"Rick" <pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com> wrote

Fundies

*SOME* fundies. Not the same as "Bush, DeLay and
other Christian Evangelicals".

Evangelical is mere PC speak for "Fundy."

I said Fundies and I meant fundies,

and that includes *All* fundies.

DO teach that environmentalism is unnecessary,
though I must admit that I have heard two different
rationalizations from them.

The first is the *Extremely* common preaching that the
imaginary "end times" are near, and we have no need
to concern ourselves with long-term issues.

Again that needs to be qualified with *some*.

No. It doesn't.

In fact, I have never once been exposed to
a competing view from Fundies.

The second as spelled out in fundy teachings -- the
fundy textbook "America's Providential History"
being a prime example -- is that "God" will provide
all we need. We should just go ahead & use all the
oil, lumber and other natural resources we want,
and if we need more than "God" will simply make
more for us.

Again, you have no actual data on how many people
are influenced by this particular book.

The book didn't create the view, it merely reflects
Fundie views.

I'll note that you can't much trust what a polititian says in the

first

or second place, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see one

tailor

what he says to his audience.

True, but in this case, irrelevant.

Not at all -- I am saying (rather clearly, I thought) that Watt may
well have actually said *both* of the things attributed to him,

even though they are contradictory,

and it is better to look at what was
done rather than what was said. Simple stuff.

In article <JM-dncgs6tugNuLfRVn-qQ@giganews.com>, pl1
_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...

Gidday Rick,

Note to The Great Hairy One:

Noted.

The response that follows is what might be colloquially referred to as an
"*****-kicking." If you would like to do some homework and either retract

original response or acknowledge it was a simple thoughtless knee-jerk
reaction, I'll be happy to give a slight apology for my snarkiness. Thank
you.

Mate, I've had mosquito bites bother me more. You're going to have to
work a lot harder than that. Honestly.

And don't worry about the snarkiness. What's a little snark between
friends? :)

You're completely missing the point. I doubt that Bush's faith, as

as it may be, is deep enough for it to have much of an impact on
administration policies.

That, mate, is total crap. Do you deny that your President regularly
uses his religion to gain political power? And that there are trade-offs
that come with this? For example - he wants to add a clause to the
Constitution to define marriage as one man-one woman. If that's not a
religious agenda, I'll eat your socks.

And there is a wide enough range of eschatological
views among "born agains" that "most" is an exaggeration. The ultimate
impact on politics is the question.

Okay, fair point.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009475.php

No worries.

It disgusts me how easily atheists and liberals reflexively dismiss

merely based on the source. You didn't actually attempt to do one bit of
your own research, did you? You might try it in the future. It could save
you some embarrassment.

Mate, I've read Powerline for almost a year. The man Hindraker is a
complete liar. He has difficulty hiding his racism, his bigotry and his
lack of intelligence. He claimed that Terri Schavio was not brain dead,
he claimed that Bush's economic polices would revitalise the US economy,
and he claimed that the Iraq war was going very well.

I would be doubtful of any claim Hindraker made. As a source, he is
entirely unreliable. Furthermore, he has been caught out lying about his
sources and lying throughout his articles.

If you don't believe me go to:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/
www.mykeru.com
http://www.dailykos.com/

And do a search for any articles about Hindraker himself.

Powerline's claim was widely reported and easily falsifiable. Someone

have already done the research. It shouldn't take you more than a few
minutes on Google to find it and correct me.

I did a Google search for "James Watt environment" and got 248,000 hits
of various quotes said by Mr Watt during his time as Secretary of State
under Reagan. There were more than just the "jesus is coming back, why
worry about the environment" one. It is quite clear that Watt was a
little bit more fundie than the rest of the government. He did lose his
job, remember.

Perhaps you could also contact
Moyers to correct him. He has retracted the "last tree felled" claim.

you could contact Grist, Moyers' source, which has also retracted said
claim. Moyers' rant keeps showing up repeatedly in various form, and the
"last tree felled" claim seems to be dying out. I guess news travels

slowly in your whereabouts. Where do you live? The Gamma Quadrant?

Actually, no.

James Watt

said, in 1981, that worrying about the environment was a
wasted cause, as jesus was coming back. It's been documented throughout
the media of the time.

Cripes, I remember it being reported here, in my national newspapers.

If there now is a movement to rewrite history, that's fine. It's wrong
though.

That depends on the meaning of "actual" and "truth."

As per the standard, mate.

No, that's part of the urban legend.

If it was an urban legend, why is it not on Snopes, www.urbanlegends.com
or any of the other major debunking sites?

Why is it turning up on Hindraker's site?

Public testimony ought to be easy to find. Perhaps you could look in the
Congressional Record.

Hmmm, maybe I should. Maybe you should too, to check *your* sources. Or
do you blindly trust what people tell you?

He was fired for other reasons.

Was he? What were they?

I eagerly await your proof. [1]

Given already.

An urban legend is being repeated for the purposes of political
maniplutation and to discredit individuals and fairly large groups of
citizens. And many supposedly smart people are buying it. That's what.

An urban legend would be reported as such.

And it isn't, apart from your mate Hindraker - a proven liar.

[1] Actually, I'm awaiting your humiliation and embarrassment. Eagerly. A
retraction would be acceptable, though.

Bwahahahahahahahaha! No retraction, no surrender. And certainly no
humiliation or embarrassment. Still doing pretty well here, mate. :)

- Rick, shaking my head in amazement at the gullibility of lefty

Rick, Rick, Rick. You disappoint me. Firstly you accuse me of being
gullible, when you are clearly the one who swallowed a falsehood without
even thinking,

secondly if something as small as people arguing over politics

can amaze you, it's no wonder you're a theist! Your mind
doesn't work hard enough to question anything.

Mate, you need to get out there and actually *ask some questions*
rather than believing every line of smack fed to you.