Post-Election Fun

[BPSCG]

So much (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/) for banishing the wackos as the public face of the Democratic party (warning - vulgar language, images, and sentiments).

BTW, what's with the upper-case "A" inside a circle (or is it an "O")? Is it supposed to be some new take on the international peace symbol?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by BPSCG
BTW, what's with the upper-case "A" inside a circle (or is it an "O")? Is it supposed to be some new take on the international peace symbol?

Anarchy

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by BPSCG
BTW, what's with the upper-case "A" inside a circle (or is it an "O")? Is it supposed to be some new take on the international peace symbol?

It's supposed to stand for "Anarchy (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Anarchist%20symbols)".

"Vulgar sentiments" :)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Matabiri
"Vulgar sentiments" :) Yeah, well normally, I'd be recharging my rhetorical flamethrower, but I was feeling in a charitable mood.

"F##k Middle America"

"Bush = Satan" - Notice how the guy holding the sign has a ruddy complexion, red hair, and a pointy beard? Too bad he's wearing a hood so we can't say for sure whether or not he has horns...

"Immigrants Against Democracy" - Would someone please explain to me what this nutjob's point is? I mean, okay, I understand he digs anarchy, but if that's the case, why doesn't he emigrate?

"F##K" - Okay, if you're offering. How much?

"After the effigy was burnt to a crisp, the evening came to a shattering conclusion as the protesters ignited an upside-down American flag and cheered in ecstasy while the flames leaped into the night sky. 'Nuff said.

[Snide]

Originally posted by BPSCG
So much (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/) for banishing the wackos as the public face of the Democratic party (warning - vulgar language, images, and sentiments).

Don't you hate when Michael Moore cherry picks to prove that all Republicans are bad?

[zakur]

Originally posted by BPSCG
So much (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/) for banishing the wackos as the public face of the Democratic party (warning - vulgar language, images, and sentiments). These demonstrators appear to be anarchists, not members of the Democratic Party. Unless, of course, you are privy to some additional information about the individuals pictured here. If so, please do enlighten us.

Or do you automatically equate "Bush haters" with "Democratic Party?" Such an irrational view is beneath you.

[DaChew]

Originally posted by Snide
Don't you hate when Michael Moore cherry picks to prove that all Republicans are bad?

I would certainly hate it a lot less if the events Mr. Moore cherry picks were even a tenth as common as the scenes in BPSCG's link. Unfortunately, you would be hard pressed to find a leftist demonstration these days that did not include these folks. Like it or not, they are becoming the face of the left and by association the Democrats. Pity.

[DaChew]

Originally posted by zakur
Or do you automatically equate "Bush haters" with "Democratic Party?" Such an irrational view is beneath you.

Al Gore already did that for us. In a speech that was widely applauded by some here for it's passion, Gore called the Bush Administration "Brown Shirts".

Or am I automatically equating Al Gore with "Democratic Party"?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by DaChew
Or am I automatically equating Al Gore with "Democratic Party"?

Alan Keyes. 9-11 occured because of abortion. Republican.

I think the parties can match each other loon for loon. They cancel each other out in that area.

[Snide]

Originally posted by DaChew
Like it or not, they are becoming the face of the left and by association the Democrats.

In your mind, and weak-thinkers'.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Snide
Don't you hate when Michael Moore cherry picks to prove that all Republicans are bad? I didn't cherry-pick them. I just picked the ones that were easiest to make mock of. What fun!

That having been said, I have to admit to carelessness on my part; nowhere in the link does it say these guys are Democrats.

But you have to admit, Michael Moore would fit right in. In fact, can you say for sure this isn't him in the scruffy coat behind the sign?

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/142-4271_IMG.JPG

ETA: But these guys claim to be Democrats... (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=116676)

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by BPSCG
But you have to admit, Michael Moore would fit right in. In fact, can you say for sure this isn't him in the scruffy coat behind the sign?

Moore's sign would be a) much more inflammatory, and b) of much higher quality construction. The man is a professional; I doubt he would really take to the streets with a magic-marker-and-cardboard sign. And most of all c) can you imagine he'd actually allow a photo that didn't include his face?

[Richard G]

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/142-4245_IMG.JPG
I support this message.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BPSCG
BTW, what's with the upper-case "A" inside a circle (or is it an "O")? Is it supposed to be some new take on the international peace symbol?

What planet are you from?

[Tony]

One thing I dont get about the Black Block. They want revolution. Ok. They want to cause chaos and mayhem. Cool. They hate authority and attack cops. Awesom. So why the hell don't they get serious about it? Why do they resort to rock throwing, tossing fire crackers and trashing McDonald's? It seems that if they were serious about revolution and such they would be bringing guns and serious hardware to these "demonstrations". For this reason, I have a hard time taking them seriously.


I support this message.
http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/143-4324_IMG.JPG

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Tony
One thing I dont get about the Black Block. They want revolution. Ok. They want to cause chaos and mayhem. Cool. They hate authority and attack cops. Awesom. So why the hell don't they get serious about it? Why do they resort to rock throwing, tossing fire crackers and trashing McDonald's? It seems that if they were serious about revolution and such they would be bringing guns and serious hardware to these "demonstrations". For this reason, I have a hard time taking them seriously.

A couple of reasons.

#1, they have really wacked ideas of what "serious" means.
#2, it's rather difficult to afford Ak-47s when your primary source of income is the Starbucks or McDonald's you're currently throwing a rock into.
#3, sometimes they're provocateurs.

[Snide]

Originally posted by BPSCG
But you have to admit, Michael Moore would fit right in. In fact, can you say for sure this isn't him in the scruffy coat behind the sign?

Interesting...could be. :)

But seriously, that sign isn't so bad. I can see a Republican doing something similar had Kerry won, and I don't think the left would have been justified in lumping the sign-holder in with a few fringe crazies.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Looks to me like a bunch of citizens exercising their first amendment right to free speech and expression. Not unlike the swiftie boaties crowd.

Charlie (I miss SF) Monoxide

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
And most of all c) can you imagine he'd actually allow a photo that didn't include his face? He should...

Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry falls asleep on the subway, wakes up to see the fat guy sitting across the aisle from him has taken all his clothes off and all the other passengers are standing 'way over on the other end of the car. Jerry suggests the guy's lack of proper attire is inappropriate in this setting.

FAT NAKED GUY: "Hey, I'm not ashamed of my body!"
JERRY: "You see, that's the problem. You should be."

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Tony
What planet are you from? Sorry - I guess I don't have enough anarchist friends.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Yeah, well normally, I'd be recharging my rhetorical flamethrower, but I was feeling in a charitable mood.

Hey, I was amused by your phrasing.

But to play devil's advocate, doesn't it concern you, slightly, that your president provokes such strong reactions from his own people? Or that, having provoked such reactions, he claims to have a "mandate"?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Matabiri
But to play devil's advocate, doesn't it concern you, slightly, that your president provokes such strong reactions from his own people? No - it concerns me that these people are allowed to breed.*

Honestly, am I supposed to be concerned because people who consider "F##K" and "Bush = Satan" to be advanced intellectal discourse disapprove of Bush? "Bush = Satan" is on the same intellectual plane as "You're a stupid doodiehead," except that the latter is what you hear from a five-year-old on the playground**. And hell, I routinely read where my entire country has been denounced as Satan, so why should the same opinion from some three-milliwatter living in his mommy's basement vex me?Or that, having provoked such reactions, he claims to have a "mandate"? You will search in vain for his having made that claim, though some people who get paid for their opinions in the newspapers and on TV claim he has it. What he said was that he's earned "political capital," which is not the same thing. A mandate is broad and deep support - it's what you have when you've earned a lot of political capital. Bush's support is deep, certainly, but 52% is not broad.

In any case, even if he had won 60% of the popular vote and carried 49 states, these moonbats would still be out on the streets, arguing "F##K." Are you arguing that even then, he would have no mandate?

* That's a joke, son. Normally, I wouldn't have to explain that, but in this atmosphere, someone would jump on it as "proof" that Republicans favor forced sterilization or Soylent Green or something...
** As well as some of the more combustible writers here...

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
So why the hell don't they get serious about it?[/img]

<Tongue_in_cheek>
Maybe they remember what happened last time they did?

http://www.hpsd48.ab.ca/kinuso/Trench%20Warfare.jpg


(Edited to fix typo.)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by BPSCG
And hell, I routinely read where my entire country has been denounced as Satan, so why should the same opinion from some three-milliwatter living in his mommy's basement vex me?

It shouldn't - so why does it?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by BPSCG
You will search in vain for his having made that claim, though some people who get paid for their opinions in the newspapers and on TV claim he has it.

Well, if not him, at least members of his administration.

"The Philadelphia Inquirer noted that in introducing Mr Bush to the victory rally, Vice-President Dick Cheney said the White House had a new "mandate" to rule, though the president did not use that word."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3983273.stm )

In any case, even if he had won 60% of the popular vote and carried 49 states, these moonbats would still be out on the streets, arguing "F##K." Are you arguing that even then, he would have no mandate?

I don't know about these people, but I, personally, would accept 60% popular support, particularly for an incumbent, as demonstrative of a mandate.

* That's a joke, son. Normally, I wouldn't have to explain that, but in this atmosphere, someone would jump on it as "proof" that Republicans favor forced sterilization or Soylent Green or something...

I wouldn't worry. Satire (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html) is alive and well on this side of the Atlantic.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
<Tongue_in_cheek>
Maybe they remember what happened last time they did?



Huh?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tony
Huh?

My memory was playing tricks on me - for some reason I thought the assassination of archduke Ferdinand had anarchist ties. Not so.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by BPSCG
BTW, what's with the upper-case "A" inside a circle (or is it an "O")? Is it supposed to be some new take on the international peace symbol?

Isn't it funny the gaps we each have in our knowledge? :D

Try this (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/sex-pistols/123568.html) for fun. Edited to add: It was one of my wife's favorite songs when she was younger, and she still can do a pretty good rendition of it.

[gnome]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I didn't cherry-pick them. I just picked the ones that were easiest to make mock of. What fun!

What's the difference between that and cherry-picking?

I agree with what was said before, I think it's easy to match loon-for-loon. You can't get a good impression of either party by comparing extremists.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by gnome
What's the difference between that and cherry-picking?You want me to go get the rest? I mean, how hard can it be to ridicule someone holding up a sign that says "F--K Middle America"?
I agree with what was said before, I think it's easy to match loon-for-loon. You can't get a good impression of either party by comparing extremists. Okay, show me the pictures of the right-wing loons demonstrating on the streets with their signs and banners proclaiming "Kerry = Satan", "I'm Ashamed To Be An American", "No Blood For North Korea", "No To War For Socialist Welfare Stateism", and the like.

C'mon - loon-for-loon. Warning: I have a large stockpile.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, show me the pictures of the right-wing loons demonstrating on the streets with their signs and banners proclaiming "Kerry = Satan", "I'm Ashamed To Be An American", "No Blood For North Korea", "No To War For Socialist Welfare Stateism", and the like.

I'd say that the "purple heart bandages" at the Republican convention were in the same vein. In fact, I think they're a lot worse, if more elegantly stated. My grandfather served in three wars and got his Purple Heart, and didn't think it at all amusing to mock that. He's very much Republican, btw. But he also has a sense of decency, unlike the bandage-wearers.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BPSCG

Okay, show me the pictures of the right-wing loons demonstrating on the streets with their signs and banners proclaiming "Kerry = Satan", "I'm Ashamed To Be An American", "No Blood For North Korea", "No To War For Socialist Welfare Stateism", and the like.


No need to show any pictures. Just go to any tongue speaking, snake handling church on Sunday and you'll see Bush's core constituency engaging in all kinds of lunacy.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by BPSCG

In any case, even if he had won 60% of the popular vote and carried 49 states, these moonbats would still be out on the streets, arguing "F##K." Are you arguing that even then, he would have no mandate?
Personally I'd say that the election results are a poor measure of whether a president has a mandate. Approval ratings would IMO be better, approval ratings show whether people approve (within the limitations of all polls of course), elections simply show whether they think the president is a lesser idiot than the challenger, or alternatively which of two great, intelligent, patriotic etc. etc. people is better. If Michael Moore ran against Adolph Hitler he'd probably win in a landslide, would you consider that a mandate for MM to implement all of his pet policies?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Personally I'd say that the election results are a poor measure of whether a president has a mandate. Approval ratings would IMO be better, approval ratings show whether people approve (within the limitations of all polls of course), elections simply show whether they think the president is a lesser idiot than the challenger, or alternatively which of two great, intelligent, patriotic etc. etc. people is better. If Michael Moore ran against Adolph Hitler he'd probably win in a landslide, would you consider that a mandate for MM to implement all of his pet policies? Phony assumption. You make the assumption that Michael Moore and Adolf Hitler could somehow get through the winnowing-out process we call primaries and caucuses. In fact, people with Moore's and Hitler's views do run in the primaries, and if you want to see how they did, you have to look at the final tabulations under "Other Candidates", where you see a number like 19 and percentages like 0.03%.

So, yes, when 60% of the nation's voters support a candidate, I do call that a mandate. Approval polls? I recall the words of 19th century Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton: "I despise the bubble popularity..."

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Phony assumption. You make the assumption that Michael Moore and Adolf Hitler could somehow get through the winnowing-out process we call primaries and caucuses. In fact, people with Moore's and Hitler's views do run in the primaries, and if you want to see how they did, you have to look at the final tabulations under "Other Candidates", where you see a number like 19 and percentages like 0.03%.

Only I never made that assumption. The Hitler vs. Michael Moore example was simply taking a situation which does happen to its extreme, your objection to this extreme, is no more relevant to the point, than saying Hitler can't run because he's not American and dead. The fact is that the lesser of two evils voting does take place, as anybody who reads this forum can see.

Originally posted by BPSCG
So, yes, when 60% of the nation's voters support a candidate, I do call that a mandate.
You don't know that 60 % of the nations voter supports him, you simply know that 60 % of the nation voters think he's better/a lesser evil than the other guy.
Originally posted by BPSCG
Approval polls? I recall the words of 19th century Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton: "I despise the bubble popularity..."
Elections represent bubble popularity as well; it simply reflects popularity at election time. Sure there has been a campaign and voters are presumably more interested and thus informed around election time, but you could look at approval ratings around election time.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Only I never made that assumption. The Hitler vs. Michael Moore example was simply taking a situation which does happen to its extremeI have to repeat, it does not. Extremist, fringe candidates simply do not succeed in this country. In Europe, maybe, where you have parliamentary systems, fringe candidates may get a seat or two out of a couple of hundred, but in the U.S., they simply don't get elected. There are no members of the American Nazi party or its ilk in Congress, no Communists, no fascists, no Lyndon LaRouche "Democrats" (don't ask - he's a serious moonbat), in short, the extremists represent nobody but themselves.

You don't know that 60 % of the nations voter supports him, you simply know that 60 % of the nation voters think he's better/a lesser evil than the other guy. Sure. By that measure, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan had no mandates.

A mandate is what you make of it, and whether you make anything of it or not depends on whether you lead or not. A president who takes the rectal temperature of the electorate every five minutes is going to be paralyzed, regardless of his popularity at the polls. And a president who can tell the country, "This is where I want to go, here's why we need to do this, here's how I want to do it, and I want you, the voters, to come with me" is going to be a leader even with a paper-thin margin of victory.
Elections represent bubble popularity as well; it simply reflects popularity at election time. Sure there has been a campaign and voters are presumably more interested and thus informed around election time, but you could look at approval ratings around election time. You get approval ratings the second Tuesday every November.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, show me the pictures of the right-wing loons demonstrating on the streets with their signs and banners proclaiming "Kerry = Satan", "I'm Ashamed To Be An American", "No Blood For North Korea", "No To War For Socialist Welfare Stateism", and the like.

C'mon - loon-for-loon. Warning: I have a large stockpile.

There is bottom-up loonyism and then there is top-down loonyism. An example of the latter is

Bush's own RNC did a mass-mailing to churchgoing voters in Arkansas and West Virginia warning that if churchgoers did not vote Republican in November, the godless "liberals" (read: Democrats) would ban the Bible from American life. cite (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/faith/)

I will concede that the loony left does parade around outside much more than the loony right. But remember, the loony right also includes people who think that their owning rifles and handguns is the primary reason the New World Order doesn't subjugate the American public.

[csense]

Originally posted by Ladewig
There is bottom-up loonyism and then there is top-down loonyism. An example of the latter is

cite (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/faith/)



You know, after reading your post, you piqued my interest as to this top-down loonyism, so I read the article. It 's pretty scathing toward the Republicans and starts thus:


In early 1993, Washington Post reporter Michael Weisskopf wrote a front-page story that characterized the followers of conservative church leaders Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as being " largely poor, uneducated and easy to command." Both Weisskopf and the Post were rightly criticized for publishing that unfair, offensive smear, especially by conservatives who introduced the Post quote as Exhibit A to prove that the liberal, secular press was full of elitists who mocked church-goers.


Then continues with:

Now in the campaign of 2004 we have an even more dramatic example revealing the utter contempt and disdain in which powerful Washington leaders privately hold those voters these same leaders publicly praise as "people of faith." But this time, the offending individuals and institution are the not liberal press or the elite media. No they are President George W. Bush, his closest political advisor Karl Rove and the Republican National Committee, which the Bush White House totally controls.

Now after having stated the terms of argument, we have these admonitions from representatives of the Demcratic Party:

Democratic senator, Robert Byrd: "The Republican National Committee is spreading this tripe to smear Democrats, and the president ought to demand that the Republican National Committee apologize to the people of West Virginia."

Democratic Senanor, Blanche Lincoln: "I hope that there will be an apology for their claims that Democrats want to ban the Bible and the inference that Democrats for some reason cannot have a faith as close or as deeply held as the other party."
"I find (these tactics) to be the pits, the absolute bottom of what is wrong in the political process"

The author of the article himself characterizes Bush, Rove, and the Republicans in general of being vicious and dishonest, adding "just how bigoted and ignorant do George Bush and Karl Rove think that churchgoing voters of Arkansas and West Virginia really are?"


He ends the article with this:

Yes, the direct-mail smear is both dirty politics and the ruthlessly deceitful manipulation of religion for selfish and base reasons. But what remains long after the outrage is the sickening realization of the pervasive cynicism that moved the Bush political operation to write, produce and distribute this letter that so totally disrespects the intelligence and judgment of the Christian, churchgoing voters to whom it was sent. Let us hope that this is not an extension of President Bush's "faith-based" campaign.

It does make you wonder exactly how bigoted and how ignorant Republican political leaders personally judge the Christians of West Virginia and Arkansas to be.


Funny thing is though, in all of this, the only quote mentioned from the letter is this: "liberals"

Now why do you think that is.....

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I have to repeat, it does not. Extremist, fringe candidates simply do not succeed in this country.

And I repeat you misunderstand what I'm saying, the Hitler vs. Moore was an extreme example, what could in theory happe, not what actually happens, but the phenomenon in itself is not a theoretical possibility it happens, it happened this very election. Lot's of people didn't vote for Bush or Kerry they voted against Bush or kerry. Anybody who followed this election knows that. How is voting against the other guy a mandate?

Originally posted by BPSCG
In Europe, maybe, where you have parliamentary systems, fringe candidates may get a seat or two out of a couple of hundred, but in the U.S., they simply don't get elected.
That's not an issue of parliamentary/presidential system that's an issue of proportional/first past the post systems.

Originally posted by BPSCG
There are no members of the American Nazi party or its ilk in Congress, no Communists, no fascists, no Lyndon LaRouche "Democrats" (don't ask - he's a serious moonbat), in short, the extremists represent nobody but themselves.
You're still misunderstanding me, I know who LaRouche is BTW. I attended a meting about the American election, and got a paper written by LaRouche entitled "Convict him or kill him - The Night they came to kill me" Fascinating reading.
Originally posted by BPSCG
Sure. By that measure, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan had no mandates.
That doesn't in any shape or form follow from what I said. I simply said that you cannot deduce whether they have a mandate solely from their election results. BTW Reagan AFAIR had the second highest average approval rating of any American president ever

Originally posted by BPSCG
A mandate is what you make of it, and whether you make anything of it or not depends on whether you lead or not. A president who takes the rectal temperature of the electorate every five minutes is going to be paralyzed, regardless of his popularity at the polls. And a president who can tell the country, "This is where I want to go, here's why we need to do this, here's how I want to do it, and I want you, the voters, to come with me" is going to be a leader even with a paper-thin margin of victory.
Which makes the entire discussion of whether somebody has a mandate pointless.
Originally posted by BPSCG
You get approval ratings the second Tuesday every November.
I know when you have elections, but election wise there's no difference between 51% and 100% of the vote. BTW don’t you only have elections every second year?

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by csense
You know, after reading your post, you piqued my interest as to this top-down loonyism, so I read the article. It 's pretty scathing toward the Republicans and starts thus:
[snip]

Funny thing is though, in all of this, the only quote mentioned from the letter is this: "liberals"

Now why do you think that is.....

My mistake for grabbing the first responses when Googling.

Here's a better citation for the same example of top-down lunacy.

CBS quotes a NY Times article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/24/politics/main645393.shtml)

...The literature shows a Bible with the word "BANNED" across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word "ALLOWED." The mailing tells West Virginians to "vote Republican to protect our families" and defeat the "liberal agenda."

The Times said RNC spokeswoman Christine Iverson had confirmed that the GOP had sent out the mailings.

I consider claiming that the Democrats will ban the Bible just about as absurd as the "oil pimp" sign.


..................
I stand by my statement: both sides have people willing to say kooky things, but the left is more willing to say them while marching in public.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, show me the pictures of the right-wing loons demonstrating on the streets with their signs and banners proclaiming "Kerry = Satan", "I'm Ashamed To Be An American", "No Blood For North Korea", "No To War For Socialist Welfare Stateism", and the like.

C'mon - loon-for-loon. Warning: I have a large stockpile. A more apt image (as I noted in another thread) would be to compare your stockpile with that compiled in regard to Bill (never mind Hillary) Clinton. Yours would be dwarfed.

[csense]

Originally posted by Ladewig

I consider claiming that the Democrats will ban the Bible just about as absurd as the "oil pimp" sign.



I don't know if that's such an absurd idea, Lade.

I've been a member of this forum for over three years and I've seen some people here say some pretty outrageous things, some bordering on just such sentiments.

Consider the following thread entitled Brain damaged children..



"I have a theory-in-process that by force feeding children The Big Lie -- literal beliefs in preposterous religious texts -- that a form of brain damage occurs. And that when a child's mind is warped this badly, that he/she is from then on incapable of discerning reality."

"The enemy is fundamentalism -- Islamic, Christian, or otherwise. And from this moment forward, I am on a counter-jihad. I am going to alert children to the brain damage being inflicted on them by their well intended, brain damaged parents."

"And all I can say is, Ed help the rest of the country, because religion sure as hell is prevelant here. I live in a small community and have been silent (except anonymously) because I didn't want to hurt my kids by offending their friends' parents. No more. The only way I can tolerate living in this country is by devoting my life to counter-jihad."

source (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48093)

...and that's just one person, who incidentally professes the desire to write a childrens book regarding this subject. God only knows what it will contain.

Some people here feel we are in the throws of a theocracy, or very close to it....and they sincerely believe this, oddly enough.

I'm sure If I took the time I could find many, many posts here that reflect a militant attitude, to say the least, toward Religion in general, and Christianity/Judaism in particular, and also a professed desire to see both destroyed.

It's not that far of a walk from this forum, to the population in general, and quite possibly politics in particular.

That said, I don't think it's an absurd idea at all...and remember, we're talking about the desire to, not the capacity to, but then again, in politics, the two can be quite indiscernible.

[Ladewig]

csense
I don't know if that's such an absurd idea, Lade.

The name is Ladewig.

csense
I've been a member of this forum for over three years and I've seen some people here say some pretty outrageous things, some bordering on just such sentiments.

Consider the following thread entitled Brain damaged children..



"I have a theory-in-process that by force feeding children The Big Lie -- literal beliefs in preposterous religious texts -- that a form of brain damage occurs. And that when a child's mind is warped this badly, that he/she is from then on incapable of discerning reality."

"The enemy is fundamentalism -- Islamic, Christian, or otherwise. And from this moment forward, I am on a counter-jihad. I am going to alert children to the brain damage being inflicted on them by their well intended, brain damaged parents."

"And all I can say is, Ed help the rest of the country, because religion sure as hell is prevelant here. I live in a small community and have been silent (except anonymously) because I didn't want to hurt my kids by offending their friends' parents. No more. The only way I can tolerate living in this country is by devoting my life to counter-jihad."

source (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48093)

...and that's just one person, who incidentally professes the desire to write a childrens book regarding this subject. God only knows what it will contain.

Some people here feel we are in the throws of a theocracy, or very close to it....and they sincerely believe this, oddly enough.

I'm sure If I took the time I could find many, many posts here that reflect a militant attitude, to say the least, toward Religion in general, and Christianity/Judaism in particular, and also a professed desire to see both destroyed.

And I'm sure that if we opened up the contest to the internet, we more find more anti-atheist posters than anti-religion posters?

csense
It's not that far of a walk from this forum, to the population in general, and quite possibly politics in particular.

What? Not that far a walk from this forum to politics? The distance from this forum to the population in general should be measured in leagues rather than steps. As of October, more than half of Bush supporters believed that Bush favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty and the International Criminal Court. There are no Bush supporters on this board who believe either of those things.

Ten percent of the US population believe that "Iraq was directly involved in 9/11." Does anyone on this board believe that?

Compare the number of Americans who believe that the Ten Commandments should be posted in schools to the number of JREF posters who believe the same thing.

csense
That said, I don't think it's an absurd idea at all...and remember, we're talking about the desire to, not the capacity to, but then again, in politics, the two can be quite indiscernible.

Can you name any Democrat in the past 40 years who has ever even hinted that he had the desire to ban the Bible?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
BPSCG: Okay, show me the pictures of the right-wing loons demonstrating on the streets with their signs and banners proclaiming "Kerry = Satan", "I'm Ashamed To Be An American", "No Blood For North Korea", "No To War For Socialist Welfare Stateism", and the like.

C'mon - loon-for-loon. Warning: I have a large stockpile.
A more apt image (as I noted in another thread) would be to compare your stockpile with that compiled in regard to Bill (never mind Hillary) Clinton. Yours would be dwarfed. Okay, you're on. Show me the pictures of the right-wing loons demonstrating on the streets with their signs and banners proclaiming "Clinton = Satan".

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Show me the pictures of the right-wing loons demonstrating on the streets with their signs and banners proclaiming "Clinton = Satan".

Lol. If Clinton were a mythological figure, he'd look like Silenus but act like Zeus. (Only Io, Europa, and the rest would be what my mother terms "healthy-looking girls" closer to the Venus of Willendorf than anything Praxiteles sculpted!)

Wow, that was an art history flashback moment!

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Lol. If Clinton were a mythological figure, he'd look like Silenus but act like Zeus. (Only Io, Europa, and the rest would be what my mother terms "healthy-looking girls" closer to the Venus of Willendorf than anything Praxiteles sculpted!)So do you visualize Clinton as a swan (Leda) or as a bull (Europa)?