[helene_t]

Good grief. If you think it's in the U.S.' best interest to run the treasury to near-bankrupcy by spending one sixth of the budget on the military, fighting an unwinable war the only concievable purpose of which is to keep a U.S.-friendly government in charge of the oil - fair enough.

But the means it takes to reach such aims - lying to the public, election fraud, illegal wiretapping, torture, censoring the press, censoring academic institutions.

If this is Christian president, I'll rather have a Satanist. Seriously, not joking.

And yes - Clinton may be a horny pervert but that's irrelevant to his qualifications as a president. If Bush does what in his perception is "the right thing" no matter if it's legal or not, it disqualifies him.

[hrothgar]

BebopKid, on Feb 7 2007, 02:42 AM, said:

Fear not.  My earlier comment was not sarcastic.

I frankly don't care how I'm perceived.  I don't have the grand authority to judge others.  Unless they know something I don't, they don't have that authority either.

I pray for democracy and freedom for all.

What an unadulterated load of crap: Lets go and look at a couple of your choice comments from a bit late in this same thread:

>When a Christian man stands up for what's right he's a liar, and when a horny
>pervert commits adultery in a national treasure he's a hero.

>One other thing, everyone who can, please vote for Obama. He's a good,
>devout Christian.

I think that its pretty damn clear that you're judging others. In particular, your world view seems based on a fundamental assumption that being a "good devout Christian" is a sisgnificant characteristic that can be used to judge the qualifications of those seeking political office.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 7 2007, 08:36 AM, said:

As I said does Congress not know this? If they have evidence why do they not begin an impeachment trial?
You do not answer my main point, if Congress has the evidence what are they doing with it? If they do not have the evidence and you do, give it to them.

If you guys are convinced that Bush is a guilty where is Congress and where is the public outrage demanding Congress to have a trial? I just do not see the Public demanding this of Congress or voting Congress out and someone else in.

Is the Public or Congress guilty of a great coverup? You guys seem to say Yes, the American people and Congress are guilty of criminal coverups.

Here are my thoughts:

I think that Bush deserves to be impeached. Very little in life would would give me give me more pleasure than seeing his sorry ass rotting in jail. However, I also recognize that impeachment proceedings would be an enormous waste of time and money. The congress is sharply divided along partisan lines. The Senate was unable to muster enough votes to start floor debate on the various resolutions regarding the Iraq war. I don't think that there is a snowball's chance in hell that you could get impeachment proceedings to move forward through the House.

As I've noted in the past, I want to see the Democrats focusing their time and energy on important issues. Watching impeach move forward would give me personal satisfaction, but I recognize that this is (ultimately) a distraction from what's really important.

With this said and done: I very much hope that the Democratic party is able to build on its current electoral success. A few years down the road, the political calculus may look very different. The American people may have come to recognize the crimes that the Bush administration has committed. The Democrats may have large enough majorities that this type of legislation can actually get passed. I don't see any chance that Bush or Cheney could get impeached retroactively (they'd already be out of office).

However, I'd love to see them handed off to the ICC and tried for War Crimes.

[rona_]

hrothgar, on Feb 7 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

BebopKid, on Feb 7 2007, 02:42 AM, said:

Fear not.  My earlier comment was not sarcastic.

I frankly don't care how I'm perceived.  I don't have the grand authority to judge others.  Unless they know something I don't, they don't have that authority either.

I pray for democracy and freedom for all.

What an unadulterated load of crap: Lets go and look at a couple of your choice comments from a bit late in this same thread:

>When a Christian man stands up for what's right he's a liar, and when a horny
>pervert commits adultery in a national treasure he's a hero.

>One other thing, everyone who can, please vote for Obama. He's a good,
>devout Christian.

I think that its pretty damn clear that you're judging others. In particular, your world view seems based on a fundamental assumption that being a "good devout Christian" is a sisgnificant characteristic that can be used to judge the qualifications of those seeking political office.

Unadulterated load of crap is putting it nicely

George Bush is making a mockery of Christianity. He uses it and abuses it to his politcal advantage.

[Winstonm]

BebopKid, on Feb 7 2007, 01:38 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 7 2007, 12:24 AM, said:

Well Mike, repeatedly lying to the citizens of the country of which he is the leader. Is this not a criminal act?
Condoning torture, is this not a criminal act?
Illegally tapping phones, is this not a criminal act?

There is no evidence Pres. Bush has made any false statements.

There has been no condoning of torture.

There has been no illegal tapping of phones.

When a Christian man stands up for what's right he's a liar, and when a horny pervert commits adultery in a national treasure he's a hero.

There is evidence that Iraq at one time had WMD, which Iraq used WMD on the Kurds. Most likely those are in Syria now.

It is fact that Iraq was not allowing full access to U.N. Inspectors. The U.N. even passed a resolution demanding that Iraq stop deterring inspectors.

Also note, that unlike some people, I have not made a personal judgement about anyone posting on this thread based solely on the value of their opinion.

One other thing, everyone who can, please vote for Obama. He's a good, devout Christian.

Thanks.

So, are you an internet monitor for Homeland Security or DOD?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 7 2007, 12:36 AM, said:

As I said does Congress not know this?  If they have evidence why do they not begin an impeachment trial?
You do not answer my main point, if Congress has the evidence what are they doing with it? If they do not have the evidence and you do, give it to them.

If you guys are convinced that Bush is a guilty where is Congress and where is the public outrage demanding Congress to have a trial?  I just do not  see the Public demanding this of Congress or voting Congress out and someone else in.

Is the Public or Congress guilty of a great coverup? You guys seem to say Yes, the American people and Congress are guilty of  criminal coverups.

Congress is aware - the president publicly admitted ordering illegal wiretaps.
They don't start an impeachment trial because the Speaker of the House stated before taking office that impeachment was off the table.

And there is a public outcry - but you have to search the internet to find it as the MSM isn't talking about it.

And I guess you didn't notice the 10.000 who gathered recently in Washington D.C. to protest the Iraq war.

Besides, Congress right now is involved in extremely important matters affect the whole country - making sure the minimum wage is $7.50 - we want to make sure the poor are compensated for sacrificing their Bill of Rights guarantees.

[Al_U_Card]

When the sands of time have run their course.....Bush will be lumped with the likes of McCarthy.....or worse

[pbleighton]

Bush has committed a war crime: the invasion of Iraq. All wars which are not (narrowly defined) defensive wars are war crimes under the Geneva Conventions.

However, we are complicit in this crime (even those, like myself, who opposed it), and we consequently don't have a sizeable majority in favor of his impeachment. Impeachment isn't just a prosecution, it's a profound political act, reverrsing an election, and shouldn't be undertaken until there is such a sizeable majority.

This may happen, but it is highly unlikely.

Peter

[pbleighton]

"When a Christian man stands up for what's right he's a liar, and when a horny pervert commits adultery in a national treasure he's a hero."

"One other thing, everyone who can, please vote for Obama. He's a good, devout Christian."

Why is the religious status of a President or Presidential candidate relevant to anything?

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Religion is the ultimate refuge of the ignorant.

Believe in your capacity to change and to understand the nature and import of those changes. Believe in the nature of humanity and how even one change for the better is still a change for the better.

Belief in someone else's idea of rules and codes of conduct for others????? Look at how Cheney acts relative to gay people having children to rear.... Hypocrisy is the creed, religion is vehicle.....

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 7 2007, 10:35 AM, said:

Religion is the ultimate refuge of the ignorant.

ignorance of what, exactly?

[Al_U_Card]

Everything important.

Ignorance = the state of not knowing

Intelligence is a measure of the ability to discern and relate. Knowledge is the result that leads to evaluation which provides perspective which results in judgement that engenders consideration.

The ignorant have no consideration of others. Religious ignorance (belief) confers this state to its adherents so that they not only do not challenge the religious authority and structure but they end up not challenging themselves. A true opiate, as it were.

[pbleighton]

"The ignorant have no consideration of others. Religious ignorance (belief) confers this state to its adherents so that they not only do not challenge the religious authority and structure but they end up not challenging themselves. A true opiate, as it were."

This is true of many, not all believers.

Though I hate to admit it, it's also true of some atheists and agnostics

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Sadly, all too true.

The shackles of oppression are often self-imposed....the result is always the same.

Any philosophy that espouses abdication of personal control and responsability is an accident waiting to happen.

[BebopKid]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 7 2007, 10:35 AM, said:

Religion is the ultimate refuge of the ignorant. 

Hypocrisy is the creed, religion is vehicle.....

I believe I have proved my point by the responses to my most recent post.

Thanks to all.

Also, I wish someone would actually cite facts and evidence of crimes or illegal deeds by Bush instead of citing their opinions and misrepresentations.

And don't post it here, take it straight to Congress. Because if such evidence does exist, 2 Democratic houses of Congress will impeach and remove Bush.

BTW, I never said anything bad about other religions. You are mocking me and not the other way around.

Some choose to be ignorant of God. Some don't.

No one is perfect. Everyone is hypocritical. I still have not judged anyone to be unworthy based on my opinions.

In fact the only person I disparaged, was a former President--on that I voted for--by stating a fact. He testified to it and I have no reason to believe that he lied about it.

As a faithful Christian, I don't believe I'm any better than you. I'm not better than Bush. I'm not better than Clinton.

It sounds like some people are better than us, though. Please stand up and take charge. You know exactly what to do to fix everything.
Text in bold is sarcastic.

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 7 2007, 12:01 PM, said:

Ignorance = the state of not knowing

there is a whole school based on the philosophy of knowledge, or epistemology... one of the recognized definitions of knowledge from this school is: a properly basic belief, with warrant, from a sound and functioning mind

to say that religion is a refuge for the ignorant is to, itself, show ignorance as to the nature of belief and of knowledge...

taking your definition of ignorance, and defining religion (for the sake of discussion) as the faith based worship of a deity, do you feel that you are ignorant as to the truth of these claims?

Quote

The ignorant have no consideration of others.  Religious ignorance (belief) confers this state to its adherents so that they not only do not challenge the religious authority and structure but they end up not challenging themselves.  A true opiate, as it were.

since i am ignorant (in this narrow sense we are discussing - i freely admit my ignorance of any number of things), you are saying i have no consideration of others... is this assertion based on knowledge? or is it ignorance, itself?

[pbleighton]

BebopKid:

Once again:

"When a Christian man stands up for what's right he's a liar, and when a horny pervert commits adultery in a national treasure he's a hero."

"One other thing, everyone who can, please vote for Obama. He's a good, devout Christian."

Why is the religious status of a President or Presidential candidate relevant to anything?

I expect a coherent answer from you on this
Text in bold is sarcastic.

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Since we all seem to be of a like mind here, it is clear that the effect of religion (as opposed to say, scientific principles or rational thought) in general is not one of benificence to the practitioner. It seems to have some advantages regarding obliviousness and also towards the material well-being of its leaders and espousers.

Wait a sec.....The industrial revolution....the Spanish inquisition. The renaissance....the crusades. The constitution of the US.....the Salem witch trials.

God REALLY works in mysterious ways....of which I am TOTALLY ignorant unfortunately as I would love to fully understand these aspects of religions of love and forgiveness.

Don't get me wrong. You hold your beliefs and practice your dogma and enjoy your socializing but I gather what with the supposed separation of church and state that used to exist in the US.....perhaps try to not impose it on anyone else systematically.

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Feb 7 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

taking your definition of ignorance, and defining religion (for the sake of discussion) as the faith based worship of a deity, do you feel that you are ignorant as to the truth of these claims?

Quote

The ignorant have no consideration of others.  Religious ignorance (belief) confers this state to its adherents so that they not only do not challenge the religious authority and structure but they end up not challenging themselves.  A true opiate, as it were.

since i am ignorant (in this narrow sense we are discussing - i freely admit my ignorance of any number of things), you are saying i have no consideration of others... is this assertion based on knowledge? or is it ignorance, itself?

Hi J. Sorry to have touched a nerve. This discussion is just that and it is possibly much more relevent to the Christian vs Islam scenario which is playing itself out around the world.

Religion for me has little to do with faith/belief in a diety and much more to do with an organized process of intellectual impoverishment that seeks the control of those that adhere to the particular belief structure. My own particular set of beliefs, while not mainstream, certainly qualifies for the faith part. I avoid the other bit, obviously.

You are certainly not ignorant in a way that has any impact on your consideration of others. This is obvious from your postings. My ignorance is sufficiently extensive that I understand that my only hope is to continue to challenge and investigate in such a way that the knowledge will eventually be forthcoming. It appears to be working.

[mike777]

"...Why is the religious status of a President or Presidential candidate relevant to anything?..."

Peter you are joking yes? Perhaps it should NOT be relevant but show me a viable candidate who says they do not believe in a God? In our lifetime I doubt it.

If a position on religion costs millions of votes I would say it is relevant in a practical sense of the word.

Am I suggesting there is a huge bias against an aethist candidate in this country and almost every country, Yes. Is there bias against some religions in some, almost all, countries including the USA, yes.