A post from "Jesusland"

[JamieSPC]

Hey Blue Staters!

Here's a Fleetwood Mac fan, Alabamian, Christian, Republican and overall basic lover of humanity who dropped in on Chit Chat, knowing what he would find, but dismayed by it all the same.

Dismayed because:
--vitriol is vitriol no matter what side it comes from
--in the process of accusing others of intolerance, many resort to intolerance themselves
--the same outpouring of hatred many of you accuse "Red Staters" of seems to go unchecked and practically unnoticed in your own ranks
--the same type of lashing out against homosexuals, African-Americans or other minority group would likely result in the offending parties being banned from this board (i.e., some brash, misguided individual posting a map branding New York state "Gayville")

It hurts when someone disagrees with you, and it hurts to lose a tough fight. But it also hurts to be openly ridiculed and beat to the dust by people who have absolutely no respect or understanding for what you believe, yet hate you for it without even asking.

None of you here know me, and thereby have no business making assumptions about me personally. But rest easy in the knowledge that you have made me feel most unwelcome at The Ledge.

Thanks, and congratulations for your "tolerance" ... and feel free to flame me into oblivion.

[Alison]

Yes you will probably be flamed. As I have been in the past.
I do agree with what you have said.
Many may feel the same way, but why would they bother posting just to be torn apart.

[JamieSPC]

Alison,

but why would they bother posting just to be torn apart

Because it's worth saying. 'Nuff said.

[amber]

i don't like people to feel bad, but some like you DO argue with others on here. Which you're free to do.
And you notice how a lot of the liberal Dems post news articles supporting thier points? You could do that as well. :wavey:

[DeeGeMe]

I'm one who does not agree with either of you. And I'm glad the two of you are so happy with the Chimp because I'm not!

For the record, a Southern Baptist and I live in South Carolina. And I'm a Democrat because I'm a Christian. I believe in helping the poor, and the downtrodden, and that all men (and women) are created equal. I own and have read several different translations of the Bible, and you know, in not a single one of those versions, do I recall Jesus hanging out with the rich and the powerful. He chased the moneychangers out of the temple. He fed the poor. He cured the sick. His friends were the poor, the lepers, and the prostitutes. The lowest of the low--no where do I recall Jesus taking trips on the corporate jets with his buddies from Enron (you know what I'm talking about here).

Yet, the warfare, and it is indeed warfare, that Republicans have engaged in against Democrats would have you believe that casting a vote for the Democrats is the same as voting for Satan. This is just beyond ridiculous. Yet, some Christians have been so misled by the Republicans that they have swallowed this malarky hook, line, and sinker. And they will, one day, I predict, choke on it as a result.

It's remarkable to me that George Bush, a man who only goes to Church during election years (and even that's pretty rare) can proclaim himself to be a Christian and everyone believes it. I say that you should be known by your works--not your words. And I see a president who has cut funding for the poor, for the aged, for children, for education, for social programs across the board. This is being a Christian???? Yet, he has no problems further enriching the wealthy and for endorsing programs and erasing laws that protect the environment and individuals from corporations. Doesn't that bother you? Because it should. In fact, it should scare you to death.

Let me ask you this--do you really think that the Anti-Christ would appear and proclaim himself the Anti-Christ? Of course not, he (or she) will put the most attractive, genial face on their evil as they possibly can. The Bible's pretty clear on this--it says that "many shall arise in my name." Just something to think about there for you today.

Does it not bother any of you who voted for this man that the very places that were attacked on 9/11 voted AGAINST this president? Does it bother you that he was warned that we were going to be attacked and did NOTHING about it? That he ignored the warnings?

Does it not bother you that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had a direct involvement in 9/11 or with Osama Bin Laden? or that there have been NO Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq? That over 100,000 innocent civilians have been murdered in Iraq by our troops? And for what? Why are we there? This has not kept us safer and has instead, enabled Osama Bin Laden and the other terrorist groups to recruit hundreds if not thousands of fighters for their cause, against us.

Does it not bother you that the World thinks that we have lost our damned minds for electing this man for a second term? That we are now viewed as religious extremists who are pursuing an aggressive policy against other countries? That we have appointed ourselves the policemen of the world (*only applies to countries with rich oil reserves)?

And for your allegations that certain posts would be banned if they attacked gays or a certain race but that it's okay here to fire away at certain other groups (i.e. Republicans)--that's just a misrepresentation and you know it.

The truth is that you can't defend these positions and you know it or else you'd be making multiple posts like the liberals on this board do. But you can't because there's no there--there.

And you know, or you should know, in your heart of hearts that discriminating against the poor, and homosexuals, and other minorities is WRONG.

Please explain to me how Republicans and Conservatives came to be a protected minority when you control the White House, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court? That's not a minority-it's a majority and I don't believe that special protection extends to majority groups, either here or in the "real world".

And on edit---if you have articles proving your positions or that support your view, by all means, post them. See, being liberal means having an open mind and I'm not afraid to read "the other side's" viewpoints. But they had better be grounded in firm fact or I'm going to pick them apart because that's something else liberals are good at--questioning the status quo and not drinking the kool-aid.

[dissention]

Hey Blue Staters!

Here's a Fleetwood Mac fan, Alabamian, Christian, Republican and overall basic lover of humanity who dropped in on Chit Chat, knowing what he would find, but dismayed by it all the same.

Dismayed because:
--vitriol is vitriol no matter what side it comes from
--in the process of accusing others of intolerance, many resort to intolerance themselves
--the same outpouring of hatred many of you accuse "Red Staters" of seems to go unchecked and practically unnoticed in your own ranks
--the same type of lashing out against homosexuals, African-Americans or other minority group would likely result in the offending parties being banned from this board (i.e., some brash, misguided individual posting a map branding New York state "Gayville")

It hurts when someone disagrees with you, and it hurts to lose a tough fight. But it also hurts to be openly ridiculed and beat to the dust by people who have absolutely no respect or understanding for what you believe, yet hate you for it without even asking.

None of you here know me, and thereby have no business making assumptions about me personally. But rest easy in the knowledge that you have made me feel most unwelcome at The Ledge.

Thanks, and congratulations for your "tolerance" ... and feel free to flame me into oblivion.

That's alright, I feel unwelcome in this country. ;)

As for the rest, ever stop to realize that people do understand what you believe and that's why they have no respect for it? My apologies, but I simply do not respect the belief that we should be in Iraq and killing innocent people or the belief that a woman does not have the right to choose. If you can sleep at night knowing that this country has gone to hell in a handbasket, I congratualte you. But don't expect people to respect such views that you might have about the direction this country is going into. Hell knows I don't expect Biblethumpers to respect my "loony" views. There's a fundamental difference between respecting a person's right to hold certain views and respecting a certain view itself.

[dissention]

I'm one who does not agree with either of you. And I'm glad the two of you are so happy with the Chimp because I'm not!

For the record, a Southern Baptist and I live in South Carolina. And I'm a Democrat because I'm a Christian. I believe in helping the poor, and the downtrodden, and that all men (and women) are created equal. I own and have read several different translations of the Bible, and you know, in not a single one of those versions, do I recall Jesus hanging out with the rich and the powerful. He chased the moneychangers out of the temple. He fed the poor. He cured the sick. His friends were the poor, the lepers, and the prostitutes. The lowest of the low--no where do I recall Jesus taking trips on the corporate jets with his buddies from Enron (you know what I'm talking about here).

Yet, the warfare, and it is indeed warfare, that Republicans have engaged in against Democrats would have you believe that casting a vote for the Democrats is the same as voting for Satan. This is just beyond ridiculous. Yet, some Christians have been so misled by the Republicans that they have swallowed this malarky hook, line, and sinker. And they will, one day, I predict, choke on it as a result.

It's remarkable to me that George Bush, a man who only goes to Church during election years (and even that's pretty rare) can proclaim himself to be a Christian and everyone believes it. I say that you should be known by your works--not your words. And I see a president who has cut funding for the poor, for the aged, for children, for education, for social programs across the board. This is being a Christian???? Yet, he has no problems further enriching the wealthy and for endorsing programs and erasing laws that protect the environment and individuals from corporations. Doesn't that bother you? Because it should. In fact, it should scare you to death.

Let me ask you this--do you really think that the Anti-Christ would appear and proclaim himself the Anti-Christ? Of course not, he (or she) will put the most attractive, genial face on their evil as they possibly can. The Bible's pretty clear on this--it says that "many shall arise in my name." Just something to think about there for you today.

Does it not bother any of you who voted for this man that the very places that were attacked on 9/11 voted AGAINST this president? Does it bother you that he was warned that we were going to be attacked and did NOTHING about it? That he ignored the warnings?

Does it not bother you that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had a direct involvement in 9/11 or with Osama Bin Laden? or that there have been NO Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq? That over 100,000 innocent civilians have been murdered in Iraq by our troops? And for what? Why are we there? This has not kept us safer and has instead, enabled Osama Bin Laden and the other terrorist groups to recruit hundreds if not thousands of fighters for their cause, against us.

Does it not bother you that the World thinks that we have lost our damned minds for electing this man for a second term? That we are now viewed as religious extremists who are pursuing an aggressive policy against other countries? That we have appointed ourselves the policemen of the world (*only applies to countries with rich oil reserves)?

And for your allegations that certain posts would be banned if they attacked gays or a certain race but that it's okay here to fire away at certain other groups (i.e. Republicans)--that's just a misrepresentation and you know it.

The truth is that you can't defend these positions and you know it or else you'd be making multiple posts like the liberals on this board do. But you can't because there's no there--there.

And you know, or you should know, in your heart of hearts that discriminating against the poor, and homosexuals, and other minorities is WRONG.

Please explain to me how Republicans and Conservatives came to be a protected minority when you control the White House, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court? That's not a minority-it's a majority and I don't believe that special protection extends to majority groups, either here or in the "real world".

And on edit---if you have articles proving your positions or that support your view, by all means, post them. See, being liberal means having an open mind and I'm not afraid to read "the other side's" viewpoints. But they had better be grounded in firm fact or I'm going to pick them apart because that's something else liberals are good at--questioning the status quo and not drinking the kool-aid.

Tell the gal what she's won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :xoxo:

[DrummerDeanna]

I stopped taking things personally - because I think the problem many have on here is with the religious right - and come on - I think they're justified in their anger and such...

Now - no, I don't agree that it makes things better to just bash and demean those you are against, but it sometimes just allows an avenue to vent and therefore feel a little better - finding folks who agree with you and such...

Furthermore - I think the problem is - like it or not - Christianitly SHOULD NOT be ruling our country - I am a Christian and a believer - but I recognize that not everyone is that way - and I have to (and gladly) accept that because what is right for me is not right for everyone.

I know a lot of Christians feels justified because they know the "truth" but um...ya know - every other religion says the same thing....so whatever man - that theory doesn't float for everyone and therefore religion needs to be kept out of politics and it's not.

I want someone to give me ONE just one good, logical and well thought out reason against Gay Marraige - that has NOTHING to do with religion or faith - and I'll listen with an open-mind...but no one's been able to do that because it's totally a religious thing - errrggg.....

Anyway - let me ask - and I do respect the views of others - at least I Try to - it IS hard when people use God to divide and take away people's rights...anyway with ALL of the evidence of the wrongs Bush has done...why ? why? support a man who clearly has an agenda that is based soley on religion and class? I truly don't understand and it deeply saddens me...

[DeeGeMe]

Diss said:
Tell the gal what she's won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You, and Goldie, and the Democratic Underground taught me everything I know. (Well, that and my 40 years of living and my degrees in English and Poliltical Science.) :)

[strandinthewind]

Hey Blue Staters!

Here's a Fleetwood Mac fan, Alabamian, Christian, Republican and overall basic lover of humanity who dropped in on Chit Chat, knowing what he would find, but dismayed by it all the same.

Dismayed because:
--vitriol is vitriol no matter what side it comes from
--in the process of accusing others of intolerance, many resort to intolerance themselves
--the same outpouring of hatred many of you accuse "Red Staters" of seems to go unchecked and practically unnoticed in your own ranks
--the same type of lashing out against homosexuals, African-Americans or other minority group would likely result in the offending parties being banned from this board (i.e., some brash, misguided individual posting a map branding New York state "Gayville")

It hurts when someone disagrees with you, and it hurts to lose a tough fight. But it also hurts to be openly ridiculed and beat to the dust by people who have absolutely no respect or understanding for what you believe, yet hate you for it without even asking.

None of you here know me, and thereby have no business making assumptions about me personally. But rest easy in the knowledge that you have made me feel most unwelcome at The Ledge.

Thanks, and congratulations for your "tolerance" ... and feel free to flame me into oblivion.

For the record, when I go off on the Republican party, it almost always is supported by facts so there is no assuming there on my part :srhug:

Moreover, I am not usually talking about all Republicans. In fact, far from it and I usually point that out. I am almost always talking about the far religious right (Flawell, Robertson, etc.) - which the current Pres. of the U.S. used to get himself elected and is now beholden to!!!!!!! I do not think there can be any argument about that as it is widely accepted as fact :shrug: I find that scary because those people are not about respecting anyone but what they perceive as a Christian, which is not even what the Catholic Church perceives as such. I mean the Catholic Church opposed the war in Iraq and is against the death penalty.

So, I am sorry if you took personally anything I said about the far religious right (Robertson, Falwell, etc.) if you are not part of that group. What I am not sorry for is attacking that intolerant ilk with fact based arguments. I mean if you put the shoe on the other foot for a secons and you were beaten down and called an unnatural against God sinner every day sometimes many times a day, lived in fear of someone beating the crap out of you just because you are different, and then told YOU were responsible for the terrorist attacks on America but are not clean enough to fight for your country unless you stay in the closet, I think you just might raise your voice. Well, that is how just about all of the gay Americans and those sho support them feel. I mean what are they supposed to do, have a sit in (levity on a serious topic :laugh: ) while W and his cronies rape America and deny anyone but the Christians govt. protected rights. That is B.S. and if it offends you to hear it called that - so be it.

I will say this though, I agree the hate comes from both sides and I, too, get sick of it. But, I am unsure how to stop it because, again, it is hard to not react in kind.

Tone: civil and with repsect

[dissention]

Diss said:
Tell the gal what she's won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You, and Goldie, and the Democratic Underground taught me everything I know. (Well, that and my 40 years of living and my degrees in English and Poliltical Science.) :)

Me?! Oh, darling, what a compliment. :xoxo:

[Alison]

By the way to make something clear. I did not vote for Bush. I'm a Canadian.
If I was American, would I vote for Bush. Probably not, but I didn't care for Kerry either.
I think the poster was offended mostly for the Jesus land map, and the intolerance for Christians that seems to be on this board. Please don't paint us with the same brush as Jerry Farwelll, or what ever his name is, or even with Bush. But don't bash us becasue we have a personal relationship with Jesus our Lord and Savour, that you can not understand, or care to.

[DrummerDeanna]

By the way to make something clear. I did not vote for Bush. I'm a Canadian.
If I was American, would I vote for Bush. Probably not, but I didn't care for Kerry either.
I think the poster was offended mostly for the Jesus land map, and the intolerance for Christians that seems to be on this board. Please don't paint us with the same brush as Jerry Farwelll, or what ever his name is, or even with Bush. But don't bash us becasue we have a personal relationship with Jesus our Lord and Savour, that you can not understand, or care to.

That I can agree with - I sure as hell AM NOT in the same category as - um that guy mentioned above....

[DeeGeMe]

By the way to make something clear. I did not vote for Bush. I'm a Canadian.
If I was American, would I vote for Bush. Probably not, but I didn't care for Kerry either.
I think the poster was offended mostly for the Jesus land map, and the intolerance for Christians that seems to be on this board. Please don't paint us with the same brush as Jerry Farwelll, or what ever his name is, or even with Bush. But don't bash us becasue we have a personal relationship with Jesus our Lord and Savour, that you can not understand, or care to.

And my post was to point out that I am a Christian and a Liberal. I think, therefore, I am both.

[amber]

I think the poster was offended mostly for the Jesus land map,
Actually, there is nothing inherently offensive in that map. Look again, it only says "Jesusland" and "United States of Canada" - No offensive words or anything. And, clearly, you don't find the word "Jesus" offensive, and probably not "Canada" either. Unless you were offended that where you live wasn't included as part of Jesusland? :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

Yes, that was a beautiful post, I love Degee!! :blob2:

Tell the gal what she's won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :xoxo:

[JamieSPC]

Thank you, Alison. Well said. :xoxo:

The quick rash of posts following mine managed to prove my point quickly and aptly.

No one here knows me, and thereby has no business assuming anything about me. Yet, because I say I'm a Christian and a Republican, already I've been:

--labeled a "Biblethumper"
--automatically assumed as a Bush voter
--told to "post articles" to support my position, as if all of us aren't smart enough to do it ourselves
--again, without KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT ME, talk about discrimination, hating gays, and having no regard for the less fortunate while I roll in piles of money
--and, incredibly, someone actually said it makes you feel better to "bash and demean" those you are against.

Since liberal Democrats are all about reaching across the "divide," how about getting to know me or people like me?

POLITICS: People who voted for John McCain in the primaries. People who believe (like most Republicans, and like our platform says) that the Federal government has no business in the private lives (or wallets) of individuals one way or the other. People who believe that churches, synagogues and mosques should have the same Federal support in helping the poor and needy (our God-given responsibility) that organizations like Planned Parenthood do.

RELIGION: People who understand and live by Jesus' teaching, and ONLY Jesus' teaching, not man-made doctrine or denominations. People who grew up in the VERY real intolerance of the Rural South and have come to reject much of their upbringing. People like my parents, who I've seen cry over their ballot because they can't decide which is more important: the life of an unborn child or the fundamental right of a woman to govern her own body.

Get to know me. There are a lot of us out here in "Jesusland" (and yes, that's the most hateful, sarcastic, offensive signature I've seen here at The Ledge... less for the words than for the idea behind them).

[dissention]

--labeled a "Biblethumper"


Sounds like a case of someone filtering things to suit their argument. ;)

[DrummerDeanna]

--and, incredibly, someone actually said it makes you feel better to "bash and demean" those you are against.



That is NOT what I said....but perhaps it came across that way :shrug:

First off - NO ONE here is accussing you directly or judging you - I don't believe anyone has called you a Bible-thumper...perhaps I missed something...

I was simply trying to explain the difference between who these people are mad about - the religious right - the extremists who do everything BUT show God's love or any Christianity in their actions...:shrug:

It seems as though you're taking things WAY to personally ....I'm a Christian, I'm a liberal....yes, some on this board don't agree or even like my religion, and I also don't like to see it dragged through the mud - but I have pretty much caught on that they're pretty much talking about a specific group of religious folks - and not all of them in general...

[DrummerDeanna]

Sounds like a case of someone filtering things to suit their argument. ;)

:nod: :nod:

Incidentally - this person has also not addressed any questions or anything addressed to said person...hmmm :shrug:

[dissention]

No one here knows me, and thereby has no business assuming anything about me.

Get to know me.

I love these statements. I think it's very telling that you posted about the politics of others, invited "flaming," or whatever you call it, then conveniently leave out every detail of your own politics. Very slick. ;) Seems to me that if anyone assumes anything about you, it's because you left the door open yourself by introducing yourself as a Christian Republican who dislikes the way we talk politics without any exposition about yourself.

[dissention]

:nod: :nod:

Incidentally - this person has also not addressed any questions or anything addressed to said person...hmmm :shrug:

That's because they are too busy complaining that liberal Democrats don't reach out to them instead of posting their political beliefs while complaining about others. It boggles the mind. It also mystifies me as to why all the "reaching out" should be done by liberals and Democrats. :)

[SuzeQuze]

Well, with all due repect JamieSPC, you <i>invited</i> flames. This whole thread is antagonistic to blue staters. The intention seems to be to "stir the pot". Please tell us what you are "for" as opposed to what you are against. I don't know what the point of this is. You say you are misrepresented, so please represent. Who are you?

It may be difficult from your perspective to understand the level of rage and disillusionment that is caused by this president being re-elected. Wed the 3rd was so depressing to us. It was like being in a nightmare but not being able to wake up. It is difficult to understand how people could swallow all of the lies of this administration. Actually, it is impossible to understand from a liberal perspective. It just so happens that the "red states" did this. So we have to talk about "them" and try to understand. We have to try to comprehend the incomprehensible.

Thank you, Alison. Well said. :xoxo:

The quick rash of posts following mine managed to prove my point quickly and aptly.

No one here knows me, and thereby has no business assuming anything about me. Yet, because I say I'm a Christian and a Republican, already I've been:

--labeled a "Biblethumper"
--automatically assumed as a Bush voter
--told to "post articles" to support my position, as if all of us aren't smart enough to do it ourselves
--again, without KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT ME, talk about discrimination, hating gays, and having no regard for the less fortunate while I roll in piles of money
--and, incredibly, someone actually said it makes you feel better to "bash and demean" those you are against.

Since liberal Democrats are all about reaching across the "divide," how about getting to know me or people like me?

POLITICS: People who voted for John McCain in the primaries. People who believe (like most Republicans, and like our platform says) that the Federal government has no business in the private lives (or wallets) of individuals one way or the other. People who believe that churches, synagogues and mosques should have the same Federal support in helping the poor and needy (our God-given responsibility) that organizations like Planned Parenthood do.

RELIGION: People who understand and live by Jesus' teaching, and ONLY Jesus' teaching, not man-made doctrine or denominations. People who grew up in the VERY real intolerance of the Rural South and have come to reject much of their upbringing. People like my parents, who I've seen cry over their ballot because they can't decide which is more important: the life of an unborn child or the fundamental right of a woman to govern her own body.

Get to know me. There are a lot of us out here in "Jesusland" (and yes, that's the most hateful, sarcastic, offensive signature I've seen here at The Ledge... less for the words than for the idea behind them).

[JamieSPC]

dissention,

You're right... I think it's telling, too. It tells me what I believe our biggest problem to be.

IMMEDIATELY, without asking or seemingly (and notice I said SEEMINGLY) caring, "Christian Republican" means "bigot, idiot, gay-hater, Bush supporter, religious right, Fallwell-watcher" etc. Just as to many, "gay" or "pro-choice" have their own degrading definitions. It's not even discussed. It's ASSUMED IMMEDIATELY.

And it's MY FAULT because I "opened the door" to this ridicule, as if I somehow deserve to be ridiculed in the first place!

Yeah, it was a trap. And I didn't mean to crash the party here, but PLEASE, don't forget the "other side" isn't always evil and intent on sending our country to "hell in a handbasket." Everybody in "Jesusland" isn't a hateful, simmering bigot or a festering idiot.

And the point of this, as asked by Suze, is to say that working out your frustrations with insults and (let's just call it what it is) outright hatred is not acceptable. There's been enough of it on both sides that no one in this argument has clean hands.

That's why I was depressed on November 3.

[ontheEdgeof17]

This thread is one reason why I don't believe in organized religion. I grew up in a Lutheran church. We were constantly bashed by other churches in the area because we were "too liberal" and "not Christian enough" because we do not believe in being "saved" in order to get to heaven. Lutherans believe that baptism is the only "saving" a person needs. People would beg me to come to their church in order to be saved. They thought they were "right".

Now, I have formed my own beliefs on the concept of God, and I feel spiritually healthy. That's all that matters, right? Having a faith that carries you through the day.....

I'm done with people telling me what to do and how to act to be a Christian. Everyone thinks they are right and quite possibly they could not be. All I know is that God loves me....gay, liberal, and all. :D

[dissention]

dissention,

You're right... I think it's telling, too. It tells me what I believe our biggest problem to be.

IMMEDIATELY, without asking or seemingly (and notice I said SEEMINGLY) caring, "Christian Republican" means "bigot, idiot, gay-hater, Bush supporter, religious right, Fallwell-watcher" etc. Just as to many, "gay" or "pro-choice" have their own degrading definitions. It's not even discussed. It's ASSUMED IMMEDIATELY.

And it's MY FAULT because I "opened the door" to this ridicule, as if I somehow deserve to be ridiculed in the first place!

Yeah, it was a trap. And I didn't mean to crash the party here, but PLEASE, don't forget the "other side" isn't always evil and intent on sending our country to "hell in a handbasket." Everybody in "Jesusland" isn't a hateful, simmering bigot or a festering idiot.

Nor did I say they were. But certainly, if you were in my "loony" liberal, blue state shoes, you would be quite incredudlous as to the intent of a thread started by someone who describes themselves as a Christian Republican in Alabama and who calls out the "Blue Staters." Surely you see how your thread came off and surely you know that the intent of your thread was not only to piss us off, but to invite flames so that you could sit back and claim that we simply proved your point.

Get over yourself, self-righteousness is an unbecoming personality trait.

[JamieSPC]

Yep, Curtis. I've all but abandoned denominational religion. I see no provision for it in the Bible, and it seems that's where most "religious" people have to line up instead of thinking for themselves.

I go to church, for sure. I've been blessed enough to find a place, and a commmunity of people, who love me for who I am and encourage individual study over mindless indoctrination.

Like Paul said... "work out your own salvation."

[sara1998]

First off, this is not intended for one party or the other. It's intended to be read by both. Maybe I'm shallow minded, or don't enjoy a debate with my fellow posters, but this is what the conversation of religion and politics will always lead to. Everyone has their own opinions and beliefs. There is no right or wrong in either. Therefore, my OPINION is that religion and politics are somewhat overdiscussed here, and therefore leads to endless arguements, and some hurt feelings. Can't we all accept that everyone here has a difference of opinion, without everyone getting so pissed off? :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Thank you, Alison. Well said. :xoxo:

The quick rash of posts following mine managed to prove my point quickly and aptly.

No one here knows me, and thereby has no business assuming anything about me. Yet, because I say I'm a Christian and a Republican, already I've been:

--labeled a "Biblethumper"
--automatically assumed as a Bush voter
--told to "post articles" to support my position, as if all of us aren't smart enough to do it ourselves
--again, without KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT ME, talk about discrimination, hating gays, and having no regard for the less fortunate while I roll in piles of money
--and, incredibly, someone actually said it makes you feel better to "bash and demean" those you are against.

Since liberal Democrats are all about reaching across the "divide," how about getting to know me or people like me?

POLITICS: People who voted for John McCain in the primaries. People who believe (like most Republicans, and like our platform says) that the Federal government has no business in the private lives (or wallets) of individuals one way or the other. People who believe that churches, synagogues and mosques should have the same Federal support in helping the poor and needy (our God-given responsibility) that organizations like Planned Parenthood do.

RELIGION: People who understand and live by Jesus' teaching, and ONLY Jesus' teaching, not man-made doctrine or denominations. People who grew up in the VERY real intolerance of the Rural South and have come to reject much of their upbringing. People like my parents, who I've seen cry over their ballot because they can't decide which is more important: the life of an unborn child or the fundamental right of a woman to govern her own body.

Get to know me. There are a lot of us out here in "Jesusland" (and yes, that's the most hateful, sarcastic, offensive signature I've seen here at The Ledge... less for the words than for the idea behind them).


With all due respect, I never assumed as such :shrug:

[amber]

It is difficult to understand how people could swallow all of the lies of this administration. Actually, it is impossible to understand from a liberal perspective. It just so happens that the "red states" did this. So we have to talk about "them" and try to understand. We have to try to comprehend the incomprehensible.
Yeah, for me, it hard understand how ANYONE, liberal, repub, whatever, can stand for the lies of this administration. Jamie, you should be up in arms as an American for what the Bush administration has done, and then lied about, TO YOU, AND TO ALL OF US. This man is your president, and he lied his ass off TO YOU TO, JAMIE.

[dissention]

Yeah, for me, it hard understand how ANYONE, liberal, repub, whatever, can stand for the lies of this administration. Jamie, you should be up in arms as an American for what the Bush administration has done, and then lied TO YOU, AND TO ALL OF US, about. This man is your president, and he lied his ass off TO YOU TO, JAMIE.

I think Jamie's distaste for the current discourse of American politics should be laid on the shoulders of the party and the administration that is largely responsible for it, both in policy decisions and outright nastiness when it comes to human behavior. No one is claiming to be an innocent when it comes to talking politics, I certainly don't. I know I'm an asshole and a rather opinionated bastard when I tlak politics, but I'd rather be an asshole in approach than naive in belief.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Everybody in "Jesusland" isn't a hateful, simmering bigot or a festering idiot.

Truer words have never been spoken - just as everyone in Mass. is not liberal W claimed them to be.

My problems rests solely in the far religious right, which is increasingly becoming the Republican party - if it has not yet consumed them. It started with Robertson in the late 80's and it has ballooned since.

In my opinion, to be a Republican and not be for automatic rights for the Christians and no one else is a conflicting position - because that is what is happening. I saw Karl Rove on Meet the Press on Sun. and he was quick to cite the ideals of the Republican Party to wit: less gov., less intrusion into out private lives, etc. - then he, of course quoted Scripture in what I took as a high sign for the flock watching him. Yet, W wants to do exactly that and more and he has achieved that goal in a lot of ways!!!!!! I mean the govt. under W is the largest it has ever been and it has the most rights combined in one Act than has ever been done so before :shrug: That is why, contrary to DeeGeMe's opinion :wavey: (levity) - I am not a Republican. In fact, I really tow no party line. I call B.S. B.S. when I see it :shrug: Again, if that offends anyone - so be it.

[takenbythesky]

Now, I have formed my own beliefs on the concept of God, and I feel spiritually healthy. That's all that matters, right? Having a faith that carries you through the day.....

I'm done with people telling me what to do and how to act to be a Christian. Everyone thinks they are right and quite possibly they could not be. All I know is that God loves me....gay, liberal, and all. :D

:nod:

I've had that same "spiritually healthy" feeling since about a year and a half ago, when I decided that denominational/organized religion was not for me and began to just "go my own way."

-Justin

[Siri Ruane]

Holy crap... the reason I took a break from posting was because of all the political/debate crap, and here I come back and its only gotten worse. *dies*

[Patti]

Unfortunately, I live in Jesusland. I have been back to the midwest for 8 months now, and I am just flabbergasted at the conservative turn this area has taken. When I first became eligible to vote (a looooooooong time ago), this area was far more liberal than it is now. Several people that I spoke with over the last few months about the issue of gay marriage stated they were against it because "the bible says it's wrong". Honestly I don't remember ever hearing so many people quoting the bible in all my years of living here previously. I'm certainly not the most liberal member of this board, but living around all this "rightness" has made me more liberal every day.

Jason is right, in that the Republican party used to be the party of limited government and fiscal responsibility. Bush has done everything in his power to reverse that. The government is huge and Bush and Co. want to intrude on all areas of our lives.

So Jamie, sorry if we offend you, but the state of our country is pretty offensive right now.

[strandinthewind]

Holy crap... the reason I took a break from posting was because of all the political/debate crap, and here I come back and its only gotten worse. *dies*

Well, the election stirred up alot if emotions on both sides :shrug: AND - this is a place where some people can speak freely (on both sides). Admittedly, it is heavily liberal, but IMO that is because the people who voted for W cannot cite facts to support their decision when called on the carpet to do so. Who would want to be in that argument on that side - I sure would not :shrug:

Finally, people, esp. gay people, see W as wanting to put them in concentration camps. While I think the theory that idea is a little fallacious, it does seem that the majority of Americans do not mind gay people as long as they do not have to see their dirty sinful ways. I think that sucks. I think this is America and if you want to hold you partner of any type's hand in public, you ought to be able to. Sadly, the far religious right is apoplectic at the thought to wit: Jerry Falwell BLAMED gay people, abortionists, and the ACLU for the invoking the Wrath of God or at least God removing His protection from the U.S. (as opposed to any other country mind you) and allowing 9/11 to happen. Then, about a month or two ago, Falwell said he would kill any gay man that approached or hit on him. Granted he retracted those statements, but the clear history of him is that those retractions are meaningless and not in any way indicative much less dispositive of his true beliefs. I mean how would you feel if someone had the effrontery to lay the most horrible thing ever to happen to the U.S. ever on you shoulders. And - this man has an effect on or controls the thoughts of millions of Americans who are now salivating to put those sinners in their place and take America back for their god. I think you'd be pissed.

[JamieSPC]

It started with Robertson in the late 80's and it has ballooned since.

Something similar happened to Southern Baptists (that's how I grew up) in the early 90s. Somewhere along the line the whole organization became so politicized... it became less about fulfilling the mission Christ left us with and more about boycotting this and that. And, leadership just ASSUMED everyone was on board. WRONG!

This election was very similar... there are millions of people in the political wilderness right now because millions more feel they have to label themselves something. And both sides hate the other side. dissention, that is NOT the current administration's fault. That has been going on for decades, since the days of LBJ and Nixon. In many ways, you can blame it on Vietnam, which alienated an entire generation.

I posted (call it self-righteous if you will) to remind Blue Staters that there are people like me out there. Some voted for Bush, some voted for Kerry, more than a few voted for Nader (I personally know lots of people who did, even in ALABAMA!). And I find it hard to vote for the party whose platform I agree most with, because the people who end up running on it stomp it into nothingness.

My first non-Fleetwood Mac post (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?p=176861) was months ago and dissention warned me I would stick out like a sore thumb. Well, right on.

[strandinthewind]

Something similar happened to Southern Baptists (that's how I grew up) in the early 90s. Somewhere along the line the whole organization became so politicized... it became less about fulfilling the mission Christ left us with and more about boycotting this and that. And, leadership just ASSUMED everyone was on board. WRONG!

This election was very similar... there are millions of people in the political wilderness right now because millions more feel they have to label themselves something. And both sides hate the other side. dissention, that is NOT the current administration's fault. That has been going on for decades, since the days of LBJ and Nixon. In many ways, you can blame it on Vietnam, which alienated an entire generation.

I posted (call it self-righteous if you will) to remind Blue Staters that there are people like me out there. Some voted for Bush, some voted for Kerry, more than a few voted for Nader (I personally know lots of people who did, even in ALABAMA!).

My first non-Fleetwood Mac post (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?p=176861) was months ago and dissention warned me I would stick out like a sore thumb. Well, right on.

I agree - I was laothe in many ways to vote for Kerry. In fact, in many ways, I voted against the only viable alternative to W, which was W.

Interestingly, I think trends historically fail once they get too much power. So, the pendulum will swing back - at least I hope.

:cool:

[ontheEdgeof17]

Several people that I spoke with over the last few months about the issue of gay marriage stated they were against it because "the bible says it's wrong". Honestly I don't remember ever hearing so many people quoting the bible in all my years of living here previously. I'm certainly not the most liberal member of this board, but living around all this "rightness" has made me more liberal every day.




They tend to forget the verses about the relationship between David and Jonathan.....

[wondergirl9847]

Someone famous, and I am blanking on his name right now ( ;) ) said "Nobody falls into a simple set of labels."

[dissention]

I posted (call it self-righteous if you will) to remind Blue Staters that there are people like me out there. Some voted for Bush, some voted for Kerry, more than a few voted for Nader (I personally know lots of people who did, even in ALABAMA!).

We have many people who post here from red states who aren't necessarily conservative. It's nice that you felt the need to remind us that not everyone is a religious nut job, but we already knew that.

My first non-Fleetwood Mac post (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?p=176861) was months ago and dissention warned me I would stick out like a sore thumb. Well, right on.

Anyone attracted to Minute Rice will stick out like a sore thumb, that's just a fact of life. ;)

[Johnny Stew]

A few problems I have with the religious conviction people associate with President Bush:

-When church leaders tell their congregations how to vote, and their president states that he speaks for God, there is no separation of church and state-they're in bed together.

-By my way of thinking and researching, I do not believe President Bush nor Vice President Cheney to be morally commendable people.

-To me, not allowing gay couples civil unions or marriage is unchristian. Did not Jesus preach of love and tolerance? Aren't all people created equal, and doesn't everyone deserve the right to marriage?

...I do not loathe the Republican Party. I do not dislike Christianity. It just alarms me to see many of the things that make our country great crumbling under one President's terms in office. I have been to the Midwest and Southern United States on several occasions. As is always the case, THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. Not everyone in the "red" states is a fervent Bush/Cheney maniac. There were people I talked to who were on "both sides of the coin" when I was in the South and the Midwest...

-Justin

Now, I have formed my own beliefs on the concept of God, and I feel spiritually healthy. That's all that matters, right? Having a faith that carries you through the day.....

I'm done with people telling me what to do and how to act to be a Christian. Everyone thinks they are right and quite possibly they could not be. All I know is that God loves me....gay, liberal, and all.

I should just be a dittohead (oops, hope that didn't sound intolerant ;) ), and nod my head to the above statements... but I'll add a few thoughts.

A very close friend of mine reminded me last night that liberals are often viewed as being elitist, and that's why more people tend to allign themselves with the Republican/conservative party, and I suppose that's true.
I know I often get frustrated when I explain something until I'm blue in the face, and yet people still don't "get it"... so I can see why some people just give up and write other people off as being "less enlightened."

To me, it seems simple... equal rights for EVERYONE, regardless of race, creed, religious persuasion, or romantic/sexual orientation.
So I get exasperated when others don't see it that way. I mean, what have you got to lose if others have the same rights as you?

And I get even more exasperated (and sometimes downright angry) when others claim they agree, but then turn around and vote for the very politicians who work so adamantly to limit our rights.
Maybe it's wrong of me to feel this way, but it seems somewhat two-faced.

But I don't look down on anyone. In fact, I often expect too much of people, and set myself up for major disappointment. I always feel people can be reasoned with, and that their sense of decency and fairness can be appealed to. So, man, am I ever let down when they prove me wrong.

I was raised Catholic, and have a decent knowledge about the bible, though I no longer consider myself a Catholic (despite the old "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" adage). Quite honestly, I have a hard time alligning myself with any organized religion, so I consider myself now to be "spiritual."
I believe in God, I follow the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, and I try to uphold a consistency between my words and my deeds.
I sort of feel like I've "cut out the middle-man," so to speak. I don't need a preacher telling me how to live my life... he's just a human being with no more knowledge or wisdom than I have.

But, I don't look down on those who do go to church. They get something out of it, and more power to them.
We're headed towards the same goal... how we get there is somewhat less important.

The only problem I ever have in regards to "religious folk," is with the ones who CLAIM to be good people, but then use the bible and God to excuse their own ignorance and intolerance.
But certainly that does not apply to ALL people who attend church, or are Christian, etc.
It's just a select group... and, unfortunately, they tend to have the loudest mouths and, seemingly, the most influence. So, in turn, they're the ones who are most criticized.

And I can understand why many other Christians would feel that they're being looked down at in turn, because of the extremists.
I know perfectly well what it's like to be assumed you behave a certain way, simply because you fit a label.

But I know the score about myself, and everyone else can think whatever they want.
Assumptions made about me don't make me feel bad or guilty, unless they're true.

So if you feel you're being stereotyped unfairly, prove people wrong by your actions. The surest way to change minds is to lead by example. :nod:

[dissention]

dissention, that is NOT the current administration's fault. That has been going on for decades, since the days of LBJ and Nixon. In many ways, you can blame it on Vietnam, which alienated an entire generation.

That's why I said this administration is largely responsible, nowhere did I say they were entirely responsible. Surely you, in all your wisdom, cannot deny that the current Republican party and the current administration have only exacerbated the disdainful divide between parties.

[strandinthewind]

Just to add fuel to the fire - take a look at the link below. The states that supported slavery or at least were tolerant of it - are not Republican states. I know it is an unfair comparison on many levels, but still . . . :eek:



http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/2004/11/free_states_vs_.html

P.S. I know nothing of this site and thank them for the use of the maps.

[dissention]

Just to add fuel to the fire - take a look at the link below. The states that supported slavery or at least were tolerant of it - are not Republican states. I know it is an unfair comparison on many levels, but still . . . :eek:

http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/2004/11/free_states_vs_.html

P.S. I know nothing of this site and thank them for the use of the maps.

Are you reading that map correctly, Jason? The red states supported slavery and the brown states were open to slavery. The green states were free states and territories. :shrug:

[Johnny Stew]

I've had that same "spiritually healthy" feeling since about a year and a half ago, when I decided that denominational/organized religion was not for me and began to just "go my own way."

I was miserable when I belonged to a religion whose basic opinion of homosexuality is "love the sinner, hate the sin."
I don't feel like a sinner for being homosexual. Call me a sinner for any number of reasons, but not for the way I was born.

Like you, Justin, I feel infinitely more "spiritually healthy" now that I've cut through all the b.s.
And anyone who feels the need to save my soul, is better off worrying about their own.

[strandinthewind]

Are you reading that map correctly, Jason? The red states supported slavery and the brown states were open to slavery. The green states were free states and territories. :shrug:


I think it implies that the Green areas votes in 2004 for Kerry and the other areas (red and brown) went to W in 2004. Unless I am totally misreading the mad (IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY :laugh: ) - the map implies that things are like they were in 1855 or so. That is scary :eek:

Edit: I am not using the same color scheme of today.

[wondergirl9847]

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."
--Brennan Manning (quoted by dc Talk, "What If I Stumble?", Jesus Freak)

Amen.

[The Tower]

In fact, I often expect too much of people, and set myself up for major disappointment.

I, too, expected too much from this electorate- and I was severely disappointed.

I always feel people can be reasoned with, and that their sense of decency and fairness can be appealed to. So, man, am I ever let down when they prove me wrong.

In order to reason with some, the have to possess a sense of decency and fairness to begin with. BushCo has neither, so any chance of any good coming out of their power is zilch.

So if you feel you're being stereotyped unfairly, prove people wrong by your actions. The surest way to change minds is to lead by example.

This is another reason why I can't forgive anyone who voted for Dubya. He led by example. His record was there for all to see. So, if any of you out there voted for Bush, you voted for his record. You voted for all the things he did. You gave him your approval. And you will reap what you have sown.

[dissention]

I think it implies that the Green areas votes in 2004 for Kerry and the other areas (red and brown) went to W in 2004. Unless I am totally misreading the mad (IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY :laugh: ) - the map implies that things are like they were in 1855 or so. That is scary :eek:

Yeah, that's exactly what it says. You threw me off when you said that the states that supported slavery were not Republican states when they obviously are. :)

[DrummerDeanna]

This thread is one reason why I don't believe in organized religion. I grew up in a Lutheran church. We were constantly bashed by other churches in the area because we were "too liberal" and "not Christian enough" because we do not believe in being "saved" in order to get to heaven. Lutherans believe that baptism is the only "saving" a person needs. People would beg me to come to their church in order to be saved. They thought they were "right".

Now, I have formed my own beliefs on the concept of God, and I feel spiritually healthy. That's all that matters, right? Having a faith that carries you through the day.....

I'm done with people telling me what to do and how to act to be a Christian. Everyone thinks they are right and quite possibly they could not be. All I know is that God loves me....gay, liberal, and all. :D

:nod: I know where you're coming from there - I was always hearing about how I'm not really a Christian etc....

One group on my ex-college campus even had a big presentation on how Catholics were not Christian and generally are just as hell-bound and atheists :rolleyes: they were a super fundamentalist group...go figure.

[strandinthewind]

Yeah, that's exactly what it says. You threw me off when you said that the states that supported slavery were not Republican states when they obviously are. :)
OOOOPPPPSSS!! :laugh: :laugh: W can't conjugate - I can't tyoe :shrug:

[dissention]

OOOOPPPPSSS!! :laugh: :laugh: W can't conjugate - I can't tyoe :shrug:

:laugh: He doesn't speak our language, you don't type it. :laugh:

[JamieSPC]

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."
--Brennan Manning (quoted by dc Talk, "What If I Stumble?", Jesus Freak)

Amen.

Yes, and there are a lot of them that do just that. Then there are those that spend every day trying to do exactly like He said, screw up, dust themselves off, and try again.

And please know, for the love of God ... that map isn't implying anything about me. Back to my original point: Is it possible to avoid labels and generalization? Or is it just too easy to slip into that mindset?

[SuzeQuze]

:nod: I know where you're coming from there - I was always hearing about how I'm not really a Christian etc....

One group on my ex-college campus even had a big presentation on how Catholics were not Christian and generally are just as hell-bound and atheists :rolleyes: they were a super fundamentalist group...go figure.

That's INSANE. Although I have recently learned that Catholics are the "white minority" or something like that. Ugh.

This country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. The whole point is to have religious freedom (and freedom in general). What is happening???
:confused: :confused:

[strandinthewind]

Yes, and there are a lot of them that do just that. Then there are those that spend every day trying to do exactly like He said, screw up, dust themselves off, and try again.

And please know, for the love of God ... that map isn't implying anything about me. Back to my original point: Is it possible to avoid labels and generalization? Or is it just too easy to slip into that mindset?

LOL - I was not implying that about you or me (I am for Louisiana ya know :nod: ). Someone sent it to me today in an email and I though :eek: the more things change . . . .

[dissention]

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."
--Brennan Manning (quoted by dc Talk, "What If I Stumble?", Jesus Freak)

Amen.

That quote doesn't apply to my Atheist beliefs. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

That's INSANE. Although I have recently learned that Catholics are the "white minority" or something like that. Ugh.

This country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. The whole point is to have religious freedom (and freedom in general). What is happening???
:confused: :confused:

Well, they were fleeing primarily from the Catholics :laugh:

Seriously, many many Protestant organizations to this day consider the Pope an evil person and the Catholic parishioners mere papicists (sp.?) They look on it as impossible to give your allegiance the Pope and to God because they are not one in the same. The Catholics, of course, have a different take :laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

One group on my ex-college campus even had a big presentation on how Catholics were not Christian and generally are just as hell-bound and atheists :rolleyes: they were a super fundamentalist group...go figure.

I get a HUGE kick out of the fact that 99.9% of all known organized religions seem to feel that THEY'RE the only faith that has found the surest road to God, and anyone else is fooling themselves.

I've never understood why being a decent and loving person isn't considered enough. Why do we all have to look, talk, act, think and believe the same things?

"So many different kinds of people, trying to be the same...."

[strandinthewind]

That quote doesn't apply to my Atheist beliefs. :xoxo:


True - but clearly you can find good in Christ's life and apply it to your own just as you could Buddah, the Dali Lama, etc. :shrug: I mean who would not want to help the poor, etc.

[takenbythesky]

I should just be a dittohead (oops, hope that didn't sound intolerant ;) ), and nod my head to the above statements... but I'll add a few thoughts.

No, you should not have been a "dittohead." :) Everyone should feel free to pick apart or analyze anything I post! Hearing about other people's worldviews, opinions, etc. helps me to form a deeper understanding about the world.

-Justin

[dissention]

True - but clearly you can find good in Christ's life and apply it to your own just as you could Buddah, the Dali Lama, etc. :shrug: I mean who would not want to help the poor, etc.

That's assuming that I believe Christ existed. :shrug:

[Johnny Stew]

Well, they were fleeing primarily from the Catholics :laugh:

Seriously, many many Protestant organizations to this day consider the Pope an evil person and the Catholic parishioners mere papicists (sp.?) They look on it as impossible to give your allegiance the Pope and to God because they are not one in the same. The Catholics, of course, have a different take :laugh:

Catholics believe that the Pope should not be viewed in the same esteem as God (no one should), simply that he acts as a "moral compass."
Someone to look toward for additional guidance when necessary.

[strandinthewind]

That's assuming that I believe Christ existed. :shrug:

Even if he did not - the story in The Gospel (good news) has some good deeds in it.

[wondergirl9847]

That's assuming that I believe Christ existed. :shrug:

How do you know anyone before your lifetime existed? :shrug: I mean, I assume that certain historical figures existed because it was written so. I didn't see/meet them, but people say they existed...it's called faith. I put my faith in people to have told the truth about events that happened before my time.

[Johnny Stew]

True - but clearly you can find good in Christ's life and apply it to your own just as you could Buddah, the Dali Lama, etc. :shrug: I mean who would not want to help the poor, etc.

I BRIEFLY considered myself Atheist/Agnostic, but I realized that I was letting other people's interpretations of "God" influence my own.
I couldn't believe in "their" God (vengeful, jealous), so I didn't want to believe at all.

Thankfully, I cut through the malarkey. :)

[DrummerDeanna]

Yes Catholics have their own take on the accusation of being papists and idolators...we also get accused of putting the Virgin Mary at the same level as God - or for worshiping Mary - not true..

And I know I'm not a papist...I couldn't honestly care less about the Pope, and honestly the whole vatican thing kind of frightens me - I just go my own way and I take what i want to from the mass etc...

I do know that the Catholic Church has some crazy ass and big problems - but every religion does...I just rise above that and keep my own faith close to my own heart...

[Johnny Stew]

That's assuming that I believe Christ existed. :shrug:

I don't think it can be disproven that Christ existed.
Now, whether or not he was truly the "Son of God" can be debated, of course... but all evidence points to the man having existed. :)

[strandinthewind]

Catholics believe that the Pope should not be viewed in the same esteem as God (no one should), simply that he acts as a "moral compass."
Someone to look toward for additional guidance when necessary.

True and I was incorrect for implying such - They think the Pope is God's instrument, etc.

Here is a site with some cool info.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

[DrummerDeanna]

True and I was incorrect for implying such - They think the Pope is God's instrument, etc.

Here is a site with some cool info.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

ummm no...still not true of all of the Catholics I know personally...

It may be official church teaching...but in my opinion - and many others...the vatican is highly antiquated and yeah....we are a Christian faith and do not worship the Pope, the saints or the Virgin Mary as deities...

[strandinthewind]

ummm no...still not true of all of the Catholics I know personally...

It may be official church teaching...but in my opinion - and many others...the vatican is highly antiquated and yeah....we are a Christian faith and do not worship the Pope, the saints or the Virgin Mary as deities...

I cannot speak for anyone personally. I was citing Church Doctrine that is all.

But, to be a Catholic is to uphold the Church's laws. Or, you are, as I affectionately put it, a Cafeteria Catholic ( http://www.concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm - stinging site - but they have a point :shrug: - another http://www.catholic.org/prwire/headline.php?ID=1153 ) - I mean people that vote R can say they are against most of W's policies, but they put W back in there :shrug: :laugh:

Note: this is not a diatribe against the Catholic Church, which, though imperfect, does countless wonders for countless people all over the world.

[ShamHy89]

I do know that the Catholic Church has some crazy ass and big problems - but every religion does...I just rise above that and keep my own faith close to my own heart...
Very nice post, Deanna. I am a Catholic myself and I hear accusations from members of all kinds of organizations and denominations that criticize and insult aspects of my faith. I never force my beliefs on anyone and I try to follow the example of Christ when I can. It really upsets me when I hear "idolater" and "Mary-worshipper." It's all just belligerent invective.

Besides, we have St. Peter and the whole one Church thing on our side. :D

Shamus

[Johnny Stew]

Even if he did not - the story in The Bible has some good deeds in it.

I think the Bible presents some EXCELLENT parables. When viewed in certain ways, the stories offer terrific lessons on life and this world.

The trouble, in my opinion, is when every word in the bible is considered to be "the Word of God."
Very little in the bible is straight from God's mouth, so to speak... the rest are the interpretations (which can't help but be influenced by the prevailing viewpoints of that age) of HUMAN and very fallible MEN.

For lack of a better phrase, I prefer my beliefs to come "straight from the horse's mouth"... not from the horse's interpreter.

[DrummerDeanna]

Very nice post, Deanna. I am a Catholic myself and I hear accusations from members of all kinds of organizations and denominations that criticize and insult aspects of my faith. I never force my beliefs on anyone and I try to follow the example of Christ when I can. It really upsets me when I hear "idolater" and "Mary-worshipper." It's all just belligerent invective.

Besides, we have St. Peter and the whole one Church thing on our side. :D

Shamus

:laugh: right on....seriously though - sucks that even within different religions there is such hostility ya know? It's not enough that I'm a faithful person? That's why I just decided to do what's right for me and not let others get to me...

Jason -I know you were stating doctrine...but generally (at least where I'm from) there's beginning to be a disconnect with many aspects of official church doctrine and teachings....which I think is GREAT - such an antiquated system as I said earlier...

[strandinthewind]

I think the Bible presents some EXCELLENT parables. When viewed in certain ways, the stories offer terrific lessons on life and this world.

The trouble, in my opinion, is when every word in the bible is considered to be "the Word of God."
Very little in the bible is straight from God's mouth, so to speak... the rest are the interpretations (which can't help but be influenced by the prevailing viewpoints of that age) of HUMAN and very fallible MEN.

For lack of a better phrase, I prefer my beliefs to come "straight from the horse's mouth"... not from the horse's interpreter.

I agree to a point - where I disagree is if everyone did what they and they alone thought was "right" according to how they feel about God, it would be anarchy. I mean some people believe killing doctors who perform abortions is the "right" thing to do. I know you were not really going that far with that though :cool:

[estranged4life]

That's assuming that I believe Christ existed. :shrug:

he was on at the very end of the South Park Christmas episode singing "Happy Birthday to me"...And let's not forget the time he beat Satan in the boxing match and only 1 person in South Park bet money on Jesus to actually win (That's right...Satan!!! Threw the fight and cashed in big time) :lol:

Brian "Jesus hates me, this I know...because the burning Biblical Shrub told me so..." j.

[strandinthewind]

:laugh: right on....seriously though - sucks that even within different religions there is such hostility ya know? It's not enough that I'm a faithful person? That's why I just decided to do what's right for me and not let others get to me...

Jason -I know you were stating doctrine...but generally (at least where I'm from) there's beginning to be a disconnect with many aspects of official church doctrine and teachings....which I think is GREAT - such an antiquated system as I said earlier...

I know - I was just saying, etc.

I think the Catholic Church does not even see this as a problem. The Church tends to look at things not in real time. I mean it views things in centuries and probably considers this acceptable behaviour that will not and cannot harm it as long as the flock remains in tact. BTW - the Catholic Church is fascinating to me - can ya tell :laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

:laugh: right on....seriously though - sucks that even within different religions there is such hostility ya know? It's not enough that I'm a faithful person? That's why I just decided to do what's right for me and not let others get to me...

That's the greatest irony of all. Even within Christianity, it's not enough to simply BELIEVE. You have to share the EXACT beliefs.

Of course, that's a generalization... not every Christian feels that way. However, it is the prevailing opinion of the various religions as entities.

[wondergirl9847]

And let's not forget the time he beat Satan in the boxing match and only 1 person in South Park bet money on Jesus to actually win (That's right...Satan!!! Threw the fight and cashed in big time) :lol:


Jimbo (about Satan): "Hey...that guy's a jerk!"

[JamieSPC]

Someone, I think Johnny said this, said the best way we can lead is to do it by example. Right on.

As far as Fundamendalists calling Catholics names, etc. ... I believe you have several choices when someone calls you a name or criticizes you. You can gently rebuke and explain your position (like the book of Hebrews says), or you can fold and walk away.

"Turning the other cheek" doesn't mean not standing up for yourself. But the best thing to is show love first and make your point second. Nobody here really knows anything about anybody, so that's tough to do.

Even when I was a Baptist, I identified myself first as a Christian. People can still hate you for that, but at least they're not hating you for anything man made up (denomination).

I believe many, many of my Catholic friends will be in heaven. And we'll tip-toe past the Baptists, since some of them (but not all) will think they'll be the only ones there. :angel:

[Johnny Stew]

I agree to a point - where I disagree is if everyone did what they and they alone thought was "right" according to how they feel about God, it would be anarchy. I mean some people believe killing doctors who perform abortions is the "right" thing to do. I know you were not really going that far with that though :cool:

I hear ya. But I feel that if you follow the Ten Commandments (which are the truest examples of the "Word Of God," as best I can tell), then you can't go wrong.

The Ten Commandments CLEARLY state that we are not to kill.
If you kill someone (or something, since the Commandments don't specify exactly what it is we're not to kill), then you're not following God... how ever you may interpret Him.

[wondergirl9847]

Rowan Atkinson does a hilarious skit about Hell. He is Satan and is putting certain groups together. I can't remember much of the dialogue, but I do remember something like "Christians, over here....yes, I'm sorry, but the Jews were right."

I just about fell off the couch at that skit!! :laugh:

[estranged4life]

"Turning the other cheek" doesn't mean not standing up for yourself. But the best thing to is show love first and make your point second. Nobody here really knows anything about anybody, so that's tough to do.


Most people have turned the "cheeks" so much that their asses have fallen off already...Like I posted before, Ya wanna see religion corrupted for the "All Mighty Dollar" & by "right wing fundamentalist F**ktards" move to Oklahoma!


I believe many, many of my Catholic friends will be in heaven. And we'll tip-toe past the Baptists, since some of them (but not all) will think they'll be the only ones there. :angel:

Have fun in heaven ya'll...I'll be burning forever more in that big ol' pit of fire...Ohhh "I'm So Afraid" :lol:

Brian "Hell Aint A Bad Place" j.

[Johnny Stew]

I believe many, many of my Catholic friends will be in heaven. And we'll tip-toe past the Baptists, since some of them (but not all) will think they'll be the only ones there. :angel:

Reminds me of the old joke about St. Peter telling people of other denominations, when allowing them admittance into Heaven... "just keep your voices down -- the Catholics are on the other side, and they think they're the only ones here." ;)

[Johnny Stew]

Have fun in heaven ya'll...I'll be burning forever more in that big ol' pit of fire...Ohhh "I'm So Afraid" :lol:

Brian "Hell Aint A Bad Place" j.

You'll never die, Brian!
Heaven doesn't want you, and Hell's afraid you'll take over. ;)

[DrummerDeanna]

I know - I was just saying, etc.

I think the Catholic Church does not even see this as a problem. The Church tends to look at things not in real time. I mean it views things in centuries and probably considers this acceptable behaviour that will not and cannot harm it as long as the flock remains in tact. BTW - the Catholic Church is fascinating to me - can ya tell :laugh:

I agree - they totally don't see things as a problem - I think it's slightly promising, however, that some followers do...

Just some for instances...I believe Women should be allowed to be priests and I believe priests should be allowed to marry...phew...betcha didn't know I was such a radical ;) :laugh:

[estranged4life]

You'll never die, Brian!
Heaven doesn't want you, and Hell's afraid you'll take over. ;)

"Hostile takovers" have nuthin' on my ass :lol: :nod: :laugh:

Btw, When I rule in HELL there wont be ANY RAP MUSIC ALLOWED!!! Besides when Rev.Jerry Flaw-well, Jimmy "Wheres the HOOKERS?" Sawggart, Pat "Bobble head Tard" Robert-sin & ORAL Roberts all arrive I will definitely have to have some fun with these collected mental pygmies!

Brian "\m/>_<\m/" j.

[SuzeQuze]

Sorry Brian, Jesus loves you no matter what you do :nod:

The thing about this "my religion is right" crap is how short-sighted it is. Why would God pick one religion and go, "Yeah, those are the guys who worship me correctly, they're all saved."? The truth is, all of these religions are correct. They see God as they can understand Him.

This is one reason I am sickened by our presence in Iraq. I believe that part of the reason is religious. Since Muslims follow the Koran and not the Bible they are all heathens, etc. etc. This belief is based purely on ignorance. Islam is not a "bad" religion. Maybe some interpretations of it have gotten out of hand (meaning violence/terrorism which is NOT advocated in the Koran) but it is not "bad".

I can't follow any "religion" because there is always some part of it that I cannot follow. But I am a believer because to have faith is healthier for me. I spent many years not believing and they weren't fun years. Besides, if I turn out to be wrong and there is no God or after life and when I die I will just become nothingness then what harm did a lifetime of believing do? I'll have moved on.

Most people have turned the "cheeks" so much that their asses have fallen off already...Like I posted before, Ya wanna see religion corrupted for the "All Mighty Dollar" & by "right wing fundamentalist F**ktards" move to Oklahoma!



Have fun in heaven ya'll...I'll be burning forever more in that big ol' pit of fire...Ohhh "I'm So Afraid" :lol:

Brian "Hell Aint A Bad Place" j.

[estranged4life]

Sorry Brian, Jesus loves you no matter what you do :nod:

The thing about this "my religion is right" crap is how short-sighted it is. Why would God pick one religion and go, "Yeah, those are the guys who worship me correctly, they're all saved."? The truth is, all of these religions are correct. They see God as they can understand Him.

This is one reason I am sickened by our presence in Iraq. I believe that part of the reason is religious. Since Muslims follow the Koran and not the Bible they are all heathens, etc. etc. This belief is based purely on ignorance. Islam is not a "bad" religion. Maybe some interpretations of it have gotten out of hand (meaning violence/terrorism which is NOT advocated in the Koran) but it is not "bad".

I can't follow any "religion" because there is always some part of it that I cannot follow. But I am a believer because to have faith is healthier for me. I spent many years not believing and they weren't fun years. Besides, if I turn out to be wrong and there is no God or after life and when I die I will just become nothingness then what harm did a lifetime of believing do? I'll have moved on.

He (the "J-Guy") does but living in the HYPOCRITE "Bible Belt" has "warped my fragile lil' mind"...I wonder though, does He love me enough to let me borrow $5 to buy some porn?? :lol: :laugh: :lol:

Brian j.

[strandinthewind]

I agree - they totally don't see things as a problem - I think it's slightly promising, however, that some followers do...

Just some for instances...I believe Women should be allowed to be priests and I believe priests should be allowed to marry...phew...betcha didn't know I was such a radical ;) :laugh:


Well, there are those sandals!!!!! :laugh:

I am unsure if I told you this one before, BUT - when I was in Italy a few years ago, my friend wanted to go into some Church (I think it was the Vatican :eek: ) and they were like "no sandals permitted" which got the heated and pithy response "JESUS wore sandals so can I" :laugh:

[ShamHy89]

As far as Fundamendalists calling Catholics names, etc. ... I believe you have several choices when someone calls you a name or criticizes you. You can gently rebuke and explain your position (like the book of Hebrews says), or you can fold and walk away.
Naturally. I tend to rebuke though... :shrug:
Reminds me of the old joke about St. Peter telling people of other denominations, when allowing them admittance into Heaven... "just keep your voices down -- the Catholics are on the other side, and they think they're the only ones here."
I love jokes like that! It's fun to laugh at yourself sometimes.
BTW - the Catholic Church is fascinating to me - can ya tell
Have you ever read Julius Exclusus? It's one of my favorites. Erasmus was a pretty hilarious guy when he wanted to be. I find Church history fascinating as well.

Shamus

BTW- Thanks to everyone for keeping this civil. I know the Church has wronged many people and there is a crisis happening right now, but if the faithful remain and bigotry is crushed inside and out (hence "Ecrasez l'infame") I have hope that all of us can get along and one day be happy in the end...whether you believe in heaven or not.

[strandinthewind]

He (the "J-Guy") does but living in the HYPOCRITE "Bible Belt" has "warped my fragile lil' mind"...I wonder though, does He love me enough to let me borrow $5 to buy some porn?? :lol: :laugh: :lol:

Brian j.

Well, if you porn collection is as big as your bootleg collection :eek: we need to talk!!!! :laugh: :laugh:

[amber]

I agree - they totally don't see things as a problem - I think it's slightly promising, however, that some followers do...

Just some for instances...I believe Women should be allowed to be priests and I believe priests should be allowed to marry...phew...betcha didn't know I was such a radical ;) :laugh:
:lol: :laugh: :lol: :xoxo:

[SuzeQuze]

He (the "J-Guy") does but living in the HYPOCRITE "Bible Belt" has "warped my fragile lil' mind"...I wonder though, does He love me enough to let me borrow $5 to buy some porn?? :lol: :laugh: :lol:

Brian j.

Um... NOPE :D

[amber]

He (the "J-Guy") does but living in the HYPOCRITE "Bible Belt" has "warped my fragile lil' mind"...I wonder though, does He love me enough to let me borrow $5 to buy some porn?? :lol: :laugh: :lol:

Brian j.
Yeah, I think Jesus is down like that... :D

[Johnny Stew]

The thing about this "my religion is right" crap is how short-sighted it is. Why would God pick one religion and go, "Yeah, those are the guys who worship me correctly, they're all saved."?

The whole thing really isn't too dissimilar to Linus hoping that HIS pumpkin patch is the most sincere pumpkin patch around, and, therefore, the Great Pumpkin will visit his above any others. ;)



I can't follow any "religion" because there is always some part of it that I cannot follow. But I am a believer because to have faith is healthier for me. I spent many years not believing and they weren't fun years. Besides, if I turn out to be wrong and there is no God or after life and when I die I will just become nothingness then what harm did a lifetime of believing do? I'll have moved on.

Amen. :nod: :)

[DrummerDeanna]

Well, there are those sandals!!!!! :laugh:

I am unsure if I told you this one before, BUT - when I was in Italy a few years ago, my friend wanted to go into some Church (I think it was the Vatican :eek: ) and they were like "no sandals permitted" which got the heated and pithy response "JESUS wore sandals so can I" :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: That is classic...and so true...haha...

When I was little I went to some scary ass church, in the middle the older than Jesus priest just stopped talking, pointed down the middle aisle and said, "GEt out! How dare you come into the house of God wearing that!?!"

The woman was wearing a tasteful short set (the shorts apparently offended the priest...) I was so freaked out, then said loudly, "GOD LIVES HERE???"

------

Then once I had this ugly as sin doll with no hair and my sister wrote the word bald across her head....

I took it to church and left it at the alter lol...the priest looked horrified and to be nice asked what it's name was and I said, "her name is muuuuud..." haha..my mom was mortified...

THEN...

Once I was misbehaving in church and my mom took me to the bathroom to discipline me - I said nothing - until back in the congregation - at a quiet reflection time I yelled as loud as I could, "YOU DIDN"T HAVE TO HIT ME"

Haha...so fun can be had in the Catholic Church :nod:

[ShamHy89]

Besides, if I turn out to be wrong and there is no God or after life and when I die I will just become nothingness then what harm did a lifetime of believing do? I'll have moved on.
You gotta love that Pascalian logic. :xoxo:

Shamus

[strandinthewind]

:laugh: :laugh: That is classic...and so true...haha...

When I was little I went to some scary ass church, in the middle the older than Jesus priest just stopped talking, pointed down the middle aisle and said, "GEt out! How dare you come into the house of God wearing that!?!"

The woman was wearing a tasteful short set (the shorts apparently offended the priest...) I was so freaked out, then said loudly, "GOD LIVES HERE???"

------

Then once I had this ugly as sin doll with no hair and my sister wrote the word bald across her head....

I took it to church and left it at the alter lol...the priest looked horrified and to be nice asked what it's name was and I said, "her name is muuuuud..." haha..my mom was mortified...

THEN...

Once I was misbehaving in church and my mom took me to the bathroom to discipline me - I said nothing - until back in the congregation - at a quiet reflection time I yelled as loud as I could, "YOU DIDN"T HAVE TO HIT ME"

Haha...so fun can be had in the Catholic Church :nod:


:laugh:

I was reared Episcopalean but always attended Catholic schools and our town was ruled under the iron fist of the Baptist big wig (or so he thought) So, I had the best of all worlds LOL :cool:

[SuzeQuze]

:laugh: :laugh: That is classic...and so true...haha...

...
Once I was misbehaving in church and my mom took me to the bathroom to discipline me - I said nothing - until back in the congregation - at a quiet reflection time I yelled as loud as I could, "YOU DIDN"T HAVE TO HIT ME"

Haha...so fun can be had in the Catholic Church :nod:

Oh this is too funny! I was raised semi-Catholic (was christened but no communion, etc.) and I can just imagine this going over like a lead balloon, haha! Oh children ARE precious.
:laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

Haha...so fun can be had in the Catholic Church :nod:

I remember when we had a visiting priest, who reminded the congregation that he'd be hearing confessions the following Saturday.

He said it was our chance to confess, "adultery, wickedness, impure thoughts, masturbation....."

After hearing the last two, and being a 16 year old boy at the time, I immediately thought, "Oh, sweet Jesus, am I in trouble!" :laugh:

These days I just think he was an old coot who was hoping to get his jollies by hearing our own versions of "Letters to Penthouse"! ;)

[½ ¡Ñ§ÅñË ®]

JT 43: 8 Thou shall not join fan clubs and expect a fan club. I did find some kind words. SN 17: 3 Thou shall buy Fracas.

[gldstwmn]

I'm one who does not agree with either of you. And I'm glad the two of you are so happy with the Chimp because I'm not!

For the record, a Southern Baptist and I live in South Carolina. And I'm a Democrat because I'm a Christian. I believe in helping the poor, and the downtrodden, and that all men (and women) are created equal. I own and have read several different translations of the Bible, and you know, in not a single one of those versions, do I recall Jesus hanging out with the rich and the powerful. He chased the moneychangers out of the temple. He fed the poor. He cured the sick. His friends were the poor, the lepers, and the prostitutes. The lowest of the low--no where do I recall Jesus taking trips on the corporate jets with his buddies from Enron (you know what I'm talking about here).

Yet, the warfare, and it is indeed warfare, that Republicans have engaged in against Democrats would have you believe that casting a vote for the Democrats is the same as voting for Satan. This is just beyond ridiculous. Yet, some Christians have been so misled by the Republicans that they have swallowed this malarky hook, line, and sinker. And they will, one day, I predict, choke on it as a result.

It's remarkable to me that George Bush, a man who only goes to Church during election years (and even that's pretty rare) can proclaim himself to be a Christian and everyone believes it. I say that you should be known by your works--not your words. And I see a president who has cut funding for the poor, for the aged, for children, for education, for social programs across the board. This is being a Christian???? Yet, he has no problems further enriching the wealthy and for endorsing programs and erasing laws that protect the environment and individuals from corporations. Doesn't that bother you? Because it should. In fact, it should scare you to death.

Let me ask you this--do you really think that the Anti-Christ would appear and proclaim himself the Anti-Christ? Of course not, he (or she) will put the most attractive, genial face on their evil as they possibly can. The Bible's pretty clear on this--it says that "many shall arise in my name." Just something to think about there for you today.

Does it not bother any of you who voted for this man that the very places that were attacked on 9/11 voted AGAINST this president? Does it bother you that he was warned that we were going to be attacked and did NOTHING about it? That he ignored the warnings?

Does it not bother you that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had a direct involvement in 9/11 or with Osama Bin Laden? or that there have been NO Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq? That over 100,000 innocent civilians have been murdered in Iraq by our troops? And for what? Why are we there? This has not kept us safer and has instead, enabled Osama Bin Laden and the other terrorist groups to recruit hundreds if not thousands of fighters for their cause, against us.

Does it not bother you that the World thinks that we have lost our damned minds for electing this man for a second term? That we are now viewed as religious extremists who are pursuing an aggressive policy against other countries? That we have appointed ourselves the policemen of the world (*only applies to countries with rich oil reserves)?

And for your allegations that certain posts would be banned if they attacked gays or a certain race but that it's okay here to fire away at certain other groups (i.e. Republicans)--that's just a misrepresentation and you know it.

The truth is that you can't defend these positions and you know it or else you'd be making multiple posts like the liberals on this board do. But you can't because there's no there--there.

And you know, or you should know, in your heart of hearts that discriminating against the poor, and homosexuals, and other minorities is WRONG.

Please explain to me how Republicans and Conservatives came to be a protected minority when you control the White House, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court? That's not a minority-it's a majority and I don't believe that special protection extends to majority groups, either here or in the "real world".

And on edit---if you have articles proving your positions or that support your view, by all means, post them. See, being liberal means having an open mind and I'm not afraid to read "the other side's" viewpoints. But they had better be grounded in firm fact or I'm going to pick them apart because that's something else liberals are good at--questioning the status quo and not drinking the kool-aid.

Impressive post DeeGeeMee. You rock. :thumbsup:

[DrummerDeanna]

I remember when we had a visiting priest, who reminded the congregation that he'd be hearing confessions the following Saturday.

He said it was our chance to confess, "adultery, wickedness, impure thoughts, masturbation....."

After hearing the last two, and being a 16 year old boy at the time, I immediately thought, "Oh, sweet Jesus, am I in trouble!" :laugh:

These days I just think he was an old coot who was hoping to get his jollies by hearing our own versions of "Letters to Penthouse"! ;)

whoa - some priests are super creepy....that gave me the heebs what he said lol...

I remember once my sister called our priest an asshole and I asked my grandma if she would go to hell for doing that, and my grandma said something to the effect of - "no, you dont' go to hell for telling the truth" lol...

[gldstwmn]

Diss said:
Tell the gal what she's won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You, and Goldie, and the Democratic Underground taught me everything I know. (Well, that and my 40 years of living and my degrees in English and Poliltical Science.) :)

If it wasn't for you guys, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, AAR and DU, I would have begun to question that what I strongly suspected last week actually did not happen. By Thursday, I thought I was losing it. Then Friday, Ralph Nader, who I have said many bitter things about, intervened. Ralph, if you can pull this off, I will take back every bad thing I've ever said about you.
Today, I started talking amongst business acquaintances who I happen to know are Democrats. I found out, they feel the same way I do. I also found out one of their kids, who lives in my neighborhood and is an 18-24 year old was knocked off the voter rolls and forced to vote provisional like my 18 year old was. I wonder how many others there are.
By the way, if anyone is liscensed to practice law in Nevada, please contact www.blackboxvoting.org. as soon as you can if you wish to help our fight to retain the republic.

[DeeGeMe]

Impressive post DeeGeeMee. You rock. :thumbsup:

Fired off in a five-minute "redheaded-fit" I was having. :)

I've got another question for the "religious right":

You keep citing exit polls that say that for 21% of you--moral values were the single most important voting issue. Uhm--would these be the same exit polls that showed John Kerry winning the election? Because you know, they were wrong too! Just saying. . . .You can't have it both ways you know--to believe one is correct and one is wrong would be. . . . what's the word I'm looking for. . . hypocritical, maybe?

[gldstwmn]

I think the poster was offended mostly for the Jesus land map,

Then I'll say it again: USE THE IGNORE FUNCTION.

[DeeGeMe]

If it wasn't for you guys, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, AAR and DU, I would have begun to question that what I strongly suspected last week actually did not happen. By Thursday, I thought I was losing it. Then Friday, Ralph Nader, who I have said many bitter things about, intervened. Ralph, if you can pull this off, I will take back every bad thing I've ever said about you.
Today, I started talking amongst business acquaintances who I happen to know are Democrats. I found out, they feel the same way I do. I also found out one of their kids, who lives in my neighborhood and is an 18-24 year old was knocked off the voter rolls and forced to vote provisional like my 18 year old was. I wonder how many others there are.

Ain't that the truth? My lifelines are the Democrats on this board, DU, AAR, (Randi, Mike, the Unfiltered folks--hell, the whole lineup are wonderful), and let me please add the name of Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown who wrote a brilliant blog entry (available at www.bloggermann.com) on the election and possible fraud carried out last week.

[gldstwmn]

I love these statements. I think it's very telling that you posted about the politics of others, invited "flaming," or whatever you call it, then conveniently leave out every detail of your own politics. Very slick. ;) Seems to me that if anyone assumes anything about you, it's because you left the door open yourself by introducing yourself as a Christian Republican who dislikes the way we talk politics without any exposition about yourself.

Why are we suddenly being innundated with posts from people that hardly ever post who suddenly "object" to our right of free speech? :shrug:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Also don't forget everyone that ALL PEOPLE who live in "red states" are not "red staters" Over 1 mill. people in GA voted for Kerry, even though Bush won this state by almost 20 pts.

Chris

[DeeGeMe]

If you look at a county by county map of the election--the map is Purple--not red, not blue. 55 (almost 56) million people voted AGAINST this president and those votes were cast in all 50 states. I can't very well make fun of the "red" states because I live in one! But let me assure you of this-there are liberals everywhere. There are Democrats everywhere. We are not confined to a few select areas in the United States--although if the Republicans had there way. . . .we'd probably all be at Gitmo.



Why are we suddenly being innundated with posts from people that hardly ever post who suddenly "object" to our right of free speech?

Because they hate us for our freedom of speech??????

[gldstwmn]

Even if he did not - the story in The Gospel (good news) has some good deeds in it.

I'm not sure I believe in Christ and I don't read the gospel. :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Ain't that the truth? My lifelines are the Democrats on this board, DU, AAR, (Randi, Mike, the Unfiltered folks--hell, the whole lineup are wonderful), and let me please add the name of Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown who wrote a brilliant blog entry (available at www.bloggermann.com) on the election and possible fraud carried out last week.

I'm hoping he will report on it tonight. :wavey:

[heyjupiter678]

That quote doesn't apply to my Atheist beliefs.
Mine, either. Nothing "caused" my Atheism. I don't believe there is a God -- and that has nothing to do with the actions of Christians. :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Also don't forget everyone that ALL PEOPLE who live in "red states" are not "red staters" Over 1 mill. people in GA voted for Kerry, even though Bush won this state by almost 20 pts.

Chris

Oh honey, it was probably more than that. Your machines have potentially serious flaws in them. They leave no paper trail, as I understand it.

[DeeGeMe]

I'm hoping he will report on it tonight. :wavey:


Just got my Countdown Newsletter--he's doing the story!!!!! I love that man! He's got big ones, that's for sure.

[heyjupiter678]

Also don't forget everyone that ALL PEOPLE who live in "red states" are not "red staters"
:nod: I'm taking solace in the fact that Kerry won my county in NC by almost 20 points!

[gldstwmn]

. I can't very well make fun of the "red" states because I live in one!

So do I.


Because they hate us for our freedom of speech??????
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Just got my Countdown Newsletter--he's doing the story!!!!! I love that man! He's got big ones, that's for sure.

I am going to write him and thank him. :woohoo:

[JamieSPC]

Why are we suddenly being innundated with posts from people that hardly ever post who suddenly "object" to our right of free speech?

That's the worst argument I've ever heard. I post (and lurk) here all the time because I love the Mac (even though I don't live here... no offense to those who really seem to :)) and have since just about the beginning of The Penguin. In fact, since Burnish went away, this is my only stop for FM news whenever I have the chance.

I have complete respect for your opinion and your right to voice it. I like you guys even more because we share a common obsession.

I don't object to anybody's right to say anything. The only thing I have "innundated" you with today is a different set of ideas.

Surely you don't "object" to that?

[gldstwmn]

That's the worst argument I've ever heard.
Surely you don't "object" to that?

Well, I do. If you do a simple search of the board, you'll see your post is not the first of this type. So, I'm not "arguing" anything. And the question wasn't addressed to you.

[DeeGeMe]

I'm going to wait and see the story first! I'm sure he'll do a fair job on it though-he always does. It's got to be tough for him and all, considering he works for a major defense contractor (GE). I can't think his views are very popular around there at MSGOP. But he's independent--it's what got him fired from FoxSports and why he left ESPN. And you know what--I don't think that he cares what they think. Oh yeah, management has to love that kind of attitude! I just wish that there were 100 more journalists just like him out there-this country might not be Jesusland if it were!

[JamieSPC]

Well, I do. If you do a simple search of the board, you'll see your post is not the first of this type.

I don't have to search the board... you didn't either. I linked to my one and only response to a political thread (before today) earlier in THIS thread.

So, I'm not "arguing" anything. And the question wasn't addressed to you.

Okay, I'm sorry. :shocked:

[amber]

Well, I do. If you do a simple search of the board, you'll see your post is not the first of this type. So, I'm not "arguing" anything. And the question wasn't addressed to you.
Wow, really? you object to her and others posting a different set of ideas?

[gldstwmn]

Wow, really? you object to her and others posting a different set of ideas?

No. I object to calling my argument the "worst" he's ever heard. It's an opinion. :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

I'm going to wait and see the story first! I'm sure he'll do a fair job on it though-he always does. It's got to be tough for him and all, considering he works for a major defense contractor (GE). I can't think his views are very popular around there at MSGOP. But he's independent--it's what got him fired from FoxSports and why he left ESPN. And you know what--I don't think that he cares what they think. Oh yeah, management has to love that kind of attitude! I just wish that there were 100 more journalists just like him out there-this country might not be Jesusland if it were!

I know. The media is in "lockdown" mode right now. Jeffery Toobin is now covering the Peterson case?

[strandinthewind]

I'm not sure I believe in Christ and I don't read the gospel. :shrug:

Well, if ya did . . . :laugh:

Seriously, like the teachings of Buddah, etc. - it is not a bad thing to live your live by regardless of your belief in Christ :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Why are we suddenly being innundated with posts from people that hardly ever post who suddenly "object" to our right of free speech? :shrug:

Sighes - once again, the First Amendment of the Const. says:
___________________________________________________

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
___________________________________________________

Thus, the only "right" is not to have the govt. suppress speech :shrug: Anyone provate citizen can tell any other private citizen to shut up, which I am sure you are ready to tell me :laugh: :wavey:

Sorry - as you know - this is a pet peeve :cool:

[DeeGeMe]

I know. The media is in "lockdown" mode right now. Jeffery Toobin is now covering the Peterson case?

You'd think they'd would have learned their lesson after the whole Iraq mess but no--apparently not. As one of my favorite cartoons says, "The Nation's Media-Sleeping Soundly Since Watergate". That about sums it up. I guess they just can't risk giving up their fat paychecks and their summer homes on Martha's Vineyard and in the Hamptons and all that. Keith's a rare one. There are still some good guys on our side-but they're few and far between.

[strandinthewind]

I know. The media is in "lockdown" mode right now. Jeffery Toobin is now covering the Peterson case?

THAT fiasco of a trial - it is next to impossible to tell what a jury will do, but the latest from CNN is that they are hinting at deadlock and as a general rule, the longer they are out, the less likely a conviction :shrug:

But, back to the topix at hand - Bush sucks!!!!! :cool:

[strandinthewind]

You'd think they'd would have learned their lesson after the whole Iraq mess but no--apparently not. As one of my favorite cartoons says, "The Nation's Media-Sleeping Soundly Since Watergate". That about sums it up. I guess they just can't risk giving up their fat paychecks and their summer homes on Martha's Vineyard and in the Hamptons and all that. Keith's a rare one. There are still some good guys on our side-but they're few and far between.

I know - although I do not think they were as bad about Iraq as most.

My problem with the media is they are money driven. Fox, without a doubt, is where the money is now. So, they all are emulating in some way Fox. But, the only alternative is a state sponsored media :eek:

[estranged4life]

returns He should have to solve a Rubic's Cube...Without Cheating too...

Then I will believe in miracles.

Brian "The stars arent bright...These idiots should be set alite...Deep in the heart of Jesus-land" j.

[golddustwoman77]

First of all, I would like to start by saying, I'm a Christian, and I live in Tennessee (part of the Bible Belt). Having said that, here are my thoughts.

I want to know when religion and politics became intertwined! There is supposed to be seperation of church and state as stated in the Constitution. There is no place for politics in religion and no place for religion in politics. That is why churches do not pay taxes. They are non profit and supposed to be apolitical. Also, the government is not supposed to promote a religion, because we are supposed to be a country where we are free to worship as we choose, and EVERYONE is represented regardless of race, sex, creed, or religion. Isn't that why the Pilgrims and others came to America? It was for freedom of religion. They were tired of having their government telling them they had to go to the Church of England. That is why this is such an important value. It is a value that our country is founded on.

This has always been respected by Democrats and Republicans alike until the past few years. Now all of a sudden, we have a President (George W. Bush) on TV who is always trying to work religion into his speeches, etc. (This could be considered promoting a religion, which isn't the government's place. He is supposed to represent EVERYONE.) He wants everyone to know that he is a Christian. Why the change with this President? He saw the reaction to this by people of his faith. Some Christians started showing him support solely based on the fact that he is a Christian. They weren't looking at the other aspects of his presidency. He saw how this worked, and he started doing it more and more. It was a great way to build his voting base and take people away from looking at other issues. He and his party starts portraying the other side as immoral and not supporting Christian values. More and more Christians buy into this, and the churches even start to get involved in this. You have churches promoting candidates. Ministers telling their congregations who to vote for, and elders in the church handing out flyers of who to vote for. All of this happening during church. (I have seen it first hand here.) This is a very dangerous snowball effect!

What is this?! Government shouldn't be promoting religion, no more than religion should be promoting candidates. It doesn't mix, and it shouldn't. If religious groups/churches are going to support candidates, then they should be paying taxes. They are no longer apolitical. If the President is going to support a certain religious group, are we going to change the Consitution and jeopardize our country and divide us? My answer would be "NO!" Churches need to stop promoting candidates, and Presidents need to stop promoting religion.

Both need to focus on the real issues at hand. Terrorism, job loss, the war, the huge deficit, education, etc. The things that matter to all Americans. Things we can unite on and change together. We shouldn't be focusing on things that divide us, such as religion.

Also, I would like to shoot down the idea that the Republican Party is the only moral party and the Democratic Party is immoral. Here are the ideals that I have heard that make the Republicans moral: (1) Against abortion + (2) against gay marriage=morality. Well, I would like to point out that Roe vs. Wade happened on a republican's watch (Nixon was the President.) There have been five, Republican Presidents including George W. Bush and his father since the decision and not a single one of them have change or abolished abortion, nor have they appointed judges who have change the decision. We need to realize that this an issue that isn't going to be truely addressed by either side, because it is such a sensitive subject. Just look at the above. Gay marriage is an issue that the Republicans purposely brought up for election time, because they knew they could get many Christians up in arms about that. George W. Bush tried to bring up a consitutional amendment on this topic, and it didn't pass even with a Republican Congress and a Republican President supporting it. This isn't going to happen either. Besides, how is this going to effect the lives of people, except for the gay individuals that it pertains? Also, We, as Christians, are not supposed to judge people, as it states in the Bible.

The point is they are talking about Christian ideals, but they aren't enforcing them, which is why the Christians are supposed to be supporting them in the first place. Very stranged? Also, it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who came up with the plan and sent us to war where innocent men, women, and children are dying daily. Isn't a life, a life? I, as a Christian, believe that "Thou Shall Not Kill." Yet, most Christians are supporting this war and the President who sent us. They are supporting a President who is for the death penalty, etc.

Democrats are supposed to be the anti-Christ, but most of them didn't support this war. They aren't for the death penalty. They haven't voted to change abortion laws, but neither have the Republicans. Therefore, it is a draw on that issue.

In conclusion, the point is people shouldn't vote based on religion. They should vote on issues that the government is responsible for: creating jobs, decreasing the deficit, lowering government spending, preventing war and only going when necessary, stopping terrorism, etc., and they should vote for the candidate who is going to handle these issues the best. Things that affect everyone's daily life. Things that should concern all Americans, not just a few. That is the reason why so many people are disenfranchised right now, and some people are angry with some Christians. They just don't understand how people could believe President Bush is so moral, when only his voice,not his actions, say he is. :shrug:

[JamieSPC]

The stars arent bright...These idiots should be set alite...Deep in the heart of Jesus-land

Yikes...

Strike a match, Brian. Where would you like to start?

I think that does it for me here...

[wondergirl9847]

Billy Graham....a Democrat.

[estranged4life]

Gay marriage is an issue that the republican purposely brought up for election time, because they knew they could get many Christians up in arms about that. George W. Bush tried to bring up a consitutional amendment on this topic, and it didn't pass even with a Republican Congress and a Republican President supporting it.


"Hey...Let's toss the Gay Marriage issue into the upcoming election to toss people off the bad economy & the SNAFU known as Iraq...The "truly" religious will eat it up and we'll have a great shot at 4 more years"

"Sounds good to me..."

Democrats are supposed to be the anti-Christ, but most of them didn't support this war.


Why is everyone after my job? Man, I called dibs on the Anti-Christ a long time ago :lol:

In conclusion, the point is people shouldn't vote based on religion.

Amen, oops...Uh meant to say I agree :)

Brian j.

[sodascouts]

Hey Blue Staters!

Here's a Fleetwood Mac fan, Alabamian, Christian, Republican and overall basic lover of humanity who dropped in on Chit Chat, knowing what he would find, but dismayed by it all the same.

Dismayed because:
--vitriol is vitriol no matter what side it comes from
--in the process of accusing others of intolerance, many resort to intolerance themselves
--the same outpouring of hatred many of you accuse "Red Staters" of seems to go unchecked and practically unnoticed in your own ranks
--the same type of lashing out against homosexuals, African-Americans or other minority group would likely result in the offending parties being banned from this board (i.e., some brash, misguided individual posting a map branding New York state "Gayville")

It hurts when someone disagrees with you, and it hurts to lose a tough fight. But it also hurts to be openly ridiculed and beat to the dust by people who have absolutely no respect or understanding for what you believe, yet hate you for it without even asking.

None of you here know me, and thereby have no business making assumptions about me personally. But rest easy in the knowledge that you have made me feel most unwelcome at The Ledge.

Thanks, and congratulations for your "tolerance" ... and feel free to flame me into oblivion.

So true, Jamie, especially the part about the "Gayville" map. But for some reason it is OK to do that to Christians. :shrug:

[estranged4life]

Yikes...

Strike a match, Brian. Where would you like to start?

I think that does it for me here...

just these zealots/idiots "TV self-claimed messiahs" that have finally gotten under my skin since the elections ended...

When did Pat "Walkin' bobble head" Robert-SIN's opinion matter in the real world? He should go back to the CBN and stay put...An leave the world to the OPEN MINDED.

Brian j.

[gldstwmn]

Sighes - once again, the First Amendment of the Const. says:

That wasn't my question. Go back and read it again.

[strandinthewind]

So true, Jamie, especially the part about the "Gayville" map. But for some reason it is OK to do that to Christians. :shrug:

But that is not a fair assessment; you are lumping all Christians together, which I do not think anyone here is doing. I think few mind nice, live and let live Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.

I think people, myself certainly included, object to the Christians or any other religion that want it their way or no way and anyone who opposes them is a goddless heathen who deserves to be a second class but full tax paying citizen. These people exist - just look at Falwell and Robertson and they minister to tens of millions. I do not think anyone is arguing ALL Christians feel this way :shrug: I mean look at all of the posts where people have declared themselves to be Christians and then declare themselves opposed to the far religious right :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

That wasn't my question. Go back and read it again.


You mean the part where you said "object to our right of free speech" :shrug:

There is no free speech on The Ledge, unless of couse Marty and Lis really are the Atty General as formerly alleged :eek: :laugh:

[sodascouts]

i don't like people to feel bad, but some like you DO argue with others on here. Which you're free to do.
And you notice how a lot of the liberal Dems post news articles supporting thier points? You could do that as well. :wavey:

I don't know about you, but reading these threads, then finding a bunch of articles, would take me HOURS. Hours for what? To get a bunch of angry replies and repetitions of talking points? I'm not tough or patient enough for that. More power to those who are. But it's easy when you're a member of the "club," isn't it?

Briefly I did try to engage in political discourse here a while back. I actually did take the time to explain all my points. Did it convince anyone of anything? No. Did it get me a lot of negative, hostile, upsetting replies? Yes. Therefore, I quit, because I come to the Ledge to enjoy myself. I probably take things too personally, I admit. I let it get to me when people slap me with bigots and make fun of my religion. That's my own problem. But don't assume it's because we have no reason for our beliefs.

[gldstwmn]

You mean the part where you said "object to our right of free speech" :shrug:



No the other part.

[strandinthewind]

I don't know about you, but reading these threads, then finding a bunch of articles, would take me HOURS. Hours for what? To get a bunch of angry replies and repetitions of talking points? I'm not tough or patient enough for that. More power to those who are. But it's easy when you're a member of the "club," isn't it?

Briefly I did try to engage in political discourse here a while back. I actually did take the time to explain all my points. Did it convince anyone of anything? No. Did it get me a lot of negative, hostile, upsetting replies? Yes. Therefore, I quit, because I come to the Ledge to enjoy myself. I probably take things too personally, I admit. I let it get to me when people slap me with bigots and make fun of my religion. That's my own problem. But don't assume it's because we have no reason for our beliefs.

But, Nancy, with all due respect, your points about Iraq and almost all of W's term have been proven to be factually incorrect in those articles from all sources. So, I am unsure people are attacking you for having for opinion as much as they are saying you are factually incorrect, which is different :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

No the other part.

I got that and agree!!!!!!!!!!! :xoxo: :angel:

[Johnny Stew]

So true, Jamie, especially the part about the "Gayville" map. But for some reason it is OK to do that to Christians. :shrug:

Not Christians, Nancy... religious extremists.

[amber]

I don't know about you, but reading these threads, then finding a bunch of articles, would take me HOURS. Hours for what? To get a bunch of angry replies and repetitions of talking points? I'm not tough or patient enough for that. More power to those who are. But it's easy when you're a member of the "club," isn't it?

Briefly I did try to engage in political discourse here a while back. I actually did take the time to explain all my points. Did it convince anyone of anything? No. Did it get me a lot of negative, hostile, upsetting replies? Yes. Therefore, I quit, because I come to the Ledge to enjoy myself. I probably take things too personally, I admit. I let it get to me when people slap me with bigots and make fun of my religion. That's my own problem. But don't assume it's because we have no reason for our beliefs.
I didn't assume that. yeah, i don't want to post a bunch of articles either. But i might want to if i disagreed with the people who post them. And who knows, maybe someone would back you up? And yes, it is easier when you're part of the "club", I suppose. But in this instance, you were not complaining about the political posts, and Jamie was, so I offered some suggestions of what she could do to give herself and her beliefs equal time, if she wanted. No biggie. It just struck me that she could post whatever she wants, too... :shrug:
:wavey:
Amber

[Johnny Stew]

Something I meant to comment on earlier... the accusation that liberals are "just as intolerant" as the people they complain about.

To me... and I don't feel this is a case of rationalization... but there's a difference between being intolerant of an opinion that can be changed (ie: negative attitudes towards gays, blacks, hispanics, etc.), and being intolerant towards people for something that can't be changed (ie: BEING gay, black, hispanic, etc.).

[sodascouts]

Yet, the warfare, and it is indeed warfare, that Republicans have engaged in against Democrats would have you believe that casting a vote for the Democrats is the same as voting for Satan. This is just beyond ridiculous.
.....
Let me ask you this--do you really think that the Anti-Christ would appear and proclaim himself the Anti-Christ? Of course not, he (or she) will put the most attractive, genial face on their evil as they possibly can. The Bible's pretty clear on this--it says that "many shall arise in my name." Just something to think about there for you today.


Yes, it is. Kerry is not Satan. But the implication that Bush is the Anti-Christ is just as ludicrous. Or did I misread you and you were not intending to seriously imply that?


Does it not bother any of you who voted for this man that the very places that were attacked on 9/11 voted AGAINST this president?
No, because I don't base my political decisions on how others vote, I make my own decisions.

Does it bother you that he was warned that we were going to be attacked and did NOTHING about it? That he ignored the warnings?
Hindsight is 20/20. It's so easy to say he should've done this, should've done that. Those attacks did not happen because of George W. Bush, any more than they happened because of Clinton or anyone else who did not take more action against Osama Bin Laden (Here is an example of "Missed Opportunity" at this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ ).

Does it not bother you that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had a direct involvement in 9/11 or with Osama Bin Laden?
Bush was careful to make the distinction and NOT assert that Saddam was partially behind 9/11, although he certainly asserts there is a relationship between the two, he did NOT include that. http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/inquiry/bush-disagrees-with-saddam-911-connection.txt

or that there have been NO Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq?
Everyone knows he had them at one time. He said he destroyed them, but did not allow the UN to observe this destruction, which is a violation of the UN's requirements. Here's a link for you guys: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html . Here's another link that gives the history of Iraq's continued defiance of the UN. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline.htm . And yet it was unreasonable to doubt him? We sure gave him enough time to get rid of them if he did have them, BTW.

That over 100,000 innocent civilians have been murdered in Iraq by our troops? And for what? Why are we there? This has not kept us safer and has instead, enabled Osama Bin Laden and the other terrorist groups to recruit hundreds if not thousands of fighters for their cause, against us.

Of course it's terrible that civilians have killed. But more died under Hussein. Everyone acknowledges his atrocities. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm And those guys choose their own paths; we didn't make them do anything.

Does it not bother you that the World thinks that we have lost our damned minds for electing this man for a second term? That we are now viewed as religious extremists who are pursuing an aggressive policy against other countries? That we have appointed ourselves the policemen of the world (*only applies to countries with rich oil reserves)?

I don't wait to find out what other countries believe before I form an opinion. It's a shame they feel that way, of course, but it doesn't change my mind.

The truth is that you can't defend these positions and you know it or else you'd be making multiple posts like the liberals on this board do. But you can't because there's no there--there.

I hope my post has answered this somewhat.

And you know, or you should know, in your heart of hearts that discriminating against the poor, and homosexuals, and other minorities is WRONG.
Yes, it is.

Please explain to me how Republicans and Conservatives came to be a protected minority when you control the White House, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court? That's not a minority-it's a majority and I don't believe that special protection extends to majority groups, either here or in the "real world".

We're a minority here, but certainly not overall, no. And there's a reason for that. Can you really write off the majority of Americans who not only voted for a Republican President but increased their senate majority? It would be more profitable to examine yourselves and figure out how you lost them, than further alienate them with elitist attitudes, if you ever want to win a presidential election.

And on edit---if you have articles proving your positions or that support your view, by all means, post them. See, being liberal means having an open mind and I'm not afraid to read "the other side's" viewpoints. But they had better be grounded in firm fact or I'm going to pick them apart because that's something else liberals are good at--questioning the status quo and not drinking the kool-aid.

OK, I did. It took my slow self over an hour. We'll see what happens. :)

[sodascouts]

Furthermore - I think the problem is - like it or not - Christianitly SHOULD NOT be ruling our country - I am a Christian and a believer - but I recognize that not everyone is that way - and I have to (and gladly) accept that because what is right for me is not right for everyone.

Not everyone who voted for Bush is a Christian. Christians aren't ruling. The majority is. And that's democracy.

[sodascouts]

Actually, there is nothing inherently offensive in that map. Look again, it only says "Jesusland" and "United States of Canada" - No offensive words or anything. And, clearly, you don't find the word "Jesus" offensive, and probably not "Canada" either. Unless you were offended that where you live wasn't included as part of Jesusland? :shrug:

Come on, Amber. We're all smart enough to figure out the derogatory and condescending implication of that map.

[sodascouts]

When church leaders tell their congregations how to vote, and their president states that he speaks for God, there is no separation of church and state-they're in bed together.

I've seen this mentioned a few times, so I thought I'd address it. The Republican leadership didn't force any church leaders to say that. Don't blame the party for their actions. That being said, I agree it's in bad taste.

[sodascouts]

Interestingly, I think trends historically fail once they get too much power. So, the pendulum will swing back - at least I hope.

:cool:

You know what, honestly, I was thinking the same thing. It's inevitable and the nature of America to retreat when one part starts becoming too powerful. I actually think it's healthy. So you guys can take comfort in that. :)

[Johnny Stew]

I've seen this mentioned a few times, so I thought I'd address it. The Republican leadership didn't force any church leaders to say that. Don't blame the party for their actions. That being said, I agree it's in bad taste.

If the church leaders in question are Republicans and support the Republican Party... and if the Republican Party sits down with said church leaders to discuss certain issues and create focus-groups (as they have done with Pat Robertson, etc.)... then I don't think it's a huge leap to assume that the Republican party (perhaps not its members, but certainly its representatives in the government) is in bed with the church leaders.

[sodascouts]

Someone famous, and I am blanking on his name right now ( ;) ) said "Nobody falls into a simple set of labels."

Whoever said that is a genius. ;)

[sodascouts]

But I know the score about myself, and everyone else can think whatever they want.
Assumptions made about me don't make me feel bad or guilty, unless they're true.
I admire your thick skin. I'm afraid I still can be hurt by lies, although I try not to be.

So if you feel you're being stereotyped unfairly, prove people wrong by your actions. The surest way to change minds is to lead by example. :nod:Good advice. :)

[Johnny Stew]

You know what, honestly, I was thinking the same thing. It's inevitable and the nature of America to retreat when one part starts becoming too powerful. I actually think it's healthy. So you guys can take comfort in that. :)

I do take comfort in that (to some degree, at least), but I'm still concerned about exactly HOW powerful certain trends will get, before things start moving the other direction.

And, of course, it does little good for the people who need equal rights NOW... not later.

[Johnny Stew]

I admire your thick skin. I'm afraid I still can be hurt by lies, although I try not to be.

Thanks for the compliment.
Unfortunately, some of us can't help but develop a thick skin. It's not a choice... it's forced upon us.

[sodascouts]

You keep citing exit polls that say that for 21% of you--moral values were the single most important voting issue. Uhm--would these be the same exit polls that showed John Kerry winning the election? Because you know, they were wrong too! Just saying. . . .You can't have it both ways you know--to believe one is correct and one is wrong would be. . . . what's the word I'm looking for. . . hypocritical, maybe?

Good point. Perhaps moral values has nothing to do with why Bush was elected. Would that make his election more valid to you?

[sodascouts]

But that is not a fair assessment; you are lumping all Christians together, which I do not think anyone here is doing.

I believe Jamie was talking about the "Jesusland" map which does indeed lump all Christians in those states together, does it not? But I realize that is non-representative of the views of non-extremist Ledgies.

I think people, myself certainly included, object to the Christians or any other religion that want it their way or no way and anyone who opposes them is a goddless heathen who deserves to be a second class but full tax paying citizen. These people exist - just look at Falwell and Robertson and they minister to tens of millions. I do not think anyone is arguing ALL Christians feel this way :shrug: I mean look at all of the posts where people have declared themselves to be Christians and then declare themselves opposed to the far religious right :shrug:

What I find problematic is the assertion that the extremist religious right - people like Falwell and Robertson - are exemplary Republicans. That's a misconception.

[Johnny Stew]

Good point. Perhaps moral values has nothing to do with why Bush was elected. Would that make his election more valid to you?

I think for many non-Bush Supporters (if not all of them), it just seems inconceivable that Bush could have won a second term, based on his record regarding the economy, the employment rate, the deficit, the War In Iraq, etc.

Folks are trying to figure out how others could still support him when all the facts are considered, so "moral issues" seem to be the only conclusion.
Whether it's an accurate conclusion or not is altogether different.

[Johnny Stew]

What I find problematic is the assertion that the extremist religious right - people like Falwell and Robertson - are exemplary Republicans. That's a misconception.

Unfortunately though, Falwell and Robertson have become the poster-boys for Christian Republicans.
And I see very few Christian Republicans lamenting that fact... which many feel lends credibility to the idea that they're accepted as such.

Not to mention the fact that George W. has buddied up to these individuals, and has allowed them to represent him (and vice versa).

Obviously Mr. Robertson, et al., feel VERY strongly about having a Republican in the White House (even enough to ignore the current president's past alcohol and drug problems)... leaving one to wonder why they feel it's so important.

[sodascouts]

Obviously Mr. Robertson, et al., feel VERY strongly about having a Republican in the White House (even enough to ignore the current president's past alcohol and drug problems)... leaving one to wonder why they feel it's so important.

Kerry has his extremist supporters, too, you know. In fact the president of North Vietnam called him a war hero and wanted very badly for him to be elected. I don't define Kerry by that, though. (In my example I'm extrapolating Kerry's supporters to the supporters of the Democratic party, obviously).

[The Tower]

Of course it's terrible that civilians have killed. But more died under Hussein. Everyone acknowledges his atrocities. And those guys choose their own paths; we didn't make them do anything.

Yes, Saddam is a horrible, evil man whose government tortured and killed tens of thousands.

However......

That is still not a reason for the US to unilaterally invade the sovereign nation that was Iraq. There are many, many, many governments on Earth today that are as bad as Saddam was if not worse. Myanmar, North Korea, the Sudan, Congo, Rwanda- not to mention Paraguay, Turkmenistan, Iran, Syria, Liberia, Nigeria, Tunisia, etc., etc., etc.... When are we going to invade those countries and fix their problems? I can tell you when- never, because none of them have the world's second largest oil reserves and a dictator who tangled with Dubya's Poppy.

What I want to know is since when did the United States of America decide to become the official police unit of the United Nations of Earth?

[Johnny Stew]

Kerry has his extremist supporters, too, you know. In fact the president of North Korea called him a war hero and wanted very badly for him to be elected. I don't define Kerry by that, though. (In my example I'm extrapolating Kerry's supporters to the supporters of the Democratic party, obviously).

I think that perhaps has more to do with the feeling of other leaders that Bush has little-to-no regard for their countries, their people, their needs, etc., than it does with them alligning themselves with a particular U.S. political party.

Wouldn't you rather have a President whom other countries felt comfortable dealing with, than one that other countries regard as Public Enemy Number One?

I'm not saying that another country's opinion of our president should decide your own, just that I think it's important to remember that we're not the only country in this world, and we need to ALL work together.

How can we resolve the heated situation with North Korea, if they don't trust our leader?
How can we ever resolve ANY heated situation, if a country doesn't trust our leader?

[sodascouts]

Yes, Saddam is a horrible, evil man whose government tortured and killed tens of thousands.

However......

That is still not a reason for the US to unilaterally invade the sovereign nation that was Iraq. There are many, many, many governments on Earth today that are as bad as Saddam was if not worse. Myanmar, North Korea, the Sudan, Congo, Rwanda- not to mention Paraguay, Turkmenistan, Iran, Syria, Liberia, Nigeria, Tunisia, etc., etc., etc.... When are we going to invade those countries and fix their problems? I can tell you when- never, because none of them have the world's second largest oil reserves and a dictator who tangled with Dubya's Poppy.


It's true there are many other problematic areas of the world, but just because we can't solve every problem in the world doesn't mean we can't take action when it's necessary. To say that one issue can't be addressed unless all problems are addressed would be paralyzing.

[JamieSPC]

Not Christians, Nancy... religious extremists.

Oh, right. I see so many who post here making that distinction. Once they're called on it, of course. :confused:

We're a minority here, but certainly not overall, no. And there's a reason for that. Can you really write off the majority of Americans who not only voted for a Republican President but increased their senate majority? It would be more profitable to examine yourselves and figure out how you lost them, than further alienate them with elitist attitudes, if you ever want to win a presidential election.

Extremists can't change, on either side. That's part of what makes them extremist. But what many Democrats (and the media, for that matter) can't accept is that extremists did not elect W. The numbers don't bear that out. And on issues like gay marriage (to me, the most confounding issue of the election because Kerry's diehard supporters wanted to make it a reason to vote for him-- AND HE'S AGAINST IT), the votes weren't even close. 2 to 1, even 4 to 1 in some states. That's an awful lot of Kerry voters who fall right in line with their candidate's view on the issue, isn't it?

[Johnny Stew]

Yes, Saddam is a horrible, evil man whose government tortured and killed tens of thousands.

However......

That is still not a reason for the US to unilaterally invade the sovereign nation that was Iraq. There are many, many, many governments on Earth today that are as bad as Saddam was if not worse. Myanmar, North Korea, the Sudan, Congo, Rwanda- not to mention Paraguay, Turkmenistan, Iran, Syria, Liberia, Nigeria, Tunisia, etc., etc., etc.... When are we going to invade those countries and fix their problems? I can tell you when- never, because none of them have the world's second largest oil reserves and a dictator who tangled with Dubya's Poppy.

Plus, let's not ever forget that we were told our government was invading Iraq as part of the War On Terrorism.
It was never presented as a War On Dictators.

So, once again I come back to this... if Saddam Hussein wasn't directly involved with 9/11, why did the Bush Administration feel it was more important to take HIM down before taking down Osama?

No weapons of mass destruction... no concrete links to recent terroristic endeavours... no involvement with the 9/11 attacks.... and, yet, he became Top Priority.
While Osama's still making threats against our country and our allies, 3.2 years later.

[sodascouts]

Plus, let's not ever forget that we were told our government was invading Iraq as part of the War On Terrorism.
It was never presented as a War On Dictators.

So, once again I come back to this... if Saddam Hussein wasn't directly involved with 9/11, why did the Bush Administration feel it was more important to take HIM down before taking down Osama?

No weapons of mass destruction... no concrete links to recent terroristic endeavours... no involvement with the 9/11 attacks.... and, yet, he became Top Priority.
While Osama's still making threats against our country and our allies, 3.2 years later.

Osama was still being searched for - it's not as if we've given up on him! But he has proven to be a hard man to find. Believe me, if he were found, he wouldn't be let off the hook.

[JamieSPC]

Kerry has his extremist supporters, too, you know. In fact the president of North Korea called him a war hero and wanted very badly for him to be elected.

Nancy, don't forget Osama.

And don't underestimate the very real influence of that tape. Those same exit polls had the war on terror at 18%, behind 20% for "moral values" (which, frankly, means nothing or anything) and 19% for the economy. In other words, a statistical "dead heat" (see, I've watched my CNN!!!).

"War on terror" voters broke HARD for Bush.

Now, the Michael Moore question of the day: Since Bush has such strong ties to the Bin Laden family, did he arrange for the tape? :eek:

[ontheEdgeof17]

Plus, let's not ever forget that we were told our government was invading Iraq as part of the War On Terrorism.
It was never presented as a War On Dictators.

So, once again I come back to this... if Saddam Hussein wasn't directly involved with 9/11, why did the Bush Administration feel it was more important to take HIM down before taking down Osama?

No weapons of mass destruction... no concrete links to recent terroristic endeavours... no involvement with the 9/11 attacks.... and, yet, he became Top Priority.
While Osama's still making threats against our country and our allies, 3.2 years later.

It's sad that 9/11 became the platform to finish what his dad started.....and I believe this.

And I think fighting terrorism will be an endless battle. If we defeat one group, another will form that hates the US just as much.

[Johnny Stew]

Oh, right. I see so many who post here making that distinction. Once they're called on it, of course. :confused:

I can't speak for anyone other than myself. I have always made the distinction.



And on issues like gay marriage (to me, the most confounding issue of the election because Kerry's diehard supporters wanted to make it a reason to vote for him-- AND HE'S AGAINST IT), the votes weren't even close. 2 to 1, even 4 to 1 in some states. That's an awful lot of Kerry voters who fall right in line with their candidate's view on the issue, isn't it?

John Kerry doesn't support "gay marriage": True
John Kerry supports an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to forever ban gay marriage: False
John Kerry supports the recognition of gay civil unions: True

George W. Bush doesn't support "gay marriage": True
George W. Bush supports an ammendment to the Constitution of the United States to forever ban gay marriage: True*
George W. Bush supports the recognition of gay civil unions: False*

*I should add that Bush seemingly flip-flopped his opinion on the matter, four days before the election, and stated that it should be up to the states to decide whether or not they allowed gay marriages/civil unions.

In another instance of Bush flip-flopping, he originally told gay Republicans, after being elected in 2000, that he considered gays & lesbians a valuable part of the American Family.
Unfortunately, that all changed.

Why is anyone's guess... but the fact that he gained the vote of four million Evangelical Christians in this election might offer some answers to that question.

[Johnny Stew]

Osama was still being searched for - it's not as if we've given up on him! But he has proven to be a hard man to find. Believe me, if he were found, he wouldn't be let off the hook.

Oh, I've never felt he'd be let off the hook if he's found. But why divert our attention away from the entire reason for the War On Terror in the first place?

I can't help but wonder how quickly we may have found Osama if ALL of our man-power was in Afghanistan, rather than Iraq.

For the sake of argument, I'll go along with you and say that the War In Iraq is all part of making this world a safer place... but does it not seem that the situation in North Korea is far more pressing a matter than the situation in Iraq was?

Why did dealing with Saddam Hussein take precedence over finding Osama Bin Laden, and why did it take precedence over resolving the situation with North Korea, a country we KNOW has nuclear capabilties and is prepared to use it?

[sodascouts]

Well I do recall you recently saying that wartime killing isn't murder. Of course you can have your say but you can't expect to say such things and not receive a response of outrage. If I came here saying I have no respect for black people, I wouldn't expect a healthy discussion and debate about the issue, I'd expect to be burned. It's all on the condition of reason.
.

It's outrageous to differentiate American soldiers sacrificing their lives for their country from people like Charles Manson? I daresay this is not the position of the Democratic party, so why would such a statement receive outrage from them?

[gldstwmn]

What I want to know is since when did the United States of America decide to become the official police unit of the United Nations of Earth?

December 12, 2000.

[sara1998]

Why are we suddenly being innundated with posts from people that hardly ever post who suddenly "object" to our right of free speech? :shrug:

Maybe "overdiscussed" was the wrong word to use. I don't object to anyone's right to free speech. However, I've read a lot of these threads where it all goes up in bitter arguements, and people getting pissed off at eachother. My point was why can't everyone agree to disagree, and leave it at that? Don't get me wrong. I've learned a lot from all of you, both sides of the coin, in an area where I am basically ignorant. I think the intelligence of people on this board is unbelieveable, as far as politics goes, and respected very much so by myself. That is why I have not bothered to post, just read, and learn. I've read almost all of the links posted, and watched all 3 debates, kept up with the news, and came up with my own opinions. I voted for the first time this year, and my vote went to Kerry.

However, my intention was to state that when religion and politics are discussed, no one side is right or wrong, no one is going to win the arguement, feelings are going to get hurt, and people are going to get pissed off. I'm now going to crawl back into the hole I probably should have never crawled out of.

[sodascouts]

Yeah but it's not outrageous to differentiate when it comes to the US Administration. I wasn't talking about the soldiers. Besides, what about Iraqi soldiers? They were lured by their government. By that token they're just as innocent. When they kill American soldiers, is that murder or can we let that slide aswell?

I can't in good conscience call soldiers on the other side murderers either. Same rules apply.

[gldstwmn]

Maybe "overdiscussed" was the wrong word to use. I don't object to anyone's right to free speech. However, I've read a lot of these threads where it all goes up in bitter arguements, and people getting pissed off at eachother. My point was why can't everyone agree to disagree, and leave it at that? Don't get me wrong. I've learned a lot from all of you, both sides of the coin, in an area where I am basically ignorant. I think the intelligence of people on this board is unbelieveable, as far as politics goes, and respected very much so by myself. That is why I have not bothered to post, just read, and learn. I've read almost all of the links posted, and watched all 3 debates, kept up with the news, and came up with my own opinions. I voted for the first time this year, and my vote went to Kerry.

However, my intention was to state that when religion and politics are discussed, no one side is right or wrong, no one is going to win the arguement, feelings are going to get hurt, and people are going to get pissed off. I'm now going to crawl back into the hole I probably should have never crawled out of.

Some of us are may appear to be fighting when we really aren't. I think I can safely say that in the case of Strandie, Dissention and myself. In fact, there are times when I think we relish arguing with each other.
That said, I wasn't referring to you with my comments but thank you for your well thought out post. :)

[Johnny Stew]

Some of us are may appear to be fighting when we really aren't.

I'm a lover, not a fighter.

Resumés accepted at the following P.O. Box.... ;)

[sara1998]

That said, I wasn't referring to you with my comments but thank you for your well thought out post. :)

Then please accept my apologies. I thought for sure it was a comment in my direction since my opinions and political views are hardly heard here, and at least wanted to clarify my post.

[markolas]

Frankly, I don't care whether conservatives feel unwelcome here or not. I feel unwelcome in this whole f**king country right now. So, excuse the hell out of me if I don't cry over the fact that you don't feel welcome on a f**king Internet message board.

Christ, you people get exactly what you want and you STILL F**CKING WHINE!!

What more do you want?? You want me to kiss your a$$ now that you've f**ked me over in 11 states? Go jump in a boiling vat of oil.

[gldstwmn]

Then please accept my apologies. I thought for sure it was a comment in my direction since my opinions and political views are hardly heard here, and at least wanted to clarify my post.

No. Not directed at you. No need to apologize. :angel:

[gldstwmn]

Frankly, I don't care whether conservatives feel unwelcome here or not. I feel unwelcome in this whole f**king country right now. So, excuse the hell out of me if I don't cry over the fact that you don't feel welcome on a f**king Internet message board.

Christ, you people get exactly what you want and you STILL F**CKING WHINE!!

What more do you want?? You want me to kiss your a$$ now that you've f**ked me over in 11 states? Go jump in a boiling vat of oil.

Nominating this for best post on any blog I have read today. :thumbsup:

[Johnny Stew]

Frankly, I don't care whether conservatives feel unwelcome here or not. I feel unwelcome in this whole f**king country right now. So, excuse the hell out of me if I don't cry over the fact that you don't feel welcome on a f**king Internet message board.

Christ, you people get exactly what you want and you STILL F**CKING WHINE!!

What more do you want?? You want me to kiss your a$$ now that you've f**ked me over in 11 states? Go jump in a boiling vat of oil.

Mark, I completely understand your anger, but I don't think the conservatives here are representative of those who'd just as soon spit on us as look at us.

I think a lot of younger conservatives, especially, are sympathetic to gay issues. And while it's extremely frustrating to see them continuting to vote for politicians who are so obviously against gay rights, at least there's hope for the next generation of conservative politicians to be more open-minded and compassionate than the current regime.

In fact, the more conservatives we can persuade to see "our side," the better off we'll be in the future.
So, my friend, we need to make more allies... not more enemies. :)

(Though I must admit it's always ironic to see those who are in the majority, wringing their hands about being in a minority. I think we can all safely say that being on the outside isn't a very comfortable thing... all the more reason to work towards a more inclusive governship.)

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Frankly, I don't care whether conservatives feel unwelcome here or not. I feel unwelcome in this whole f**king country right now. So, excuse the hell out of me if I don't cry over the fact that you don't feel welcome on a f**king Internet message board.

Christ, you people get exactly what you want and you STILL F**CKING WHINE!!

What more do you want?? You want me to kiss your a$$ now that you've f**ked me over in 11 states? Go jump in a boiling vat of oil.


My sentiments exactly...Thank u so much u made my day! SERIOUSLY! WOO HOO

Chris

[markolas]

Mark, I completely understand your anger, but I don't think the conservatives here are representative of those who'd just as soon spit on us as look at us.

I think a lot of younger conservatives, especially, are sympathetic to gay issues. And while it's extremely frustrating to see them continuting to vote for politicians who are so obviously against gay rights, at least there's hope for the next generation of conservative politicians to be more open-minded and compassionate than the current regime.

In fact, the more conservatives we can persuade to see "our side," the better off we'll be in the future.
So, my friend, we need to make more allies... not more enemies. :)

You're obviously infinitely more patient than I am. :)

It's just so completely unbelievable to me that someone would start a thread like this. I don't want to be allies with them at this point. I want them to stay away from me.

[markolas]

Nominating this for best post on any blog I have read today. :thumbsup:

Oh, thank you. I wondered how well it would go over. :D

[markolas]

(Though I must admit it's always ironic to see those who are in the majority, wringing their hands about being in a minority. I think we can all safely say that being on the outside isn't a very comfortable thing... all the more reason to work towards a more inclusive governship.)

Well, Christians do have one hell of a martyr complex.

[gldstwmn]

Limbaugh supporting Saddam Hussein:

"And now the liberals want to stop President Reagan from selling
chemical warfare agents and military equipment to Saddam Hussein, and
why? Because Saddam 'allegedly' gassed a few Kurds in his own
country. Mark my words. All of this talk of Saddam Hussein being
a 'war criminal' or 'committing crimes against humanity' is the same
old thing. LIBERAL HATE SPEECH! And speaking of poison gas . . . I
SAY WE ROUND UP ALL THE DRUG ADDICTS AND GAS THEM."
Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 3, 1988

You first, Rush! :]

[Johnny Stew]

You're obviously infinitely more patient than I am. :)

Ironically, having patience is always something I've had to work on. It sure doesn't come naturally to me, but I'm trying!

It's just so completely unbelievable to me that someone would start a thread like this. I don't want to be allies with them at this point. I want them to stay away from me.

I understand. I honestly do.
(By the way, check out the postscript I added to my reply above.)

I'm still pretty angry, myself. I want to see positive action from conservatives who support gay rights... not just mere lip-service.

But, unfortunately, what's done is done, so now we need to start working towards the NEXT Presidential election, and raising some awareness before then.

So, yeah, we should all be angry and feel disenfranchised right now... but then we need to let that fuel us towards working to win more people over. :)

[Johnny Stew]

Well, Christians do have one hell of a martyr complex.

A close friend of mine tells me I have a Superman Complex (in that I want to "save the world").

But... at least he didn't say I had a Wonder Woman Complex! ;) :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Well, if ya did . . . :laugh:

Seriously, like the teachings of Buddah, etc. - it is not a bad thing to live your live by regardless of your belief in Christ :cool:

Yeah, I'll have to check it out some time...as if 10 years of Catholic School and a near conversion to Buddhism in 1984 aren't enough. :rolleyes:

[amber]

Frankly, I don't care whether conservatives feel unwelcome here or not. I feel unwelcome in this whole f**king country right now. So, excuse the hell out of me if I don't cry over the fact that you don't feel welcome on a f**king Internet message board.

Christ, you people get exactly what you want and you STILL F**CKING WHINE!!

What more do you want?? You want me to kiss your a$$ now that you've f**ked me over in 11 states? Go jump in a boiling vat of oil.
Must...not...laugh...hysterically....
:laugh: :lol: :laugh:
oop! too late!

[Moony]

Frankly, I don't care whether conservatives feel unwelcome here or not. I feel unwelcome in this whole f**king country right now. So, excuse the hell out of me if I don't cry over the fact that you don't feel welcome on a f**king Internet message board.

Christ, you people get exactly what you want and you STILL F**CKING WHINE!!

What more do you want?? You want me to kiss your a$$ now that you've f**ked me over in 11 states? Go jump in a boiling vat of oil.


Thank you for posting what I didn't have the guts to say!
:wavey:

The conservatives here do appear to be more accepting and hardly likely to spit on you, but they voted to put in power a group who want to reduce your rights. Whether or not this Bush guy is homophobic or even homosexual, who cares? The key factor is that he was put in to enforce these ideals upon others. Whether it's a top agenda for the particular voter or not, to partake in giving the administration this power, to me, is thinking very little of your rights. Little enough to justify an unwillingness to make up and shake hands.

:thumbsup: I'm liking you more everyday I tell ya. ;)

[Johnny Stew]

Whether it's a top agenda for the particular voter or not, to partake in giving the administration this power, to me, is thinking very little of your rights. Little enough to justify an unwillingness to make up and shake hands.

Well, the seemingly callous disregard for gay rights from people who claim to support them, is exactly why I'm so disappointed and angry.
I'll be honest and admit that I'm not completely ready at this very second to "kiss and make up"... I am still stinging from what feels like a slap in the face.

But... at some point in the very near future I do feel it's very necessary to sit down with those who are "sympathetic to the cause," and work towards some kind of understanding with them as to why it's of the utmost importance that we not elect (or, worse, re-elect) the politicians who are looking to deny or rescind ANYONE'S civil rights.

I'm spitting mad, too, but I think it's detrimental to make enemies out of anyone who's at least open to seeing where we're coming from, and who might prove a powerful ally in the future.

So my plan is to grouse for a while until I get some of it out of my system, and then resume my plan to change the world, one mind at a time. ;)

[Johnny Stew]

This is kind of funny... I just decided to look up that "change the world one mind at a time" quote, to see who originally said it, and I found a site called the Institute For Liberal Values, which had this to say....

If you want to make converts first make friends. And be sincere about it. Friendly people are more effective communicators. This is one reason that some libertarians are such failures. They are miserable and unhappy, unpleasant people. They don't befriend as much as they alienate. Some even assume failure is a mark of their moral purity. That they are rejected proves that they are right. It more likely proves they are obnoxious.

As well as this....

The way to change the country is one mind at a time. The way to change a mind is to become a friend first.

Good advice, and worth taking to heart. :)

The group/site is based out of New Zealand, but the message is universal.

http://www.liberalvalues.org.nz/

(By the way, my quoting of the "miserable, unhappy and unpleasant" people comment is in absolutely no way aimed at anyone here. Just a reminder of what we could all become if we're not careful.)

[sara1998]

Limbaugh supporting Saddam Hussein:

"And now the liberals want to stop President Reagan from selling
chemical warfare agents and military equipment to Saddam Hussein, and
why? Because Saddam 'allegedly' gassed a few Kurds in his own
country. Mark my words. All of this talk of Saddam Hussein being
a 'war criminal' or 'committing crimes against humanity' is the same
old thing. LIBERAL HATE SPEECH! And speaking of poison gas . . . I
SAY WE ROUND UP ALL THE DRUG ADDICTS AND GAS THEM."
Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 3, 1988

You first, Rush! :]


LMAO! :laugh: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I've seen this mentioned a few times, so I thought I'd address it. The Republican leadership didn't force any church leaders to say that. Don't blame the party for their actions. That being said, I agree it's in bad taste.

Well, the WH sent faxes and letters to the Churches as evidenced here http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/06/03/bush_campaign_mobilizes_churches.html and elsewhere. So, yes, the WH did not put a gun to their head, but the implication is there. Moreover, churches are not supposed to participate in federal election campaigns - to do so should disqualify them for their tax free status as evidenced in this article from Fox:

Bush Campaign Drive May Cost Pa. Churches

Thursday, June 03, 2004



WASHINGTON — President Bush's re-election campaign is trying to recruit supporters from 1,600 religious congregations in Pennsylvania — a political push that critics said Wednesday could cost churches their tax breaks.

An e-mail from the campaign's Pennsylvania office, obtained by The Associated Press, urges churchgoers to help organize "Friendly Congregations" where supporters can meet regularly to sign up voters and spread the Bush word.

"I'd like to ask if you would like to serve as a coordinator in your place of worship," says the e-mail, adorned with the Bush-Cheney logo, from Luke Bernstein, who runs the state campaign's coalitions operation and is a former staffer to Sen. Rick Santorum (search), the president's Pennsylvania chairman.

"We plan to undertake activities such as distributing general information/updates or voter registration materials in a place accessible to the congregation," the e-mail says.

The Internal Revenue Service (search) prohibits political campaign activity, for or against any candidate, from taking place at all organizations that receive tax exempt status under a section of the federal tax code — including most churches and religious groups. Violators could lose their tax breaks and face excise taxes.

Bernstein refused comment. Kevin Madden, a Bush-Cheney spokesman at campaign's headquarters, said the campaign did not mean to imply that religious supporters should actually congregate for the president at their places of worship. But he would not say whether the campaign is taking steps to make sure they don't.

"People of faith feel strongly about the president, are people we want to be part of our campaign," Madden said.

"This message is intended to be from individual to individual," Madden said. "This is organizing with individuals who may be members of a church who we hope to identify as supporters and be part of our efforts."

Madden said the campaign also is targeting "Friendly Congregations" in other states, but he could not immediately specify where. Pennsylvania is a key political swing state that offers 21 electoral votes. Bush lost the state in 2000 by a mere 204,000 votes.

The director of a nonpartisan watchdog group called the campaign's church appeal "a breathtakingly sad example of mixing religion and politics."

"I have never in my life seen such a direct campaign to politicize American churches — from any political party or from any candidate for public office," said Rev. Barry W. Lynn of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "By enrolling churches in an election scheme like this, I think the Bush-Cheney campaign is actually endangering those churches' tax exemptions without even the courtesy of telling them that they run a risk."

See also http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/03/politics/campaign/03CHUR.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19082-2004Jun30.html

I cannot believe you actually argued this :shrug: - although granted you said it was in bad taste, with which I agree (see - common ground :cool: ) And, again, that W touted himself as more religious because he was pro life, but would never actually admit that 100% mind you, is rubbish. Again, like it or not, he invaded a country under false pretenses and not tens of thousands of innocent people are dead - a mistake for which he refuses to apologize :shrug: And yes, perhaps under SH that many died, but teo wrongs do not make a right :shrug: I mean under that theory, then W is only slightly better than SH.

In the end though, I know the R's will never admit this point. They cannot accept the fact that W lied to go to war no matter how blatant and glaring that fact is. Such is life :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Not everyone who voted for Bush is a Christian. Christians aren't ruling. The majority is. And that's democracy.

We do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic, which means all people, not just the majority, are represented. This is why we have the electoral college, this is why it takes 60 votes in the Senate to do anything, etc. I mean if majority rules always was the standard, we sould still have slavery, the 1964 Civil Rights Bill would have never passed the public's opinon, etc.

[strandinthewind]

What I find problematic is the assertion that the extremist religious right - people like Falwell and Robertson - are exemplary Republicans. That's a misconception.

I disagree (respectfully :wavey: ) I think they have been amongst his largest cheerleaders and W has sought their advice and the advice of people like them. They minister to millions, who will act on their word. So, while I agree that they should not be exemplary Republicans (in fact they are more like segregationist Southern D's in the 50's and 60's :shrug: ) - they are becoming the standard and clearly are influencing policy. That is what scares me. I mean Falwell said he would "kill" any gay guy that hit on his and God would welcome that action. This guy should not be setting or influencing the Pres. of the U.S. I cannot see how anyone can argue against that (not that you are :cool: )

[strandinthewind]

Extremists can't change, on either side. That's part of what makes them extremist. But what many Democrats (and the media, for that matter) can't accept is that extremists did not elect W. The numbers don't bear that out. And on issues like gay marriage (to me, the most confounding issue of the election because Kerry's diehard supporters wanted to make it a reason to vote for him-- AND HE'S AGAINST IT), the votes weren't even close. 2 to 1, even 4 to 1 in some states. That's an awful lot of Kerry voters who fall right in line with their candidate's view on the issue, isn't it?

That logic to me is a bit flawed because it is based on the general public's fear and loathing of gay people coming into the norm, which is not necessarily the same as "tolerance" for gay people. Plus, when you have the WH and the Bush Campaign calling gay people sinners and people like Falwell and Robertson saying gay people, abortionist and the ACLU are the ones resp. for God allowing 9/11 to happen - people who are alrady scared to death of another 9/11 are going to equate these people with OBL. That is just sick, esp. considering we have many gay people in the U.S. armed forces (which is a whole other issue :cool: ) - by that logic, we should kill them too :shrug: - which is insane.

In the end, people can argue all they want that W is not beholden to the far religious right, but the facts cannot support that, esp. considering W directly pandered to them to get elected.

AND - it is not that the far religious right do not deserve representation, they do like all Americans. What they do not have the right to do is make their religion the official U.S. policy and law. Such an act is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment of U.S. Const, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Yet, the fundamentalist Christians want the Ten Commandments (which I personally believe in mind you) to be put with public funds in Courthouses across the land and referred to as the law of the U.S. How can that not be a violation of the First Amendment :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Plus, let's not ever forget that we were told our government was invading Iraq as part of the War On Terrorism.
It was never presented as a War On Dictators.

So, once again I come back to this... if Saddam Hussein wasn't directly involved with 9/11, why did the Bush Administration feel it was more important to take HIM down before taking down Osama?

No weapons of mass destruction... no concrete links to recent terroristic endeavours... no involvement with the 9/11 attacks.... and, yet, he became Top Priority.
While Osama's still making threats against our country and our allies, 3.2 years later.

Well, I think SH was always the number 1 priority. He, inter alia, was the main reason W and his administration were not looking at Al-Q to any significant degree prior to 9/11 despite being warned repeatedly about Al-Q from just about everyone who knew anything about them and despite receiving direct warnings in 8/01 that Al-Q planned to attack the U.S. Then, once Al-Q did attack us, the Bush administration wipes out Afganistan and makes the effort to catch OBL (how much of an effort is up for debate IMO) and then immediately goes back to Iraq, apparently not learning from their first mistake in that area :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Limbaugh supporting Saddam Hussein:

"And now the liberals want to stop President Reagan from selling
chemical warfare agents and military equipment to Saddam Hussein, and
why? Because Saddam 'allegedly' gassed a few Kurds in his own
country. Mark my words. All of this talk of Saddam Hussein being
a 'war criminal' or 'committing crimes against humanity' is the same
old thing. LIBERAL HATE SPEECH! And speaking of poison gas . . . I
SAY WE ROUND UP ALL THE DRUG ADDICTS AND GAS THEM."
Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 3, 1988

You first, Rush! :]

I remember when he said it because I was young and agreed with him :eek: Now, I think he is a cad, a liar, a criminal, a drug pusher (he personally took all those pills - come on), and a hyppocrite (the ACLU backed his privacy claim in court and he accepted their representation :shrug: ) .

[Vianna]

My concern about the religious right is that they want to be part of the political action, and they have no place there. Our country was founded with the idea that there would be no established religion. These religious right people want political power and seek to get it through Bush, whom I really think is too naive to "get it". He is beholden to them because they have given him money and helped him get elected. Now they will start demanding payback. That's what scares me about this president, that he won't be able to stop them because he won't recognize what's going on until it's too late.

I am not a Christian - the evangelism and intolerance of the religion upsets me too much. I do believe in God, but my guess is He'd be shocked by what goes on in his Name.

[dissention]

Fired off in a five-minute "redheaded-fit" I was having. :)

I've got another question for the "religious right":

You keep citing exit polls that say that for 21% of you--moral values were the single most important voting issue. Uhm--would these be the same exit polls that showed John Kerry winning the election? Because you know, they were wrong too! Just saying. . . .You can't have it both ways you know--to believe one is correct and one is wrong would be. . . . what's the word I'm looking for. . . hypocritical, maybe?

I don't know which is more impressive, the post itself or the fact that it was written in five minutes. :laugh: :xoxo:

[dissention]

I know. The media is in "lockdown" mode right now. Jeffery Toobin is now covering the Peterson case?

They are killing the fraud story before it even gets off the f*cking ground. How shameful. They're too busy talking about Bush's supposed "mandate" and his USSC judges.

[dissention]

Briefly I did try to engage in political discourse here a while back. I actually did take the time to explain all my points. Did it convince anyone of anything? No. Did it get me a lot of negative, hostile, upsetting replies? Yes. Therefore, I quit, because I come to the Ledge to enjoy myself. I probably take things too personally, I admit. I let it get to me when people slap me with bigots and make fun of my religion. That's my own problem. But don't assume it's because we have no reason for our beliefs.

You've failed to post anything that supported your opinions with facts, Nancy. :shrug: I've told you again and again that you take these discussions too personally, but at the same time, you invite it when you only post your opinions and have them shot down almost immediately because the facts don't necessarily back up your opinions. Just like when you posted about Pell Grants. Like I said earlier in this thread, I respect the rights of people to have their beliefs, but that doesn't mean I respect the belief itself, especially if it's based on a false premise and unsupported by facts.

JMO.

[strandinthewind]

They are killing the fraud story before it even gets off the f*cking ground. How shameful. They're too busy talking about Bush's supposed "mandate" and his USSC judges.

Interestingly and I think as mentioned, Oberman (MSNBC) 's show was heavily slanted toward it last night - so that is something :shrug:

I think the media is dropping it because although everyone agrees it sucks, the numbers are not there to make a difference. Once that is established, and it very well may be established, they will feed on it because it will be a money maker for them.

As an aside, I do not want to come across as negative against the fraud issues currently brewing. I think some of the incidents are shocking and smack of fraud. I think there needs to be an investigation, which the House currently is promulgating. So, we shall see.

[sodascouts]

Well, the WH sent faxes and letters to the Churches as evidenced here http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/06/03/bush_campaign_mobilizes_churches.html and elsewhere. So, yes, the WH did not put a gun to their head, but the implication is there.

OK, I see what you mean.

[sodascouts]

We do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic, which means all people, not just the majority, are represented. This is why we have the electoral college, this is why it takes 60 votes in the Senate to do anything, etc. I mean if majority rules always was the standard, we sould still have slavery, the 1964 Civil Rights Bill would have never passed the public's opinon, etc.

Technically this is true. However, my point still stands that Bush was not elected solely by Christians.

P.S. It may have taken longer without the help of our man Abraham Lincoln, but do you really believe that we still would have slavery today if we let the majority decide the issue?!!

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I just wanna say everyone calls liberals "Whiney," ....I think the tide may be turning....the Republicans look like the whiners now. You won your damn election, what is there to complain about?

Chris

[Sorceress]

And my post was to point out that I am a Christian and a Liberal. I think, therefore, I am both.


Yes, that was just what I was trying to say the other day but I didn't manage to say it nearly as eloquently. Thank you.

[strandinthewind]

Technically this is true. However, my point still stands that Bush was not elected solely by Christians.

P.S. It may have taken longer without the help of our man Abraham Lincoln, but do you really believe that we still would have slavery today if we let the majority decide the issue?!!

AN interesting question because the answer can only be speculation. But, what I do know is on a related topic, 100 years after the conclusion of the Civil War, the Southern states and a significant number of other states, still wanted segregation of the races, which meant black people get the back of the bus, sep. water fountains because white people were offended by their lips coming close to touching anything a negro's did, sep. hotels, sep. restaurants, sep. neighborhoods (by convenant mind you), etc. :shrug: So, although slavery probably would have been phased out because the rest of world was doing so, the sociological and psychological thoughts behind it were not really begun to be extinguished until about 100 years later and then that action was against the vast majority of Americans' way of thinking at the time :shrug: So, my point is, majority rule is not the American way because all Americans deserve representation, even the far religious right :cool:

And - yes, other denominations than Christians voted for W - no question about that. but, do you really think W's track record (not the rhetoric mind you, but the actual issues promulgated into the law making process) supports anything but automatically granted rights for Christians. For example, W supports faith based charities getting Federal money (actually more than they get now because they are tax exemot :shrug: ) - while I am not necessarily opposed to that in theory (too long a discussion for now :laugh: ) - do you really think anything other than Christian charities will get any significant Federal funding. I suggest they will not. Granted, Christian charities probably do the buld of the work, but still can you see W funding the Sons of Satan Goathead Soup feed the poor campaign. i certainly cannot.

[sodascouts]

I mean Falwell said he would "kill" any gay guy that hit on his and God would welcome that action. This guy should not be setting or influencing the Pres. of the U.S. I cannot see how anyone can argue against that (not that you are :cool: )

Fallwell is nuts, and if he were setting the President's agenda, why does he criticize him for being too inclusive of gay people?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/1/132001.shtml

And if you watched the debates, you saw that Bush didn't condemn homosexuals. Here are some quotes of what he did say: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19347

So, I still maintain it is a misconception that Falwell and his ilk controls Bush - although he certainly wishes he did.

And, finally, if the majority of the country was so extremist, we'd have Falwell or Pat Robertson for a president. But we both know they still would have no chance of being elected. Therefore, Bush must not be that off-the-wall, to appeal to more than those people.

[sodascouts]

I just wanna say everyone calls liberals "Whiney," ....I think the tide may be turning....the Republicans look like the whiners now. You won your damn election, what is there to complain about?

Chris


So, what does this mean? That Republicans have no right do defend themselves against attacks because Bush won? Or that, because Bush won, I shouldn't be bothered by such comments? Would that be the case if the shoe was on the other foot? If Kerry had won, would you stop responding to accusatory Republican posts?

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Nancy I do not believe I said you shouldn't respond to accusatory posts...however this thread WAS started by a Republican..

If we had won, and Republicans right now were still hollering, I would say to them "ahhh whatever, we won, too late."

The point is...I cannot believe in this country we live in Republicans feel the slighest bit badgered. After all you guys did win an election by scaring people into voting for your guy..PERIOD.

Chris

[strandinthewind]

Fallwell is nuts, and if he were setting the President's agenda, why does he criticize him for being too inclusive of gay people?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/1/132001.shtml

And if you watched the debates, you saw that Bush didn't condemn homosexuals. Here are some quotes of what he did say: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19347

So, I still maintain it is a misconception that Falwell and his ilk controls Bush - although he certainly wishes he did.

And, finally, if the majority of the country was so extremist, we'd have Falwell or Pat Robertson for a president. But we both know they still would have no chance of being elected. Therefore, Bush must not be that off-the-wall, to appeal to more than those people.

Bush says alot, but talk is cheap, esp. for any politician. What has W done for gay people? I suggest nothing but talk about tolerance.

AND - I agree Falwell and that ilk are sane enough to know they cannot get elected; plus they make too much money preaching hate :shrug: But, they see W as their man and openly say so. They do advise him. Perhaps not personally or at least in public, but they certainly get the votes for him and he knows that :shrug: As proof, W played this election directly at the conservative Christian by suggesting, but never flat out stating, that he would suppress abortion (which his track record supports he wants to do) and suppress gay people from having any of the automatic benefits legally granted to straight married people via marriage (which his track record supports he wants to do - again those 11 Const. amendments recently passed all prohibit civil unions :shrug: ) Finally, Cheney and that harpy wife of his (I cannot stand her) clearly are so embarrased they are almost apologetic that they have an openly gay daughter. Clearly, Lynn Cheney was not angry that Kerry brought her gay daughter up - how could she be when her own husband did it a week earlier :shrug: - she was just mortified that people would again know her daughter was gay. When Cheney discussed her, he lower their voice as if whispering some horrible disease like "cancer." I think that speaks volumes :shrug:

But, in the end, I know you will never believe that we are headed toward some sort of fundamentalist Christian theocracy. While I also do not think that it will ever be that to the degree alleged in hyperbole by both sides, I do think that is what this administration is beholden to attempt to push. Again, look at the track record and ignore the meaningless rhetoric - it clearly supports my points.

[dissention]

Hindsight is 20/20. It's so easy to say he should've done this, should've done that. Those attacks did not happen because of George W. Bush, any more than they happened because of Clinton or anyone else who did not take more action against Osama Bin Laden (Here is an example of "Missed Opportunity" at this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ ).

From the article you posted:

"In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away."

For some reason, I don't think it would have been as "extraordinarily difficult" to get Bin Laden after 9/11 when the military operations were high-risk, on the ground already, and he was cornered in Tora Bora.

Bush was careful to make the distinction and NOT assert that Saddam was partially behind 9/11, although he certainly asserts there is a relationship between the two, he did NOT include that. http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/inquiry/bush-disagrees-with-saddam-911-connection.txt

I've posted a million quotes that prove otherwise if you want to find them, Nancy. He once claimed that Al Qaeda was Saddam's army.

Everyone knows he had them at one time. He said he destroyed them, but did not allow the UN to observe this destruction, which is a violation of the UN's requirements. Here's a link for you guys: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html . Here's another link that gives the history of Iraq's continued defiance of the UN. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline.htm . And yet it was unreasonable to doubt him? We sure gave him enough time to get rid of them if he did have them, BTW.

Wrong. Read your source again:

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."

Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

By all accounts, the weapons were destroyed right after the Gulf War and before '94.

When the UN gave more power and authority to the inspectors in October of 2002, Saddam complied completely up until Bush declared war. :shrug:

Hans Blix: "All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."

Hans Blix also said that Saddam's cooperation was "unprecendeted" if you want me to post that quote for you. Articles that support the fact that Saddam cooperated fully up until war was declared:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0302-07.htm
UN: Iraq Had No WMD After 1994

http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=354
UN CONFIRMS NO WMD IN IRAQ

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2967598.stm
Blix criticises coalition over Iraq weapons

http://news.independent.co.uk/world...sp?story=363151
US not sharing intelligence, say UK agencies

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...0,7577124.story
UN weapons inspectors in Iraq 'have zilch' thus far

http://www.observer.co.uk/internati...,868839,00.html
UN inspectors fear Bush will ignore them

Not to mention the fact the the US removed 8,000 pages from the 12,000 page weapons report that Saddam submitted. You can also peruse these sites and read all about how UNMOVIC and IAEA never found a thing in 11 years.

http://www.unmovic.org/
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press...Iraq/index.html

Here are some choice quotes:

"We are fully aware that many governmental intelligence organizations are convinced and assert that proscribed weapons, items and programmes continue to exist. The US Secretary of State presented material in support of this conclusion. Governments have many sources of information that are not available to inspectors. Inspectors, for their part, must base their reports only on evidence, which they can, themselves, examine and present publicly. Without evidence, confidence cannot arise."

"More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations."

"We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 litres of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under UNMOVIC seal at the Muthanna site. One-third of the quantity has already been destroyed. The laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, which we found at another site, has also been destroyed."

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."

You can read the whole UNMOVIC briefing at their site. Or try this:

Extracts from UN Security Council Member Statements on 14th February 2003

Syria

FAROUK AL-SHARA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Syria, recalled that it was three months since the Council had unanimously adopted resolution 1441. Syria had joined the consensus after it had received assurances that the resolution would not be used as a pretext for waging war against Iraq. In their briefing today, the inspectors had noted the progress achieved since their last briefing. That meant that in just two weeks significant progress had been achieved. It was also significant that today Iraq had issued a decree prohibiting weapons of mass destruction in the country. That testified to the fact that inspections were accomplishing their goals, and the Council must continue to support the inspectors, allowing them sufficient time to carry out their task as prescribed in resolution 1441.

France

DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, said that by unanimously adopting resolution 1441 (2002), the Council collectively had expressed its agreement with the two-stage approach proposed by France: disarmament through inspections and, should that strategy fail, consideration by the Council of all the options, including the recourse to force. It was clear that, in the event that the inspections failed and only in that scenario, a second resolution could be justified. The question today was simple: either consider in good conscience that the disarmament via inspections was now leading to a dead-end; or that the inspections possibilities presented in resolution 1441 had still not been fully explored.

In response to that question, he said his country was convinced that the option of inspections had not been taken to the end and that it could provide an effective response to the imperative of disarming Iraq. Also, the use of force would be so fraught with risks for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort. What had just been learned from the inspectors’ reports was that the inspections were producing results. Significant gains had been made in those areas identified by the chief inspectors on 27 January.

In the chemical and biological areas, he noted that the Iraqis had provided the inspectors with new documentation. They had also announced the establishment of commissions of inquiry led by former officials of weapons programmes, in accordance with Mr. Blix’s requests. In the ballistic missile domain, the information provided by Iraq had enabled the inspectors to make progress. He knew precisely the real capabilities of the Al-Samoud missile. The unauthorized programmes must now be dismantled.

In the nuclear domain, he continued, useful information had been given to the IAEA on the most important points discussed by Dr. ElBaradei on 27 January: the acquisition of magnets that could be used for enriching uranium, and the list of contacts between Iraq and the country likely to have provided it with uranium. Those points were at the heart of the logic of resolution 1441, which must ensure the effectiveness of the inspections through precise identification of banned programmes and then their elimination.

He said that real progress was becoming apparent. Iraq had agreed to aerial reconnaissance over its territory, and it had allowed Iraqi scientists to be questioned by the inspectors without witnesses. Also, a bill barring all activities linked to mass destruction weapons programmes was in the process of being adopted, and Iraq was to provide a detailed list of experts who witnessed the destruction of military programmes in 1991. Such progress strengthened France’s conviction that the inspections could be effective, but “we must not shut our eyes to the amount of work that still remains� –- questions had to be cleared up, verifications made, and installations and equipment probably still had to be destroyed.

To do that, he said, the inspections must be given every chance of succeeding. His proposals submitted to the Council on 5 February were practical and concrete, and could be implemented quickly. They fell within the framework of resolution 1441 and consequently did not require a new resolution. Yes, he had heard the critics, those who doubted that the inspections could be the least effective. There were those who believed that continuing them was a sort of “delaying tactic� to prevent military intervention. At the core of the debates, then, was the question of the time allowed Iraq. At stake was the Council’s credibility and sense of responsibility.

He highlighted two options: a long and difficult war, following which it would be necessary to preserve Iraq’s unity and restore stability in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force; or the day-by-day effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. No one could assert today that the path of war would be shorter than that of the inspections. No one could claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more stable world. For war was always the sanction of failure. The United Nations inspectors should be given the time they need for their mission to succeed. He proposed a further meeting on 14 March at the ministerial level to assess the situation.

The use of force was not justified at this time, he emphasized. Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks and could bring the unity of the international community into question. That would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness. Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of that scarred and fragile region. He shared the same priority of fighting terrorism mercilessly. Given France’s present state of research and intelligence, in liaison with its allies, nothing had allowed it to establish links between Al Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. On the other hand, the impact of disputed military action on the plan to defeat terrorism must be assessed.

He said that France did not exclude the possibility that force might have to be used one day if the inspectors’ reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision. The Members of the United Nations were the guardians of an ideal and of a conscience. Their onerous responsibility and immense honour must lead them to give priority to disarmament in peace. That message came today from an old country. France, like the continent to which it belonged, had known wars, occupation and barbarity. France did not forget and knew everything it owed to the freedom-fighters who came from the United States and elsewhere. Yet, it had never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. It wished resolutely to act with all members of the international community, which, together, could build a better world.

[This statement drew applause from those present - a rare and officially discouraged event at Security Council meetings]

Chile

MARIA SOLEDAD ALVEAR, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Chile, said that what she heard this morning showed that the Iraqi regime still had an ambivalent attitude towards the inspection process. While there were indications of progress that might indicate a decisive change in attitude towards compliance with the demands of the international community, the negative and delaying attitudes revealed an intention not to cooperate and gave rise to suspicions about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Maintaining pressure on Saddam Hussein’s regime had proven to be the only mechanism capable of bringing about a certain openness and respect for the decisions of the Council. That pressure must be maintained relentlessly and without relaxation.

Second, she said, in keeping with the categorical and urgent tone of resolution 1441, the inspection process must be continued, strengthened and expanded to make it accurate and intrusive and, thus, capable of thwarting any effort at deception or evasion that the Iraqi regime might attempt. In that connection, she noted with interest the opinions of the inspectors on the usefulness and applicability of the French proposals. It was evident, however, that the time available was not infinite. The seriousness of the situation required immediate and definitive responses from the Iraqi regime to the inspectors.

Third, she said, the United Nations and the Security Council had a key role to play in the crisis. She had noted with dismay over the past month a growing division within the Council. The unity of the Council was the basis of any international action that sought to be both legitimate and effective. Only a united Council could credibly adopt the appropriate decisions for achieving the objective of the disarmament of the Iraqi regime. The Council should, as invited to do so by the Secretary-General, take the necessary time to continue to seek the broadest possible consensus for achieving comprehensive solution that would restore to the Iraqi people, who had suffered for so long, the opportunity to participate fully in the international community.

China

TANG JIAXUAN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of China, said that Iraq must implement the relevant Security Council resolutions –- “strictly, comprehensively and earnestly�. He urged the Iraqi side to fully recognize the importance and urgency of the inspections and to provide more cooperation in a more proactive way. The latest visit to Baghdad by the chief inspectors had achieved some positive results. The Iraqi side had made some commitments. He asked it to make good on those promises as soon as possible. It was also necessary for the inspection work in Iraq to continue.

He said that, judging from what had been done in the recent past, the inspections had made progress and clarified quite a number of issues. New developments, however, had also been discovered in that process. The two bodies -– UNMOVIC and IAEA -- were duty-bound and justified to further the inspections with the aim of finding out the truth and fulfilling the mission conferred on them by the Council. In agreement with the majority opinion of the Council, therefore, China believed that the inspection process was working and that the inspectors should continue to be given the time they needed to carry out resolution 1441 (2002).

Spain

ANA PALACIO, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain, said that as much as she had been eager to hear an affirmation of active, immediate and complete compliance with the Council’s demands by Iraq, she had been unable to find it in the inspectors’ reports. Unconditional cooperation was not forthcoming. What the Council saw was a long list of unresolved issues mentioned in Mr. Blix’s report, including VX agent, chemical bombs and anthrax. Al-Samoud missiles were longer in range than that prescribed by the Council. The Council had been also told that Iraq could produce engines for those missiles. A number of persons had refused to be interviewed privately. In a word, all the questions remained, including the most important one: was Iraq’s cooperation voluntary, or did it represent superficial concessions because time was pressing? Was it a result of international pressure, including a credible threat of the use of force?

Her remarks should be seen in the right context, she explained. Her Government appreciated the inspectors’ work and was in favour of a solution being found within the Council. Spain was aware that peace and security were assured through respect for and compliance with the Council’s resolutions. Unless there was a change of will on behalf of Saddam Hussein, the Council should discharge its responsibilities for peace and security.

United Kingdom

JACK STRAW, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom, said that the issue was about the authority of the Council and the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security. Three months ago, the Council adopted resolution 1441. At that time, everyone, including all five permanent members, knew that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They knew that the issue was not whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but whether it was cooperating to get rid of them.

As stated on 27 January, Iraq had failed to account for various materials and weapons, failed to make a full and complete disclosure, failed to cooperate fully and failed to meet the obligations imposed on them.

He hoped and believed that a peaceful solution was still possible, but it would require Iraq to meet the obligations imposed on it. A peaceful solution could only be achieved if the Council held its nerve, gave meaning to its word and ensured that Iraq would face the consequences of its actions. The 12 years since the adoption of resolution 687 (1991) had been a period of humiliation, as games had been played with the Council’s authority. The period after the inspectors were kicked out until 8 November was not the best in the Council’s history, since Iraq was in open defiance of the Council’s authority.

In securing a peaceful solution, he knew that the Council had only come this far by backing the diplomatic process with a credible threat of force. If the Council backed away from that, then the disarmament of Iraq and international peace and security would not get easier, but harder. The issue was not only about Iraq, but how to deal with proliferators around the world.

United States

COLIN POWELL, Secretary of State of the United States, said that the inspectors had taken up a difficult task when whey they returned to Iraq last fall. He was pleased about the improvements with respect to process, but the inspectors still did not have freedom of access around Iraq to do their job well. People had come forward for interviews, but more should be doing so, in a manner that their safety and that of their families could be protected. Decrees that should have been issued years and years ago had been issued this morning. But, did anyone think that a decree from Saddam would change the situation? Those were all tricks that were being played.

Now, he continued, new commissions were being formed to find materials the Iraqis say were not there in the first place. Did anyone believe they could succeed in finding material that was actively being denied? He commended the work of the inspectors, but what was needed was not more inspectors or more immediate access, but immediate, active, unconditional cooperation on the part of Iraq. Resolution 1441 was not about inspections; it was about the disarmament of Iraq. And it began with a clear statement that Iraq was in a material breach of its obligations. It went on to say that there should be a declaration within 30 days of all its activities –- “put it all on the table� was the request.

He said he could not continue to allow Iraq to possess weapons of mass destruction to use against its neighbours and others, or to provide to terrorist organizations. Such connections were now emerging and he could establish that they existed. The world could not wait until one of those terrible weapons showed up in one of its cities. That was what 1441 was all about. To this day, he had not seen the level of cooperation that was expected, indeed, hoped for. No one had worked harder than he had to put forward a resolution of the international community to show the Iraqi leadership that “the time was now to come clean and comply�.

More inspections was not the answer. He had not seen responsible actions on the part of Iraq, but rather “continued efforts to deceive, deny, divert, and throw us off the path�. The resolution had anticipated that kind of response. Notwithstanding improvements in process, those did not move the situation away from the central problem, namely, Iraq’s failure to comply with 1441, and more inspections or a longer inspection period would not move us away from that central problem. The threat of force must remain. It should always be a last resort, but it must be a resort. “We cannot allow this process to be endlessly strung out, as Iraq was trying to do�, he said.

The Security Council was now in a situation where Iraq’s continued non-compliance and failure to cooperate required it to begin to think through the consequences of walking away from that problem, or from the reality that it had to be faced. And, in the very near future, the Council would have to consider that point, as reluctant as it might be. So many here would rather not face the issue, but that issue, namely whether it was time to consider the serious consequences referred to in 1441, had to be faced. Those were serious weapons that could kill tens of thousands of people if they got into the wrong hands. “Our security rested upon us meeting our responsibilities and, if it came to it, invoking the serious consequences named in 1441�, he stressed.

Russia

IGOR S. IVANOV, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said that today’s meeting was, in its way, a unique occasion in history. Once again, the Council was meeting at the ministerial level to seek a solution to the Iraqi question. That testified to the fact that the international community saw the United Nations as the most suitable mechanism for resolving world problems. That was why, with each additional meeting, the international community was further engaging hopes for strengthening the unity and solidarity of States in the face of a challenge.

“We should not be guided by our emotions vis-Ã*-vis a particular regimeâ€�, he continued. “Rather, we should draw our conclusions on the basis of facts.â€� For that reason, the inspectors must be provided with all possible assistance, as it was on the basis of their work that the Council could make an enlightened decision. The inspections were proceeding, as required under resolution 1441. One could not disregard the fact that during the inspectors’ last visit to Baghdad much progress had been made. It had been agreed that inspections would continue with the help of aircraft, and the number of minders would be reduced. It was also important that the Iraqis had set up two commissions to search for new materials. Those matters had been discussed as pending in the past, and now they had been resolved. Thus, in fact, there was movement in the right direction.

Continuing, he urged Iraq to increase its cooperation with inspectors. It was perfectly clear that UNMOVIC and the IAEA had the conditions for carrying out their mandates. Nobody was proposing any changes to the 1441 regime, but the majority was advocating providing the inspectors with all the support they needed. At the same time, the inspections must be more systematic and focused.

In that connection, he recalled the inspectors’ obligations to comply with the time frame, under which they had to submit the programme of work, including the list of key disarmament tasks. That would provide objective criteria for assessing cooperation by Iraq and provide an answer to the question whether Iraq represented a threat to international peace and security. One point of principle that all must answer was if the inspectors should continue their work in Iraq for the sake of a political settlement. Russia answered yes to that question. That was the position shared by an overwhelming majority of States, including members of the Security Council.

The Council had a unique opportunity to solve the problems by peaceful means in conformity with the United Nations Charter, he concluded. Force could be resorted to only when all other means had been exhausted. The international community was not now at that point. Energies must be directed, not at fighting, but at uniting efforts.

Mexico

LUIS ERNESTO DERBEZ, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mexico, said that in the reports presented today he saw a degree of improvement in the working conditions of the inspectors. In the past couple of weeks, Iraq had changed its position regarding overflights and interviews and provided further documentation. While the report had indicated some improvement, it was also clear that the Iraqi Government continued to evade its international responsibilities. It had yet to respond to repeated appeals by the international community, under resolution 1441, that it cooperate unconditionally with inspectors.

The international community, he said, was calling for genuine and verifiable disarmament. It wanted to know when and how Iraq had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction. It had been proven that, in the last two wars in which Iraq participated, it had used such weapons. Now, the international community wanted to know where those arsenals were, and if they had been destroyed. The international community was increasingly divided as to the most effective way to achieve the goal of Iraq’s disarmament. The unity of the Council was crucial.

Having heard today’s reports, he reconfirmed his confidence in the inspections. If, thus far, the inspections had not yielded the expected results, it was the obligation of the Council to ensure that the inspections fulfilled their intended mission. Iraq must make full use of the final opportunity presented to it. The damage the conflict was having could be seen in increased political polarization, and a global economy that was suffering from uncertainty. Iraq’s disarmament and an end to its non-compliance would help bring about an end to that situation.

Guinea

MAMADY TRAORE (Guinea) said that progress had indeed been made since the last progress report in late January, but many issues were still pending. The progress had included the fact that inspectors had been able to interview five Iraqi scientists without minders. Restrictions on flights by U-2 aircraft had been lifted, and a decree banning weapons of mass destruction had just been approved. Those developments were acts of cooperation on the part of Iraq, but the discoveries of large quantities of mustard gas, defended as destroyed, the development of a missile programme beyond the proscribed range, and omissions in the declaration had sown doubts about the sincerity and good faith of the Iraqi authorities to resolve the crisis peacefully.

He said he advocated continued inspections, although not indefinitely. A reasonable additional time period would help yield consensus and bring together the different views around the table. He was concerned about the tension in the international community around the crisis. He urged a direct and constructive dialogue among those with differing views, in order to move beyond that tension, which could deal a harsh blow to the United Nations system. Given Iraq’s obligation to cooperate actively and strictly in accordance with the Council’s resolutions, it must end its delaying tactics. A peaceful settlement of the crisis depended on it. He assured the inspection teams of his full support and urged them to explore all possibilities. The Council must continue working together as one to attain its goal.

Pakistan

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that the latest report by the inspectors had provided a useful update of the situation. They indicated some important developments since 27 January and described what remained to be done. The progress included acceptance of aerial surveillance, interviews without minders and access to new documentation. As made clear by the inspectors, however, a significant number of questions and concerns remained, and they needed to be addressed.

It was understandable that the patience of some important members of the Council was running out, he said. The intention of 1441 was that the process of discovery and destruction of weapons of mass destruction would be accelerated. At the same time, he noted the call for caution by several Member States.

Resolution 1441 was credible because it was unanimous, he continued. The Council must maintain that unity of purpose and action. At present, the Council could still unite around the need to secure the elimination of weapons of mass destruction through peaceful means, and the conviction that to achieve that, Iraq needed to offer immediate active and unconditional cooperation and credibly demonstrate that those weapons had been destroyed. Such cooperation would be in Iraq’s supreme interests. Also needed was a readiness to allow some more time to achieve the peaceful elimination of Iraq’s weapons, which should be consistent with the spirit of resolution 1441.

Obviously, all people of good will desired that all peaceful means be exhausted before the Council decided to bring force into play, he concluded. For Pakistan –- a Muslim country from the area –- such a decision would be most difficult. The primary concern should be the well-being of the Iraqi people. The aim must be to bring an end to their suffering. He trusted and hoped that the Iraqi leadership would also put its people first.

Cameroon

MARTIN BELINGA-EBOUTOU (Cameroon) said that in comparing today’s reports with that of 27 January, he could see significant developments resulting from the wise and reasonable choice of the Iraqi authorities to begin, at last, to cooperate with inspectors. He noted the important advances regarding interviews and U-2 air surveillance. He also welcomed that Iraq had enacted legislation prohibiting illicit chemical, biological and nuclear activities in its territory. Despite that, certain questions regarding chemical and biological issues still remained. On the issue of missiles, he noted from today’s reports that the range of the Al-Samoud missile manufactured by Iraq was beyond the range authorized by the Council. That was regrettable, since it contradicted the Iraqi declaration of 2002.

It was up to the Council to decide how to deal with that non-compliance, he said. During the ministerial meeting on 5 February, the United States delegation had raised the issue of small unmanned planes, which could be used as delivery systems for weapons and other unresolved issues. He asked what information had been provided by Iraq on that issue. The documentation submitted by Iraq last week could contain clarifications on the main issues before the Council. He hoped that, if it was not possible to obtain copy of those documents, Dr. Blix would be able to provide a summary in writing, accompanied by comments and assessment.

He emphasized the need for the Council to continue to safeguard its unity and cohesion. The progress made by the recent mission to Baghdad reflected a noticeable change in Iraqi attitude. That result, like the return of inspectors, was owed to the great demands of President Bush, to the collective pressure exerted by the Council, and the staunch determination of a united Council. The cacophony and confusion surrounding the Council could only harm its effectiveness. Cameroon was studying the non-paper from France, while awaiting the opinions of UNMOVIC and the IAEA. He wanted to know what the key threshold in the number of inspectors was to conduct robust inspections, and what its cost might be.

Further non-compliance with the demands of the Council would be one violation too many, and Iraqi authorities would leave the Council no other choice but to adopt, in unity, appropriate measures to have its decisions respected. He appealed to Council members for unity and cohesion at this crucial stage. The credibility of the Council and the United Nations could suffer if, in the future, that unity could not be preserved.

Angola

ISMAEL ABRAAO GASPAR MARTINS (Angola) said he hoped the inspectors’ reports would help cool the severe tension facing the world today. Angola experienced three decades of war, which had inflicted much suffering and destruction. Today’s report provided a beacon of hope that it might be possible to save the world from an imminent conflict. The collective efforts of the Council, combined with military pressure, had increased Iraq’s level of cooperation with the inspectors. Simultaneously, that had advanced the cause of multilateralism by translating the consensual will of the international community to disarm Iraq, peacefully and with determination.

He acknowledged the presentation last week of Secretary Powell. The progress made since then had showed what could be achieved by diplomacy, backed by a credible willingness to act. He was pleased by Iraq’s decision to cooperate with South Africa in letting that country point the way towards disarmament. Africa had adopted a clear position on disarming Iraq through peaceful means. African countries themselves had decided to free the continent of weapons of mass destruction, an example that could be followed in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the international community was unable, at present, to declare that Iraq was free of such weapons or that it had embarked on an irreversible road towards disarmament. He was equally unable to unequivocally state that Iraq was fully armed with weapons that posed a clear and impending threat to international peace and security.

The international community had sent a clear message to the Iraqi Government with the unanimous adoption of 1441, backed by the credible willingness to use force, he emphasized. It had been able to secure Iraq’s cooperation concretely, in the face of determined pressure, as reported today by the inspectors. That was an example of what could be achieved when the international community spoke with one voice. The use of force today would preclude that gathering of valuable information that could be retrieved from U-2 flights, scientists, and other sources that provided the necessary inputs to the intrusive inspections demanded by the Council. That process -– an investment in peace -- should be given sufficient time.

Bulgaria

STEFAN TAFROV (Bulgaria) stressed the importance of pursuing unity in addressing the issue of Iraq, saying that he greatly appreciated the important work by UNMOVIC and the IAEA there. The experience of the last 12 years showed that inspections depended on cooperation from Iraq to be successful. Baghdad tended to provide such cooperation only under serious pressure. The work of the United Nations was still the main factor in ensuring that country’s cooperation with the inspectors.

Unfortunately, Iraq was still in material breach with resolution 1441, he continued. It was up to Iraq –- not the inspectors -– to achieve disarmament. It was essential that Iraq cooperated actively and unconditionally. Iraq must prove that it had no weapons of mass destruction and give clear and definitive answers to the remaining questions by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, as well as the issues presented by Secretary Powell last week. The most serious issues concerned the chemical and biological weapons.

His country had always advocated maximally effective inspections, and the French ideas regarding enhanced inspections could be one element in the overall strategy by the Council to achieve the disarmament of Iraq. Bulgaria remained in favour of a peaceful settlement, but active cooperation by Iraq was indispensable. All kinds of pressure, political and military, should be exerted on Iraq, in order to achieve the goals set by the international community. A peaceful solution was still possible, if Iraq wilfully disarmed, as required by resolution 1441. All responsibility for any undesirable outcome would lie squarely with Iraq. Bulgaria appealed to the Council to be united. That was an important condition for a peaceful outcome of the crisis.

Germany

Council President JOSCHKA FISCHER, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany, speaking in his national capacity, said that the deficits in Iraq’s cooperation with the inspectors must be rectified by Baghdad without delay. Iraq must not be allowed to possess any weapons of mass destruction and must disarm completely. Baghdad must actively and fully cooperate with UNMOVIC and the IAEA and comply unconditionally with the requirements of the relevant resolutions. The inspectors had been able to score some successes. Now it was necessary to gain experience with the new measures in place and evaluate them in the light of the common goal of ensuring Iraq’s complete disarmament. “Why should we now turn away from this path? Why should we now halt the inspections?� On the contrary, the inspectors must be given the time they needed to successfully complete their mission.

How to proceed was laid down in resolutions 1441 and 1284, he said. Crucial were the resolutions’ three core elements –- cooperation, inspection and verification. First, Iraq must cooperate fully, unconditionally and actively with the inspectors if the looming tragedy was to be avoided. Secondly, the inspection regime must be made more efficient. France had made very concrete proposals on how that could be done, including increasing the number of inspection teams and improving the technical resources at their disposal. He strongly supported those proposals, for they helped ensure a response more appropriate to the size of the task.

Third, and in parallel with the inspections, the verification and monitoring mechanisms called for resolution 1284 needed to be developed and expanded, he said. An ongoing long-term monitoring regime must prevent any future rearmament. Such a reinforced inspection and verification regime could also be of service to the United Nations in other crises involving weapons of mass destruction.

All possible options for resolving the Iraqi crisis by peaceful means must be thoroughly explored, he said. Whatever decisions needed to be made must be taken by the Council alone. It remained the only body internationally authorized to do so. Military action against Iraq would, in addition to the terrible humanitarian consequences, endanger the stability of a tense and troubled region. The consequences for the Near and Middle East could be catastrophic. There should be no automatism leading to the use of military force. Diplomacy had not yet reached the end of the road.

Of course it's terrible that civilians have killed. But more died under Hussein. Everyone acknowledges his atrocities. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm And those guys choose their own paths; we didn't make them do anything.

Yeah, but war isn't murder, Nancy. :rolleyes: Are you using this as a justification for war? If so, why aren't we in Sudan and the dozen other police states with people just as bad as Saddam?

[dissention]

And if you watched the debates, you saw that Bush didn't condemn homosexuals. Here are some quotes of what he did say: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19347

His administration also supports paying gay men and women less than heterosexuals and he once claimed that AIDS was not a disease. :woohoo:

[strandinthewind]

Lord Child - I am no longer typing anything about that and instead referring people to your post!!! :cool:

Seriously, the question of WMD is a tricky one because we had all the politicians, including Clinton, Kerry, W, etc., all saying SH had WMD, which I think was mostly based on SH's unwillingness to meet his burden of proving otherwise. So, there is some egg of SH's face which I submit cannot be washed away by his forced and initially beligerent compliance immediately prior to the invasion. But, ITA, W was momentarily distracted by OBL, but soon thereafter went back to plan A, which was to invade Iraq and he could not even do that right :shrug:

Again, if I had an employee who regardless of intention, ruined my company - I'd fire them on the spot. Sadly and IMO, the American people's hatred of all Muslins and fear of gay people prohibits them from seeing W's administration for the ineffective cesspool it is in reality.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

And now I hear the republicans HAILING their "victory", that they got some 11 % of the black vote this time...somewhere around that. And they talk about these moral values is what won it for them, so 89% of black voters have no morals?

Oh right..I FORGOT...Black voters are bullied into the democratic party... Like when the House voted on a bill in Nov 2003 to titled "The National Museum of African American History and Culture Act", it was almost unanimous...except the ONLY 9 NAY votes were republicans, I do not think that is coincidental...

Chris

[strandinthewind]

His administration also supports paying gay men and women less than heterosexuals and he once claimed that AIDS was not a disease. :woohoo:

Not to mention he allows gay people to die fighting for their country but cannot let them serve openly because like the fear white people had drinking from the negro water fountain, gay people may undermine all of the morale of the military.

And another thing ( :cool: ) - he supported firing Arabic translators because they were gay and for not other reason. So, documents sat there for a long time without translation. And the justification for this was gay people cannot be trusted because, inter alia, they are succeptible to black mail. Well, if they were allowed to live their lives openly and without fear of some straight guys beating the crap out of them for walking down the street or the Catholic Church and other churches deeming them pedophiles, who could black mail them?

How anyone can justify W is just beyond me :shrug:

And you know what - I really wanted to believe in him. I really wanted him to unite the country. Sadly, despite the meaningless and inconsistent rhetoric, he never even tried.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Not to mention he allows gay people to die fighting for their country but cannot let them serve openly because like the fear white people had drinking from the negro water fountain, gay people may undermine all of the morale of the military.


This is something that I really don't understand. It's not ok to be openly gay, but it seems okay for these military men to rape the women that are serving as well. As much as someone can say these rapist are getting their due, it's not true. It's covered up constantly.

[dissention]

Lord Child - I am no longer typing anything about that and instead referring people to your post!!! :cool:

It was comprehensive, eh? :lol:

[strandinthewind]

It was comprehensive, eh? :lol:

and perculating for a long long time!!!!!!!!!!!! :cool:

Seriously, not to high five, but, it is true. And - for whatever reason, people cannot accept it. And - if they do, they then fall back on "Oh what the hell - SH was a bad guy anyway." I will never get it.

[dissention]

and perculating for a long long time!!!!!!!!!!!! :cool:

Seriously, not to high five, but, it is true. And - for whatever reason, people cannot accept it. And - if they do, they then fall back on "Oh what the hell - SH was a bad guy anyway." I will never get it.

It is true. And it also proves that the world did not believe he had WMDs (if you read the UN speeches in that post). I can also post Bush's secret memo that blatantly violates the Vienna Convention:

To: [Recipients withheld]

From: FRANK KOZA, Def Chief of Staff (Regional Targets) CIV/NSA

Sent on Jan 31 2003 0:16

Subject: Reflections of Iraq Debate/Votes at UN-RT Actions + Potential for Related Contributions

Importance: HIGH

Top Secret//COMINT//X1

All,

As you've likely heard by now, the Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE: Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/ negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies, etc - the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off surprises. In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters.

We've also asked ALL RT topi's to emphasize and make sure they pay attention to existing non-UNSC member UN-related and domestic comms for anything useful related to the UNSC deliberations/ debates/ votes. We have a lot of special UN-related diplomatic coverage (various UN delegations) from countries not sitting on the UNSC right now that could contribute related perspectives/ insights/ whatever. We recognize that we can't afford to ignore this possible source.

We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar, more in-direct access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines. I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels - especially as this effort will probably peak (at least for this specific focus) in the middle of next week, following the SecState's presentation to the UNSC.

Thanks for your help.

[dissention]

Osama was still being searched for - it's not as if we've given up on him! But he has proven to be a hard man to find. Believe me, if he were found, he wouldn't be let off the hook.

What a joke. Your president has said that he's not worried about finding Osama and that's quite indicative of the amount of troops looking for him; they're hardly looking for him. It doesn't help that he was given a two month head start and then let go once he was cornered in Tora Bora.

[dissention]

Nancy, don't forget Osama.

Osama endorsed Kerry? That's rich.

[dissention]

Some of us are may appear to be fighting when we really aren't. I think I can safely say that in the case of Strandie, Dissention and myself. In fact, there are times when I think we relish arguing with each other.
That said, I wasn't referring to you with my comments but thank you for your well thought out post. :)

:nod: :wavey:

[dissention]

Mark, I completely understand your anger, but I don't think the conservatives here are representative of those who'd just as soon spit on us as look at us.

Have you read some of the old posts from conservatives on this board who don't want gay marriage or gay people? Some of the ones posted back when The Passion came out were vile.

[SuzeQuze]

Yes, Saddam is a horrible, evil man whose government tortured and killed tens of thousands.

However......

That is still not a reason for the US to unilaterally invade the sovereign nation that was Iraq. There are many, many, many governments on Earth today that are as bad as Saddam was if not worse. Myanmar, North Korea, the Sudan, Congo, Rwanda- not to mention Paraguay, Turkmenistan, Iran, Syria, Liberia, Nigeria, Tunisia, etc., etc., etc.... When are we going to invade those countries and fix their problems? I can tell you when- never, because none of them have the world's second largest oil reserves and a dictator who tangled with Dubya's Poppy.

What I want to know is since when did the United States of America decide to become the official police unit of the United Nations of Earth?

Since a plan called "Project for the New American Century" was concocted. Check it out, it is quite chilling http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

[amber]

Thanks, Suze. That was pretty gross, all right... :eek:
A small excerpt:

"Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the
group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for
Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position
with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.


PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of
the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody
gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The
Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a
nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."


PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the
Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza
Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about
the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to
support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed
Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to
22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which
he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his
Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the
Bush administration's plans.


PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization
of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men
currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is
signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb
Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many
others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard,
is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert
Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News."

[JamieSPC]

Have you read some of the old posts from conservatives on this board who don't want gay marriage or gay people? Some of the ones posted back when The Passion came out were vile.

Cite 'em. I've done a search here and can't find them. I'm sure they're here, but none of 'em are under "JamieSPC," that's for freakin' sure.

I'd really like to see something more vile than, say...

"To hell with every person who voted for this scum. You've signed your death warrant and I hope you suffer because of it."

[strandinthewind]

Cite 'em. I've done a search here and can't find them. I'm sure they're here, but none of 'em are under "JamieSPC," that's for freakin' sure.

I'd really like to see something more vile than, say...

"To hell with every person who voted for this scum. You've signed your death warrant and I hope you suffer because of it."

Is it calling bush sum that was vile? :wavey:

Come on - this was said in the heat of the moment - a standard none of us would like to be judged by :shrug:

[JamieSPC]

Come on - this was said in the heat of the moment - a standard none of us would like to be judged by

Good point, strand. We shouldn't be held responsible for what they say or do in the heat of the moment. :rolleyes:

There's a lot of hatred floating around... which was the point of my original post. But I don't think anyone wants to get into who's being hateful here, ON THIS BOARD. There's enough in this thread alone to prove it.

:wavey: (retiring to my vat of hot oil)

[strandinthewind]

Good point, strand. We shouldn't be held responsible for what they say or do in the heat of the moment. :rolleyes:

:wavey:

I am not saying that - I am just saying that I have said things in the heat of the moment I would never have said so strongly in a calmer setting. Apparently, you either have not or have no sympathy for such utterances.

[amber]

Good point, strand. We shouldn't be held responsible for what they say or do in the heat of the moment. :rolleyes:

There's a lot of hatred floating around... which was the point of my original post. But I don't think anyone wants to get into who's being hateful here, ON THIS BOARD. There's enough in this thread alone to prove it.

:wavey: (retiring to my vat of hot oil)
it will never work. They will never stop arguing. Their inhuman capacity to argue about political things knows no boundaries. You will exhaust all your reserves, and still, like pod people, they will come after you. :laugh: :laugh:
Luckily, i usually agree with them :lol: so i usually get some good info.. :nod:

[dissention]

Cite 'em. I've done a search here and can't find them. I'm sure they're here, but none of 'em are under "JamieSPC," that's for freakin' sure.

They are there and, as I said earlier, find them yourself. I'm certainly not your research assistant. And no one ever said you said anything like that. But nice spin. ;)

I'd really like to see something more vile than, say...

"To hell with every person who voted for this scum. You've signed your death warrant and I hope you suffer because of it."

Then go find those "gay marriage is a sin, gay people are a sin" posts. :wavey:

I do see what I posted as rather cruel, but I later went on to explain what I said more thoroughly. But you didn't post any of that, of course. ;) This is what I went on to say:

"When you support a man like Bush, you will reap what you sow. And it won't be pretty. I hope they do suffer from his re-taking the throne, only then will their eyes open up. And that will only mean good things for this country."

[strandinthewind]

. . .There's a lot of hatred floating around... which was the point of my original post. But I don't think anyone wants to get into who's being hateful here, ON THIS BOARD. There's enough in this thread alone to prove it.

:wavey: (retiring to my vat of hot oil)

There you go again, you get called on a point and proven wrong (repeatedly at that) - so you call people hateful in some vague way. When you are wrong you are wrong - I am often wrong and readily admit it and do not think people are hateful for telling me so. Now when I get stuck on a point and argue against the facts and people get testy - well, that is my fault :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

Thanks Amber. To summarize, this group, of which Cheney was/is a member, has a plan for America which lays out how it can dominate the world in this century, seriously. One part of the plan was for "theatrical" wars to prove America's might. Getting Iraq was also on the agenda long before 9/11.

On another note, Cheney's wife was going to be on the Today show this morning with Katie and I had to turn it off. I just couldn't watch her right now without boiling with rage.

~Susan

Thanks, Suze. That was pretty gross, all right... :eek:
A small excerpt:

"Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the
group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for
Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position
with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.


PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of
the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody
gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The
Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a
nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."


PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the
Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza
Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about
the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to
support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed
Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to
22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which
he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his
Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the
Bush administration's plans.


PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization
of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men
currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is
signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb
Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many
others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard,
is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert
Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News."

[The Tower]

It's true there are many other problematic areas of the world, but just because we can't solve every problem in the world doesn't mean we can't take action when it's necessary. To say that one issue can't be addressed unless all problems are addressed would be paralyzing.

Nope- missed the point. It wasn't necessary to take action (i.e.- unilateral military invasion) against Iraq. Therefore, if Dubya considered Iraq a threat level that requires that action, then all the other countries listed require that same action. He only picked Iraq because of the oil. If it were a moral mission, then the US would have invaded Iran and North Korea as well.

[strandinthewind]

Nope- missed the point. It wasn't necessary to take action (i.e.- unilateral military invasion) against Iraq. Therefore, if Dubya considered Iraq a threat level that requires that action, then all the other countries listed require that same action. He only picked Iraq because of the oil. If it were a moral mission, then the US would have invaded Iran and North Korea as well.

Plus, in many ways I think W thought taking over Iraq would be a little bit like shooting fish in a barrel. I think his utter lack of regard for his generals' advice for more troops, his "Mission Accomplished" ordeal, and his lack of any coherent plan for an exit strategy or to win the peace supports me on this.

[SuzeQuze]

Osama endorsed Kerry? That's rich.

Diss, people believe this. My roommate saw on a CNN "ticker" something like "Osama will not strike any state that votes for Kerry". I did not see it, I don't know what the context of it was but this is how she relayed it to me. Then she said, "That speaks volumes." I don't know how she lived through that. I wanted to tell her that I was sure she read it out of context and I'm quite sure it is not true. Honestly I didn't even begin because I have to live with her! I do not understand. :confused: :shrug: :confused:

[SuzeQuze]

There you go again, you get called on a point and proven wrong (repeatedly at that) - so you call people hateful in some vague way. When you are wrong you are wrong - I am often wrong and readily admit it and do not think people are hateful for telling me so. Now when I get stuck on a point and argue against the facts and people get testy - well, that is my fault :shrug:

And we still don't know where exactly you (JamieSPC) stand because you have not been forthcoming in that regard. You seem satisfied with lighting the match and throwing it igniting this thread, and then watching it burn all the while pointing at it and questioning why it is so WHEN YOU WERE THE SPARK. I think you know where the liberals stand, where do you stand? I'm not the only one who has mentioned this but still you won't step up. Nancy has the courage to state her beliefs here, knowing they won't be popular. I admire that and welcome the opportunity for open discussion. Please try to stop finger pointing and join the discourse.

[amber]

Plus, in many ways I think W thought taking over Iraq would be a little bit like shooting fish in a barrel. I think his utter lack of regard for his generals' advice for more troops, his "Mission Accomplished" ordeal, and his lack of any coherent plan for an exit strategy or to win the peace supports me on this.
Ha! Bush would say..."at least i get to shoot some fish! deher, deher" (insert dumb ass tone of voice) :laugh: :lol: :laugh:

[David]

Furthermore - I think the problem is - like it or not - Christianitly SHOULD NOT be ruling our country - I am a Christian and a believer - but I recognize that not everyone is that way - and I have to (and gladly) accept that because what is right for me is not right for everyone.Apparently, you're part of a dwindling minority. The typical evangelical Christian forcefeeds his faith, his politics & his values down everyone else's throat. All of us nonbelievers have directly experienced this -- too many times to count. To quote the great Anna Russell, we're NOT making this up, you know!

If the evangelicals could arrange it, TV programming would consist of nothing but shows like "Touched By An Angel." What a bland world it would be, indeed. I lob broadsides at the Bible Brigade -- the Basic Minimum Christianists of various stripes -- whenever I can, & I offer no apologies for it. As a group, they are the most meddlesome, fatuous, misinformed, self-righteously bellicose & plangently irritating of any I have ever encountered in my years of existence.

The drama critic John Simon summed it up best in an interview with Jon Winokur for his book "The Portable Curmudgeon" when asked about twice-born Christians: "It seems to me that on the whole, one birth per person is enough, & for some even that may be too much."

[The Tower]

Christ, you people get exactly what you want and you STILL F**CKING WHINE!!

What more do you want?? You want me to kiss your a$$ now that you've f**ked me over in 11 states?

The republican party (notice I said party, not republican voters) wants nothing but absolute power and control. They want to throw society back to good old days of pre-1861 where women kept their mouth shut and did as they were told, "gay" simply meant being happy, blacks worked for free, and Mexicans all lived in Mexico.

The "eleven state" thing was just a small backward step as far as the party is concerned. The big stuff has yet to arrive. It's not enough to beat us- they have to crush us into wormsmeat.

[gldstwmn]

Apparently, you're part of a dwindling minority. The typical evangelical Christian forcefeeds his faith, his politics & his values down everyone else's throat. All of us nonbelievers have directly experienced this -- too many times to count. To quote the great Anna Russell, we're NOT making this up, you know!

Jerry Falwell has been on television more times in the past week than he has been in the last 20 years. Apparently, he's become their "go to" guy. I find it extremely disturbing and vomit inducing.

[DrummerDeanna]

Apparently, you're part of a dwindling minority. The typical evangelical Christian forcefeeds his faith, his politics & his values down everyone else's throat. All of us nonbelievers have directly experienced this -- too many times to count. To quote the great Anna Russell, we're NOT making this up, you know!

If the evangelicals could arrange it, TV programming would consist of nothing but shows like "Touched By An Angel." What a bland world it would be, indeed. I lob broadsides at the Bible Brigade -- the Basic Minimum Christianists of various stripes -- whenever I can, & I offer no apologies for it. As a group, they are the most meddlesome, fatuous, misinformed, self-righteously bellicose & plangently irritating of any I have ever encountered in my years of existence.

The drama critic John Simon summed it up best in an interview with Jon Winokur for his book "The Portable Curmudgeon" when asked about twice-born Christians: "It seems to me that on the whole, one birth per person is enough, & for some even that may be too much."


I don't really think I'm all that in the minorit - oh but first I'm also NOT an Evangelical Christian ;)

I was listening to NPR shortly after the election and there was some analysis on why the religious right is gaining so much ground - they're more organized etc...it was really interesting because there IS a religious left in this country - and not really a small one - but it does span several faiths and is nowhere near as organized...

Now I still wouldn't be part of a religious left because again - I feel that religion should play no role in politics...so for that perhaps I am in the minority :shrug:

[The Tower]

I know this wasn't directed at me, I'm not gay, I'm not even Ameircan, but even I seem to have less patience than you. The conservatives here do appear to be more accepting and hardly likely to spit on you, but they voted to put in power a group who want to reduce your rights. Whether or not this Bush guy is homophobic or even homosexual, who cares? The key factor is that he was put in to enforce these ideals upon others. Whether it's a top agenda for the particular voter or not, to partake in giving the administration this power, to me, is thinking very little of your rights. Little enough to justify an unwillingness to make up and shake hands.

Exactly.

The idea of a "tacet vote" is complete and utter bull****. "Don't blame me, I only voted for Bush because I was a-scared of the boogeyman!" Well, f*ck that! That vote enabled scuzzbag Dubya to do a LOT of evil. How anyone who voted for Bush who thinks that they are a good person can sleep at night is beyond me. And if people don't like that opinion, I really don't give a ****.