Jump to content

Another reason to vote against republicans


Snowguy716

Recommended Posts

I don't know that I believe that he believes that the rapture is upon us. I've met whack-jobs like that, and I just don't see it in Bush. Do you have any sources for this information?

George Bush is Methodist. While Methodists on the whole do not believe in the rapture, there are groups within the faith that do - they are usually of the more fundamentalist variety.

Fundamentalists take the bible literally. If you take the bible literally, you believe in the rapture. As the rapture is described in Revelation there have been many instances throughout history in which fundamentalists believed the rapture was imminent. They have been proved wrong, but they weren't in a position of power - which is a critical element here.

We can't tell for certain if Bush believes in such doctrine, but we can speculate on his beliefs by whom he associates with: the Falwells, Pat Roberstons, etc; his words; and his actions.

Or maybe he just put on a show to get votes and is forced to give into their demands as they are his base.

Here's a decent article: http://www.counterpunch.org/hill01042003.html

In anycase, having a world leader that gains more power every day, and listens to an evangelical caucus that promotes hatred of whole religions, groups, and isn't afraid to wage war is possibly quite dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply

i shoudl've added... you don't decide to veto a bill that 70% of americans are in favor of based on "spirituality". he vetoed it entirely based on his religious beliefs. that bill would've been huge for our country and if we don't jump on the stem cell research bandwagon soon, we're gonna miss out on something that could be huge for our economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that it's so much his "religious" beliefs, as opposed to his "spiritual" beliefs. Frankly, I have no idea which religion Bush belongs to. Is he Baptist, Muslim, Christian?? (not trying to be sarcastic, although I know he's not Muslim).

He stomps publically about his religious beliefs and his feelings that he has been led to power through them. Watch some of his campaigning or speeches to the right (no pun intended) crowd and you'll see them loud and clear. He publically states that finding Jesus helped him out of his past and guides him now. This is very public, and very scary. This is one of the reasons the Middle East claims, with much to back it up, that this is a religious war. To them Iraq, Isreal, and everything else screams crusades in the modern world.

Who else in the world says God is telling them what to do?? If they aren't Christian we call them fanatics. Can we just let the jihadists, Islamic extremists, Christian fundamentalists and Isreal fight it out and leave the rest of us to our own lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Bush leaning too far to the "religious/spirituality" side, probably so. Is he doing irreparable damage to our country? Probably not, IMO.

His religious/'moral' beliefs are doing damage to the world. Just look at this country's AIDS policies. We refuse to fund international programs that discuss condom usage, it's abstinence or nothing. That misguided moralism is killing people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the reasons the Middle East claims, with much to back it up, that this is a religious war. To them Iraq, Isreal, and everything else screams crusades in the modern world.

Anybody else remember the first weeks after 9/11, when Bush kept talking about his "crusade against terror?" That pretty quickly became "war on terror" when the neocons realised how their rhetoric was playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i shoudl've added... you don't decide to veto a bill that 70% of americans are in favor of based on "spirituality". he vetoed it entirely based on his religious beliefs. that bill would've been huge for our country and if we don't jump on the stem cell research bandwagon soon, we're gonna miss out on something that could be huge for our economy.

I agree with the overwhelming majority of Americans who believe that we should use federal taxpayer dollars to support stem cell research. What is confusing is Bush's position. Can someone who supports Bush's position on stem cell research explain how it is better to throw away all of these un-used embryos from fertility clinics than to use them for research? If, as his Press Secretary said last week, stem cell research on embryos is murder because it no longer makes it viable to be implanted into a would-be mother then isn't throwing it in the trash murder too? Following their logic, I imagine we'll start prosecuting doctors and IVF patients for premeditated murder since they know full well that the IVF process will produce more embryos than can practically be implanted into the mother. Then we could go after the researchers and garbage-men as accomplices after the fact. Perhaps Law & Order already has the episode in the works...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the overwhelming majority of Americans who believe that we should use federal taxpayer dollars to support stem cell research. What is confusing is Bush's position. Can someone who supports Bush's position on stem cell research explain how it is better to throw away all of these un-used embryos from fertility clinics than to use them for research? If, as his Press Secretary said last week, stem cell research on embryos is murder because it no longer makes it viable to be implanted into a would-be mother then isn't throwing it in the trash murder too? Following their logic, I imagine we'll start prosecuting doctors and IVF patients for premeditated murder since they know full well that the IVF process will produce more embryos than can practically be implanted into the mother. Then we could go after the researchers and garbage-men as accomplices after the fact. Perhaps Law & Order already has the episode in the works...

he's got some weird positions that contradict each other... isn't he in favor of the death penalty?

i work for a catholic college that had a great opinion piece in the school paper on him... basically they ask the question "how can one call themself pro-life, yet be in favor of the death penalty and have no problems starting wars, in which thousands of innocent civilians have died?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he's got some weird positions that contradict each other... isn't he in favor of the death penalty?

i work for a catholic college that had a great opinion piece in the school paper on him... basically they ask the question "how can one call themself pro-life, yet be in favor of the death penalty and have no problems starting wars, in which thousands of innocent civilians have died?"

Easy, one would not really "believe" in any of these positions. One would just look to handler and political advisors to let them know which position would pander best to their political base. In this case being anti-abortion and being pro-death penalty brings in lots of support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need someone with some spirituality.. but whose morals are not dictated by an angry group of extremists that believe their translation of the Bible word for word. Someone with a good heart and common sense solutions to our problems.. not act-on-a-whim, shoot-em-up, no-bid-contracts solution.. like Garrison Kiellor.. yeah, he'd be great. (You should read his autobiography, "Home Grown Democrat" to see what I mean).

You just described Jimmy Carter...

sadly the American Public didn't take to his policies all that well :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just described Jimmy Carter...

sadly the American Public didn't take to his policies all that well :(

Very true. At least the rest of the world did as he won the Nobel Peace Prize for this decades of work to bring peace to the world. It's too bad, this has been lost on the current administration who will be remembered for bringing war to the world. A horrible legacy. I find it amazing they send Rice over to the Middle East and all she can do is repeat platitudes on peace while she continues to support Israel's bombing of Lebanon civilians. She won't talk to Syria, She won't talk to Iran, and she won't talk to Hammas or Hezbola. So what is the point except to go and talk a lot and say nothing. She is very good at that. A good mouthpiece for this war mongering president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true. At least the rest of the world did as he won the Nobel Peace Prize for this decades of work to bring peace to the world. It's too bad, this has been lost on the current administration who will be remembered for bringing war to the world. A horrible legacy. I find it amazing they send Rice over to the Middle East and all she can do is repeat platitudes on peace while she continues to support Israel's bombing of Lebanon civilians. She won't talk to Syria, She won't talk to Iran, and she won't talk to Hammas or Hezbola. So what is the point except to go and talk a lot and say nothing. She is very good at that. A good mouthpiece for this war mongering president.

she's a pawn. she's being "diplomatic". i am seriously sick of israel's behavior that we are supporting indirectly through our monetary support. everyone talks about how smart she is, but she really doesn't do anything or think about anything on her own... george tells her what to do and what to say and she obeys. i really cannot stand this administration. i loved the pic on CNN of her shaking hands with the lebanese guy... except she supports israel's bombing of lebanon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

george tells her what to do and what to say and she obeys.

You really think its George telling her what to do?

I have a feeling Bush is just as much a puppet as Rice is at this point. This government is really being run by three men, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those three certainly have a lot to say about how the government functions. The least hateable of the three is definitely Dick Cheney.. but do have qualms about him.

I can't wait to dump all three of these people in 2008. Even if democrats take a majority in congress this fall, those three will con Americans into believing that nothing is getting done because of hte democrats and not because they will pull out all the stops to grind government to a screeching halt. You just wait.. you'll see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't wait to dump all three of these people in 2008. Even if democrats take a majority in congress this fall, those three will con Americans into believing that nothing is getting done because of hte democrats and not because they will pull out all the stops to grind government to a screeching halt. You just wait.. you'll see it.

If the Dems gain control of either house I think you will actually see true investigations of things like wiretapping, torture of prisoners and voilations of the Geneva Conventions, holding prisoners without due process, deception and information manipulation to lead up to war (just to name a few). So far the worst part of having a Republican controlled Congress and Executive Branch is the lack of any real oversight. Any one of these would have warranted a REAL investigation, but the only bodies that can call for one are in lockstep behind the furor/president. If a blow-job warrants a billion dollar investigation I think spying on Americans and lying to go to war certainly would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlotte native I agree 100%. If the Democrats manage to take one of the houses of Congress, it could very well be the begining of the prosecution of all the administration's crimes.

And all the cards will come crashing down.....

Doesn't EVERYONE KNOW that America is against torture in every way, shape, and form????

Everyone but the right-wingers, and Bush, and those militarists like Cheney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was too bad in the 1980 election for Carter.

People in my state didn't hate his policies, though.. we voted for him both times! Along with the good people of Georgia, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Hawaii, and Maryland.

I often think how different our country would be today if we would have had Carter in 1980...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes! Republicans are very state-friendly. They don't agree that the federal government should have the power, that things are left best to local/state governments?

I can't wait to de-seat every republican in my area this November. This stuff just pisses me off so much.

Big Brother Knows Best

House bill would keep states from setting tough toxics rules

House Republicans are pushing legislation that would keep states from setting standards for pesticides and health-threatening industrial chemicals that are more stringent than federal regulations. If passed, the bill could nullify a California ban on brominated fire retardants, for example, and restrictions in San Francisco that limit certain chemicals in baby products. The bill would also require the U.S. EPA to use a cost-benefit standard when determining whether to ban certain toxics, and would impose no timetable for regulation, potentially delaying phaseouts of dangerous chemicals while the agency studies whether regulations are too hard on industry. The legislation was OK'd by one House committee this week, but would still need approval from another before moving to the House floor, and the Senate has yet to take it up at all. The bill is opposed by 12 state attorneys general, the American Nurses Association, and more than 60 environmental and public-health groups.

Republicans have merely joined Democrats in selling out the taxpayers' interests by colluding amongst themselves along with lobbyists. The centralized national government we have in the beltway is an enemy of the average moderate Democrat and Republican voter's interest. We are the shareholders in our government. Yet the board of directors (DC) is held under a lower standard than Enron, Healthsouth, Adelphia, etc. The only solution is to weaken the centralized national government overall; it's far easier to control and oversee government closer to you. Not simple overall, but easier than supervising DC.

Democrats and Republicans both suck. F 'em all.

It was too bad in the 1980 election for Carter.

People in my state didn't hate his policies, though.. we voted for him both times! Along with the good people of Georgia, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Hawaii, and Maryland.

I often think how different our country would be today if we would have had Carter in 1980...

*shudder*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who really believes that the Democrats will take congress? I don't for a second. They are still too idelogically fractured, their only banner of unity is that hate Bush. If you look at the polls, the House Democrats are the only group more hated than the House Republicans.

Hating Bush and the Republicans is not a platform for victory. The Republicans will maintain control of both houses of congress while the Democrats slip further into irrelevancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he's got some weird positions that contradict each other... isn't he in favor of the death penalty?

i work for a catholic college that had a great opinion piece in the school paper on him... basically they ask the question "how can one call themself pro-life, yet be in favor of the death penalty and have no problems starting wars, in which thousands of innocent civilians have died?"

It's not as contradictory as someone who's against the death penalty but pro-choice. At least the fetus hasn't committed any crime, much less a crime worthy of the death penalty. It's more consistent to impose the most severe punishment/result (death) on the most severe crime (murder) and oppose the most severe punishment/result (death/abortion) on someone who has not committed a crime at all. And from their point of view, the fetus is a "someone," which is fundamental in establishing this point.

This is in contrast to opposing the most severe result possible (death) on the most severe criminals (murders), yet supporting the most severe result (abortion) on an organic entity (if you refuse the "fetus is a someone" argument) that has not committed that level of act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was too bad in the 1980 election for Carter.

People in my state didn't hate his policies, though.. we voted for him both times! Along with the good people of Georgia, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Hawaii, and Maryland.

I often think how different our country would be today if we would have had Carter in 1980...

Its always fun to ponder what ifs, but sadly it does no good :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the fact that you have an opinion on the issues. Most people only vote on one issue - like taxes, as Charlotte Native pointed out.

But, you didn't miss the press conference on Bush touting his religious beliefs. Most of them are ultimately influenced by his view of Christianity. Bush held one such press conference yesterday. While 70% of the American public (the same public of whom only 30% approve of his performance) are in favor of federal funding of stem cell research and both Republican-controlled houses of Congress passed the bill, Bush enforced his own religious view over the will of the people and vetoed his first bill. Additionally, he has held multiple press conferences to push his religious view and desire to write discrimination of gay people into the constitution. If he was truly a man of Christian ideals, then there would be some consistency in his actions and he would be acknowledging and trying to remedy the fact that the poverty rolls have grown considerably since he took office. Last time I checked, the Bible had a lot more to say about taking care of the poor than beating down homosexuals.

As a Republican, I agree that Rove is a detriment to the Republican party.

I will never be a Democrat. They aren't a serious option for me because they also have proven to be inept at spending. From where I stand, both parties are fiscally liberal. I disagree with Christian conservatives because their form of religious "conservativism" is truly a liberal exercise of power by the government, which is what I view liberals in general to support, a liberal exertion of power by the central government, as opposed to government restraint. I'm for prioritized, restrained exercise of power by the central government. Christian conservatives are selectively liberal on this, and it appears Democrats are as well (they are for restraint on some issues, and advocate intrusion on others).

The Halliburton stuff is indefensible. I don't want to use the two wrongs make a right, and I don't excuse what they do. I just want to know if one is a Democrat, do you get as offended by your own party's PLETHORA of examples of similar waste as I do about Halliburton? If you pretend that the crap that idiots like Gephardt, Kennedy, and Pelosi spew smells any nicer, then I would tend to dismiss one's criticism of this issue as rhetoric. I hate what my party's (actually, no longer really my party) done with government contracting. I hope you hate your party's examples of fleecing of America to enrich the politicians in your party.

This administration just helped me realize that the beltway corrupts. In order to get elected, you have to be an immediate hypocrite. Think about it. To get a nomination, you tend to pander to the most extreme wing of your party. Then, to get elected, you pander to regular Americans, who tend to oppose the most extreme viewpoints of both parties. Instant hypocrisy. Then you join a collusory environment where government restraint is a four-letter word. And there's no SEC to supervise government expenditures like there is to supervise Wall Street. If you think Wall Street and big business is running amuck, just think that the federal government regardless of party affiliation is much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who really believes that the Democrats will take congress? I don't for a second. They are still too idelogically fractured, their only banner of unity is that hate Bush. If you look at the polls, the House Democrats are the only group more hated than the House Republicans.

Hating Bush and the Republicans is not a platform for victory. The Republicans will maintain control of both houses of congress while the Democrats slip further into irrelevancy.

The Democrats' only solution (which I question whether their leader whatsisface "WOOO" would implement) is to NOT match the Republican leadership's ideological demagoguery. I've heard some Dems express a belief that the solution is to further polarize the debate. I disagree. I think the choice to select Pelosi over Ford Jr was a mistake. But, it's not my party, it's not my leaning. I just see an opening for the Dems to make gains, and it's in the middle right. The extremists are already with you. The middle and mid-right are probably feeling alienated and disenchanted. You can either hope that they just don't show up (might or might not happen) or do what Rove didn't, get them involved. I personally disdain Rove's strategy of just getting your devotees to the polls. It worked for them, but it showed they cared about only one narrow set of issues. The great thing it did for the country was it showed us what those issues are. We know what their priorities are, and on that level at least, I respect that. But it showed they (Rove n Co) weren't inclusive, and weren't interested in promoting an inclusive party. I think in the long run that's a mistake. If it's not Rove, someone in the GOP has to engage differing viewpoints. Not all of them would be satisfied, but hear em out, consider them.

But maybe that's why I'm not in politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clobber,

I tend to agree with you that central government should not have hte most power. Government is more efficient and more representative of the people when it is in local hands.

I just tend to be a lot more liberal than you :)

I tend to really hate authority and I don't want the government or businesses telling me what I can and cannot do as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights... but I'm mostly like this on the individual level. When people in positions of authority start exploiting people lower down, my liberal side comes out.. and want nothing more than to quash the authority..

For example, I'm all for free enterprise when someone wants to start a business and run it.. but when that business is very successful and grows by leaps and bounds, responsibility comes with it. You start to systematically lower your wages to poverty levels and things like that, it's time for a swift kick in the @$$ to get things back on track.

I guess I'm either just too young and naive or I just have a non-traditional political view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.