CNN:..A look at the religious Right

[Scarey]

Check it out.It just started but I've read alot about them...and listened to alot of them...and been freaked out by more then a few of them......and there are more then a few of them I've seen interviewed and thought to myself"yeah,.. if they were losing the religious battle I could see them getting their pilots licences".....scary people...and a strong part of that 4 million strong over whelming victory for the popular vote in the election. again..check it out

 

[papasmerf]

Funny CNN never did a series on the Dicatorship of Sudam


Odd when you consider they were there throughout

Oooooooooooooooooooo I forgot; they agreeied not to, so they could stay there.


Silly me

 

[Peeping Tom]

And just what is this "religious right"?

I must disgress ...

Once upon a time, bad WW1 propaganda portrayed British troops as effeminate, bad - toothed morons who didn't know how to hold a gun. Unfortunately for the misinformed German troops, the barbarians that kicked their asses didn't resemble what they had seen in bad propaganda leaflets. They didn't expect what they got ...

Four years ago, the extreme left began their shrill cry that President Bush was an idiot, bla bla bla. In full belief of this delusional fantasy, they began chanting the mantra: Afghanistan was Vietnam, the Sultan would win the mother of all battles v2.0. This spring, instead of finding the right guy in the primaries, the lunatic fringe dredged up a prize: Howard Dean. The fringe, confident of the fact that every American knew Bush was an idiot, or were idiots themselves, didn't read the signs and after a short while Dean was carried off in a straightjacket. There wasn't much left on the slate, but anyone would do since Bush was so dumb; thus the chose the Waffle King. Everyone knew that with Kerry they had ABB, which was sufficient since everyone knew Bush was dumb or were themselves idiot.

The spell of the koolaid wore off early in the morning Nov. 3. Since Bush was so dumb, and his supporters too stupid to consider, a new bogeyman was required ...

What will the Democrats say in October 2008 when they realize there is no theocracy?

 

[happygrump]

What will the Democrats say in October 2008 when they realize there is no theocracy?

Aye, there's the rub.

Here comes a consipracy theory for ya, just for fun:

The win by the Republicans was actually staged by the Democrats. Once the people of the United States sees the damage to worker rights, the environment, international prestige, not to mention the half-trillion dollar deficit, caused by the Republican-controlled Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, the R's will be toast for decades.

The R's will have no one to blame but themselves for the nightmare that is about to emerge over the next four years. Somehow, they'll try to blame terrorists, other countries, previous administrations and the tides.

It's like the drunk complianing about the hangover. It was mixing the drinks. It was the tannins in the red wine. It was the mix in the booze. It was the cigarette smoke. It was the late night. But it's never the booze.

 

[onthebottom]

Aye, there's the rub.

Here comes a consipracy theory for ya, just for fun:

The win by the Republicans was actually staged by the Democrats. Once the people of the United States sees the damage to worker rights, the environment, international prestige, not to mention the half-trillion dollar deficit, caused by the Republican-controlled Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, the R's will be toast for decades.

The R's will have no one to blame but themselves for the nightmare that is about to emerge over the next four years. Somehow, they'll try to blame terrorists, other countries, previous administrations and the tides.

It's like the drunk complianing about the hangover. It was mixing the drinks. It was the tannins in the red wine. It was the mix in the booze. It was the cigarette smoke. It was the late night. But it's never the booze.

LOL

And Clinton never had heart surgery - he just didn't want to campaign for Kerry so Billary could run in 08.... A looser can rationalize anything.

OTB

 

[irlandais9000]

That's ridiculous. They did too do a feature on Saddam's dictatorship - I distinctly recall seeing it. If I recall it featured some guy commonly referred to as "Rummy" who was a close business buddy of Saddam's for awhile.

I agree, I have seen it on CNN as well. And let's not forget the business that Cheney did with Saddam in the 1990s by having Halliburton setup an office in the Cayman Islands and calling that an address, thereby getting around US sanctions against Saddam. I guess Saddam isn't such a bad guy as long as you are making money off him right?

 

[langeweile]

The true story is:

The Clintons have sabotaged Kerry so Hillary can run in 2008. They even managed to get some his old advisors on to the Kerry team. Just look it up it's all true.



Disclaimer
This comment is a sarcastic aka tongue in cheek remark and is in no way intended to offend BBK.

 

[Peeping Tom]

I guess your crystal ball was well warmed up concerning the 2006 comment. It could happen but if the Democrats continue with their current message I wouldn't bet on it.

Again I must ask, just who are those evangelicals?

Rove doesn't have to muzzle evangelicals. Their number is small and they do a very good job marginalizing themselves. Nobody but another evangelical would listen to anything out of their mouthes.

 

[Peeping Tom]

Neither the Clintons nor anybody sabotaged Kerry. He managed just fine with his own devices.

Senators, for both Dem and GOP, are poor choices for POTUS candidate. The Senate is an interplay of intellectual strategies over a long period of time and the public often can't understand the reasoning behind a Senator's actions. Even worse, it leaves a permanent voting record for the opposition to pick apart.

Notice how Kerry's stance on RKBA was destroyed, when it was easy to reveal just how rabidly anti gun he really is?

The true story is:

The Clintons have sabotaged Kerry so Hillary can run in 2008. They even managed to get some his old advisors on to the Kerry team. Just look it up it's all true.

 

[onthebottom]

The Ds are going to get that message in 2006 when they take back the House - just a historical fact, if one party controls all the levers of power, it usually loses one or more of them in the next election.
.....
bbk

I'm starting to really enjoy these bold predictions! I think we need a bet.

Pop quiz, who is the only POTUS to lead his party to victory in a mid-term election?

OTB

 

[Peeping Tom]

IIRC that was Bush41.

 

[onthebottom]

The Ragin Cajun had a good line today that the Rs had a Narrative and the Ds had a laundry list. The Kerry campaign was a mess because the candidate was a mess, always second-guessing himself.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

I know your going to say Bush but that's not entirely true - he just expanded on Rs leads in the House but still lacked control in the Senate. I'm talking about full control OTB - as for bold predictions, check the number of Sen. up for election in 2006 that are Rs and how many of them might retire - even this is not what will cause the change - expect the Rs to get a little cocky and when that happens you start doing some really dumb things - hell look at my Liberal Party in Canada. Not to worry OTB, I fully expect that the Rs will manage to piss off most of the US public in two years, they are off such a good start.

bbk

I can't imagine it will be any more dramatic than the last 4 years and they EXPANDED their control. Over the long run you are right but in the next two years I'm not so sure. The Democrats can find their own *ss with both hands and a flashlight right now - there is talk of Dean running the party - a GOP dream.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

I really hope the Ds start listening to the Cajun but alas it doesn't seem they will since they are planing on making Dean the DNC chairman. Jon Stewart said it well last night - he made the remark that Rs told a story that they are for God, moral values and strong leadership - that only left the Ds to be for The Devil, no moral values and weak leadership.

Yeah the D's have a lot of work to do before 2006


bbk

I herd Nancy Pelosi on NPR yesterday talking about the 100+ years of Catholic education she and her family has.... such a joke, the Ds only tell you what they think you want to hear, they should try just standing for something and see how that goes. There is a reason "Liberal" is a nasty word down here - it means "I'm going to take your money and tell you what I think you want to hear".

Amazing stuff.

OTB

 

[langeweile]

Most of the talk on "social values" is an attempt by the left to demonize the right.
Could some of you please define the the term "social or moral values". The individual perception of the terms will vary.
For me it is:
Honesty
Love
Caring
Respect
Integrity

Few people could disagree with this.
IMHO the implied meaning from the left is Abortion, Gay Marriage, Birth control and gun control.
Not the same thing at all. I believe here is were the left is losing the battle.

 

[happygrump]

IMHO, the discussion about "social values" doesn't seem to revolve around the values themselves. It seems to be an eagerness by some (mostly on the right, but also on the left) to demand that their values be THE ONLY values.

Could not "caring for others" include gun control? Could not "respect" include gay marriage? Could not integrity mean the women's right to choose about their bodies?

 

[langeweile]

IMHO, the discussion about "social values" doesn't seem to revolve around the values themselves. It seems to be an eagerness by some (mostly on the right, but also on the left) to demand that their values be THE ONLY values.

Could not "caring for others" include gun control? Could not "respect" include gay marriage? Could not integrity mean the women's right to choose about their bodies?

YUP you are right on.
With the exception of 5-10% on the fringes (left and right) the rest of the population is moderate. If we just could find a way to drown out the noise from the extremist(both left and right) we could actually talk to each other and realize that we are not as far apart than we think.

 

[Peeping Tom]

So, you support "values" resulting in the theft of property?

The RKBA isn't a value. I'm assuming you're a Candian so let's start somewhere ...

In the US there is this thing called the Constitution. The second ammendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. This is the cornerstone of America and it aint going away. The good folks at the NRA spent a generation in educating Second Ammendment scholars. Domestic policy experts, including those of the DNC, have concluded that the RKBA means what it says and that, due to its highly controversial nature, it should be cast aside as an issue because it results in electoral loss.

I might remind you that the socialist dystopias that grabbed their citizens guns went on to murder 100 million + of them. That is what happens when one is helpless under a paternal despot.

Can I remind you about who hurt sodomitic marriage? This aint mentioned anywhere in the Constitution btw. Bush said "its baadd, mkay?" and dropped the issue. The left pressed it and got it on 11 state ballots. Guess who voted against? The left ... the lowest margin was 57% in Oregon, which voted Dem, ranging to 88% in Missisipi ... rather overwhelming, no?

About abortion, I would need to start a thread for it ... *nah, reaches for another gin & tonic*

IMHO, the discussion about "social values" doesn't seem to revolve around the values themselves. It seems to be an eagerness by some (mostly on the right, but also on the left) to demand that their values be THE ONLY values.

Could not "caring for others" include gun control? Could not "respect" include gay marriage? Could not integrity mean the women's right to choose about their bodies?

 

[langeweile]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#Pol


The term liberal in the USA has always confused me. In Germany the term liberal has a different meaning that it has in the USA.
The description for the Democrats in Germany would be socialists.

So I did a little research to clarify the term for my own knowledge. It seems there are different forms of liberalism.
Plus I always find it important to clarify the meaning of words. You be surprised how diffcult it is to get consensus just on that, as the article shows.

Enjoy.

The source is Stanford, this should be quite credible.

 

[Peeping Tom]

And it gets more confusing when one could correctly call the Candian Liberal party a bunch of conservatives.