| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
30 Oct 2004 10:12:05 PM |
| Object: |
Some tips for so-called "atheist republicans" in the US. |
Mind your heads as you board the cattle cars without a struggle and
head to your concentration camps. Know that by pushing a button to vote
for bush you are turning on the flow of zyklon B in the showers of the
gas chambers Bush has built for you.
At least we real atheists, have the courage and intellect to fight
against the theocratic depravities of George W. Bush. Your extreme
cognitive dissonance combined with appalling ignorance of history,
economics and political science makes you no better than fifth-column
collaborators with the religious redneck hordes who hope to continue to
bully the rest of america and the world. On November 2nd, 2004 your
god-soaked, idiot emperor George W. Bush will be defeated and your
betrayals will not be forgotten or easily forgiven. Snap out of your
Fox News induced false consciousness, pull your head from your rectal
sphincters and join with us before you risk ushering in a new dark age
of fundamentalist christ-insanity.
Tell the religious right that you will not help do their dirty work
for them and participate in the systematic oppression of your fellow
atheists. Even if you agree with everything else Bush stands for and
hate Kerry for your various and sundry illogical reasons, you owe your
fellow atheists more than this petty betrayal. Reject the tawdry lies
of your theocratic slave masters and prison wardens on the neocon
rightwing fringe. If you must vote for some loopy conservative then
vote libertarian. Stop lying to yourself about the absurd possibility
that you can square your rightwing ideology with atheism.
Use the common sense and critical thinking that allowed you to
become atheists and dismantle the ridiculous Bush spin machine. By
voting for Bush you are voting for the indoctrination and religious
mental enslavement of future generations of American children. How can
you betray your conscience like this and still look at yourself in the
mirror in the morning? As Joseph Welch said to the theocratic blowhard
and grand inquisitor Joe McCarthy in his day, "Have you no decency, Sir?
At long last, have you no sense of decency?" That's a rhetorical
question, BTW. The proof of your decency will only come in rejecting
George W. Bush and his theocratic lies. Anything less will be allowing
the evil of theism to prevail.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Some tips for so-called "atheist republicans" in the US. |
01 Nov 2004 05:22:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:12:05 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Mind your heads as you board the cattle cars without a struggle and
head to your concentration camps. Know that by pushing a button to vote
for bush you are turning on the flow of zyklon B in the showers of the
gas chambers Bush has built for you.
Lol!
At least we real atheists, have the courage and intellect to fight
against the theocratic depravities of George W. Bush.
Gee, I support Bush and still feel like an atheist.
<Do you understand the definition of atheism?>
And it takes a lot more courage in a.a. to support Bush than to speak
against him.
Btw, by what means did you aquire the power or authority to declare
atheists to be non-atheists because they don't support you
politically?
Isn't that a bit like George senior declaring atheists to be
non-citizens?
You would make a really good Stalinist or Nazi.
If you did have a following it probably wouldn't be long before you
would be killing your political opponents along with all the believers
you could get your hands on.
Why do you think atheists who have a different view of things than you
are stupid?
Your extreme cognitive dissonance combined with appalling ignorance of history,
economics and political science
Which would you like to discuss?
"History, economics or political science?
Let's do history.
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, French Revolution, Vietnam, military mutinies.
Let's discuss the things the leaders have in common and also what the
followers have in common.
D'ya' wanna?
<snip>
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Some tips for so-called "atheist republicans" in the US. |
01 Nov 2004 06:35:56 PM |
|
|
<atheist@home.com> wrote
And it takes a lot more courage in a.a. to support Bush than
to speak against him.
I agree.
Then again, I was the one who had to compliment Judge Moore
for his courage and honesty. That didn't make him right, or smart,
or the least bit useful, but the was honest and did display a lot
of courage.
I do admit that I have a problem with "atheists" supporting Bush
though. And that is because the support is *always* based entirely
on faith.
If you don't mind me using you as an example (and you should feel
free to take offense if you think I'm making this personal), you've
often expressed doubts about evidence that demonstrates problems
with Bush, though you have no issues with accepting evidence that
supports Bush, even if it is more problematic then the opposing
evidence.
Was there evidence, going back before the war, that Bush was
lying through his teeth about WMDs and other "Threats"?
Of course. Most damaging of all was the U.N. inspectors, in
Iraq, visiting every last administration-claimed WMD "Site,"
only to find that there was nothing there.
Less obvious (because it required us to actually think) was the
actual weapons identified by the administration. These were
a balsa wood drone and ballistic missiles, neither of which
qualified as a WMD, and both were allowed under the terms
of the U.N. cease fire.
Did that matter? Does it matter now? Does any of Bush's lies
or failures matter? Nope. Not to a Bush supporter.
That takes faith. That takes lots & lots of faith. Bush supporters
do believe in a god, and that god is Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Some tips for so-called "atheist republicans" in the US. |
01 Nov 2004 09:53:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 19:35:56 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<atheist@home.com> wrote
And it takes a lot more courage in a.a. to support Bush than
to speak against him.
I agree.
Then again, I was the one who had to compliment Judge Moore
for his courage and honesty. That didn't make him right, or smart,
or the least bit useful, but the was honest and did display a lot
of courage.
And that took courage to state in this forum.
Did you take a hit for it?
I do admit that I have a problem with "atheists" supporting Bush
though. And that is because the support is *always* based entirely
on faith.
Not really.
I support him for what he has done in the war on terror as well as his
tax cuts among other things.
I also respect the man.
If you don't mind me using you as an example (and you should feel
free to take offense if you think I'm making this personal), you've
often expressed doubts about evidence that demonstrates problems
with Bush, though you have no issues with accepting evidence that
supports Bush, even if it is more problematic then the opposing
evidence.
All the evidence should be questioned.
I don't necessarily just accept all the evidence that supports Bush.
I have some problems with him.
Sometimes I will argue a point in an effort to get more information
which, no matter how I state it, doesn't necessarily mean that I have
made up my mind.
A part of effective debate is to sometimes take a position as a
challange to an opponent even if we accept the possibility that a
particular claim may well be true.
Was there evidence, going back before the war, that Bush was
lying through his teeth about WMDs and other "Threats"?
None that I know of.
I think if we could come to an agreement on the definition of WMD it
would help in the discussion.
Of course. Most damaging of all was the U.N. inspectors, in
Iraq, visiting every last administration-claimed WMD "Site,"
only to find that there was nothing there.
I saw a very interesting documentary on the subject a couple of years
ago.
A video cameraman followed inspectors as they went about their
business.
They were not ony denied access to certain sites they had previously
been told they could search, but were actually forced to standby
helpessly for hours at one location because the UN refused to send
anyone to help them while the Iraqi soldiers removed evidence in their
presence.
They had been threatened with violence on several occasions and
eventually, as a matter of self defence, were forced to abandon their
efforts.
If the Iraqis had WMDs on any particular site and agreed to let it be
searched it doesn't take much immagination to realize they might
remove the evidence before inspectors got there.
Less obvious (because it required us to actually think) was the
actual weapons identified by the administration. These were
a balsa wood drone and ballistic missiles, neither of which
qualified as a WMD, and both were allowed under the terms
of the U.N. cease fire.
And according to certain sources I read there were missiles that had a
greater range than those Hussein had agreed to.
Did that matter? Does it matter now? Does any of Bush's lies
or failures matter? Nope. Not to a Bush supporter.
But you see, any Bush supporter can say the same about the "lies" we
believe Kerry has told and insist that his supporters simply will not
accept the truth.
And when you mention "faith" in Bush supporters, we *know* what Bush
has done as president while Democrats have nothing more than faith
that Kerry will do what he says.
I remember well Bush senior's "no new taxes" and Clinton's "tax break
for the middle class."
One promise broken by a Republican and the other by a Democrat.
I believe Bush was sincere and not deliberately lying while I do not
believe the same of Clinton.
Let's face it.
Kerry could get in office, turn out to be a bulldog, take certain
actions that will cause an all out war between muslims and infidels
which could actually lead to WWIII, or refuse to take certain actions
and allow bin Laden the opportunity to rebuild his organization.
We have Bush, a presumably known quantity and Kerry, the unknown.
I'm afraid Kerry supporters are relying more on faith than those who
support Bush.
That takes faith. That takes lots & lots of faith. Bush supporters
do believe in a god, and that god is Bush.
There again I feel as though Democrats actually see the Clintons as
devine.
I think they generally view JFK the same.
As do many Republicans regarding Reagan.
None of them are gods and most of them are not evil, <At least in
their own view>
They are simply politicians playing a detestable game that not too
many of us are willing to give up our honor and dignity to play.
And their motives are always suspect.
But then so are ours.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Some tips for so-called "atheist republicans" in the US. |
03 Nov 2004 07:13:41 AM |
|
|
<atheist@home.com> wrote
I support him for what he has done in the war on terror
as well as his tax cuts among other things.
Well he's certainly created a lot of terrorism, and we can't
discount the fact that he refused to act on the intelligence he
did have in order to prevent 9/11 from happening.
But, you're right. Bush did say that his war was extremely
important, even if not quite so important that anyone should
be willing to pay for it.
...supply-side economics has worked so well these past
three years, and it's hard to argue with the success of failing
to create a single job outside of India.
I also respect the man.
Of course. From his humble roots as a black share cropper
in Georgia, to his valient military service in Vietnam, George
Bush embodies the American dream where "hard work" and
integrity will be rewarded with unlimited success.
Was there evidence, going back before the war, that Bush
was lying through his teeth about WMDs and other "Threats"?
None that I know of.
The inspectors... the cites of ancient intelligence... the very fact
that absolutely nothing was there... it was all so confusing.
Of course. Most damaging of all was the U.N. inspectors, in
Iraq, visiting every last administration-claimed WMD "Site,"
only to find that there was nothing there.
I saw a very interesting documentary on the subject a couple
of years ago.
I saw one on Iraq myself. It blamed Clinton. It claimed that Iraq
was rip for the picking, that Saddam was about to fall to an
internal struggle but Clinton refused to lift a finger.
Unfortunately, it also placed Chalabi (Bush's source of "Intelligence")
inside Iraq, ehen he actually hadn't stepped foot in the country in
25 years.
Not very accurate.
Less obvious (because it required us to actually think) was the
actual weapons identified by the administration. These were
a balsa wood drone and ballistic missiles, neither of which
qualified as a WMD, and both were allowed under the terms
of the U.N. cease fire.
And according to certain sources I read there were missiles
that had a greater range than those Hussein had agreed to.
No. That was the Bush claim, slightly paraphrased. The actual
charge was that the missiles could be modified in order to
extend their range beyond cease-fire limits.
But you see, any Bush supporter can say the same about the
"lies" we believe Kerry has told and insist that his supporters
simply will not accept the truth.
Of course. And let's not forget that making such a charge is no
different than proving such a charge.
Nothing, not even hindsight, can prove anything bad about Bush.
This much is fact. And nothing, no mountain of evidence, can
prove that Kerry isn't bad.
After all, if Kerry wasn't bad then how is it they can say such
nasty things about him?
And when you mention "faith" in Bush supporters, we *know*
what Bush has done as president while Democrats have
nothing more than faith that Kerry will do what he says.
That's fair. And that is exactly equal to the situation of Bush
supporters, who know for a fact that Bush won't do as he
claimed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Some tips for so-called "atheist republicans" in the US. |
06 Nov 2004 10:34:09 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:13:41 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<atheist@home.com> wrote
I support him for what he has done in the war on terror
as well as his tax cuts among other things.
Well he's certainly created a lot of terrorism, and we can't
discount the fact that he refused to act on the intelligence he
did have in order to prevent 9/11 from happening.
But, you're right. Bush did say that his war was extremely
important, even if not quite so important that anyone should
be willing to pay for it.
...supply-side economics has worked so well these past
three years, and it's hard to argue with the success of failing
to create a single job outside of India.
I also respect the man.
Of course. From his humble roots as a black share cropper
in Georgia, to his valient military service in Vietnam, George
Bush embodies the American dream where "hard work" and
integrity will be rewarded with unlimited success.
Was there evidence, going back before the war, that Bush
was lying through his teeth about WMDs and other "Threats"?
None that I know of.
The inspectors... the cites of ancient intelligence... the very fact
that absolutely nothing was there... it was all so confusing.
Of course. Most damaging of all was the U.N. inspectors, in
Iraq, visiting every last administration-claimed WMD "Site,"
only to find that there was nothing there.
I saw a very interesting documentary on the subject a couple
of years ago.
I saw one on Iraq myself. It blamed Clinton. It claimed that Iraq
was rip for the picking, that Saddam was about to fall to an
internal struggle but Clinton refused to lift a finger.
Unfortunately, it also placed Chalabi (Bush's source of "Intelligence")
inside Iraq, ehen he actually hadn't stepped foot in the country in
25 years.
Not very accurate.
Less obvious (because it required us to actually think) was the
actual weapons identified by the administration. These were
a balsa wood drone and ballistic missiles, neither of which
qualified as a WMD, and both were allowed under the terms
of the U.N. cease fire.
And according to certain sources I read there were missiles
that had a greater range than those Hussein had agreed to.
No. That was the Bush claim, slightly paraphrased. The actual
charge was that the missiles could be modified in order to
extend their range beyond cease-fire limits.
But you see, any Bush supporter can say the same about the
"lies" we believe Kerry has told and insist that his supporters
simply will not accept the truth.
Of course. And let's not forget that making such a charge is no
different than proving such a charge.
Nothing, not even hindsight, can prove anything bad about Bush.
This much is fact. And nothing, no mountain of evidence, can
prove that Kerry isn't bad.
After all, if Kerry wasn't bad then how is it they can say such
nasty things about him?
And when you mention "faith" in Bush supporters, we *know*
what Bush has done as president while Democrats have
nothing more than faith that Kerry will do what he says.
That's fair. And that is exactly equal to the situation of Bush
supporters, who know for a fact that Bush won't do as he
claimed.
(chuckling)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter van Velzen" |
|
| Title: Re: Some tips for so-called "atheist republicans" in the US. |
02 Nov 2004 07:37:54 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<6vfdo05uh7ocldoh67mfgndo5g0ctfhvcd@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:12:05 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Mind your heads as you board the cattle cars without a struggle and
head to your concentration camps. Know that by pushing a button to vote
for bush you are turning on the flow of zyklon B in the showers of the
gas chambers Bush has built for you.
Lol!
At least we real atheists, have the courage and intellect to fight
against the theocratic depravities of George W. Bush.
Gee, I support Bush and still feel like an atheist.
Well you may support Bush,
but if you are an atheist
he is doubtlessly not supporting you.
If you think Kerry is no better,
why didn't you vote for Nader?
<Do you understand the definition of atheism?>
And it takes a lot more courage in a.a. to support Bush than to speak
against him.
Depends on what parties meeting you are at:)
Btw, by what means did you aquire the power or authority to declare
atheists to be non-atheists because they don't support you
politically?
Isn't that a bit like George senior declaring atheists to be
non-citizens?
You would make a really good Stalinist or Nazi.
No he wouldn't.
If you did have a following it probably wouldn't be long before you
would be killing your political opponents along with all the believers
you could get your hands on.
Why do you think atheists who have a different view of things than you
are stupid?
I guess he thinks Atheist who support those that don't like atheist,
are bot minding their own interest
Some would say that is always stupid:)
Your extreme cognitive dissonance combined with appalling ignorance of history,
economics and political science
Which would you like to discuss?
"History, economics or political science?
Let's do history.
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, French Revolution, Vietnam, military mutinies.
Let's discuss the things the leaders have in common and also what the
followers have in common.
D'ya' wanna?
that is a confusing range of subjects!
Three persons (leaders I suppose), an event, a country, and a group of
similar event. I have no Idea how many military mutinees there have
been en where they were.
The leaders would have in common that they were leading,
the folowers would have in common, that they were following.
What about the differences?
Lenin was an idealist,
Stalin was a egoist
Hitler was crazty.
The french revolution was copying the American revolution
Vietnam won a war against america
Military mutinees, are called revolutions or coups, when succesfull.
I suppose you find 6 other NG's to discuss all that:)
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen
Materialist#1
Oktober 2004
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Some tips for so-called "atheist republicans" in the US. |
02 Nov 2004 06:51:05 PM |
|
|
On 2 Nov 2004 05:37:54 -0800, (Peter van Velzen)
wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote in message news:<6vfdo05uh7ocldoh67mfgndo5g0ctfhvcd@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:12:05 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Mind your heads as you board the cattle cars without a struggle and
head to your concentration camps. Know that by pushing a button to vote
for bush you are turning on the flow of zyklon B in the showers of the
gas chambers Bush has built for you.
Lol!
At least we real atheists, have the courage and intellect to fight
against the theocratic depravities of George W. Bush.
Gee, I support Bush and still feel like an atheist.
Well you may support Bush,
but if you are an atheist
he is doubtlessly not supporting you.
Interesting...how exactly should, or could he support atheists
specifically?
I don't have an "atheist" agenda myself.
And other than sporadic incidences I don't feel threatened by
believers.
Except for radical muslims of course.
Bush is supporting me in other ways.
If you think Kerry is no better,
why didn't you vote for Nader?
Because I believe Bush is the best man for the job.
<Do you understand the definition of atheism?>
And it takes a lot more courage in a.a. to support Bush than to speak
against him.
Depends on what parties meeting you are at:)
This *has* been the most vicious election I have ever seen.
A group of democrats even attacked a man holding a four year old girl,
ripping a Bush banner from her hands and tearing it apart.
I saved the photo.
The poor, innocent little creature is sitting on her father's
shoulders crying.
Several local republican campaign headquarters have been attacked, a
couple of them shot at, at least a couple burglarised and republican
campaign workers have been physically attacked.
Of course that's the price we pay for the vicious rhetoric.
Btw, by what means did you aquire the power or authority to declare
atheists to be non-atheists because they don't support you
politically?
Isn't that a bit like George senior declaring atheists to be
non-citizens?
You would make a really good Stalinist or Nazi.
No he wouldn't.
Why not?
He uses the same language and describes those who do not agree with
him in the same terms.
If you did have a following it probably wouldn't be long before you
would be killing your political opponents along with all the believers
you could get your hands on.
Why do you think atheists who have a different view of things than you
are stupid?
I guess he thinks Atheist who support those that don't like atheist,
are bot minding their own interest
Some would say that is always stupid:)
I have greater concerns that have an effect on a lot more people than
me.
Your extreme cognitive dissonance combined with appalling ignorance of history,
economics and political science
Which would you like to discuss?
"History, economics or political science?
Let's do history.
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, French Revolution, Vietnam, military mutinies.
Let's discuss the things the leaders have in common and also what the
followers have in common.
D'ya' wanna?
that is a confusing range of subjects!
And all incredibly interesting imo.
Three persons (leaders I suppose), an event, a country, and a group of
similar event. I have no Idea how many military mutinees there have
been en where they were.
Many, many.
There are similarities between mutinees and most other radical
revolutionary actions.
The leaders would have in common that they were leading,
the folowers would have in common, that they were following.
The political mechanics are pretty much the same.
What about the differences?
There are differences in outcome but not so much in causes.
Lenin was an idealist,
Stalin was a egoist
Hitler was crazty.
The french revolution was copying the American revolution
Vietnam won a war against america
Military mutinees, are called revolutions or coups, when succesfull.
I suppose you find 6 other NG's to discuss all that:)
The man claimed I don't know anything about history, economics or a
number of other things because I am not politically in lockstep with
him.
That's just silly.
atheist@home#1554
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen
Materialist#1
Oktober 2004
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter van Velzen" |
|
| Title: Re: Some tips for so-called "atheist republicans" in the US. |
03 Nov 2004 09:56:21 AM |
|
|
Snip some of the previeus text.
Gee, I support Bush and still feel like an atheist.
Well you may support Bush,
but if you are an atheist
he is doubtlessly not supporting you.
Interesting...how exactly should, or could he support atheists
specifically?
I don't have an "atheist" agenda myself.
And other than sporadic incidences I don't feel threatened by
believers.
Except for radical muslims of course.
Bush is supporting me in other ways.
If you think Kerry is no better,
why didn't you vote for Nader?
Because I believe Bush is the best man for the job.
This is the think I do not understand, though apperantly half the
American population thinks that way. There is hardly any data that
supports that idea.
Comparing America during Clintons reign with America during Bushes,
about everything seems to have gotten worse.
Unless you have a lot of oil-stock,
I fail to see what you like in the man.
Maybe you supports some of his goals,
you can hardy support his acheivemenst, or can you.
Pleas tell me.
I will listen.
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen
Materialist#1
November 2004
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Some tips for so-called "atheist republicans" in the US. |
04 Nov 2004 02:27:38 PM |
|
|
On 3 Nov 2004 07:56:21 -0800, (Peter van Velzen)
wrote:
Snip some of the previeus text.
Gee, I support Bush and still feel like an atheist.
Well you may support Bush,
but if you are an atheist
he is doubtlessly not supporting you.
Interesting...how exactly should, or could he support atheists
specifically?
I don't have an "atheist" agenda myself.
And other than sporadic incidences I don't feel threatened by
believers.
Except for radical muslims of course.
Bush is supporting me in other ways.
If you think Kerry is no better,
why didn't you vote for Nader?
Because I believe Bush is the best man for the job.
This is the think I do not understand, though apperantly half the
American population thinks that way. There is hardly any data that
supports that idea.
Comparing America during Clintons reign with America during Bushes,
about everything seems to have gotten worse.
Bush inherited a different set of circumstances.
And as with any presidency there is also quite a bit of politically
generated myth surrounding Clinton.
Both parties in America get far too much credit for some things and
far too much blame for others.
As for Bush, there is a long term hope that if we are able to help
spread democratic ideas in the mideast the future for all nations will
be better for it.
Bush is strong on *real* education for America's youth rather than
touchy feely social engineering and political indoctrintion.
He has not sold his soul to the teachers unions who keep screaming for
more money for the same failed programs that have placed America's
children inexcusably low on the scale of education compared to many,
if not most other nations.
Bush also wants to give Americans the right to take some of the money
government takes from us in social security taxes and let citizens
invest it themselves while government takes enough to guarantee basic
benefits.
Bush also wants to allow citizens to keep more of their hard earned
money which is a concept most government worshipping democrat
activists just can't understand.
Unless you have a lot of oil-stock,
I fail to see what you like in the man.
Well if you are going to throw up the tired old "everything for oil"
argument why don't you just add the words Enron and Haliburton?
Those are three twords that democrats who got their political degrees
from Pavlov University bark everytime the word republican comes up.
<Not a reference to you btw>
It's the same basic political argument as "Yeah, but just look at the
economy" when anybody brings up Clinton's extreme failures as
president.
The only answer I could ever get during Clinton's entire
administration to the question "What did Clinton do to create that
"great economy" was from two folks who said "he didn't ***** it up,"
which of course could only mean that he didn't "***** up" something he
inherited from someone else.
Btw, it wasn't that he didn't try to "***** it up," it's that
republicans didn't allow him to.
On the other hand republicans can take a great deal of the blame for
allowing him to decimate the military so he could brag to his
followers about the surplus it helped to create.
Maybe you supports some of his goals,
you can hardy support his acheivemenst, or can you.
Pleas tell me.
I will listen.
The two savage regimes he has overthrown means something to the people
who were suffering under them while it may not mean much to fat and
sassy self centered Americans.
At least those folks have some hope now.
His global war on terrorists has helped the rest of the world though
they haven't been totally eliminated yet.
His tax cuts, while not quite enough helped a bit.
His education programs will help in the long term I believe.
We can't conceivably know at this point what good or bad will
eventually come because of the things Bush is doing.
atheist@home#1554
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen
Materialist#1
November 2004
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter van Velzen" |
|
| Title: Re: Some tips for so-called "atheist republicans" in the US. |
09 Nov 2004 08:13:19 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<i52lo01d3emsuu1qllqq1mr8v92jjvens3@4ax.com>...
On 3 Nov 2004 07:56:21 -0800, (Peter van Velzen)
wrote:
Snip some of the previeus text.
Gee, I support Bush and still feel like an atheist.
Well you may support Bush,
but if you are an atheist
he is doubtlessly not supporting you.
Interesting...how exactly should, or could he support atheists
specifically?
I don't have an "atheist" agenda myself.
And other than sporadic incidences I don't feel threatened by
believers.
Except for radical muslims of course.
Bush is supporting me in other ways.
If you think Kerry is no better,
why didn't you vote for Nader?
Because I believe Bush is the best man for the job.
This is the think I do not understand, though apperantly half the
American population thinks that way. There is hardly any data that
supports that idea.
Comparing America during Clintons reign with America during Bushes,
about everything seems to have gotten worse.
Bush inherited a different set of circumstances.
And as with any presidency there is also quite a bit of politically
generated myth surrounding Clinton.
Both parties in America get far too much credit for some things and
far too much blame for others.
As for Bush, there is a long term hope that if we are able to help
spread democratic ideas in the mideast the future for all nations will
be better for it.
Bush is strong on *real* education for America's youth rather than
touchy feely social engineering and political indoctrintion.
He has not sold his soul to the teachers unions who keep screaming for
more money for the same failed programs that have placed America's
children inexcusably low on the scale of education compared to many,
if not most other nations.
Bush also wants to give Americans the right to take some of the money
government takes from us in social security taxes and let citizens
invest it themselves while government takes enough to guarantee basic
benefits.
Bush also wants to allow citizens to keep more of their hard earned
money which is a concept most government worshipping democrat
activists just can't understand.
Unless you have a lot of oil-stock,
I fail to see what you like in the man.
Well if you are going to throw up the tired old "everything for oil"
argument why don't you just add the words Enron and Haliburton?
Those are three twords that democrats who got their political degrees
from Pavlov University bark everytime the word republican comes up.
<Not a reference to you btw>
It's the same basic political argument as "Yeah, but just look at the
economy" when anybody brings up Clinton's extreme failures as
president.
The only answer I could ever get during Clinton's entire
administration to the question "What did Clinton do to create that
"great economy" was from two folks who said "he didn't ***** it up,"
which of course could only mean that he didn't "***** up" something he
inherited from someone else.
Btw, it wasn't that he didn't try to "***** it up," it's that
republicans didn't allow him to.
On the other hand republicans can take a great deal of the blame for
allowing him to decimate the military so he could brag to his
followers about the surplus it helped to create.
Maybe you supports some of his goals,
you can hardy support his acheivemenst, or can you.
Pleas tell me.
I will listen.
The two savage regimes he has overthrown means something to the people
who were suffering under them while it may not mean much to fat and
sassy self centered Americans.
At least those folks have some hope now.
His global war on terrorists has helped the rest of the world though
they haven't been totally eliminated yet.
His tax cuts, while not quite enough helped a bit.
His education programs will help in the long term I believe.
We can't conceivably know at this point what good or bad will
eventually come because of the things Bush is doing.
atheist@home#1554
Do I deduct correctly that:
1. You prefer lower taxes and higher military expenses and do not mind
the
goverment being in dept so much.
2. You think it is worthwhile to sacrifice over 1000 american en tens
of thousands non-amercan lifes to tople a dictator.
3. Although some of Bushes policies have not proven themselve, ypu
have hope they will do so in the future?
4. You think there is less terrorism in the world now than there was
four years ago?
Please correct me if I am mistaken.
although of little consequence as I am no American
I do not agree with you on 1 en 4, and have doubts on 2 en 3. (I do
hope you are right about them)
Anyone Congratulations!
Your man has won.
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen
Materialist#1
November 2004
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
