Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY college!

Au contraire, we were.

The difference is that, unlike Bush II, no prior president in recent memory has attempted to impose his religious values and moral beliefs on the entire nation. It was more of a live and let live situation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius\";p=\"93382)</div>

Okay, I was going to bow out of this thread, but crap like this really bugs me. I didn't vote for Bush and I agree he wears his religion on his sleeve, but so does every successful politician. It's like some sort of initiation ritual. From an atheistic point of view, they are all scary, except for maybe the unitarians.

Please be specific about what Bush has done in the way of religious imposition. Faith based welfare? As I recall there was concern it would be too inclusive, allowing scientologists and black muslims to participate. Stem cell research limitations? Hey, the popes are on his side and nobody would call them bible belt fundies. This isn't a woman's right to choose issue but really just drawing the line somewhere south of human cloning and since he's the president he gets to draw the line for now. But notice he hasn't kicked California out of the union for going their own way. So much for imposition. So what exactly are you talking about?

What I think you are really complaining about is that he has been successful in motivating a sector of the populace with which I believe he sincerely shares their values and you don't. Were you complaining about Clinton's success in sucking up to the black vote which, incidentally, has more in common with Bush on abortion and gay rights?

 

This is an interesting phenomenon that I've noticed in my brother-in-law as well: Regardless of the subject at the start of the conversation, it eventually gets back to Clinton. (I used to joke that the Republican party was the party of personal responsibility - Bill Clinton was personally responsible for everything that's wrong in America.)

If the conversation continues long enough, Jimmy Carter gets a heaping dose of my brother-in-law's vitriol - he of course was responsible for everything that was wrong before Clinton came on the the scene. Last Christmas, one conversation lasted long enough for Roosevelt-bashing to occur!

 

To coloradospringsprius,

Your insight on this is quite good.

And there is another interesting phenomenon that I've noticed with MY brother in law, as well as in various forums.

Whenever the subject gets going about bad things a Republican does, and the evidence is overwhelming that it's a true story, the person who seems to be a Republican supporter will invariably invoke the notion that all politicians do this.

So if you can't defend your man, at least color all of the other poiticians as equally bad. In other words, if you can't "WIN" your argument, at least settle for a "DRAW".

(I put "win" and "draw" in quotation marks because to me, it's not about winning or losing or arriving at a "draw" when it comes to political discussions, it's about truth and facts and logic. But it is also very clear to me that the Bush administration is clearly more concerned about promoting a corporate agenda, and they will gladly sacrifice truth, and facts and logic. And if truth, and facts and logic are indeed on their side, boy do they play on that for days, weeks or even years at a time. To them it's all about that corporate agenda.)

 

My wife and I are two of those people who some of you would consider "right wing extremists", a code phrase invented by some on the left to describe people they don't agree with. "Left wing extremist" is a code phrase that doesn't exist, because people on the right generally believe that everyone has the RIGHT to express their views in a public forum, whether those views are agreeable or not. I'm not afraid of George Bush's commencement address. But I am concerned about Nate's attempt to silence the President or diminish what he has to say before he hears what he has to say. Abraham Lincoln, in his innaugural address, invoked the name of God 18 or 20 times. I doubt that George Bush will use God in his speech that much, if at all. But religion is no more a threat now than it was when Lincoln gave his speeches or when our Founding Fathers called upon God for help. You, and I, and Nate can't go it alone. Neither can George Bush. George Bush clearly realizes that; and that is what distinguishes him from people like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

 

I'm not a christian so maybe my opinion doesn't count, but it seems to me that Carter has walked the walk of a christian life as opposed to just talkin' it or my favorite: lead a life of hell raising and "get" religion after all the funs done.

 

Interesting that you brought up Jimmy. IMHO, Jimmy is the only US president in my memory who not only embraced Christianity fervently, but truly brought the teachings of Jesus into his policies. Yet he did not "talk the talk" regarding those beliefs any where near as much as GW.

GW is great at picking the teachings of Jesus that he wants to embrace, and rejecting those that he does not.

From my reading of the various threads above, I think many Christians who do not like Bush and the way he uses religion is not because he talks about religion. Indeed, as you point out, so did Lincoln and as others point out, so does every politician.

I feel that Bush manipulates religion and I think that was the point of numerous posters above. From what I have seen, GWs first and most important job is to promote an extremely pro-coporate agenda. And he will use religion, or anything else for that matter, to attain that goal. And I do not believe that Bush is doing this because he is evil. I think he is doing this because he is misguided. I think GW truly thinks that the backbone of America resides in the elite, the CEOs and the "masters of industry". Set them free and the USA will thrive. The rest of us are just the hired help.

This is what I believe, based upon what I have seen and read. You do not have to share that view.

 

I'm confused, so help me out. Is Bush establishing a corporate oligarchy or a theocracy? I don't think it can be both since most corporations are disapproved of by some religious group or other.

 

That is simply a preposterous contention. All I hear about day in and day out from the media is the "left wing" or that other "L" word, "liberal". When Hillary suggested a similar organized group on the right* she got laughed at throughout the media.

So I think you have it backwards.

* ie. Vast right wing conspiracy.

 

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not a bit of both. And the very basis for capitalism is the Protestant Work Ethic. So why would coporations automatically be against a Theocracy?

There are many very truly religious Republicans. However, I do not see the leadership of the Republican party as religious except in "talking the talk". Indeed, based upon my 12 years of Religious education, there is no doubt in my mind that the leadership of the Republican party resembles the "money changers" that Jesus kicked out of the Church in a famous Bible story.

But that leadership realizes that there are a lot of votes in Religion, so they pretend to court those groups. And if the USA does become more of a Theocracy, those rules won't really apply to them anyway. Most of those who are subsidizng the oligachy agenda are super rich. And the rules that Governments make don't apply to the super rich like they do to the rest of us.

Look at the legal system. 98% of those on death row had public defenders. Thus, the death penalty does not apply to the rich.

And look at the Justice System. Ken Lay will not likely ever go to jail. And OJ got off not because he was black, he got off because he could afford a set of lawyers who could use his blackness for best affect. Robert Blake got off not from money, but from celebrity, which is the next best thing to money. One of the reasons we have Guantanomo Bay for prisoners in the first place is because Ossama Bin Laden is so rich. And the super rich can't take a chance on Ossama making a mockery of the American courts like OJ did... But if the super rich really fixed our courts, the Bush twins just might have spent some time in jail. Cant' have that.... Better to have Guantanamo.

Most of the super rich have bodyguards and live in gated communities, so lack of sane gun control doesn't apply to them.

If Roe v Wade gets overturned, the super rich will just do what they did before Roe V Wade, fly to Europe for their abortion.

So they can play the religion card, because it doesn't really apply to them.

(Don't get me wrong, I don't think Bush is so evil as to look at the world like I've put it above, but he DOES embrace a phenominal pro=corporate view. And I think many in the corporate world ARE that evil.)

 

Even if this were true it would be irrelevant, since the right has done such a good job over the past two decades of making the word "liberal" SYNONYMOUS with "extremist."

 

Here's another common debating tactic of the right, which I see regularly because I work for a newspaper with a strong conservative/Libertarian editorial page policy: Always attack. Never defend.

For example, here's a recent conversation about the Prius with the editorial page editor (paraphrased due to my sieve-like memory):

Him: I hear in real life those things only get 40 mpg.
Me: So far I'm getting 52 mpg, and it's getting better as the weather warms up.
Him: Well, you'd just better not get in an accident. A little toy car like that would crumple up like a tin can.
Me: Actually, it's a mid-sized sedan, and it was awarded the highest safety rating of any sedan ever in Europe.
Him: Well, rescue workers won't want to go anywhere near you - they're afraid of being electrocuted. And repairs cost a ton.

And so on. The interesting thing is, he's getting information about hybrids somewhere - just not from accurate sources.

 

My little paragraph has brought some adrenalin to the surface. That's healthy. RonH, the fact that your not a Christian is irrelevant. You are an admirer of Jimmy Carter, and I can understand why. In 1976, I voted enthusiastically for Mr. Carter. But, half way thru his term, I concluded that I had made a terrible mistake. He was pro-Communist and pro-theocracy. Witness his dealings with the Soviet Union, Cuba, Nicaragua, N. Korea and Iran. When he left office, he fought Reagan at every step of Reagan's fight against the spread of Communism. He virtually single-handed coached the N. Koreans in their development and concealment of nuclear weapons. Prius4, can you give an example of the birth of an oligarchy or a theocracy in the U.S.? The right has not made the word "liberal" synonymous with "extremist"; you have. Coloradospringsprius, "always attack; never defend" is a tactic of the right? I'm not sure what that means; the left is defaming and slandering well-qualified judges while preaching comity to the right. The often-used term "Borking" comes directly from a tactic used by the left to attack anyone who doesn't fit into their agenda. Your editor is ignorant and should admit it.

 

I thought I already did.

Actually, the term "borking" refers to exagerating things in a person's past to disqualify them for an appointment. It's been practiced for 200 years. It did not start with Bork. And both sides have done it. I agree that this is wrong, and it was done about 50 times to nominees sent to congress by Clinton. But it is also wrong when Democrats do it and they did it to Bork. Republicans were very astute to go ahead and give it a name. In my opinion, the Democrats were right to vote against Bork as he was extreme in his views and not healthy for Democracy. But traditionally, that is not why candidates get voted down. Instead, something has to be found in their past.

Blocking a nominee because they are extremely outside the mainstream of judicial thought is not wrong. IN fact, it's in the Constitution. It's called advise and consent. If the founding fathers felt that all Presdential appointees should be approved 100% of the time, then why would they even have to vote in the first place?

And in my opinion, appointing judges that go out of their way to invent law in order to allow corporations to win cases against the little guy makes that judge totally unqualified. And this is the case with the judges that were being blocked.

 

Talk about cognitive dissonance. Something any good politician is good at, but this is a neat trick.

 

I can see you don't agree with me, Ron. I don't know what you mean by "cognitive dissonance". Jimmy Carter's latest gaff is his close involvement with Samir Vincent, a close confidante of Sadam Hussein, who was deeply involved in the U.N. oil-for-food scam. We must give Carter the benefit of the doubt and say that he was duped into acting as a go-between to lend legitimacy to the oil-for-food scam. I lend this as an example of Carter's consistent behavior toward tyrants of the world during his political career. Prius04, the term "borking" was coined for the unconscionable behavior of senators during Robert Bork's nomination hearings. The same tactics were used in the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. They worked for Bork; they failed in Justice Thomas' hearings. I cannot remember any extreme views of Robert Bork; can you? I have not seen any signs of oligarchy or theocracy in this great country.

 

Please tell us that you are not serious in this delusional accusation.

 

I suppose when the RNC ran the election ad accusing Jonn Kerry of being the most "liberal" member of the senate, they meant it in a good way...

http://www.factcheck.org/article284.html

 

Billy, if the word "liberal" conjures up negative meaning by you, then you and I agree. But just because you and I agree or disagree with current "liberal" ideas doesn't necessarily make those liberal ideas "extreme". I have abandoned today's liberal philosophy because I disagree with it, not because it may or may not be extreme. IsrAmeriPrius, I'll briefly explain my position regarding Mr. Carter by saying that he has a history of "melting in the presence of the most repugnant tyrants." That's history; there's nothing you and I can do to alter that fact. I'm sure you admire his activities on behalf of Habitat with Humanity. That's fine, as far as it goes. But, when I look at the bigger picture, I see a former POTUS slandering his country to foreign audiences, publicly praising the likes of Tito, Ceausescu, Kim Il Sung, Ortega, Noriega, Cedras, Castro, offering Yassir Arafat his services as speech-writer and emissary, it raises my hackles. Check out the article he wrote in the Washington Post, 1/03 in light of the situation in N. Korea. He cut the legs from under Clinton, and returned with a Chamberlain-like deal with Kim Il Sung. Am I very wary, yes; delusional, I don't believe so.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Emilyjohn\";p=\"93694)</div>

Because liberal conjures a negative meaning in your mind do not assume that it does in mine, it doesn't. When a member of the Republican party says "out of the mainstream" and "liberal" in the same sentence, they are associating the term liberal with extreme. Your arrogance and perhaps a couple of Rush Limbaugh sessions have led you to believe that somehow liberals have put this upon themselves. Stop fooling yourself.