, he was quietly laying the foundations for his own fundamentalist regime at home. For the first time far right Christian fundamentalists had one of their own in the White House and the opportunity to begin rolling back decades of health and family planning programs they saw as un-Christian, if not downright sinful.

Since 2001 dozens of far-right Christian fundamentalists have been quietly installed in key positions within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Drug Administration and on commissions and advisory committees where they have made serious progress. Three years later this administration has established one of the most rigid sexual health agendas in the Western world.

Ralph Reed notes that the religious conservative movement "no longer plays the institutional role it once did," in part because it succeeded in electing Bush and other friendly leaders. "You're no longer throwing rocks at the building; you're in the building." The Washington Post Religious Right Finds Its Center in Oval Office , December 24, 2001

Influence of Christian Recontructionists or Dominion Theologists

Conservative writer and commentator Kevin Philips' book, American Dynasty, refers to Bush as the "Leader of the Religious Right." From Chapter 7, "The American Presidency and the Rise of the Religious Right:"

Although George W. Bush never held a candid interview or press conference to discuss the views of the clerics from whom he sought advice, several men ... began to draw attention. Bush had picked Jack Hayford, a California Charismatic, to give the benediction at the Fifty-fourth Inaugural Prayer Service at the National Cathedral. Involved in the founding of the Promise Keepers men's revival group, Hayford was a supporter of Christian Reconstruction or Dominionism.

Anthony T. Evans of Dallas, who likewise preached a workdview based on the Bible, was a speaker at the pre-inaugural Washington Prayer Luncheon in January, 2001 ...

What Hayford and Evans had in common, other preachers said, was a shared adherence to 'Kingdom Now' or Dominionist theology. Loosely put, it called for seizure of eathly power by 'the people of God' as the only way by which the world could be rescued. Prayer and evangelism were not enough: a Christian-led social reformation was necessary because Christ would not return to earth until a revised Church has set the scene. A president convinced that God was speaking to him ... might through Dominionism start to view himself as an agent called by the Almighty to restore the earth to Godly control.

There are many different theories about the President's religious beliefs. From The Village Voice, The Divine Calm of George W. Bush, May 3, 2004:

... the University of Chicago's Bruce Lincoln says ... It's expansionist-it's religious imperialism, if you will. And I think that remains his primary orientation." What's more, Lincoln adds, his primary orientation also holds that "the U.S. is the new Israel as God's most favored nation, and those responsible for the state of America in the world also enjoy special favor. . . .

From Juan Stam, a Costa Rican pastor and theologian who taught at the Latin American Biblical Seminary and the National University of Costa Rica:

It is remarkable how closely Bush's discourse coincides with that of the false prophets of the Old Testament. While the true prophets proclaimed the sovereignty of Yahweh, the God of justice and love who judges nations and persons, the false prophets served Baal, who could be manipulated by the powerful.

President Bush is a master of photo opportunities. This photograph by Charles Ommaney appeared in Newsweek, March 4, 2003. "Bush has made several statements indicating he believes God is involved in world events and that he and America have a divinely guided mission," according to religion writer Deborah Caldwell.

David Frum, a speech writer for Bush until last year, wrote in his recent book, The Right Man, that he heard a staff member say to Bush's chief speech writer, Michael Gerson, "Missed you at Bible study."

"The news that this was a White House where attendance at Bible study was, if not compulsory, not quite uncompulsory either, was disconcerting to a non-Christian like me."

Charles Dharapak, photographer for the AP, insists on "deifying" Bush in his photos.


The photograph on the left captures the President speaking under a halo at the dedication of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship's Youth Education Center in Dallas, Texas, 10/29/03. From the Observer, November 2, 2003: "President George W. Bush stood before a cheering crowd at a Dallas Christian youth center last week, and told them about being 'born again' as a Christian.

Behind Bush were two banners. 'King of Kings', proclaimed one. 'Lord of Lords', said the other. The symbolism of how fervent Christianity has become deeply entwined with the most powerful man on the planet could not have been stronger." The photograph on the right shows Bush speaking on columbus Day, 10/13/03.

"Few US Presidents have been as openly religious as Bush. Now a new book, The Faith of George W. Bush, by Christian author Stephen Mansfield has lifted the lid on how deep those Christian convictions run. It will stir up controversy at a time when the administration is keen to portray its 'war on terror' as non-religious. The book, which depicts a President who prays each day and believes he is on a direct mission from God, will give ammunition to critics who claim Bush's administration is heavily influenced by extremist Christians."

"W's Christian Nation", The American Prospect, June, 2003: " How Bush promotes religion and erodes the separation of church and state."

With the help of evangelical speechwriter Michael Gerson, Bush lards his speeches with code words directed at Christian conservatives. In this year's State of the Union address, Bush mentioned the "wonder-working power" of the American people, an allusion to an evangelical Christian song whose lyrics cite the "power, wonder-working power, in the blood of the Lamb" -- i.e., Jesus.

To see what's new and dangerous about Bush's approach to religion, you have to look beyond the president's copious prayers and exhortations, which are legally meaningless. Clinton also showed immense political sympathy for religion, but he didn't nominate a slate of right-wing judges who could give the law a decidedly majoritarian, pro-Christian bent. And Bush has gone further than that. From school-prayer guidelines issued by the Department of Education to faith-based initiatives to directives from virtually every federal agency, there's hardly a place where Bush hasn't increased both the presence and the potency of religion in American government. In the process, the Bush administration lavishly caters to the very religious-right groups that gave us the dubious Christian-nation concept ...

From BuzzFlash: 'On a Mission From God': The Religious Right and the Emerging American Theocracy
by Maureen Farrell, March 9, 2004:

About Bush's Meeting with the Council on Naitonal Policy:

Deemed by ABC News as "the most powerful conservative group you've never heard of," the Council for National Policy, which was co-founded by former Moral Majority head LaHaye, has included John Ashcroft, Ed Meese, Ralph Reed, the editor of The National Review, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Grover Norquist and Oliver North among its members.

As ABC put it, "the council has deservedly attained the reputation for conceiving and promoting the ideas of many who in fact do want to control everything in the world. . . The CNP helped Christian conservatives take control of the Republican state party apparati in Southern and Midwestern states. It helped to spread word about the infamous 'Clinton Chronicles' videotapes that linked the president to a host of crimes in Arkansas." (According to Rolling Stone, "The impeachment effort was reportedly conceived at a June 1997 meeting of the CNP in Montreal.")

Secular-minded folks are likely to be most intrigued by the fact that President Bush made his rumored "king-making" speech before CNP in 1999, fueling speculation that the council was responsible for his presidential nomination. And though the Democratic National Committee and others urged Bush's presidential campaign to release the tape of his CNP speech, the Bush camp refused. What was on that tape? Depending on who you believe, "Bush promised to appoint only anti-abortion-rights judges to the Supreme Court, or he stuck to his campaign 'strict constructionist' phrase. Or he took a tough stance against gays and lesbians, or maybe he didn't." [ABC News]

As we now know, Bush is endorsing a Constitutional amendment which could change the country forever. As one Republican lawyer told Andrew Sullivan, "[With] one amendment the religious right could wipe out access to birth control, abortion, and even non-procreative sex (as Senator Santorum so eagerly wants to do). This debate isn't only about federalism, it's about the reversal of two hundred years of liberal democracy that respects individuals." Or, as Sullivan put it, "Memo to straights: you're next." [AndrewSullivan.com]

Skipp Porteous sounded the alarm in Bush's Secret Religious Pandering, written in 2000.

As America prepares for the first, fateful election of the new millennium, here are some disturbing truths behind W's "compassionate conservatism."

Punishing Critics, Silencing Opponents
James Wagoner, the president of Advocates for Youth was reported in the New York Times, July 11, 2004, as saying, "Never have we experienced a climate of intimidation and censorship as we have today."

"Medicare and Iraq tell us all we need to know about the White House," says Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla. "They operate behind a series of misrepresentations, followed by coverups."

Forcing CNN to change its reporting: April 2, 2004, New York Times Columnist PAUL KRUGMAN Smear Without Fear
A funny thing happened to David Letterman this week. Actually, it only started out funny. And the unfunny ending fits into a disturbing pattern.

Intimidation from Karl Rove: This feature from TomPaine quotes John DiIulio, a domestic policy advisor to the White House, about Bush's political advisor, Karl Rove.

"Some staff members, senior and junior, are awed and cowed by Karl's real or perceived powers. They self-censor lots for fear of upsetting him, and, in turn, few of the president's top people routinely tell the president what they really think if they think that Karl will be brought up short in the bargain. Karl is enormously powerful, maybe the single most powerful person in the modern, post-Hoover era ever to occupy a political advisor post near the Oval Office."

Outing a CIA Agent
The story about outing a CIA agent reveals how the Bush team uses intimidation and threats to silence people. Former diplomat Joe Wilson wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times on July 6, 2003. In an interview with Joe Conason of Salon, May 3, 2004, Wilson talked about how the Bush adminstration intimidates the media.

"Guantánamo" is now a metaphor for being cut off completely from access and sources. I've had any number of reporters who have talked to me about how even the most minor criticism of the administration led to phone calls to their editors from senior officials in the government. I think that's a clear pattern of intimidation.

"The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian Tactic: The Deadly Serious Crime Of Naming CIA Operatives" by John Dean White House Counsel under Richard Nixon.

From the New York Times, April 2, 2004:

Prosecutors investigating whether someone in the Bush administration improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer have expanded their inquiry to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case, lawyers involved in the case and government officials say.

From the New York Times, April 30, 2004:

Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV says in a new book that he believes the White House official behind the disclosure of his wife's identity as an undercover C.I.A. officer was "quite possibly" I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

Disregard for Democracy
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Bush's presidency is its apparent disregard for normal functioning of democracy. The President refuses to provide critical information to Congress and investigative committees, he subverts the intentions of Congress, and outright lies.

From a New York Times Editorial, October 28, 2004: The New York Times's Tim Golden documented the way the Bush administration secretly created a parallel - and unconstitutional - judicial universe for Gitmo.

The White House was so determined to suspend the normal rights and processes for the hundreds of men captured in Afghanistan - none of them important members of Al Qaeda and most of them no threat at all - that it hid the details from Secretary of State Colin Powell and never bothered to consult Congress.

Supressing a CIA report until after the elction

By journalist Robert Scheer, Alternet, October 19, 2004:

It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the Congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

Lied about the Cost of the Medicare Package

Knight-Ridder (3/11/04) published an article claiming that the President not only lied about the cost of the Medicare package, but also threatened to fire his top expert if he told the truth:

The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan.

New York Times, July 6, 2004:

An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top Medicare official threatened to fire the program's chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged.

Refusal to Supply Congress with Documents

Vice President Cheney has denied the General Accounting Office of Congress access to any documents concerning the development of the Bush Energy policy. Bush refused to release Miguel Estrada's memos to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Since Estrada had no record of written legal opinions, the Committee had no basis with which to judge him.

"This administration is the most secretive of our lifetime, even more secretive than the Nixon administration. They don't believe the American people or Congress have any right to information," said Larry Klayman, chairman of Judicial Watch, a conservative group that is suing the administration to force it to reveal the members of the energy task force.

Faith-Based Initiative: Defying the Separation of Church and State, Ignoring the Civil Rights Act

The Bush administration has been defying the principle of church-state separation by funding agencies that proselytize. It has been ignoring the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by funding agencies that discriminate in hiring, and it has been subverting the intentions of Congress.

The Senate refused to overturn decades of anti-discrimination laws that prevent federal funds to go to charities that that discriminate in hiring. Unhappy with the Senate bill passed in 2003, the executive branch of the federal government has been disbursing funds to charities that proselytize and discriminate in hiring. In addition, the White House simply by-passed Congress's legislative functions in the year 2002. The Department of Health and Human set up a Compassion Capitol fund of $30 million that allocated funds released by Congress for a different purpose.

According Church and State, March, 2004, White House "Faith Czar," Jim Towey told reporters that faith-based organizations would have new access to tax funds to the tune of a whopping $40 billion dollars.

Roe V. Wade

Under the guise of providing health care benefits to poor pregnant women, the Bush administration has named a fetus a human being, thus flouting Roe V Wade and the authority of the courts.

War in Iraq

Bush mislead the American public about his reasons for going to war in Iraq. the House Government Reform Committee released a comprehensive database of "237 specific misleading statements" before the war about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq.

The Associated Press reported that Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski - a strong White House ally - now says he was "misled" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the war.

The New York Times reported on April 2, 2004

The White House confirmed on Thursday that it had withheld a variety of classified documents from Mr. Clinton's files that had been gathered by the National Archives over the last two years in response to requests from the commission, which is investigating intelligence and law enforcement failures before the attacks.

Removing reports and distorting information from the Women's Bureau Web site:

The Bush administration is dismantling or distorting information on women's issues, from pay equity to reproductive healthcare, according to "Missing: Information About Women's Lives," a new report released
Wednesday by the National Council for Research on Women.

The Environment

Examples of Bush administration double speak on the environment, from the Sierra Club RAW, ISSUE #66, August 11, 2004 :

On July 29, EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt traveled to Washington state to announce a $30 million research grant to fund studies on the health effects of air pollution. The grant comes on the heels of the administration seeking to allow coal-fired power plants to put three times more mercury in our air than the current Clean Air Act allows and weakening the law that requires power plants to install modern pollution controls to curb air pollution.

On August 4, the administration announced in Minnesota that the Department of Agriculture would expand the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to allow enrollment of 250,000 acres of wetlands. This announcement comes in light of the Bush administration eliminating Clean Water Act protection from 20 million acres of wetlands to unchecked pollution. Also, the CRP only protects sensitive habitat for 10 years while the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) permanently protects wetlands. But the administration's fiscal year 2005 budget proposed cutting WRP by 50,000 acres.

On August 5, Interior Secretary Gale Norton showed up in Las Vegas to publicize a $27 million grant for environmental restoration work at the Las Vegas Springs Preserve. Pay no attention to the billions of dollars the Bush administration wants to spend dumping 77,000 tons of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, only 60 miles from Vegas.


His efforts to circumvent environmental statutes laid down by NEPA demonstrate an unwillingness to abide by laws drafted by Congress and signed by a former president.

A Look at the President's "Pioneers"

CauseNET for April 7, 2004

Building a media empire is no simple task. But it helps to know the right people. Our story today is about Clear Channel Communications, the media conglomerate notorious for its vast network of radio stations, but which is increasingly spreading its tentacles across a broad array of music, advertising, and other media. Not surprisingly, this story includes profiles of two brothers closely connected to the Bush administration, which has been very supportive of allowing media conglomerates to grow even larger.

CONNECTIONS COUNT:

The Hicks brothers and the Bush Administration have had a mutually beneficial relationship for at least a decade. Tom Hicks, vice chairman of Clear Channel, and his brother Steven Hicks, who built and sold a radio empire, together raised about $200,000 for Bush's presidential campaign in 2000, giving them "Pioneer" fundraiser status. Their connections, however, go much deeper than that.

Sworn to Secrecy:

President Bush's nominee to be archivist of the United States - an ordinarily low-profile job that includes overseeing the release of government documents, including presidential papers - is generating an intense controversy among historians, some of whom accuse the White House of trying to push through a candidate who is prone to secrecy.

Influence of Religious Right on Bush Administration Policies
Tax Cuts
Tax cuts have been a signature issue of Bush's presidency, even as unemployment rises, the cost of war increases, and the government incurs heavy deficit spending. The Texas Republican Party Platform, 2002, calls for the elimination of income tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, capital gains, corporate income tax, payroll tax, and property tax along with the IRS. As the federal government becomes starved for funds, many of its functions would be taken over by churches. Bush's Faith Based Initiative combined with massive tax cuts is leading toward a transfer of the federal government to religious institutions.

The Environment
The Bush administration is waging a virtual war on the environment enabling industries to decimate forests, divert water, pollute national parks, and release CO2 and toxins into the atmosphere. His administration joined the automobile industry in a lawsuit against California challenging its authority to set emission standards tougher than those of the federal government.

Reproductive Rights and The War Against Women
Just twenty-two days after taking office, Bush re-imposed restrictions known as the "Global Gag Rule." This policy restricts foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive U.S. family planning funds from using their own, non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, lobby their own governments for abortion law reform, or even provide accurate medical counseling or referrals regarding abortion.

On Feb. 2, 2001, Anthony Lewis wrote in The New York Times:

"What it means on the ground is this: A woman who has AIDS comes to a clinic somewhere in Africa or Asia. Drugs to prevent transmission of the disease to newborn infants are not available there. She desperately wants to avoid bearing the child. But the doctor or nurse cannot advise her on a safe legal abortion if the clinic wants to keep its American funds."

Bush has chosen anti-choice extremists for key positions such as Attorney General and Secretary of Health and Human Services. His administration has named a fetus a 'human being' preparing the way to argue that abortion is 'murder'. And Bush's nominees to the federal courts are consistently anti-choice. more

Gun Control
The Religious Right opposes any form of gun control. The House of Representatives, dominated by the Religious Right, passed a bill that immunizes gun makers and sellers from liability. "No one ever believed that legislation this bad could pass," said Mike Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. President Bush indicated that if the bill passed the Senate, he would sign it. On March 2, 2004, the Senate scuttled the bill.

The ten-year ban on assault weapons expires in September, 2004. The House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, who decides what bills will and won't come up for a vote, has announced that a vote to continue the ban on assault weapons will not come up for a vote, so Tom DeLay will have decided that assault weapons will become available once again.

As a sniper terrorized Washington, D.C. legislators began talking about a national ballistics fingerprinting law for all firearms. Bush's Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, speaking on National Public Radio, made it clear that legislation allowing ballistic experts to identify killers would not go very far. President Bush opposes ballistics finger printing, Fleischer told the press, "because it would interfere with a gun owner's privacy."

The Foreign and Military Policy
Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners, an evangelical Christian magazine that advocates social justice, writes in "Dangerous Religion, George W. Bush's theology of empire,"

"The Bush theology deserves to be examined on biblical grounds. Is it really Christian, or merely American? Does it take a global view of God's world or just assert American nationalism in the latest update of 'manifest destiny?'"

"To this aggressive extension of American power in the world, President George W. Bush adds God-and that changes the picture dramatically. It's one thing for a nation to assert its raw dominance in the world; it's quite another to suggest, as this president does, that the success of American military and foreign policy is connected to a religiously inspired " mission," and even that his presidency may be a divine appointment for a time such as this."

Quotes by President Bush in Asia Times, March 26, 2004, "The evangelical roots of US unilateralism," by Duane Oldfield:

"While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively ..."

"Today humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom's triumph over all these foes. The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great mission ."

"But our responsibility to history is clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil."

That the administration of US President George W Bush is pursuing a unilateralist foreign policy on issues ranging from the Iraq war to global warming to the International Criminal Court is obvious to observers at home and abroad. Also clear is the fact that the Bush policy, at least in its broad outlines, is very much in keeping with the preferences of the Christian Right.

Bush's road map for peace in the Middle East is not consistent with the goals of the Christian Zionist movement that favors an expanded Israel. The President, however, is conspicuously absent in pursuit of his road map. His seemingly lack of concern about the dangers of nuclear war leads one to wonder what he believes about Biblical Prophecy.

Chip Berlet, senior analyst for Political Research Associates, is quoted in The Progressive as saying,

"Bush is very much into the apocalyptic and messianic thinking of militant Christian evangelicals. He seems to buy into the worldview that there is a giant struggle between good and evil culminating in a final confrontation. People with that kind of a worldview often take risks that are inappropriate and scary because they see it as carrying out God's will."

Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty

The New York Times, August 6, 2004

... it is astonishing, and frightening, that the Bush administration is now pushing to strip the teeth from a proposed new treaty aimed at expanding the current international bans on the production of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium.

The agreement, the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, would, for the first time, ban all countries from producing highly enriched uranium or plutonium for nuclear weapons. It would cover the four countries that do not subscribe to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty: North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel. And it would apply to the five officially recognized nuclear weapons nations, including the United States; they would be allowed to retain and use only their current inventories.

First Use of Nuclear Weapons

The Bush administration's stated willingness to use nuclear weapons first only serves to escalate the nuclear arms race by signaling to other nations that they need to increase their nuclear arsenals. It greatly increases the risk of a nuclear confrontation.

The Washington Post, July 31, 2004 reported:

In a significant shift in U.S. policy, the Bush administration announced this week that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty that would ban production of nuclear weapons materials.

The following three articles from MoveOn.org, June 7, 2003, address the treaty with Putin, "mini nukes", and nuclear weapons designed for attacking buried caves and tunnels:

1. TREATY WITH PUTIN

Steven Chapman of the Chicago Tribune:

"The greatest nuclear peril posed by the Russians is not that they will launch a missile attack. It's that some of their bombs or nuclear material might find their way into the hands of terrorists. Moving these weapons from silos, where they are extremely secure, to warehouses, where they may not be, would be a gift to Al Qaeda and every other outlaw group that lusts after Russia's "loose nukes." (1/13/02)

2. MINI NUKES

The Bush administration has lobbied for the repeal of a 10-year ban on research and development of "low-yield" nuclear weapons. Senator Diane Feinstein, (D-CA) wrote in a statement (4/29/03) "The political effects of U.S. pursuit of new nuclear weapons could well be to legitimize nuclear weapons."

3. NUCLEAR WEAPONS GO UNDERGROUND

From Popular Science magazine::

"[T]he Pentagon has begun to consider the previously unthinkable: developing specially designed nuclear weapons for attacking buried caves and tunnels.... Such a move would represent the most significant rewriting of U.S. nuclear strategy in decades, because its intended purpose violates the two cornerstones of current policy: to use nuclear weapons only as a last resort and never to use them against non-nuclear nations.."

North Korea

Calling the infamous leader of North Korea a "pygmy" is playing nuclear chicken with an irrational leader. Former President Jimmy Carter cites the many ways President Bush is moving North Korea toward nuclear war:

"North Korea feels increasingly threatened by being branded an "axis of evil" member; deployment of anti-ballistic missiles in Alaska; Washington voices expressing military threats; interception of North Korean ships; ad hominem attacks on President Kim Jong II; condemnation of previous efforts by President Clinton and South Korean leaders to resolve issues peacefully, and U.S. refusal to negotiate directly with North Korea." (Ithaca Journal, 9/5/03)

Anti-Internationalism
The Texas Republican Party Platform, 2002, calls for rescinding United States membership in the United Nations and removing the United Nations from US soil. Pat Robertson, in his book, The Millennium, depicts the United Nations as a Satanic plot to take control of the world.

The country is paying dearly for Bush's anti-internationalism in Iraq both in human lives and in expense. Bush has consistently refused to cooperate with efforts of other countries to sign international treaties. He won't support the Kyoto treaty to halt global warming, and his administration is undermining what has been the most successful environmental treaty: the Montreal Protocol. "Christian Soldiers on the March," in The Nation reports on Bush's anti-internationalism.

Anti-Science
From the Union of Concerned Scientists, (UCS) July 8, 2004:

Today, the Union of Concerned Scientists released new evidence that the Bush Administration continues to suppress and distort scientific knowledge and undermine scientific advisory panels.

The Washington Post, July 9, 2004 comments on the UCS report:

More than 4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, have joined a call for "restoration of scientific integrity in federal policymaking," charging that the Bush administration is packing scientific advisory panels with ideologues and imposing controls on collaboration with foreign researchers, a scientists' group said yesterday.

Ihe New York Times, July 9, 2004 comments on the UCS report:

In a report released yesterday, a scientific advocacy group cited more instances of what it called the Bush administration's manipulation of science to fit its policy goals, including the questioning of nominees to scientific advisory panels about whether they had voted for President Bush.

Junking Science, a New York Times editorial, September 14:

The Bush administration has from time to time found it convenient to distort science to serve political ends. The result is a purposeful confusion of scientific protocols in which "sound science" becomes whatever the administration says it is. In the short run, this is a tactic to override basic environmental protections in favor of industry. In the long run, it undermines the authority of science itself.

James Wagoner, the president of Advocates for Youth was quoted in the New York Times, July 11, 2004 as saying about sex education, "For 20 years, it was about health and science, and now we have a political ideological approach."

The Bush administration is proposing that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have final authority on

"scientific and technical evaluations - known as peer reviews - of all major government rules, plans, proposed regulations and pronouncements." (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1/11/04).

This enormous policy shift would also put the OMB in charge of how much information the public should be given regarding the "release of emergency declarations from the federal agencies responsible for public health, safety, and the environment."

The following article, "George W. Bush's War on Nature" warns of the danger of trusting ideology over science. "Republicans are pushing the most radical assault on the environment in modern times. But history warns of catastrophe for leaders who trust ideology over science." more

Physcian Felicia Stewart, co-director of the Center for Reproductive Health Research & Policy at the University of California, San Francisco, claims, the Food and Drug Administration's decision to refuse to make Plan B emergency contraceptive pills available over the counter manifests:

a pattern of disregard for science from the current administration. There is unprecedented support for over-the-counter access to emergency contraception among the medical community and the public. The medical evidence overwhelmingly shows Plan B is safe, effective and appropriate for OTC use by women of all ages.

Influence of Religious Right on Bush Administration Appointments
Attorney General John Ashcroft was the first highly visible Bush nomination. Ashcroft, member of the Federalist Society and former member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, changed a custom followed by every President of the past fifty years, Republican and Democrat, when he stopped using the American Bar Association to review judicial nominations. Ashcroft's extreme religious beliefs and attacks on civil liberties are well known.

Morton Blackwell, a leader of the Religious Right, told U.S News and World Report that in the fall of 1999, a group of conservative leaders met with then-candidate Bush seeking a promise that if elected, he would appoint movement conservatives to his cabinet. Blackwell said, "He is keeping that promise" and "John Ashcroft is an example of that."

The most far-reaching impact will come from Bush's judicial nominations to the federal benches who will be serving lifetime appointments. He appointed two very controversial federal judges without Congressional approval, during Senate recess.

Bush has nominated W. David Hager to the powerful Food and Drug Administration's panel on women's health policy. Hager believes women should turn to the Bible and Christ for healing and joined a Christian Medical Associate's drive calling on the FDA to reverse its approval of RU-486, the 'abortion pill.'

President Bush is allegedly considering J. Robert Brame III, board member of Reconstructionist group, American Vision, as a member of the National Labor Relations Board.

General William Boykin, appointed to a senior Defense Department post, has repeatedly explained that America's enemy was "a spiritual enemy ... called Satan." The enemy will only be defeated, according to General Boykin, "if we come against them in the name of Jesus."

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld just shrugs at Boykin's remarks. "We're a free people," Rumsfeld points out. Yes, we enjoy freedom of speech, but such inflammatory statements from the deputy undersecretary for intelligence -- a man in the highest uniform -- only serves to ignite the muslim world against us.

A Muslim rights group called for Boykin to be reassigned from his job, which includes evaluating and providing resources for the intelligence needs of military commanders. Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said,

"Putting a man with such extremist views in a critical policy-making position sends entirely the wrong message to a Muslim world that is already skeptical about America's motives and intentions,"

ASsman
11-13-2004, 12:05 PM
I guess that the younger people in my country are only intelligent enough to blame a face or a name and not the problem.

WOops! Well OK we can all agree it's not JUST BUSH. That is already a given. Lets leave it at that. Not let's move on, jesus christ.

D_Raay
11-13-2004, 12:54 PM
Yah this has gone far. Just like I suspected. Meh, you want to unite us all. Pay for some damn TV Air time showing the "other" side the truth.

Bullshit like this is "dividing us" http://werenotsorry.com/. Unless you believe we should all ignore the truth and simply concede. WHICH IS WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY! Just unable to put into such short sentences for you.
One of the favorites websites linked was Glock Talk. And down near the bottom the banner actually says "no WMD, we don't mind". Don't mind huh? These fucking yahoos don't even understand as basic a concept as being lied to. They really think that teaches morality to us lefties who don't get it and should get over a stolen election.........PSHAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWW

ASsman
11-13-2004, 12:57 PM
http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=38220 <-- Your help would be appreciated. "American" is hungry for the truth, but he can't seem to find it.

adam_f
11-13-2004, 12:58 PM
Glad to see everyone is still arguing.

ASsman
11-13-2004, 01:03 PM
Please.
We are "discussing".

D_Raay
11-13-2004, 01:04 PM
I guess that the younger people in my country are only intelligent enough to blame a face or a name and not the problem.

I am not young there buddy, I lived through Reagan, Bush sr., Clinton, and now the antichrist. And I would say without hesitation that the Clinton years were the best.
Your argument, while true, holds no weight in the present. It's like your saying the transmission on your car is broken but we shouldn't worry about that we should fix the tail lights or the fill the washer fluid first because it's more important. Well, the car doesn't run at all without the transmission.

adam_f
11-13-2004, 01:09 PM
Maybe this has been said already, I don't know. But don't you think it's odd that American is a new user and sisko hasn't been on in awhile, from what I see.

D_Raay
11-13-2004, 01:14 PM
Maybe this has been said already, I don't know. But don't you think it's odd that American is a new user and sisko hasn't been on in awhile, from what I see.
American is much too literate to be sisko.

ASsman
11-13-2004, 02:00 PM
Yah, he actually makes sense. He just doesn't blab on about random bullshit. He is simply misguided.

Maybe sisko started taking his medication?
Or, maybe boycotts really do work?

Ace42
11-13-2004, 11:03 PM
So you are telling me that ONLY republicans authorized the war in Iraq?

No, read what I said again, the words in it. Even if you (wrongly) take my comment about "the right's fallacy" - I was not using "the right" to be a synonym for "republican". Your understanding of contemporary events will greatly increase if (unlike Bush supporters) you read what is actually said, instead of what you want to hear.

And you are also telling me that everyone that supports Bush is a moron and everyone that supported Kerry was a realist?

No, the University of Maryland is telling you that 80% of Bush supporters are objectively dellusional morons, whereas the same cannot be said of Kerry supporters.

Your post doesn't even deserve a reply. It only adds to the problem. QUIT FOCUSSING ONLY ON THE NEGATIVE!

And yet, here we are, with you telling me to try focussing on the positive aspects of 100,000 innocent Iraqis brutally murdered due to the US being unable to abide by US and international law.

American
11-13-2004, 11:17 PM
You fuckers are a bunch of conspiracy theorists,,,, hahaha
I assure that I am 100% American and no one else. I'm not siko or whoever else you may think that I am.

Ace42
11-13-2004, 11:18 PM
He's blatantly someone's alias. I mean, what, another person who dismisses objective fact as "lies and propoganda" straight off the bat? Starts up with "I want a civil discussion" and then says "I refuse to believe anything that disagrees with me" - that's a very familiar MO, isn't it?

But then, 80% of Bush supporters are just like him, so I guess it is not that improbable.

And despite his "masterful evasion"

So I guess that you ASSume that I voted for Bush. Be careful, you could be wrong.

He is also blatantly a Bush supporter. He's jsut another trolls trying to avoid getting insta-ignored by pretending that he is interested in discourse.

American
11-13-2004, 11:24 PM
As doing something that actually changes something, I constantly write my congress men, I protested bush when he came to town (I was put in a free speech zone, how about that?) I have started a local chapter of Americans United For Seperation of Church and State (www.au.org) and I am active member of the Libertarian party, and I am not even old enough to vote! (www.lp.org)
Good for you. I also write my congressman. I am also glad to see a Libertarian in here. If I had to choose a party it would be the Libertarians. I just have too many reservations about joining a party period. I definately agree with their philosophy and wish that they would get more exposure.





I told you that, we can't change anything, he controls veto, the house, the senate, and soon the supreme court, we cannot change while he is in power therefore he is the cause of the problems. It's not hard to see what he is doing. Here is one fine example.



As far as the veto goes, that is a weak argument considering the 4 years he has been in office, has has not used it one time.

ASsman
11-13-2004, 11:30 PM
Durka Durka Durka, muhamad, durka durka.

American
11-14-2004, 12:37 AM
He's blatantly someone's alias. I mean, what, another person who dismisses objective fact as "lies and propoganda" straight off the bat? Starts up with "I want a civil discussion" and then says "I refuse to believe anything that disagrees with me"
Don't take shit I say out of context. I was referring to half of the people in here. Not myself. And believe what you like about who I am. I am me, and no one else's alias. And as far as being a Bush supporter, do not ASSume. I am a hard working union member that supports my union and what is best for my country.

Ace42
11-14-2004, 12:43 AM
Don't take shit I say out of context. I was referring to half of the people in here. Not myself.

What a surprise, a Bush supporter that thinks it should be one rule for them, and another for everyone else.

And believe what you like about who I am. I am me, and no one else's alias.

All in all, you're just another prick in The Wall.

And as far as being a Bush supporter, do not ASSume. I am a hard working union member that supports my union and what is best for my country.

There is a kind of confession in your posts / which your modesty has not craft enough to colour: / I know you support Bush. - Hamlet Hamlet

D_Raay
11-14-2004, 01:17 AM
Conspiracy realists would be the more appropriate term.

American
11-14-2004, 01:23 AM
What the fuck ever. You people are impossible.

ASsman
11-14-2004, 08:12 AM
Mission Impossible?

infidel
11-14-2004, 10:26 AM
What the fuck ever. You people are impossible.
Only to simple minded tunnel vision people

Cashew
11-14-2004, 10:55 AM
American, you have to realise, if it sounds crazy, it's normally true. Richard Nixon sending goons to brake into the Watergate Hotel and steal documents from the Democratic party sounds FUCKING NUTS, but it is fucking true.

See the republican party has a much easier time making points and settling arguments because their points are simpler to make. Libertarians and the rest of us CRAZY lefties have a harder time at it because the answers aren't so obvious.

Read that really long post I made a few posts up, it sounds crazy, but you can check every fact, it's all there, it's all fact.

Personally, the world needs to preemptively strike America.

People need to see the white houses propaganda for what is it, evil. Here is why.

First step: create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for you.

Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you. Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary habits fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job, they are heartless murderers who enjoy killing!

Third step: Once these differences are established continue to reinforce them with all disseminated information.

Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information this can be done through state run media. Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party's information. Therefore all for-profit media becomes state-run. Touched Upon above

Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange, militant, or different. Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.

Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.
Create an "Us versus Them" mentality. Leave no room for opinions in between. One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor.

Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions. This can be achieved by slogans such as "freedom loving people versus those who hate freedom." This can also be achieved by the use of flags.

Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity.
It is very effective to use terms like, "It is god's will" or "god bless our nation."

Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers
have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones. Make it clear that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not want or like to kill.

Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability
and then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort the public's fears. Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest fear.

yeahwho
11-14-2004, 11:34 AM
George Bush is about Cheap Labor on an international level. There are no Countries, Boundaries, Cultures, only cheap labor. Mr. Bush is working for the extremely wealthy citizens of this world. We (Labor in the USofA) have given away generations of technological advances, years of research and millions of domestic jobs. Cheap Labor is his bidding. Watch this once proud land be wholesaled by the WTO, Nafta, and the Pentagon for folks who would disagree with the Bush platform. Just a few more years, the picture will become clearer....when the money gets tighter. Uniting will be much tougher then.

paulk
11-14-2004, 02:41 PM
NAFTA and the WTO are hardly about building a laissez-faire world market.

ASsman
11-14-2004, 02:51 PM
Are you serious?

*ASsman throws his WTO mug out the window*

drobertson420
11-14-2004, 08:58 PM
This is kinda funny,though....http://www.schnittshow.com/timages/page/kerry-tshirt.jpg

ASsman
11-14-2004, 09:05 PM
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /timages/page/kerry-tshirt.jpg on this server.

Apache/1.3.31 Server at www.schnittshow.com Port 80


Extremely.

paulk
11-14-2004, 10:09 PM
I was able to view it.

drobertson420
11-15-2004, 07:13 AM
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /timages/page/kerry-tshirt.jpg on this server.

Apache/1.3.31 Server at www.schnittshow.com Port 80


Extremely.


Must be at work? I can't view it through my work server, but I can at home.. :confused:

anyhoo.....

Rosie Cotton
11-15-2004, 07:28 AM
Durka Durka Durka, muhamad, durka durka.

Jihad! Jihad!

Ali
11-15-2004, 07:46 AM
The First Amendment, however, also ensures the separation of religion and state in order to protect people of faith and nonbelievers alike from domination by any favored creed and to protect religion itself from state coercion. I'm no expert on US law, but can't the Republicans be disqualified for unconstitutional behaviour. Isn't there some law being broken here? Why did the Kerry campaign never pick up on this?

We take that kind of thing VERY seriously in France and the UK. In France this has resulted in the controversial 'Headscarf Ban' which has created a lot of problems for the Govt.

A brief google tells me that two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Isn't GWB preferring Christianity over all other religions (especially Islam). I know there aren't actually any laws being passed which benefit Christains, but there really needs to be a further clarification, restricting the use of religious symbolism in canvassing for votes.

ASsman
11-15-2004, 08:00 AM
One theory is that Kerry threw the towel in too early. Another is that Democrats are idiots, and maybe even believing they would look hypocritical if they brought those points up. I'm not sure.

Ali
11-15-2004, 08:10 AM
One theory is that Kerry threw the towel in too early. Any chance of him getting back in the ring, or is it over? I guess he didn't want to be another Al Gore - drag the whole thing out and still lose.

Are those stories about voting irregularities in Florida and Ohio being reported in the mainstream press? Or just the internets?

ASsman
11-15-2004, 08:14 AM
Mainstream. I've seen some MSNBC clips, and such. Here

http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater270.html

Ali
11-15-2004, 08:15 AM
Mainstream. I've seen some MSNBC clips, and such. Here

http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater270.html Nothing on FOX or CNN, though?

ASsman
11-15-2004, 08:20 AM
Idunno, I don't watch FOX and am insulted you would believe I would. As for CNN, you can check. I assume they do, also FOX is actively biased, just so you know.

Whois
11-15-2004, 11:08 AM
Durka Durka Durka, muhamad, durka durka.

Jihad mohammad, ali ali...

Whois
11-15-2004, 11:10 AM
NAFTA and the WTO are hardly about building a laissez-faire world market.

(y)

Whois
11-15-2004, 11:12 AM
Any chance of him getting back in the ring, or is it over? I guess he didn't want to be another Al Gore - drag the whole thing out and still lose.

Are those stories about voting irregularities in Florida and Ohio being reported in the mainstream press? Or just the internets?

Can you say 'gentlemen's agreement'?

Every election is fixed, only a Dem or Repub can win...this is not theory...it is fact.

Ali
11-15-2004, 11:16 AM
Idunno, I don't watch FOX and am insulted you would believe I would. As for CNN, you can check. I assume they do, also FOX is actively biased, just so you know. Chill baby, I would be incredibly suprised if you DID watch Fox News. What I mean is that if those networks are reporting voting irregularities, then I suppose there will be more chance that somethings going to be done about it. Until then, it's just rumours on the innernets. I don't get CNN here in France and wouldn't watch it if I did. TF1 occasionally shows bits if Iraq being slowly reduced to rubble and blood, but not the French aren't really interested in American Politics. Not a single word on CNN.com (shock, horror)

ASsman
11-15-2004, 11:30 AM
D'accord.

D_Raay
11-15-2004, 12:40 PM
Any chance of him getting back in the ring, or is it over? I guess he didn't want to be another Al Gore - drag the whole thing out and still lose.

Are those stories about voting irregularities in Florida and Ohio being reported in the mainstream press? Or just the internets?
The mainstream media and mainstream candidates didn't want to touch the vibrant vote fraud analysis and theorizing that was mushrooming across the internet. John Kerry, of course, was worried about the hit his political standing would take if he opened some never-healed wounds in the American Psyche. That our election system was ugly, inefficient, and yes, inaccurate, was not something worth confronting. The democratizing effects of the World Wide Web would step in, and with analysis and discussion freely flowing, the idea of possible electoral fraud or vote counting error gained traction. WikiPedia, an open source online encyclopedia, has started accumulating some of the analysis on the election controversies and irregularities. Independent media sources began covering the story, and it finally found its way onto cable "news" thanks to Keith Olbermann. Only then did ABC, NPR, The Boston Globe, and the rest of the gang feel the need to address the VoterGate scandal, mostly in the form of dismissive "debunking." Cal Tech even did an analysis, concluding that "there is no evidence that electronic voting machines were used to steal the 2004 election for George Bush." But as more people hear about the potential for fraud, the concern is growing rather than abating. Six Democratic Congressmen have called for an investigation by the General Accountability Office into concerns raised about electronic voting machines. MoveOn finally entered the fray and set up a call to investigate the vote.