A post from "Jesusland"

[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]

Originally Posted by 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!

LMAO!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

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/20..._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/po...gn/03CHUR.html

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

I cannot believe you actually argued this - although granted you said it was in bad taste, with which I agree (see - common ground ) 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 And yes, perhaps under SH that many died, but teo wrongs do not make a right 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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

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]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

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 ) 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 ) - 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 )

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by JamieSPC

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 ) - by that logic, we should kill them too - 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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by 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!

I remember when he said it because I was young and agreed with him 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 ) .

[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]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

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.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

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. 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]

Originally Posted by dissention

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

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, the WH sent faxes and letters to the Churches as evidenced here http://politicalwire.com/archives/20..._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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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?!!