Romney 2012?

[Damici]

Totally agree: Anyone who votes solely on one issue, using it as their sole litmus test, is a problem. But you don’t find many people using Social Security, or Colombia policy, as their single-issue litmus tests.

You DO find lots of voters who vote, and will often tell interviewers that they vote, with abortion as their ABSOLUTE litmus test. And THAT’S why that issue is such a problem.

And yes, the statistics show that pro-choicers outnumber pro-lifers in this country by a good margin. Look it up. (I don’t feel like finding you a link right now.)

Here’s where you’ve noticed wrong: I am not “anti-religion.” I am (1.) “anti-religious zealot,” regardless of the religion and (2.) “anti-truly-looney-tune religion,” which means, for example, that I simply cannot take anyone who believes in Scientology seriously.

As they are the most relevant block in to our discussions, I’ve got NO problem with Christians. Loosely speaking. I DO, however, have a HUGE problem with so-called Christians who wear it loudly on their sleeve, try to force it on people and – most importantly – try to GOVERN in strict accordance with what they view as the Bible’s teachings. Those who cannot SEPARATE their governing/legislating from their private beliefs ARE downright scary.

So when W. says in a speech or interview (you can find it on YouTube) that his religious beliefs guide his foreign policy, THAT’S scary, and it makes one wonder.

It makes you wonder whether he might NOT be doing all he could be doing to bargain fairly and try to create an evenhanded peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Or, God forbid, that he might start a WAR because he felt that a certain country might be a threat to the safety of his beloved soon-to-be-rapture-land, even if it wasn’t in OUR best interest to start that war. (And let’s not debate the Iraq war here – I’m just making the point that one has to wonder how those beliefs affected his decision-making. I would bet that they did.)

I have no problem with people having their own religious beliefs. But it USED to be considered in good taste, at least in high-level politics, to essentially keep your religion a private issue. Yes, all presidents have mentioned what their religion was, and all have made the par-for-the-course point of being seen going to church once in a while, but they didn’t speak much publicly of their faith.

Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Kennedy, Nixon, Obama, etc., etc. were seen going to church and all, but they didn’t profess to GOVERN strictly by those beliefs. They basically paid them occasional public lip service to the extent that they had to, and otherwise kept it to themselves. Which is the way I would prefer it.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:
They become a problem when they start using that as THE litmus test for whom they will vote, throwing away the importance of all other issues, and thus electing utter dumb fucks, STRICTLY because they’re pro-life.

You could make the same argument with any single issue group. gay rights, abortion, Social Security, Gun control - why cherry pick on one issue that happens to be held by a group you despise?

Here’s what I have noticed about you - you are as anti-religion as the people you revile are pro-religion. You are the other extreme of the religious right inside the conservative tent.

Not trying to start a fight, just making an observation.

When W. stated (and it’s on video – you can find it) that his foreign policy is influenced by his religious beliefs, and then you realize that his religious beliefs hold to the idea that the Second Coming of Christ will occur when Christ appears again in a Jew-controlled Israel and the rapture begins, and that is when he and all of his fellow believers will be saved . . . you would be insane not to wonder how this might affect his Middle East policy.

[rainjack]

[quote]Damici wrote:
Totally agree: Anyone who votes solely on one issue, using it as their sole litmus test, is a problem. But you don’t find many people using Social Security, or Colombia policy, as their single-issue litmus tests.[/quote]

Social Security was conspicuously absent from the campaign this year, but it has been a single issue in the past.

You DO find lots of voters who vote, and will often tell interviewers that they vote, with abortion as their ABSOLUTE litmus test. And THAT’S why that issue is such a problem.

Life and death is a pretty big deal. But as far as conservatives go, you rarely find a staunch pro-abortionist.

And yes, the statistics show that pro-choicers outnumber pro-lifers in this country by a good margin. Look it up. (I don’t feel like finding you a link right now.)

A quick google turns up an article that suggest that the country may not be as pro-abortion as you say:

Issues

Here’s where you’ve noticed wrong: I am not “anti-religion.” I am (1.) “anti-religious zealot,” regardless of the religion and (2.) “anti-truly-looney-tune religion,” which means, for example, that I simply cannot take anyone who believes in Scientology seriously.

Your definition of zealot is much different than mine.

As they are the most relevant block in to our discussions, I’ve got NO problem with Christians. Loosely speaking. I DO, however, have a HUGE problem with so-called Christians who wear it loudly on their sleeve, try to force it on people and – most importantly – try to GOVERN in strict accordance with what they view as the Bible’s teachings. Those who cannot SEPARATE their governing/legislating from their private beliefs ARE downright scary.

Who does this?

So when W. says in a speech or interview (you can find it on YouTube) that his religious beliefs guide his foreign policy, THAT’S scary, and it makes one wonder.

Hillary Clinton consulted a mystic. Bush has done nothing - faith or not - that can even remotely be associated with zealotry. Just because he says things you don’t want to hear does not mean he is a zealot.

It makes you wonder whether he might NOT be doing all he could be doing to bargain fairly and try to create an evenhanded peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

The US has always been very, very pro-Israel.

Or, God forbid, that he might start a WAR because he felt that a certain country might be a threat to the safety of his beloved soon-to-be-rapture-land, even if it wasn’t in OUR best interest to start that war. (And let’s not debate the Iraq war here – I’m just making the point that one has to wonder how those beliefs affected his decision-making. I would bet that they did.)

That is utter idiocy. Even if he was a a religious fanatic, the Congress had to have been equally fanatical.

I have no problem with people having their own religious beliefs. But it USED to be considered in good taste, at least in high-level politics, to essentially keep your religion a private issue. Yes, all presidents have mentioned what their religion was, and all have made the par-for-the-course point of being seen going to church once in a while, but they didn’t speak much publicly of their faith.

So publicly speaking of their faith makes ta President a zealot? Am I reading this correctly?

Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Kennedy, Nixon, Obama, etc., etc. were seen going to church and all, but they didn’t profess to GOVERN strictly by those beliefs. They basically paid them occasional public lip service to the extent that they had to, and otherwise kept it to themselves. Which is the way I would prefer it.

Bush didn’t govern strictly by his religion. You can find absolutely nothing to support this statement whatsoever. Every single one of the Presidents you listed governed based on some moral compass. You just happen to have a problem with Bush saying this out loud. Which goes to the heart of my contention that you have some sort of phobia about religion, or religious people. Oh, they’re fine as long as they don’t exercise their First Amendment right.

When the overwhelming majority of the United States sees themselves as christian, it will have a play in politics - wouldn’t you think? And you and the new lawyer kid want to marginalize religion?

[Damici]

Yeah, certainly people take what they define as “life and death” to be a pretty big deal – to the detriment of every other issue facing the country (many of them involving – wait for it – life and death, as well), and voting with abortion as one’s sole litmus test therefore has the potential to seriously fuck up everything else that’s important in this country. In other words . . . everything that’s important in this country.

Your link regarding abortion stances in this country proves my point: Generally speaking, support for abortion rights varies between the low 50’s (percent) and 60 percent, at least in recent decades. That’s called a MAJORITY. Now, you have every right to try to change opinions and change those stats. Good luck to you. You’ll need it.

Apparently we disagree on the definition of a religious zealot or a zany religion. No surprise there.

I’m not sure if Hillary Clinton consulted a mystic or not – maybe you’re confusing her with Nancy Reagan, who consulted an astrologist . . . ? Either one is fairly bad/scary and does not “make a right.”

As for W.‘s foreign policy (and the U.S. Congress’ foreign policy, which let’s remember was a majority Republican institution at the time), you’re DAMN RIGHT Israel was one of the things at the forefront of their minds in making the stupid decision to invade Iraq, and you’re DAMN right the Israeli lobby did a looooot of convincing to get them to take out Saddam. That’s a huge, huge part of the Neocons’ worldview: protecting Israel. (Why? Because the Baby Jesus is gonna’ come back there and save them all!)

Yes, America has historically been mindlessly, wrecklessly pro-Israel in its bias. No argument there. This is a PROBLEM, not a good thing. And yes, the number of evangelicals in the country, and the Congress, and sometimes the White House, have greatly contributed to this.

So when W. says that his religious beliefs “guide his foreign policy” . . . yeah, I repeat: THAT’S * FUCKING * SCARY.

As I mentioned, publicly mentioning your faith, mainly when asked, is fine. I have no problem with that. But when someone CONTINUALLY mentions something, over and over, and goes so far as to say that it “guides my foreign policy,” one gets the idea that that person is a ZEALOT. When someone (tastefully) keeps their religion primarily to themselves, apart from occasionally being seen by the press leaving church on Sunday or something, that does not scream “zealot” to the world.

Stop trying to bring up the First Amendment in this. It’s silly to bring it up in any argument about any issue, because in any debate one side is always going to criticize WHAT the other side is SAYING. They’re not saying they don’t have the RIGHT to say it – of course they do!! What they’re saying is that if that person says such a thing, they might not agree with it, and they might get a negative or problematic impression of that person based on WHAT they say. Like when Bush mentions that his foreign policy is guided by his religion. (And I consider him to be a religious zealot, therefore I am troubled by this development).

When you say that “Bush didn’t govern strictly by religion,” I would argue that there are certain issues where his zealotry for Born-Again Christianity probably DID contribute significantly. That may night be the same as governing “strictly by his religion,” but it’s a problem:

The aforementioned Iraq war, the decision not to allow certain types of stem cell research (WTF?!) (which Obama will reverse shortly), the decision to try to limit his otherwise massively generous contribution to anti-HIV/AIDS efforts in Africa by insisting that the money be used to focus on ABSTINENCE-ONLY programs, thereby causing untold number to DIE in the process?!? (And he considers himself “pro-life?!”)

Yeah, I have a PROBLEM with all of that.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:

Life and death is a pretty big deal. But as far as conservatives go, you rarely find a staunch pro-abortionist.

A quick google turns up an article that suggest that the country may not be as pro-abortion as you say:

Issues

Here’s where you’ve noticed wrong: I am not “anti-religion.” I am (1.) “anti-religious zealot,” regardless of the religion and (2.) “anti-truly-looney-tune religion,” which means, for example, that I simply cannot take anyone who believes in Scientology seriously.

Your definition of zealot is much different than mine.

As they are the most relevant block in to our discussions, I’ve got NO problem with Christians. Loosely speaking. I DO, however, have a HUGE problem with so-called Christians who wear it loudly on their sleeve, try to force it on people and – most importantly – try to GOVERN in strict accordance with what they view as the Bible’s teachings. Those who cannot SEPARATE their governing/legislating from their private beliefs ARE downright scary.

Who does this?

So when W. says in a speech or interview (you can find it on YouTube) that his religious beliefs guide his foreign policy, THAT’S scary, and it makes one wonder.

Hillary Clinton consulted a mystic. Bush has done nothing - faith or not - that can even remotely be associated with zealotry. Just because he says things you don’t want to hear does not mean he is a zealot.

It makes you wonder whether he might NOT be doing all he could be doing to bargain fairly and try to create an evenhanded peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

The US has always been very, very pro-Israel.

That is utter idiocy. Even if he was a a religious fanatic, the Congress had to have been equally fanatical.

I have no problem with people having their own religious beliefs. But it USED to be considered in good taste, at least in high-level politics, to essentially keep your religion a private issue. Yes, all presidents have mentioned what their religion was, and all have made the par-for-the-course point of being seen going to church once in a while, but they didn’t speak much publicly of their faith.

So publicly speaking of their faith makes ta President a zealot? Am I reading this correctly?

Bush didn’t govern strictly by his religion. You can find absolutely nothing to support this statement whatsoever. Every single one of the Presidents you listed governed based on some moral compass. You just happen to have a problem with Bush saying this out loud. Which goes to the heart of my contention that you have some sort of phobia about religion, or religious people. Oh, they’re fine as long as they don’t exercise their First Amendment right.

When the overwhelming majority of the United States sees themselves as christian, it will have a play in politics - wouldn’t you think? And you and the new lawyer kid want to marginalize religion?

[/quote]

[apbt55]

[quote]Damici wrote:

[/quote]

Well actually baby jesus is not coming back there, one of the main reasons we protect Israel is because it was the first democtratic middle eastern country.

But I think it is good to know what a president’s moral compass is and that he will stand up fo it, because then maybe he will stand up for our country.

There is a difference between stating your beliefs and forcing them down someone’s throat.

2 words

Accountability, Responsibility

Those are what this country needs to focus on, we have completley removed it from the education of our youth and then we wonder why the economy is the way it is.

[Damici]

If you don’t believe that stuff about the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple of the Mount in preparation for the Second Coming, etc., etc. that aaaaall takes place in Israel according to the book of Revelation, that’s your business. But it all centers around Israel, hence the neocons’ intense interest in defending “Israel.”

Israel is just as much a theocracy as it is a democracy – only the Jews can vote, nevermind the fact that the Palestinians (mainly Muslims, some Christians) in their “territory” will soon outnumber the Jews there, if they don’t already.

Oh, and this is all ignoring the fact that the Palestinians were LIVING there until the Jews were magically granted the land by the U.N., thus EVICTING the current residents of the place. Kind of like if the U.N. made an edict that Texas must now be given to the Gypsies of Eastern Europe because they’ve been persecuted and they consider it a holy place, so they now get to set up their own country there and evict all the Texans. Something like that.

BUT, that’s neither here nor there. What IS relevant about it is that protecting it to our own DETRIMENT is NOT in our national interest; quite the opposite, by definition. Democracy or not, in reality it is of no more national interest to us than Botswana. Yet there is a significant Jewish population in the U.S. (one with a lot of money and a HUGE amount of political pull) and a significant number of evangelical Christian whackos in this country who are willing to side with them because they want to protect the holy place where the rapture will be initiated, thus saving themselves from the fires of Hell. (Though . . . they don’t believe that the Jews themselves will be saved at that time, as I understand it. Funny, that.)

Agreed: we should know what a president or potential president stands for and where his/her moral compass points. And if it points in the direction of doing crazy, destructive shit because of his/her zany religious beliefs, we ought to keep that person the hell out of office.

Agreed regarding accountability and responsibility. And W. ain’t immune from that either. He played a big part in ruining the world over the last 8 years yet you don’t hear him fessing up to any mistakes or admitting any serious regrets.

Funny.

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Damici wrote:

Well actually baby jesus is not coming back there, one of the main reasons we protect Israel is because it was the first democtratic middle eastern country.

But I think it is good to know what a president’s moral compass is and that he will stand up fo it, because then maybe he will stand up for our country.

There is a difference between stating your beliefs and forcing them down someone’s throat.

2 words

Accountability, Responsibility

Those are what this country needs to focus on, we have completley removed it from the education of our youth and then we wonder why the economy is the way it is.

[/quote]

[Christine]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Christine wrote:
I agree with you. I think that it is very difficult for the more fanatical to not govern by their faith.

Can you clarify this? I have been around for quite sometime, and I have yet to live under a President who was a theocrat.

Should a leader not be led by his convictions? Should the President ignore his own moral compass to appease those who dislike the store he bought it from?

I have no problem with an atheist running the country. Why do the haters of anyone remotely acknowledging a higher power have such a problem with the opposite?

Can you name a single law that was passed which, in any way at all, forced you into a situation where you had to engage in a religious practice?
[/quote]

GWB thinks that god wanted him to be President. I have no problem with someone praying to any god, but I do have a problem with crediting your actions and decisions based on what you think that god wants you to do. How can someone ever take responsibility for themselves if they think that god is making all of their decisions? And how can they ever admit to their mistakes if god told them what to do?

I really believe that something is seriously wrong if a person uses a little black book define their morals.

[rainjack]

[quote]Christine wrote:
GWB thinks that god wanted him to be President. I have no problem with someone praying to any god, but I do have a problem with crediting your actions and decisions based on what you think that god wants you to do. How can someone ever take responsibility for themselves if they think that god is making all of their decisions? And how can they ever admit to their mistakes if god told them what to do?[/quote]

Do you have a quote from Bush saying that, or is that your paraphrase? Carter said much the same thing about his run for the Oval Office 32 years ago. It happens just about every 4 years, and every two years if we are bring Senate-HOR elections into the equation.

Much like Damici - you are allowing your fear to attach things to Bush that he has never said, or done - and creating a religious zealot where one just does not exist.

[quote]
I really believe that something is seriously wrong if a person uses a little black book define their morals.[/quote]

Really? So where would one find a Christine approved set of morals?

[apbt55]

[quote]Damici wrote:
If you don’t believe that stuff about the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple of the Mount in preparation for the Second Coming, etc., etc. that aaaaall takes place in Israel according to the book of Revelation, that’s your business. But it all centers around Israel, hence the neocons’ intense interest in defending “Israel.”

Israel is just as much a theocracy as it is a democracy – only the Jews can vote, nevermind the fact that the Palestinians (mainly Muslims, some Christians) in their “territory” will soon outnumber the Jews there, if they don’t already.

Oh, and this is all ignoring the fact that the Palestinians were LIVING there until the Jews were magically granted the land by the U.N., thus EVICTING the current residents of the place. Kind of like if the U.N. made an edict that Texas must now be given to the Gypsies of Eastern Europe because they’ve been persecuted and they consider it a holy place, so they now get to set up their own country there and evict all the Texans. Something like that.

BUT, that’s neither here nor there. What IS relevant about it is that protecting it to our own DETRIMENT is NOT in our national interest; quite the opposite, by definition. Democracy or not, in reality it is of no more national interest to us than Botswana. Yet there is a significant Jewish population in the U.S. (one with a lot of money and a HUGE amount of political pull) and a significant number of evangelical Christian whackos in this country who are willing to side with them because they want to protect the holy place where the rapture will be initiated, thus saving themselves from the fires of Hell. (Though . . . they don’t believe that the Jews themselves will be saved at that time, as I understand it. Funny, that.)

Agreed: we should know what a president or potential president stands for and where his/her moral compass points. And if it points in the direction of doing crazy, destructive shit because of his/her zany religious beliefs, we ought to keep that person the hell out of office.

Agreed regarding accountability and responsibility. And W. ain’t immune from that either. He played a big part in ruining the world over the last 8 years yet you don’t hear him fessing up to any mistakes or admitting any serious regrets.

Funny.

apbt55 wrote:
Damici wrote:

Well actually baby jesus is not coming back there, one of the main reasons we protect Israel is because it was the first democtratic middle eastern country.

But I think it is good to know what a president’s moral compass is and that he will stand up fo it, because then maybe he will stand up for our country.

There is a difference between stating your beliefs and forcing them down someone’s throat.

2 words

Accountability, Responsibility

Those are what this country needs to focus on, we have completley removed it from the education of our youth and then we wonder why the economy is the way it is.

[/quote]

Ok sorry you do understand, baby jesus isn’t coming back though, it is the full grow’d one. My failed attempt at humor.

And if you believe the bible you realize it doesn’t matter who has possession, once the events start unfolding there is nothing that can stop them.

So protecting israel for that reason is just stupid.

I think alot of our involvement in the world is supid given the present situation, now we need to finish what we started, but then we need to be selfish a mericans for a while and fix this mess of a country.

I worked with a Jamaican woman at one company, and I agree with her we should place restrictions on people immigrating to the US, like the have to have a degree and pass certain tests, in english.

Close down the borders, lean the government, improve education through use of the private sector, make it desirable to work hard and make money, by removing the crutch of welfare. Really punish criminals, screw this everyone can change idea. Use accelarated and deccelarated programs, don’t agree with no child left bwehind, some aren’t intended to be doctors, or scientist. Run this country efficiently, but that is very frowned aupon view so I am sure I will catch slack.

Then when we ourselves are square, maybe care about aids in africa.

Seriously why should our money go to healthcare for self imposed disease, like diabetes type 2, obesity, or sexually contracted HIV, yeah I feel bad for people who get it through no real fault of their own, but otherwise deal with the consequences of your actions, like the abortion issue.

ok rant over ready for persecution

[rainjack]

[quote]Damici wrote:
Yeah, certainly people take what they define as “life and death” to be a pretty big deal – to the detriment of every other issue facing the country (many of them involving – wait for it – life and death, as well), and voting with abortion as one’s sole litmus test therefore has the potential to seriously fuck up everything else that’s important in this country. In other words . . . everything that’s important in this country.[/quote]

You are not going to change how people view elections. Some people want to make sure that the candidate they vote for is pro/anti abortion. You make the argument that it is the anti abortion folks who do this, when there are plenty anti-abortionists out there with the equal but opposite feelings.

Gay marriage is becoming the same type of litmus issue.

You are not going to change this behavior. I could easily become a single issue voter if the decriminalization of intelligent steroid use ever became a viable issue.

Your link regarding abortion stances in this country proves my point: Generally speaking, support for abortion rights varies between the low 50’s (percent) and 60 percent, at least in recent decades. That’s called a MAJORITY. Now, you have every right to try to change opinions and change those stats. Good luck to you. You’ll need it.

“…the statistics show that pro-choicers outnumber pro-lifers in this country by a good margin…”

Are you saying that 4% (49% - 45%)is a good margin? You need to go back and look at the definition of “majority”. It is 50% + 1. According to the article I cited, pro-abortion does not have that.

But anyhow, you said that pro-abortionists outnumbered anti-abortionists by a good margin - I don’t see that margin, and depending on how the question is asked, you get highly different results to this particular issue.

I’m not sure if Hillary Clinton consulted a mystic or not – maybe you’re confusing her with Nancy Reagan, who consulted an astrologist . . . ? Either one is fairly bad/scary and does not “make a right.”

Hillary Clinton had conversations with dead people. I am not confusing anyone with anything.

Point is, people do weird shit. President’s and their families included.

Having an irrational fear concerning what people do is the scary thing for me. What’s next? Thought police for the President?

As for W.‘s foreign policy (and the U.S. Congress’ foreign policy, which let’s remember was a majority Republican institution at the time), you’re DAMN RIGHT Israel was one of the things at the forefront of their minds in making the stupid decision to invade Iraq, and you’re DAMN right the Israeli lobby did a looooot of convincing to get them to take out Saddam. That’s a huge, huge part of the Neocons’ worldview: protecting Israel. (Why? Because the Baby Jesus is gonna’ come back there and save them all!)

You are extrapolating comments made by Bush, combined with your irrational fear of religion, to come up with a pretty stupid scenario. But - nonetheless, look at the votes. Were you to blame this all on Republican religious fanaticism, you would need to explain why virtually ALL of the Democrats voted for the war, and for every funding bill since then.

Yes, America has historically been mindlessly, wrecklessly pro-Israel in its bias. No argument there. This is a PROBLEM, not a good thing. And yes, the number of evangelicals in the country, and the Congress, and sometimes the White House, have greatly contributed to this.

GOd forbid the evangelicals have their voices heard. Maybe you would be okay with them not having a voice at all? It is evident that you think they should sit down and shut the fuck up. How about we suspend their right to vote while we are at it?

As I mentioned, publicly mentioning your faith, mainly when asked, is fine. I have no problem with that. But when someone CONTINUALLY mentions something, over and over, and goes so far as to say that it “guides my foreign policy,” one gets the idea that that person is a ZEALOT. When someone (tastefully) keeps their religion primarily to themselves, apart from occasionally being seen by the press leaving church on Sunday or something, that does not scream “zealot” to the world.

So your opinion is shut the fuck up about your faith until you are asked specifically about it? Wow. Should these religious zealots also obtain permission to put up a manger scene at Christmas?

Stop trying to bring up the First Amendment in this. It’s silly to bring it up in any argument about any issue, because in any debate one side is always going to criticize WHAT the other side is SAYING. They’re not saying they don’t have the RIGHT to say it – of course they do!! What they’re saying is that if that person says such a thing, they might not agree with it, and they might get a negative or problematic impression of that person based on WHAT they say. Like when Bush mentions that his foreign policy is guided by his religion. (And I consider him to be a religious zealot, therefore I am troubled by this development).

What is this “they” crap? YOU are the one making these statements. You are the one who is scared by where Bush gets his moral compass.

When you say that “Bush didn’t govern strictly by religion,” I would argue that there are certain issues where his zealotry for Born-Again Christianity probably DID contribute significantly. That may night be the same as governing “strictly by his religion,” but it’s a problem:

You say he does:
“…Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Kennedy, Nixon, Obama, etc., etc. were seen going to church and all, but they didn’t profess to GOVERN strictly by those beliefs…”

I said he doesn’t.

Now you go on to prove my point that your fear causes you to speak in absolutes. It is either strictly by his beliefs, or not. First you say one thing, then you try to adjust your position with “contributes significantly”.

The aforementioned Iraq war, the decision not to allow certain types of stem cell research (WTF?!) (which Obama will reverse shortly), the decision to try to limit his otherwise massively generous contribution to anti-HIV/AIDS efforts in Africa by insisting that the money be used to focus on ABSTINENCE-ONLY programs, thereby causing untold number to DIE in the process?!? (And he considers himself “pro-life?!”)

Certain types of stem cell research? You mean those such as the one harvested from aborted fetuses? The same type of stem cells that have been proven to be sub-par to amniotic stem cells? That is not saving lives - that is not playing into the hands of the pro-abortion crowd. It is called standing up for what is right.

If that makes him a religious zealot, you only lend credence to my position that you have a misguided understanding of the meaning of the term.

And how much money did Clinton, or any other previous president contribute to the African AIDS epidemic? By any measure you want to use, Bush saved more lives than all of his predecessors combined.

Yeah, I have a PROBLEM with all of that.

I think you have a problem with Bush. I think you have a problem with those pesky religious fanatics who won’t sit down and shut the fuck up.

The bad part is, you want to redesign the conservative movement to alienate the single largest block of conservatives in the US: The religious right.

[Sloth]

Non-pro lifers will never have my vote!

[Damici]

From Gallup: “Americans (men and women alike) broadly support keeping abortion legal, at least in the first trimester, and the majority oppose overturning Roe v. Wade. Thus, highlighting the risk that McCain would appoint judges who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade could be a potent pro-choice selling point for Obama.”

And, "With attitudes being so complex, it may be best to respect Americans’ own characterizations of their abortion views as the best way to summarize those views. These numbers fluctuate, but as of Gallup’s most recent survey, the slight majority of Americans (53%) consider themselves “pro-choice” on abortion, whereas 42% call themselves “pro-life.”

Here’s the link (long article): Abortion | Gallup Historical Trends

And yes, I do consider 53% to 42% to be a “good margin.”

Someone who is strictly a single-issue voter on ANY issue is a fucking problem. It just happens that abortion has been the issue lately that’s caused the most of that type of problem.

And if you were serious, and you voted for, say, a Communist party member, or that guy in Miami who claims he is the second coming of Christ, just because they happened to be for legalizing steroids, I would say you were a fucking idiot. But I know you wouldn’t do that in reality.

Funny, now YOU’RE saying that I have an “irrational fear” – you’re defining ME as being irrational and criticizing me for that. Yet, you take great offense when I say that I think someone else’s views/fears/policies are irrational and then CITE REAL WORLD POLICY ISSUES that they make that may very well have been influenced by what I see as those irrationalities!

Who’s applying an “irrational” double standard now . . . ?

You can say that I’m just “extrapolating comments” made by W., but when those comments just happen to coincide with exactly the foreign policy problems that he’s involved us in, suddenly they start to look really, really RELEVANT. They are at the very least worth questioning and examining. You, however, are comfortable just sweeping them under the rug.

Oh, I’m not for suspending anyone’s voting rights – I’m for OUT-VOTING those who I think are fucking zany and who are country-wreckers. And I’m all for exercising MY right to convince other people to do likewise. As for the religious nutters saying what they want to say, I may not agree with them but I will defend to the death their right to say it.

AND, I will defend to the death MY right to say that they’re fucking crazy and incapable of governing. If you say something publicly, you’ve got to be prepared for someone to say something back at you. Get it? Good. Enough of that silly-talk about the First Amendment and anyone trying to “shut anyone up.” YOU’RE the one speaking in absolutes here, not me.

Would I PREFER that someone who was running the country, or running for president, or was in a position of high public office like a Senator, act in better taste and keep their religious positions, zealous as they might be, to themselves?

Absolutely, I would PREFER that. But we can’t FORCE anyone to do any such thing. Come to think of it, it might be best if they DO keep jabbering on about their religion and how it guides them, so at least we’ll know who they are – and if they’re too fucking whacky, we’ll know not to vote for them.

To ease your mind, as I know you’re a stickler for terminology, I will make an even BROADER statement than I made before on something. How 'bout that?

I am troubled not only by someone who governs “strictly” according to their religious beliefs, but by someone whose religious beliefs – especially if I feel they are sufficiently zany – significantly INFLUENCE their decisions. See? Even broader coverage regarding what concerns me on this topic!

See, I don’t think that protecting Israel was the ONLY reason W. invaded Iraq, but I certainly think (because he said it with his own two lips) that it was ONE of the reasons. And that one additional reason might just have been the straw that broke the camel’s back and made him decide to invade.

Couple that fact with the aforementioned tidbit that his belief system is coupled with all kinds of magical future events that he thinks will happen in Israel and . . . one has reason to be CONCERNED.

Can I PROVE that that is the ONLY reason he went to Iraq? No. Do I THINK it was the only reason he went into Iraq? No. But he STATED that it was A factor, and it might just have been enough to tip the balance.

That’s a fucking PROBLEM.

I’m not going to get into finding and quoting link after link on every conceivable issue – it gets us off-topic and into a debate about . . . every conceivable issue.

If you don’t believe that scientists believe there is true VALUE, and lives that can be saved, conditions and diseases that can be cured (improving LIVES) by the types of stem cells that W. outlawed using, just read up on it. You’ll find out you’re wrong. That’s all.

Your attempt to negate my argument about W.'s fucking IDIOTIC, borderline MURDEROUSLY misguided approach to HIV/AIDS in Africa by trying to compare him to Clinton or anyone else is BESIDE THE FUCKING POINT. With the money he allocated he could have saved INFINITELY MORE LIVES than WERE saved.

We’re talking about LIFE or DEATH here, Rainjack, not “He did more than so-and-so, naaah-nah-nah-nah-naaah.” But lots of people that COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED, DIED. Because W. issued an edict that that money ONLY be allocated in accordance with STUPID policies that stem DIRECTLY from his zany religion.

Don’t ever try to pull the moral high ground when you can’t call a spade a spade and admit that THAT was fucking stupid. There’s no point in defending W. “just because.” Defend him when you think he’s right and criticize him when you think he’s wrong. I wouldn’t defend anyone who did that, whether I voted for them or not.

(And since I know you’re going to go here next, NO, I don’t equate the ability to save lives in Africa with the abortion issue because I don’t personally feel that life begins at conception. We will disagree on that, I know. But the country is largely torn on that, you and I disagree on that, and so I do not equate it to saving EXISTING, BORN humans. You might differ. That’s on you.)

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:
Yeah, certainly people take what they define as “life and death” to be a pretty big deal – to the detriment of every other issue facing the country (many of them involving – wait for it – life and death, as well), and voting with abortion as one’s sole litmus test therefore has the potential to seriously fuck up everything else that’s important in this country. In other words . . . everything that’s important in this country.

You are not going to change how people view elections. Some people want to make sure that the candidate they vote for is pro/anti abortion. You make the argument that it is the anti abortion folks who do this, when there are plenty anti-abortionists out there with the equal but opposite feelings.

Gay marriage is becoming the same type of litmus issue.

You are not going to change this behavior. I could easily become a single issue voter if the decriminalization of intelligent steroid use ever became a viable issue.

Your link regarding abortion stances in this country proves my point: Generally speaking, support for abortion rights varies between the low 50’s (percent) and 60 percent, at least in recent decades. That’s called a MAJORITY. Now, you have every right to try to change opinions and change those stats. Good luck to you. You’ll need it.

“…the statistics show that pro-choicers outnumber pro-lifers in this country by a good margin…”

Are you saying that 4% (49% - 45%)is a good margin? You need to go back and look at the definition of “majority”. It is 50% + 1. According to the article I cited, pro-abortion does not have that.

But anyhow, you said that pro-abortionists outnumbered anti-abortionists by a good margin - I don’t see that margin, and depending on how the question is asked, you get highly different results to this particular issue.

I’m not sure if Hillary Clinton consulted a mystic or not – maybe you’re confusing her with Nancy Reagan, who consulted an astrologist . . . ? Either one is fairly bad/scary and does not “make a right.”

Hillary Clinton had conversations with dead people. I am not confusing anyone with anything.

Point is, people do weird shit. President’s and their families included.

Having an irrational fear concerning what people do is the scary thing for me. What’s next? Thought police for the President?

As for W.‘s foreign policy (and the U.S. Congress’ foreign policy, which let’s remember was a majority Republican institution at the time), you’re DAMN RIGHT Israel was one of the things at the forefront of their minds in making the stupid decision to invade Iraq, and you’re DAMN right the Israeli lobby did a looooot of convincing to get them to take out Saddam.

That’s a huge, huge part of the Neocons’ worldview: protecting Israel. (Why? Because the Baby Jesus is gonna’ come back there and save them all!)

You are extrapolating comments made by Bush, combined with your irrational fear of religion, to come up with a pretty stupid scenario. But - nonetheless, look at the votes.

Were you to blame this all on Republican religious fanaticism, you would need to explain why virtually ALL of the Democrats voted for the war, and for every funding bill since then.

Yes, America has historically been mindlessly, wrecklessly pro-Israel in its bias. No argument there. This is a PROBLEM, not a good thing. And yes, the number of evangelicals in the country, and the Congress, and sometimes the White House, have greatly contributed to this.

GOd forbid the evangelicals have their voices heard. Maybe you would be okay with them not having a voice at all? It is evident that you think they should sit down and shut the fuck up. How about we suspend their right to vote while we are at it?

As I mentioned, publicly mentioning your faith, mainly when asked, is fine. I have no problem with that. But when someone CONTINUALLY mentions something, over and over, and goes so far as to say that it “guides my foreign policy,” one gets the idea that that person is a ZEALOT.

When someone (tastefully) keeps their religion primarily to themselves, apart from occasionally being seen by the press leaving church on Sunday or something, that does not scream “zealot” to the world.

So your opinion is shut the fuck up about your faith until you are asked specifically about it? Wow. Should these religious zealots also obtain permission to put up a manger scene at Christmas?

Stop trying to bring up the First Amendment in this. It’s silly to bring it up in any argument about any issue, because in any debate one side is always going to criticize WHAT the other side is SAYING. They’re not saying they don’t have the RIGHT to say it – of course they do!!

What they’re saying is that if that person says such a thing, they might not agree with it, and they might get a negative or problematic impression of that person based on WHAT they say. Like when Bush mentions that his foreign policy is guided by his religion. (And I consider him to be a religious zealot, therefore I am troubled by this development).

What is this “they” crap? YOU are the one making these statements. You are the one who is scared by where Bush gets his moral compass.

When you say that “Bush didn’t govern strictly by religion,” I would argue that there are certain issues where his zealotry for Born-Again Christianity probably DID contribute significantly. That may night be the same as governing “strictly by his religion,” but it’s a problem:

You say he does:
“…Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Kennedy, Nixon, Obama, etc., etc. were seen going to church and all, but they didn’t profess to GOVERN strictly by those beliefs…”

I said he doesn’t.

Now you go on to prove my point that your fear causes you to speak in absolutes. It is either strictly by his beliefs, or not. First you say one thing, then you try to adjust your position with “contributes significantly”.

The aforementioned Iraq war, the decision not to allow certain types of stem cell research (WTF?!) (which Obama will reverse shortly), the decision to try to limit his otherwise massively generous contribution to anti-HIV/AIDS efforts in Africa by insisting that the money be used to focus on ABSTINENCE-ONLY programs, thereby causing untold number to DIE in the process?!? (And he considers himself “pro-life?!”)

Certain types of stem cell research? You mean those such as the one harvested from aborted fetuses? The same type of stem cells that have been proven to be sub-par to amniotic stem cells? That is not saving lives - that is not playing into the hands of the pro-abortion crowd. It is called standing up for what is right.

If that makes him a religious zealot, you only lend credence to my position that you have a misguided understanding of the meaning of the term.

And how much money did Clinton, or any other previous president contribute to the African AIDS epidemic? By any measure you want to use, Bush saved more lives than all of his predecessors combined.

Yeah, I have a PROBLEM with all of that.

I think you have a problem with Bush. I think you have a problem with those pesky religious fanatics who won’t sit down and shut the fuck up.

The bad part is, you want to redesign the conservative movement to alienate the single largest block of conservatives in the US: The religious right.

[/quote]

[Damici]

Thank you for proving my point.

You are the problem.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Non-pro lifers will never have my vote! [/quote]

[Sloth]

[quote]Damici wrote:
Thank you for proving my point.

You are the problem.

Sloth wrote:
Non-pro lifers will never have my vote!

[/quote]

No, you are!

[Sloth]

All your GoP are belong to us.

But seriously, if the GoP was to set the Pro-life position aside, I’d just be all over the Constitution Party. Me and the other religious crazy and wild guys. Oh, and the few pro-life atheists, I suppose.

[Damici]

Go for it!

[quote]Sloth wrote:
All your GoP are belong to us.

But seriously, if the GoP was to set the Pro-life position aside, I’d just be all over the Constitution Party. Me and the other religious crazy and wild guys. Oh, and the few pro-life atheists, I suppose.[/quote]

[Sloth]

[quote]Damici wrote:
Go for it!

Sloth wrote:
All your GoP are belong to us.

But seriously, if the GoP was to set the Pro-life position aside, I’d just be all over the Constitution Party. Me and the other religious crazy and wild guys. Oh, and the few pro-life atheists, I suppose.

[/quote]

You’re not the boss of me! Honestly though, I don’t see it happening, so I’ll probably still have the vote for a Republican option.

[Damici]

Sadly, you might be right.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Damici wrote:
Go for it!

Sloth wrote:
All your GoP are belong to us.

But seriously, if the GoP was to set the Pro-life position aside, I’d just be all over the Constitution Party. Me and the other religious crazy and wild guys. Oh, and the few pro-life atheists, I suppose.

You’re not the boss of me! Honestly though, I don’t see it happening, so I’ll probably still have the vote for a Republican option.[/quote]

[rainjack]

[quote]Damici wrote:
From Gallup: “Americans (men and women alike) broadly support keeping abortion legal, at least in the first trimester, and the majority oppose overturning Roe v. Wade. Thus, highlighting the risk that McCain would appoint judges who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade could be a potent pro-choice selling point for Obama.”

And, "With attitudes being so complex, it may be best to respect Americans’ own characterizations of their abortion views as the best way to summarize those views. These numbers fluctuate, but as of Gallup’s most recent survey, the slight majority of Americans (53%) consider themselves “pro-choice” on abortion, whereas 42% call themselves “pro-life.”

Here’s the link (long article): Abortion | Gallup Historical Trends

And yes, I do consider 53% to 42% to be a “good margin.”

Someone who is strictly a single-issue voter on ANY issue is a fucking problem. It just happens that abortion has been the issue lately that’s caused the most of that type of problem.[/quote]

I think it is quite funny when people post a link that, if they actually read it, does more to prove the point of the opposition than it does to support their own position.

First of all, your data comes from the results of only an either or question: Are you for or against abortion? When options are given, 57% of those surveyed said that they are either completely against abortion, or legal only few circumstances.

But that is neither here nor there. My point was, and still is, that you are not going to win any elections by ignoring single issue voters. I agree that it is a very narrow minded approach - but to ignore them would be suicide.

And if you were serious, and you voted for, say, a Communist party member, or that guy in Miami who claims he is the second coming of Christ, just because they happened to be for legalizing steroids, I would say you were a fucking idiot. But I know you wouldn’t do that in reality.

I am serious, and neither of those two ran on a ballot in Texas. I probably would not have voted for the commie in the first place.

But - I was a single issue voter this election. I voted against everyone who voted for the bailout. Being that there is no difference in republican of democrat anymore, I voted libertarian, or constitution party where I could.

[quote]Funny, now YOU’RE saying that I have an “irrational fear” – you’re defining ME as being irrational and criticizing me for that. Yet, you take great offense when I say that I think someone else’s views/fears/policies are irrational and then CITE REAL WORLD POLICY ISSUES that they make that may very well have been influenced by what I see as those irrationalities!

Who’s applying an “irrational” double standard now . . . ? :-)[/quote]

I haven’t called for you to sit down and shut up. You are free to be as big of an irrational fear monger as you want to be.

I am not calling for a national party to alienate people I am afraid of who talk too much - but you are.

You can say that I’m just “extrapolating comments” made by W., but when those comments just happen to coincide with exactly the foreign policy problems that he’s involved us in, suddenly they start to look really, really RELEVANT. They are at the very least worth questioning and examining. You, however, are comfortable just sweeping them under the rug.

Then indict the entirety of congress as well because they acted in the same religion inspired fanaticism.

Oh, I’m not for suspending anyone’s voting rights – I’m for OUT-VOTING those who I think are fucking zany and who are country-wreckers. And I’m all for exercising MY right to convince other people to do likewise. As for the religious nutters saying what they want to say, I may not agree with them but I will defend to the death their right to say it.

I highly doubt that. You might defend their right to speak if it’s not too loud, or too public.

AND, I will defend to the death MY right to say that they’re fucking crazy and incapable of governing. If you say something publicly, you’ve got to be prepared for someone to say something back at you. Get it? Good. Enough of that silly-talk about the First Amendment and anyone trying to “shut anyone up.” YOU’RE the one speaking in absolutes here, not me.

No one is telling you to sit down and shut the fuck up. In fact, the entire argument has been because of your right to say what you want.

[quote]Would I PREFER that someone who was running the country, or running for president, or was in a position of high public office like a Senator, act in better taste and keep their religious positions, zealous as they might be, to themselves?

Absolutely, I would PREFER that. But we can’t FORCE anyone to do any such thing. Come to think of it, it might be best if they DO keep jabbering on about their religion and how it guides them, so at least we’ll know who they are – and if they’re too fucking whacky, we’ll know not to vote for them. :-)[/quote]

That is no where near what you said back at the beginning of this dead horse of a debate. Which is why I said - way back then - that you might want to rethink your position. I really hate being right all the fucking time.

[quote]To ease your mind, as I know you’re a stickler for terminology, I will make an even BROADER statement than I made before on something. How 'bout that?

I am troubled not only by someone who governs “strictly” according to their religious beliefs, but by someone whose religious beliefs – especially if I feel they are sufficiently zany – significantly INFLUENCE their decisions. See? Even broader coverage regarding what concerns me on this topic![/quote]

Good for you. Your views on religion, or religious people really don’t concern me beyond you thinking that the conservative movement should marginalize the religious right. You seem to have changed you position on this, though - so I would think it a moot point from here on.

[quote]See, I don’t think that protecting Israel was the ONLY reason W. invaded Iraq, but I certainly think (because he said it with his own two lips) that it was ONE of the reasons. And that one additional reason might just have been the straw that broke the camel’s back and made him decide to invade.

Couple that fact with the aforementioned tidbit that his belief system is coupled with all kinds of magical future events that he thinks will happen in Israel and . . . one has reason to be CONCERNED.[/quote]

One can just be against the war without trying to read a bunch of unsubstantiated BS into the situation, too.

[quote]Can I PROVE that that is the ONLY reason he went to Iraq? No. Do I THINK it was the only reason he went into Iraq? No. But he STATED that it was A factor, and it might just have been enough to tip the balance.

That’s a fucking PROBLEM.[/quote]

Rhen your explanation of both houses of Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq by a margin of about 3-1 in both the house and the senate would include religious zealotry as well?

If you don’t believe that scientists believe there is true VALUE, and lives that can be saved, conditions and diseases that can be cured (improving LIVES) by the types of stem cells that W. outlawed using, just read up on it. You’ll find out you’re wrong. That’s all.

And if you think stem cells harvested from an aborted fetus is more viable and useful than amniotic stem cells, you need to do more reading.

Your attempt to negate my argument about W.'s fucking IDIOTIC, borderline MURDEROUSLY misguided approach to HIV/AIDS in Africa by trying to compare him to Clinton or anyone else is BESIDE THE FUCKING POINT. With the money he allocated he could have saved INFINITELY MORE LIVES than WERE saved.

The pint is lives are being saved whether you agree with abstinence or not.

We’re talking about LIFE or DEATH here, Rainjack, not “He did more than so-and-so, naaah-nah-nah-nah-naaah.” But lots of people that COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED, DIED. Because W. issued an edict that that money ONLY be allocated in accordance with STUPID policies that stem DIRECTLY from his zany religion.

More lives saved under Bush than any other president in history, and without the help of any other nation.

But - I will throw you this bone. The best you can come up with to support your position the Bush is a religious whacko is that he is not saving enough lives to suit you?

Simply amazing.

Don’t ever try to pull the moral high ground when you can’t call a spade a spade and admit that THAT was fucking stupid. There’s no point in defending W. “just because.” Defend him when you think he’s right and criticize him when you think he’s wrong. I wouldn’t defend anyone who did that, whether I voted for them or not.

I do criticize him when he is wrong. I think combating the AIDS epidemic should receive absolutely no federal support outside of unwitting hemophiliacs, and children who contract the disease.

The life and death of people willingly engaging in stupid, deadly habits is their fault, and deserve not a dime of my tax dollars.

You need to read more of my posts if you think I am a Bush apologist.

[Damici]

[quote]I think it is quite funny when people post a link that, if they actually read it, does more to prove the point of the opposition than it does to support their own position.

First of all, your data comes from the results of only an either or question: Are you for or against abortion? When options are given, 57% of those surveyed said that they are either completely against abortion, or legal only few circumstances.

But that is neither here nor there. My point was, and still is, that you are not going to win any elections by ignoring single issue voters. I agree that it is a very narrow minded approach - but to ignore them would be suicide.[/quote]

RJ, pay attention. That’s my whole point, and you’re cherry-picking quotes from the link. As Gallup themselves said, the data get more complex as you drill down and give them multiple choices.

Most people WANT some or more restrictions on abortions, but only a SMALL MINORITY wants it outlawed completely. That small minority tends to be the dumb fuckers who are single-issue voters on abortion, and therefore ruin the country by not caring about the other issues that we face.

The bottom line, as Gallup themselves said, is this: "With attitudes being so complex, it may be best to respect Americans’ own characterizations of their abortion views as the best way to summarize those views.

These numbers fluctuate, but as of Gallup’s most recent survey, the slight majority of Americans (53%) consider themselves ‘pro-choice’ on abortion, whereas 42% call themselves ‘pro-life.’"

I haven’t called for you to sit down and shut up. You are free to be as big of an irrational fear monger as you want to be.

You have some strange fetish with trying to concoct things that other people might have said or called for when . . . they DIDN’T. SHOW ME, Rainjack, WHERE I ever said that the fundamentalists ought to, quote, “Sit down and shut up.” Oh, that’s right – you CAN’T! Because I DIDN’T SAY IT!!

Now, you may disbelieve me all you want, but I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I will defend to the death someone’s RIGHT to say whatever they want, even if I completely disagree with it.

I would HOPE that you are a big enough man to feel the same way, but I’m getting the sense, from your tone of trying to infer that I say or call for things that I don’t, i.e. your fabrications, that maybe you’re not all that stand-up a guy. But I hope I’m wrong. Please tell me I am.

I am not calling for a national party to alienate people I am afraid of who talk too much - but you are.

As for “alienation,” as far as hoping for the success of the party, I - I - am the one here who is of the “big-tent, less alienation” mindset. Blinders off, RJ.

Precisely what I DON’T LIKE is that fact that a bunch of fundamentalist loons who ALIENATE the majority of Americans has taken over the party! They want to alienate all those who DON’T agree with their whacky beliefs, all those who might be of different sexual orientation, all those who are “readers” and who value higher education – “Fucking elitists!!”

My beef lies in precisely the fact that the right wing of the party is discriminatory, and is discriminatory to the DETRIMENT of everything else that’s going on in the country.

Now – pay close attention here – I don’t want to RESTRICT their rights to say whatever they want to say, or live their private lives however they want to live them, or marry (or not) whoever they want to marry, or worship (or not) however they want to worship. They can do whatever they want in their own lives! Doesn’t bother me!

What BOTHERS me is when they try to LEGISLATE in such a fashion that they want it IMPOSE their beliefs on others and RESTRICT what OTHERS can do in THEIR own private lives. They can STATE their beliefs all they want.

But when they try to prevent OTHERS from living according to THEIR OWN beliefs . . . THAT’S a problem. See? My feelings are called TRUE CONSERVATISM. (Not that I care too much about the labels, but that’s what it amounts to.)

Regarding the Iraq war:

Then indict the entirety of congress as well because they acted in the same religion inspired fanaticism.

I certainly disagree with many in Congress who supported the war, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of them, like W., did so for reasons that were influenced by their fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

But the heart of the problem here is with the PRESIDENT, as only the PRESIDENT is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Only the PRESIDENT can declare war, or decide to invade another country (official “war” or not). Congress on its own cannot do that.

And if we didn’t have a Jesus-freak in the White House, if Brent Scowcroft, for example, had been in the White House, even if the congressional makeup were the same, that war wouldn’t have happened. Congress is not part of the debate here.

I highly doubt that. You might defend their right to speak if it’s not too loud, or too public.

Boy, you are a snide, cynical, personal one when you debate. Are you under the impression that that helps your arguments? It doesn’t. It just makes your substance look even weaker.

That is no where near what you said back at the beginning of this dead horse of a debate. Which is why I said - way back then - that you might want to rethink your position. I really hate being right all the fucking time.

Really?? I said that someone should “sit down and shut the fuck up” earlier in the debate?? You’re STILL sticking to that accusation?? SHOW. ME. WHERE. Right all the time??

Geez, you’re being proven wrong with every paragraph so far. You’re so “right” that you said two or three times, earlier in the thread that you were “done with me” and out of here. Sucks being so right you have to keep coming back to try to explain yourself and paper over your statements, doesn’t it?

Good for you. Your views on religion, or religious people really don’t concern me beyond you thinking that the conservative movement should marginalize the religious right. You seem to have changed you position on this, though - so I would think it a moot point from here on.

Oh no, reading compression is CLEARLY not your strong suit. My statement in that paragraph that you’re responding to is one which explains how I want even MORE broadly than I initially explained to “marginalize the religious right,” as you put it.

Or, more specifically, to define when someone’s religion and policy actions are mixing a little to closely for my liking.

One can just be against the war without trying to read a bunch of unsubstantiated BS into the situation, too.

This discussion isn’t about being against the war, or about any particular issue. It’s about electing – or not electing – leaders because of how they might make their decisions. No one said it was “substantiated” that W.'s religion was THE reason he went to war.

But he himself said that defense of Israel was ONE reason. And his religion just happens to be one with all kinds of cozy hopes and dreams tied into wonderful Israel!

Perfectly fair to question possible connections there. (NECESSARY, in my view, to question possible connections between the two.)

And if you think stem cells harvested from an aborted fetus is more viable and useful than amniotic stem cells, you need to do more reading.

I’m not going to debate the whole stem cell issue with you here. Suffice it to say, there are TWO sides to the argument, and the very FACT that there are two sides to it – not just one – should tell you something.

[quote]More lives saved under Bush than any other president in history, and without the help of any other nation.

But - I will throw you this bone. The best you can come up with to support your position the Bush is a religious whacko is that he is not saving enough lives to suit you?[/quote]

You COMPLETELY * AVOIDED * MY * ENTIRE * POINT. Because you HAVE no good response to it.

THAT’S simply amazing.

Go back and READ IT AGAIN. I know, I know, reading comprehension is not your strong point, but still. Give it the ole’ college try. (And don’t go calling me all “elitist” now, just because I mentioned college!) (Wink!)

[quote]I do criticize him when he is wrong. I think combating the AIDS epidemic should receive absolutely no federal support outside of unwitting hemophiliacs, and children who contract the disease.

The life and death of people willingly engaging in stupid, deadly habits is their fault, and deserve not a dime of my tax dollars.[/quote]

If you don’t think our tax dollars should be spent on saving the lives of those with AIDS or stopping the spread of it (even among uneducated Africans who have NO knowledge of how it works, and won’t stop spreading it WITHOUT being educated??) . . .

. . . then you should be even MORE appalled that that money was spent STUPIDLY and INEFFECTIVELY, rather than at least getting a better RESULT from those dollars that were spent regardless.

[Damici]

Somewhat on the general subject of where the Republican party and “conservative movement” went wrong, here is the always amusing P.J. O’Rourke:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=15791&R=13CD722B2E