Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

source? url? to this info

Here we go with teh bush flaming again.Give it a rest guys.Doing this is not going to do anything about it.So why brother?If kerry won we will be doing the same thing you are doing and you would get annoyed too.
Go live your life!Everyone else seens to had gotten over it.So why can't you acted mature and get over it.He won!JM

We're not flaming Bush, we're flaming the entire damn capitalist government, and every guy who's run for office in the past 100 years. I am a little worried that this doesn't seem to bother you at all. Do you not realize that every single one of those on the list is going on right now, in the good ol' USA? Hell, do you even know what fascism IS?

Making peace with the government is the worst thing we can do right now. Sitting down and taking this shit from the pigs in office will only leave the door open for them to further the corrupt goals of their little regime.

Will somebody please quote this post
I'm on JM's ignore list

I agree.

Thanks guys

That may be your intent...but still, it is anti-Bush.

You do realize that some of us Bush supporters support him because, well, we are...how would one say it?...MORAL people? I'm a Christian. I follow the Bible. Therefore, I vote for the party that most closely follows what the Bible says. As in, I am Republican. I agree with some of the economic stuff that the Democrats idealize, but to say that the Bush agenda is homophobic, sexist, etc. is a pile of steaming fecal matter. We all know that BOTH candidates focused heavily on the war in Iraq, dodged social issues, and used economy as their backbone.

Also, the two extreme ends of the political spectrum have little difference between them.

Yea I know what fascism is it is what Hitler was.And to compare bush or anyone to Hitler is wrong.I rest my case.JM

http://atlasgeo.span.ch/fotw/images/p/pt%7Bpcp.gif

hitler wasent the only fascist dictator.

JM you are 100% wrong.

1. Hitler wasn't EXACTLY a facist...i believe youre getting mixed up with Mussolini

2. you cant rest a case...when it was never fully developed

3. comparing is the key to understanding.

Revan - You're worried it doesn't bother her? She's a young girl who can't spell who espouses the political views of her father.

What case are you resting JM? Your lack of communication skills and socio and political world history are really gonna hurt in this debate.

Actually if you really think about it Hitler was a Socialist. ^_^

Discriminating against gays in a country that supposedly gives equal rights to everyone could hardly be seen as a moral thing to do. Yes, it does say in the Bible that people shouldn't be gay--but if you interpret that as "we should punish gay people for being who they are," you're a moron. The Bible also tells you not to be judgemental to people who choose not to believe what you believe, and putting your bullshit discriminatory doctrine of restricting gay rights into the US constitution is clearly judgemental. How is not allowing gay people to marry NOT homophobic? And don't give me any of that "I believe in gay rights, but they shouldn't be allowed to marry!" shit.

I'm not a Democrat either, if you must know...

And DR...are you surprised that it doesn't bother her? Because I'm not. Frankly, in 4 years when she's old enough to vote the country's really gonna go to hell. Thank God Bush won't be able to run again.

i bet next president is gonna be even worse than Bush.

Viva la Revolucion! 2guns

My last post was for Feceman, btw.

We are NOT punishing homosexuals. We are simply stating that marriage should be between one man and one woman. We aren't being judgmental, either--judgmental would be, "OMG UR GAY STRAIGHT TO TEH GAS CHAMBERS!" Actually, that would be evil... Judgmental would be, "You're gay? Well, you are obviously a horrible person."

Homophobia is the uncontrollable, all-consuming fear of homosexuals. The view that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry is not being afraid of them--it is setting a moral standard for our country.

You know what? I'm afraid I'm going to have to succumb to that "shit" about homosexuals having rights but not being allowed to marry. Do I believe that homosexuality is uncontrollable? Yep. Do I believe it is in-born? Yep. Do I believe that it can be cured? Nope, except for an extremely slim percentage of cases.

But do I think that our morals should drop another level? Not on your life, or mine either.

Actually, Aristophanes made that point in his plays when he was making fun of Cleon - and he was right. Next one is always worse - it has to be to overthrow the bad one.

Whoever read Aristophanes will know what im talking about - but i suspect noone has so noone has any clue what im on about....oh well.

But how the hell do you people think homosexuality is "immoral?" You admit yourself that it's not something that's chosen. Until you get your head out of your ass and admit that you don't like gay people, nothing you say on the topic will be taken as a valid comment.

Okay, say I'm the marriage police, and I don't like you because you have a big, nasty mole on your left cheek. You are very much in love with your significant other, however, and are planning to marry them. How would you feel if I told you you couldn't marry because your mole was "immoral" or some shit? There is no logic behind your reasoning. Telling gays that they can't marry because they are gay is the same as the example I just used.

EDIT: I just thought of a better example. The problem of trying to bring Christian morality into the government is that what is considered "immoral" will continue to be stretched further and further, until pretty soon, you'll have a bunch of nutjob senators going around ranting about how immoral atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and what have you are. Not allowing gay people to marry because they love someone of the same sex is like not allowing an atheist couple to marry. Marriage in the eyes of the government and marriage in the eyes of Christianity are two seperate things and should be viewed as such.

i've read Aristophanes...but why dont i remember this.

but which one of his works was this in?

Which plays by Aristophanes have you read?

My moral standards are set in the Bible. Having sex with another of the same gender is expressely forbidden in the Bible. Being a homosexual isn't immoral, but having sex with someone of the same gender is immoral.

(I can sense the next issue forthcoming...I'm not going to say it, but, in a moment of clarity, I have seen it. Shhh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet...)



Ah, but that permission is given in the Constitution...

I have the future of which to think. I don't want my children to think that it is OK to have two mommies or daddies, that it is "just another kind of love". The Bible says it is not OK. Atheists can marry...that's not a degeneration of the already low morality of our country.

But where in the Bible does it say that you have to force other people to conform to your beliefs?

Did I get it right?

I don't get what the big deal about gay marriage is, just legalize it and let's move on. I think Bush only took a stand against gay marriage as a diversion because things weren't looking so well over in Iraq. By fighting gay marriage, not only are you infringing on people's rights, but you are also fighting a battle you can't win. You know sooner or later it is going to be legalized, all you're doing is delaying the inevitable.

Also, morals must change when they aren't fair to a certain group of people. It was considered morally OK by a large group of people to enslave the black race.

i read a couple. i think the titles were The Clouds and The Frogs.

damn i dont remember...but he had like 12 plays...i might be wrong.

oooh, you must read The Knights then. It explains it all there.

FeceMan & Darth Revan You two are fighting over Steps #3 and #8.





Looks like the list has merit to me guys.

alright. thanks for info.

No, that was not the issue.



The same part where it says that anyone who indulges in sexual immorality must be put to death.

Interesting...someone read Dr. Lawrence Britt 14 steps. And from what I see they even put Bush name next to the 14 steps. Allow me to make a in depth look at Fascism.

Fascism is a totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini, who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain. The term is derived from the Latin fasces.

A quick definition of Fascism: a) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b) A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

ETYMOLOGY:
Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle

Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy:

Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state's benefit. This "total state" is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.

A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of Social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma.

Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard Wagner, is closely linked with fascism's rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and "the will."

Now, I hope this post can help you clear out your mind. I really hope....

So, why are we wasting our time preventing gay people from marrying each other? Let's just skip the whole 14 step program, and go straight to fascism! Gays must be gassed and their corpses burned by the thousands for all to behold! Heil the glorious green-coated troops! usaflag

Do you agree with that?

actually i dont mind getting rid of the homosexuals...

DR i think the topic on homosexuals is the only thing we disagree on.

and parts of religious beliefs

and techniques in sacrificing noobs...

Nah, that would be taking on Hitler's views, which were firmly rooted in extremist evolutionary beliefs.

No, I don't agree with that--although I would have "back in the day". Morality has declined greatly that if we were to follow those views, most of America would be dead.

So you don't believe in the Bible all the way then, only to a certain extent?

Has to start somewhere. Obviously it would be impossible to jump straight from democracy to fascism. Nobody's claiming we live in a fascist society, just that we're heading that way.

Hockey> Yeah, I knew we disagreed on that... Ah well, we still agree on a lot of political shit

I believe the Bible all the way in the sense that, "Wow, I can see where this would have applied way-back-when, but we'd really be screwing ourselves over nowadays, not to mention the vast number of people freaking out..."

Speaking of random, does anyone here known what the "Urantia Papers" (or somesuch) are?

And I suppose the liberals have NOTHING to do with the progression of this alleged fascism, only we conservative Bush-supporters.

Here is where you're not making sense--you are supposed to be a patriotic American. The founding belief that our country was built on is equal rights for all people. This means freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. If you are so obsessed with changing everyone else's patterns of thought to fit your Bible, why are you a typical conformist, conservative American?

EDIT: Hold on--did you just say that you would have approved of killing all gays in Biblical times? Holy shit. Not to mention the fact that you said this not long after saying you believe in equal rights for gays. Christians not hypocritical my ass.

I will say it again--I am NOT a liberal in the typical sense. I am much more liberal than is considered "acceptable" in this country.

I'm not changing anyone else's thoughts. Equal rights are good. Rule by the people is good. But what happens if a ruler becomes unfit for duty?

He is removed. And our society is unfit to rule--we suffer from a mental disability known as stupidity.


Our country NOT accepting liberals? From what skewed viewpoints do you see this? Our country screams at us to be liberal--all the so-called "Hollywood role-models" are liberal; we are taught that murdering babies is OK because we can call it "terminating the pregnancy", we learn that giving handouts to the lazy is the "right" thing to do, we observe all sorts of crap that just should not be.

We live in a society that embraces anything and everything. We also live in the greatest nation on the Earth. One or the other should not be.

P.S. And now it's my bedtime . I bid you all good-day (or night).

What the hell are you even talking about anymore? You DO realize that you just implied you support some kind of fascist dictatorship, don't you?

And yes, you are trying to change other people's thoughts. Or, more accurately, the way they live their lives. I don't like a lot of people's religious beliefs, but I don't go cramming mine down their throats, making them live the way I do, simply because I don't agree with them. That is the most un-American thing you can do. I actually agree with most of the pricipals our founding fathers were trying to establish into law, I just believe we have strayed so far from these original principals that we should hardly be called by the same name.

Same here...you, me, and Tpt make most liberals look conservative.

Okay... I think you are a little confused. Hollywood "role models" are Democrat kinda liberal. I am NOT a Democrat, for the third time. Maybe if I use a word like "leftist," "extremist," or "commie" (I'm not a true commie, but a lot of people think I am because of their misunderstanding of the word) you'll get what I'm saying? The kind of "liberal" I am is very much looked down upon in this country.

If equal rights are good, then just allow gays to get married. Look at it this way, you are already not completely following the bible because the bible says all gays must be put to death. So since we are already breaking the bible's moral code, why not just give gays the right to marry and then we can focus our time and energy on issues that affect our whole country and not just one oppressed minority.

Uh...then why is the term 'liberal' used as an insult equivalent to 'commie'?

OK, one more post...



I always know what I mean. And I always mean what I say. The vast ignorance of our country needs to be rectified. At work, I listened to a discussion of politics--not a single person could name the preisdent, vice-president, or their opposition in the upcoming election. Either we learn or we do not rule. Yes, a horrible, unpatriotic, not pro-freedom thing to say.

I am not saying that we need a dictatorship--I'm saying that only people who know about what they speak should be allowed to vote. Scream unpatriotic, anti-American values all you wish.

Believe it or not, the people who you were listening to are in the minority. I agree that these people should not be a part of our political process--I do not agree, however, that they should be prevented from taking part in it, that this should be a law. Besides which, I had no idea what you were talking about, and if you go back and read your post, it did indeed sound like you were supporting what I was talking about.

sounds like the whining is still in full force. Let me let you in on a little secret, freedoms and rights have been fleeting since the sighning of the declaaration of Independence, and the forging of the constitution. Freedoms have been being taken away long before Bush took the helm of this country. It is true that many people dont realize it, because they are delusioned by extreme left or right wing thinking. Kerry owuldnt have done any better. If you think Kerry would have been anymore for the people than Bush is, then you bought a mouth full of shit. Neigther Kerry or Bush would have ended or solved the situation in Iraq, Neigther Kerry or Bush will solve the Enviorment issues, And neigther one will strengthen the Economy. from Kerry's socialized healthcare to Bush's outsourcing, the only way The American Economy will get balanced again is if Americans keep working, which they will. No one knows what stimulates the Economy, They only know that war doesnt help it.

that started with the raegan Administration. It is very true that Reagan more or less demonized liberals. It has been a vicous down spiral from there, so yes, Republicans are to blame for that one. Which is shame, it is a shame that a country is so split on political views and demands. This causes the two sides to argue at each other, rather than trying to see eye to eye. I havent beeninto politics to long, but i have noticed that the blood between liberals and republicans has become exceedingly worse with each new election through the past four terms in office.

See... there is a confusion here because of wildly varying definitions of the word 'liberal' between the Continents. In fact, a lot of people are ignorant of the meaning 'Liberal' can have. Very odd that SS says that Tpt makes liberals look Conservative, and that RR says that it was Reagan who demonised the term...

... because Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Government in Reagan's day, was the most liberal we've ever had., And if you don't understand that, it's because, as I say, you don't understand the meanings of Liberal. One of her most famous statements was 'I am a Liberal'.

Trouble is, 'Liberal' in the States, and increasingly over here, is becoming synonomous with 'Left Wing'. Which is odd, because the Left Wing has never necessarily been about Liberal Government- often to the contrary.

There is a reason the Lib Dems in this country are seperate from Labour, because here, Liberalism and Left Wing are different. Liberal Government is Government that aims to empower people with choices; Thatcher's Government was Liberal because of her pledge to 'roll back the frontiers of the state'- i.e. to reduce state control in national affairs, basically by privatising everything. She didn't think it was the job of the state to run railways and the electricity boards etc. She thought people should have a choice with everything, a policy the Conservatives still have today. School vouchers are a good example of this- Conservative policy is still to introduce them, on the idea that you shouldn't be forced to enter into the overlording State system of state schools; you should be empowered with the choice to choose a school of appropritate value, hence the vouchers. This is called Liberalism. Likewise, Thatcher gave people the right to buy their own Council homes, rather than have them run by the state, and to take out their own private pension plans, rather than use the State pension...

Our current Labour Government is the opposite of that, as Labour rather tends to be- they may have abandoned the clause that puts the principle of Public Ownership as top priority, but their default is still for the State to dictate/advise the way things are done (hence the 'Nanny State' criticisms it receives). This, again, is an instrument of left wing policy. Their idea is instead of giving people lots of choices, which might all be crap, they should sponsor their own options for people and make them as good as possible. This is all very well and good, but it does not fit the definition of Liberal.

So by its proper defintion, and the way it is still mostly used over here- except by people who only learned their language from the States, or are just too ignorant to know- Left Wing is very opposed to liberalism. Last week, the offiical recommendation was made that anyone who took out a private pension in the last 20 years... should junk it and go back to State ones again. When the Conservatives come back (if that ever happens...), I am sure they will aim to re-liberalise the system.

But in America, as I say, the term has basically come to mean people who want more rights, and that sees to be associated with what the Americans call Left wing, though to be sure that's nothing like what the Europeans call left wing (we'd call your Left Wing Centre-Right, to be honest). Whereas in the UK, Thatcher's Government- very right wing, and often accused of facist tendency, and no lover of gay rights etc.- was what we would call one with a Liberal policy. The association of Liberalism with morals like gay rights and abortion and minority rights simply did not exist.

Off topic, I know, but interesting, seeing as the term has been flying around...

NSDAP
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei

so not fasist.
not regular socialist either.

Gah! What is this re-invention all about? The party name was meaningless, but Hitler was an out and out Fascist of the highest order.

i've been always thinking he was a nazist in the first place.

but party name wasn't toally meaningless, some of thier ideas was not so totally wrong.
they've choosed totally wrong way although.

Yes it was meaningless. It was called 'National Socialist' without any intention of that name meaning ANYTHING other than sounding like it could appeal to both sides of the spectrum. It had nothing to do with their politics at all. It was meaningless.

no it wasn't.
since at the begging of their activity they were planning to increase social-life level of ppl.
later it turned out terrible.

I have on more thing to say.Inleast we get to pick our own presidents if we live under fascism we would be following one person who we would not be able to vote for.
and too power is offen not good.Still interesting thread now that I reread it and understand it better.JM

Ah well- you could, and they did, vote for Hitler.

That's just meaningless! They were not applying socialist policy!

My statement is true. They did deliberately create a meanginless name; it was their intent.

JM -> i don't understand what did you mean.


Ush -> i'm not saying they were. but they've had it in their official programm.
oh and i've never claimed that he was socialist.

ure the man

I said if this is a fascism state then why do we get to vote?Yes the german people did vote for Hitler but not all germans liked hitler and what about the other countrys?
THey did not do any voting there!Compare to a fascism country we are pretty lucky!Also we have freedom of speech and region.If we live in a fascism country there be no such thing and we would not be able to do that.
1984 Is sort of like a fascism world(the book i am talking about)and lucky for us we don't have that here like in the book.Down with big brother!
(looks around to see if any thought police heard her)well I guess I am safe.See you around.JM

Once again, a supposed "Christian" stating that he is voting for religion, not a president. Well, boyo, we don't live in a theocracy, and I didn't vote for a religious leader. I voted for a president who would make policy that would benefit the nation AS A WHOLE, and not some group of evangelical "Christians" that are in the majority.

And how do you equate a vote for Bush as being a "moral" vote? Is there anything moral about launching a pre-emptive, unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation? Is there anything moral about monetarily taking care of your big corporate interests through this immoral war? And, most importantly, is there anything moral about the death of thousands of innocent men, women, and children?

If you don't mind the mass murder of over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, then go ahead and support this "moral" president.


cornponious

dumbing down yet another debate i see. isnt there a coloring book or a sandbox somewhere with your name on it?

In the US, Liberal has come to mean left-wing...to be honest, that was the only definition of the word I'd ever heard.

...and have you ever talked about politics with Tpt? His views are so left-wing that he can make me look like a moderate...and I'm quite far left in my political views, much more so than the majority of people. Which is what I meant when I said that our views can make a lot of people in this country who have liberal views look quite conservative.

And even in this country, where you are has a lot to do with how your political beliefs are 'classified' (for lack of a better word). Example -- my friend Meg, who has very similar beliefs to mine, went down to Texas during the summer to visit her cousins at college. She said that a lot of the people down there thought she was completely crazy (I guess she, her cousins, and some of her cousins' friends started talking about politics or something...), and one of her cousins' friends, who down there was considered a fairly left-wing person, would be considered a slightly right-wing moderate up here in Chicago.

As for the Liberal definition, goes to show, I guess... but basically look at it this way. The more left wing your politcs, the more you believe in state control of public institutions, until you go ALL the way left to Communism, where the State controls the lot.

Livberal Government in the sense I was using it before is about releaxing State control... hence liberalism.

As for the conservative thing... I wasn't doubting you. I was just pointing out it was amusing that the example I was about to use for Liberalism was from our (literally named) Conservative party.

Damn straight. Although I'm not sure how I'm being a "supposed" Christian.

And, continuing with the gay marriage thing--I could see where gay marriage would be acceptable if a good number of people were both homosexual and wanted to be married. The truth is, however, that neither of these are true.

All gays are for gay marriage. Whether they personally want to be married is irrelevant, they want the right to be married. A good number of straight people want to grant them that right too. I think there is a big enough group of people for it. The people who are against gay marriage have absolutely no good reasons for that stance. I have not heard one yet at least. The main reasons I tend to hear are "protect the sanctity of marriage" and "gays can't have children." Both are extremely weak arguments. They don't want to say the real reason which is "the bible says gays are evil." I respect people's right to worship, but keep the bible out of the white house. Not saying the president can't be religious, just that he shouldn't shape his agenda around it.

Yu guys do have to admit that when Presidents say they ae going to do something they don't always do it.It does not matter what side.And to me that is wrong but it happens all the time.
I still think we still live in a pretty good country never the less.Do yu guys want a mortal man to be our president or a man who has no morals and does stuff like Clintin did?
I think we can both argee that it is better for a mortal man then a woman abuser.coughBillcough.JM

That statement is incorrect.

Darth Revan, sorry, I did not understand that you were an extremist...I just didn't "get" what you were saying at the time. Gotcha.

The thing is, I have seen the evil that is in the hearts of men. Unwittingly, I have released this evil from myself. No, I didn't murder someone, or rape someone, or torture someone, or do anything of the nature. In fact, I did a project.

It was a couple years ago in one of my computer classes. Towards the end of the year, the students were supposed to create a Powerpoint presentation on anything we wanted. I was stuck. I couldn't think of a single thing on which to do a project, so I dinked around with Powerpoint. After a bit of playing around and a bit of philosophizing, I discovered precisely what to do. So I typed and typed and was a pure genius with my ideas. And then, when I had finished and viewed my work, I shoved the keyboard back in horror and deleted everything.

My entire presentation revolved around the weakness in humans, how we, with our "emotions" are inferior to species of animals. I denounced the things known as "love" and "kindness"; I stated that we allowed our genes to be corrupted. Animals with disabilities do not live long or procreate--why should humans? I went on and on, slandering our species for its incompetence, how we needed to better ourselves.

Then I truly saw what I had written. This unadulterated evil had spewed forth from my mind. This ATROCITY that I dared to call magnificent. Upon studying World War II and learning more about Adolph Hitler did I realize what I had written.

Believe it or not, this evil is within us all. We all contain within ourselves a horrific darkness, a corrupted taint upon our souls. THIS is why I cannot allow our morals to slip any more. I think of it as my "Lord of the Flies" philosophy.

Heaven help us if this beast ever gets free.

Avoiding a reply to most of my post. That figures.

corn

Not avoiding--I just didn't read it. I figured it was more of the same, but, if you insist, I'll read the rest of it. I just saw the first part, replied to it, and left.

...



Call me callous, call me a bastard, call me whatever you want, but I don't care. I see that it is a horrible thing to have the deaths of innocent men and women, but I am not able to emote as one would expect.

I don't believe Bush used the war to "cover his ass", and you make it sound as though it was a systematic murder of Iraqis. The real question is this: is it better to lose lives now and relieve a dictator of his throne, or is it better to allow a psychotic dictator to rule--a man who has no trouble killing people for minor offenses or for torturing children? A man who gouged out the eyes of a woman with his thumb in public because disagreed with him?

Call me crazy (or a jerk), but I am more concerned with what is happening in the U.S. than what is happening in a desert thousands of miles away. In social issues in the United States, Bush supports what I support. That's why he got my vote.

There's a reason that terrorists threatened to attack us if Bush got reelected and said they would leave us alone if Kerry was elected president--they know who would put his foot down.

Speaking of unnecessary military tactics, what do you think of the bombing of an aspirin factory during the Clinton administry?

First of all, I wonder how a person who calls himself "FeceMan" and "The Master of Excrements", and who uses such foul language, can also call himself a Christian. (For the record, I too consider myself a Christian, and as a Christian, I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament, we had the Old Law, an eye for an eye. When Jesus came into the world, he brought with Him the New Law. When your enemy hits you on the cheek, offer the other cheek to him.)

But I digress...



The US government (and Bush in particular) is an opportunistic government. We will crawl in bed with any country that will help us with what we need or want at any given time. Take a look at these pictures:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/karimov-bush-ap.jpg

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/rumsfeld-in-uzbekistan_files/51.jpg

Do you see that well-dressed "gentleman" yucking it up with our illustrious president and the sec. of defense? That is Islam Karimov, president of Uzbekistan. He is a dictator and a torturer. He likes to boil people alive, pull their fingernails off, beat people, and torture them in general. But hey, he's letting us station troops in his country for the holy war on terrorism, so he's A-OK in Bush's book!

Sure, Hussein was a dictator, and a harsh one at that. But he posed no threat to us, NONE. We had weapons inspectors in Iraq looking for weapons for over 8 years, and they found NOTHING! IN 8 YEARS! But what do we do? We fly in and bomb the hell out of them, killing men, women, and CHILDREN. Over 100,00 of them so far. Children like this:

http://mindprod.com/images/burnedbaby.jpg

You mentioned torturing children?

Having a problem looking at the picture? The US media has sugarcoated the Iraq war by not showing the gruesome nature of it. If you support Bush, then you support this.



Let me guess, the "social issues" that you and Dubya see eye-to-eye on are:

1. gay marriage
2. abortion
3. school prayer

Am I right? You have succumbed to the insidious Rovian ploy to harvest the Evangelical Christian vote by playing to their "moral" beliefs, and making you believe that a vote for Bush is a vote for morality. And in so doing, Rove and the Bush administration have hijacked this election by covering up the real issues, like the economy, jobs, our government's lack of action before Sept. 11, and biggest of all, the failed Iraq war. Judging by your statement, you have been dupped into this ploy, because you voted for Bush on "social issues" and "morality".



Show me the quote from a terrorist that says "If you vote for Kerry, we will leave you alone". There isn't one. It doesn't exist. You probably don't even know the real reason Bin Laden hates our government and has done the things he has done. He doesn't hate Americans in general, there are specific reasons he and Al-Quaeda have attacked us. Mind you, I'm not sticking up for the turd, but he's not quite the "madman" that our government has painted him as.

Respond if you wish.

Addendum:

In regards to the abortion issue, God has given man the ability to choose what he wants. When the government steps in and says "We are going to take that choice away from you and make it FOR you", then we have lost our freedom.

corn

but corn, maybe Islam Karimov is not a 'freedom hating' evil murduring sadistic dictator...did you ever think of that for one second?

please...dont judge the man just because boils people alive.. maybe he was just boiling evil freedom hating terrorists. (sarcasm of coarse)

Right, we must separate the "freedom-hating" evil dictators from the "general all-purpose" dictators. Though for the record I don't know if Karimov killed any babies. But I'd say that boiling people alive is bad enough.


corn

oops...edited. i got my dictators mixed up.

Karimov/Bush...so easy to confuse

Now that is what I call a good debater!Really stright forward.Good job man!JM

Ah, the great mystery behind my name...I see little relevance between this and my faith. And of what foul language do you speak? I said "damn".

And no, I do not have difficulty looking at the child. Such images, no matter how grotesque, do not impact me in the way that one would expect. Yes, it is a horrible thing, yes the poor child is horribly burned, yes, yes, YES it's bad. But I do not have difficulty looking upon it.



Another horrible thing. Such individuals should be executed in an extremely brutal fashion, sans trial. It is unsettling that we make such alliances, but do you think Senator Kerry would have changed anything?



Indeed, you are right, although I am less concerned with item number three than the other two. I tell you now that I am less concerned with the economy than I am with morals. I am certainly not 100% satisfied with the Bush administration; however, I still believe that Bush will do a better job with said social issues than Kerry would have. (Although he does need to deal with North Korea...)

What it boils down to is this--I support Bush more than Kerry. That is why I voted for him.

Something DOES need to be done about such evil people as Hussein and Karimov. Perhaps we are due for a second set of trials of Nuremberg...



Jeremiah 22:3 "This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place."

I don't care if (any of) you don't believe in the Bible--this is from where I get my set of morals.

P.S. Don't throw any of that "God doesn't believe in war!" crap.

EDIT: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003746.php

Something DOES need to be done about such evil people as Hussein and Karimov. Perhaps we are due for a second set of trials of Nuremberg

Well if that's done, and most of the world thinks that Bush went into iraq for all the wrong reasons, and without global support, does that mean we can put GW on trial too?

so its moral to support Bush, guess all the countries that couldnt care less for christianity is imoral then...what a load of BS

hmm be careful so that Bush wont end up in that trail too

Nope, 'cause I don't agree with it!

Just kidding. Since Bush is not a dictator who tortures people, I'm going to have to say 'no'. "We the people" elected him; "we the people" will live with him as president for another term.



My set of morals comes from the Bible. Bush more closely follows my set of morals than John Kerry does. Therefore, it is moral for me to vote for him.

to me it looks like Bush got his morals from a box of cereal

Thanks for that information.



Nope.

Oki dok.





That's difficult to answer. The reason we're in bed with Karimov is because he's letting us station troops in his country for ease of deployment to Iraq. If Kerry had been president INSTEAD of Bush from 2000-2004, I doubt that we would even be at war with Iraq. So, the odds are that we wouldn't be sleeping with Uzbekistan either.



Right, you've said that before. But you fail to state WHY you support Bush, except that because he's moral. Frankly, the simple fact that you think you're both moral people and you like his societal views isn't really much of a reason to elect him to the presidency. You have to look at the big picture, and you have to decide whether his plans for America are in the best interest of EVERYONE, not just for a majority of Christians, myself included.



I'm just staggered by this statement. So, do you think that Kerry is an immoral person for wanting to put individual choice into the hands of The People? Or is it because he's Catholic? Or what? I'm sure Kerry is a pretty moral guy, as are most people in America.

On a side note, I was under the impression that Republicans were for less government intrusion into our lives. I would consider preventing somebody from deciding for himself what he can or can't do, and making that choice for him, pretty invasive.




Actually, I think this scripture makes my argument for me. Look at all the innocent blood we have shed in Iraq. WE HAVE DONE THIS, OUR NATION, IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY AND GOD. We have done plenty of wrong and violence to the alien.




Of course God believes in war. At least, He did in the Old Testament. But Jesus did not. How many wars can you recall reading about in the New Testament?


Oh, and by the way, that link to "Jihad Watch", contains erroneous information. This load of BS about Bin Laden supposedly stating in his speech that any "US state" that votes for Kerry will have security started here. MEMRI is a zionist propaganda machine, and you will never find any real information there. Here is a link to a website that has a VALID interpretation of what Bin Laden said. As you can see, Bin Laden's use of the word "wilayet" in his speech refers to a "sovereign power" by definition, not a state like in America. Bin Laden absolutely did not offer an "election deal" to Americans, stating instead that America's security was not in the hands of Bush or Kerry, and that only American policies would make a difference. For more, see here.

The problem is that all the conservative blogs and websites picked it up and ran with it. And that's how you found out about it. The other problem with people like you is that you don't bother doing any real research; you just take what you see at face value and then vote based on the erroneous information. And I think that's one of the things that is very sad about Americans today.


corn

It all depends on your view of what is moral and what is not, I suppose. I don't care if my reason for supporting Bush is because of his and my moral agenda--at least I have a reason other than partisanship, which is what most of the people in this country vote based on.



THANK YOU for recognizing this. It seems that a vast majority of people do not realize this.



*Shrugs.* I just used what my friend said on his website, which I suppose wasn't a very good way to validate information, lol.



*Sighs.* I think that there are a lot of things sad about Americans today...like I said, power and stupidity shouldn't go hand in hand .

EDIT: My dog smells like coffee. It turns out she got into some French Vanilla. This calls for a .

This is a load of bullshit america is no wear near facist and the man that made those 14 steps is a lunatic

yes its all an illusion
nothing to see here
all your base are belong to us



_Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3






Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
_
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
_
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
_
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
_
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
_
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
_
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
_
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
_
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
_
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
_
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
_
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
_
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
_
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
_
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
_
From Liberty Forum
_
http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

*grabs can of aresal* smells like bullshit

Politics with religion stirred in, and with added stupidity to taste, will ensure your arse will feel like it's the morning after a vindaloo.

America's arsehole is gonna be stingin', and not cos of any homosexual either!

I just have two things to say- Bush was elected to presidency; hitler wasn't elected to anything huge he just moved in and took over.

This media dealio against bush!?!?! Who controls the media right now?? It's sure not the conservatives.

The whole liberal media bias is a mth that has been proven wrong over and over again in this forum. Holy crap people get some new material.

Considering bush lied about wmd's in Iraq, pulled troops outta afghanistan before the job was done, pissed off ever ally the states ever had, destabilized the middle east even more and continually lies to his nation I think that the press has been pretty friggin easy on bush.

Yeah so I guess that the whole ordeal with Dan Rather was just a "myth" and that the pessimism and inability to report anything good that has happened in Iraq from the media is a myth also. Looks like I may have helped prove it right!
Hello!? Afganistan already had their elections!
And about this pissin of every ally; are you talking about France and Germany? The only reason they are pissed is cuz they were getting rich off of saddam and we took him out. I get so sick of libs like you guys. You just don't get it. Everyone was against reagan when he was standing up to the communists. Bush is one of the greatest presidents that this country has every had. He has brought democracy to the middle east; something so spectacular I don't see how someone could be so mad at him.