Are We Over Falwell Yet?

[LostAngeles]

I mean, can people seriously continue listening to this guy?

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=12741 entitled, "A GRACIOUS CORRECTION OF THE JERUSALEM POST" And it is! Short version: "I love Jews, but they're all going Hell because they don't believe in Jesus." At this rate, I'm going to abandon teaching math and go into Weird Crazy Physics so I can build a dimensional pocket to keep fundies in.

:hb:

Earlier today, reports began circulating across the globe that I have recently stated that Jews can go to heaven without being converted to Jesus Christ. This is categorically untrue.

...

While I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel and dearly love the Jewish people and believe them to be the chosen people of God, I continue to stand on the foundational biblical principle that all people — Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jews, Muslims, etc. — must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to enter heaven.

...

Like the Apostle Paul, I pray daily for the salvation of everyone, including the Jewish people.

[Amapola]

I always felt Jerry Falwell was the most serious argument against becoming a Christian. "You mean you want that guy on your side?? You must be insane."

[Zep]

He's rapidly approaching the Kent Hovind end of the Barking Mad Scale...

[Tricky]

Are We Over Falwell Yet?

Yes. Open bomb bay doors.

[TragicMonkey]

Didn't he out Tinky-Winky?

I'm amazed he lived that down.

[Regnad Kcin]

Are We Over Falwell Yet?

Yes. Open bomb bay doors.Not that's comedy!

[Ausmerican]

The mind boggles at a guy who an state that he believes that the Jews are gods chosen people but they are all going to hell in one breath.

[a_unique_person]

It's that kind of faith that makes him a true xian.

[Manny]

Are We Over Falwell Yet?

Yes. Open bomb bay doors.How about Macho Grande? Are we over that?

[hgc]

The funniest part of the whole thing is how it's self-described as "gracious." This is an indicator of cranial-rectal insertion.

[corplinx]

The sad part is, Falwell took part in a little fraud called "The Clinton Chronicles" but the story didn't catch on. Hence he still pollutes our public discourse instead of being properly shunned into Morton Downey Jr status.

[headscratcher4]

you have to admire anyone who sees the arc of Pat Robertson's career and public credibility and tries to emulate it ...

[Tricky]

How about Macho Grande? Are we over that?
I'm not. I still have my drinking problem ("Ow! My eye!")

[Random]

All too often, a politician will say something biased that gets the PC police in an uproar, and then the politician comes forward to “clarify” his remarks. It’s uncommon that someone comes forward to clarify that they are indeed a bigot.

[Manny]

All too often, a politician will say something biased that gets the PC police in an uproar, and then the politician comes forward to “clarify” his remarks. It’s uncommon that someone comes forward to clarify that they are indeed a bigot.In fairness, his personal preference may be that people of all denominations get into heaven. He believes that God is the bigot.

[LostAngeles]

All too often, a politician will say something biased that gets the PC police in an uproar, and then the politician comes forward to “clarify” his remarks. It’s uncommon that someone comes forward to clarify that they are indeed a bigot.

First, allow me to concede manny's point. And then ask, what's the difference between your jackass version of God being a bigot and you? (Not you, manny or Random. Rhetorical, "you")

So to comment on Random's comment: You're absolutely correct. And it's good when they do clarify that they are a bigot, so that we know, but in Falwell's case, we already knew. We knew hard.

Which is part of why it's like a kick to the stomach to realize that people still listen to the ****tard and ****tards like him.

[rikzilla]

Whaddaya mean? Jerry is theologically correct. Therefore his theology is what is insane and bigotted. Jerry is scary enough on his own...but fundy x-tians really believe all this crap and there are millions of 'em!!! :eek:

Kinda makes you wonder what planet they parked their brains on eh?

-z

[Cleon]

Whaddaya mean? Jerry is theologically correct. Therefore his theology is what is insane and bigotted. Jerry is scary enough on his own...but fundy x-tians really believe all this crap and there are millions of 'em!!! :eek:
And in 2008 they'll be voting for the same guy you will, Rik. :D


(Ok, that was low. However, I regret nothing. ;) )

[Zbu]

He's still alive? Damn it.

[rikzilla]

And in 2008 they'll be voting for the same guy you will, Rik. :D


(Ok, that was low. However, I regret nothing. ;) )

Condi is a guy!!? :eek: Politics sheesh! I knew it was a crying game...but I had no idea it was THE crying game!

-z

[Achán hiNidráne]

Condi is a guy!!? :eek: Politics sheesh! I knew it was a crying game...but I had no idea it was THE crying game!

-z

I fear that in order to get elected, Condi will have to bend over for the Christian Right and submit.

Speaking for myself, in 2008 I'm probably just going to write in "None of the Above," or just stay at home and let the Republi-nazis and the Commie-crats duke it out.

[rikzilla]

I fear that in order to get elected, Condi will have to bend over for the Christian Right and submit.

Speaking for myself, in 2008 I'm probably just going to write in "None of the Above," or just stay at home and let the Republi-nazis and the Commie-crats duke it out.

Ah Mark...I'm almost there with you. I'm so sick of the constant toadying to the fundies that even the righteous slaughtering of Islamofascist bomb-throwers is losing its appeal to me.

The choice seems rather stark to me at this stage. Elect a dem; grab back our bill of rights, rebuild that wall between church and state, regain a deep respect for real science,....and leave every Islamofascist alone to strengthen and plan a bigger, nastier 9/11.

Or elect a repub; repeal roe, teach ID as science, make Christianity the official religion, edit the Bill of Rights, edit the Constitution, and fight the Islamists at every opportunity.

Only that last bit has kept me in the Repub camp....and they've made such a botch job of it that that point is nearly moot. I'm about ready to vote libertarian.

-z

[Solitaire]

you have to admire anyone who sees the arc of Pat Robertson's career and public credibility and tries to emulate it ...
Why he's doing just fine. Robertson Targets Islam (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4805952.stm)

On the programme, the 75-year-old preacher responded to a news item about the reaction of Muslims in Europe to the publishing of cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad. The footage showed Muslims screaming "May Allah bomb you! May Osama Bin Laden bomb you!"

Mr Robertson said the pictures "just shows the kind of people we're dealing with. These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it's motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it's time we recognize what we're dealing with". He went on to say that "Islam is not a religion of peace", and "the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen whether you like it or not, is world domination". Mr Robertson said in a statement later he was referring specifically to terrorists as being motivated by Satan.

[DavidJames]

Elect a dem... and leave every Islamofascist alone to strengthen and plan a bigger, nastier 9/11.
-zThe Dem's, almost unanimously supported Bush's actions directly after 9/11. They also supported invading Iraq, until it because obvious the claims about WMD's, 9/11 connections were wrong and the reasons for invading Iraq were actually related to Saddam being a bad guy.

So, tell me exactly what specific actions the Dems have taken which make you think the Dems will leave "Islamofascist alone to strengthen and plan a bigger, nastier 9/11." Remember, there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.

[Kerberos]

Ah Mark...I'm almost there with you. I'm so sick of the constant toadying to the fundies that even the righteous slaughtering of Islamofascist bomb-throwers is losing its appeal to me.

The choice seems rather stark to me at this stage. Elect a dem; grab back our bill of rights, rebuild that wall between church and state, regain a deep respect for real science,....and leave every Islamofascist alone to strengthen and plan a bigger, nastier 9/11.

Or elect a repub; repeal roe, teach ID as science, make Christianity the official religion, edit the Bill of Rights, edit the Constitution, and fight the Islamists at every opportunity.

Only that last bit has kept me in the Repub camp....and they've made such a botch job of it that that point is nearly moot. I'm about ready to vote libertarian.

-z
So could you explain to me how prosecuting members of Congress who vote the wrong way, and people from federal agencies who you dislike (that is, the IRS) is an improvement in the civil rights area?

[Nyarlathotep]

Jerry Fallwell is a blathering fundy headcase. However, at the rate things are going in this country, in 20 years or so we may look back in nostalgia at the dawn of the 21st century when religious moderates like Jerry Falwell dominated public discourse.

[Random]

The Dem's, almost unanimously supported Bush's actions directly after 9/11. They also supported invading Iraq, until it because obvious the claims about WMD's, 9/11 connections were wrong and the reasons for invading Iraq were actually related to Saddam being a bad guy.

So, tell me exactly what specific actions the Dems have taken which make you think the Dems will leave "Islamofascist alone to strengthen and plan a bigger, nastier 9/11." Remember, there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.
It’s GOP narrative. Convince people that Democrats are soft on Terror, and the actual facts don’t make much of a difference.

It’s like the Carter-Reagan debate. Carter was well versed on a host of issues while Reagan was stumbling around making mistake after mistake. But the public assumed that a professional actor would be a better debater than a peanut farmer, and so the polls showed that Reagan won the debate. People fit the facts to thier preconceived notions.

The GOP has learned from that and instead of pushing their facts or stories, they simply push their narratives and let Americans filter the info. Liberals are irrational Bush haters. Democrats are soft on Terror. Liberals don’t want to monitor alQueda phone calls. Critics don’t support the troops. Etc.

Facts are irrelevant, only the story matters.

[Nyarlathotep]

Facts are irrelevant, only the story matters.

That's true, but it is equally true for both parties. Both parties have enormous strawman version of the other party that they love to beat on. And the public eats it up.

[DavidJames]

That's true, but it is equally true for both parties. Both parties have enormous strawman version of the other party that they love to beat on. And the public eats it up.which is a strawman as well :D

I would hope people here wouldn't simply trot out the strawman, rather point to specifics. I would also hope people here wouldn't simply dismiss such things by simply saying everyone does it.

[Random]

That's true, but it is equally true for both parties. Both parties have enormous strawman version of the other party that they love to beat on. And the public eats it up.
Makes you wonder what politics would be like if human beings were rational animals doesn't it?

[rikzilla]

The Dem's, almost unanimously supported Bush's actions directly after 9/11. They also supported invading Iraq, until it because obvious the claims about WMD's, 9/11 connections were wrong and the reasons for invading Iraq were actually related to Saddam being a bad guy.

So, tell me exactly what specific actions the Dems have taken which make you think the Dems will leave "Islamofascist alone to strengthen and plan a bigger, nastier 9/11." Remember, there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.

So with that last sentence you are saying that there are currently no Islamofascists, AQ, or terrorist enemy of any kind in Iraq? Remember I

What I believe is that there are some Dems who would not only support a cut-and-run policy in Iraq; but would likely even run on one. The party of Feingold, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, and Murtha does not inspire me that my concerns are unfounded. Remember; I did not say that my concern was that the Dems would not avenge the planners of 9/11. I said:
Elect a dem... and leave every Islamofascist alone to strengthen and plan a bigger, nastier 9/11.
-z
..now you may rightly say I was indulging in a bit of hyperbole by using the universal. But other than that this statement represents a real concern for many voters like myself. I've seen the moon-bat left in action quite often here in DC and there are many Dem pols who pander to them. Although I doubt that even a left-leaning Dem president would go completely pascifist on the WOT; I could not realistically rule it out.

David, I fully understand and conceed that there is no credible evidence that Saddam's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks...but this bit of info is yesterday's news. Currently there is a insurgency in Iraq that is at least in part led by elements of AQ. The time-worn mantra from the left that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 is beside the point. We are fighting AQ in both Iraq and Afghanistan right now and they most certainly were behind 9/11.

Live in the now man.
-z

[rikzilla]

So could you explain to me how prosecuting members of Congress who vote the wrong way, and people from federal agencies who you dislike (that is, the IRS) is an improvement in the civil rights area?

I can't find your point....there seem to be all these stray piles of straw in the way....
-z

[DavidJames]

So with that last sentence you are saying that there are currently no Islamofascists, AQ, or terrorist enemy of any kind in Iraq? Remember I

What I believe is that there are some Dems who would not only support a cut-and-run policy in Iraq; but would likely even run on one. The party of Feingold, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, and Murtha does not inspire me that my concerns are unfounded. Remember; I did not say that my concern was that the Dems would not avenge the planners of 9/11. I said:

..now you may rightly say I was indulging in a bit of hyperbole by using the universal. But other than that this statement represents a real concern for many voters like myself. I've seen the moon-bat left in action quite often here in DC and there are many Dem pols who pander to them. Although I doubt that even a left-leaning Dem president would go completely pascifist on the WOT; I could not realistically rule it out.

David, I fully understand and conceed that there is no credible evidence that Saddam's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks...but this bit of info is yesterday's news. Currently there is a insurgency in Iraq that is at least in part led by elements of AQ. The time-worn mantra from the left that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 is beside the point. We are fighting AQ in both Iraq and Afghanistan right now and they most certainly were behind 9/11.

Live in the now man.
-zSo in other words you got nothing to support your claim but the "mantra" that Bush and his ilk are spoon feeding the belivers, k, I understand...

The time-worn mantra from the left that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 is beside the point.This tells everyone what they need to know about your thought process. Bush and the bipartisan 9/11 committee have said the same thing, but you attribute it to the left.

[rikzilla]

It’s GOP narrative. Convince people that Democrats are soft on Terror, and the actual facts don’t make much of a difference.

So then it's all the evil Repubs right? Obviously they are amazingly powerful. The vast right-wing conspiracy is driving the debate and facts don't matter? Sheesh why have elections? Let's just ask the VRWC who won...after all facts don't matter right?

Seriously; the Dems have nothing to do with their own poor image on national security? The Dems have no responsibility to counter the VRWC's memes?? Frankly the "soft on terrorism" tag was well earned by Dems. That's a fact, and it matters a lot.

It’s like the Carter-Reagan debate. Carter was well versed on a host of issues while Reagan was stumbling around making mistake after mistake. But the public assumed that a professional actor would be a better debater than a peanut farmer, and so the polls showed that Reagan won the debate. People fit the facts to thier preconceived notions.

Or perhaps the "great communicator" actually struck a chord with the voting public??? Did that possibility escape you? After all Reagan not only won that debate...he won the subsequent election in a landslide. Yours is obviously NOT the most parsimonious conclusion. Unless of course you have evidence?

The GOP has learned from that and instead of pushing their facts or stories, they simply push their narratives and let Americans filter the info. Liberals are irrational Bush haters. Democrats are soft on Terror. Liberals don’t want to monitor alQueda phone calls. Critics don’t support the troops. Etc.

Well clearly a story is also a "narrative"?? What is wrong with "letting" individual Americans "filter" info? Aren't we always free to do this? After all many liberals actually ARE irrational Bush-haters; here's just one you may know of:
*All... Bush's... ideas... are... bad (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1493414&postcount=35)*
The liberals who irrationally hate Bush are rather vocal...since I don't think that they are stooges of the VRWC...I'd have to say that if liberals do not like to be perceived this way they should avoid ACTING this way.

Dems soft on terror? Must be the fault of the Repugs...
Liberals don't want to monitor phone calls....Again that's the Repugs right?
Critics don't support the troops?? Well as we can all see...many of them really don't.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/shoottheirofficers.jpg



Facts are irrelevant, only the story matters.
:i:

-z

[rikzilla]

So in other words you got nothing to support your claim but the "mantra" that Bush and his ilk are spoon feeding the belivers, k, I understand...

This tells everyone what they need to know about your thought process. Bush and the bipartisan 9/11 committee have said the same thing, but you attribute it to the left.

So David; exactly why are you attacking me? I have posted my honest thoughts and concerns. I have found many of my own reasons to support Dems and reject Repubs...but this is not enough for you? You must deride me regardless. That's okay I guess...but it does tell everyone what they need to know about YOUR thought process.

Now...on to other more important things:
:Banane16:
..what is this banana up to? Better yet; if he's up to what I think he's up to he illustrates pretty well what I think of DavidJames's "thought process" even though that's likely MORE than you or I "needed" to know.

...is it just me...or is this particular (rule8ing) smiley just a little inappropriate to be included on JREF's smiley list?

;)

-z

[Kerberos]

I can't find your point....there seem to be all these stray piles of straw in the way....
-z
Badnarik has stated that he wants to prosecute Congressmen if "they ever again violate the rights of Americans" and senior members of the IRS "if it's found that they knew that there is no legal basis for an income tax". I'm paraphrasing here, but I'm sure that the content is accurate. Would you like me to find the quotes, or would you like to claim that the quotes mean something different from what I said? Perhaps what kind of decisions that Congress members make that they should be tried for, or perhaps that people who believe that the income tax is illegal can accurately asses, whether IRS employees are aware of this fictional fact?

[wastepanel]

I mean, can people seriously continue listening to this guy?

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=12741 entitled, "A GRACIOUS CORRECTION OF THE JERUSALEM POST" And it is! Short version: "I love Jews, but they're all going Hell because they don't believe in Jesus." At this rate, I'm going to abandon teaching math and go into Weird Crazy Physics so I can build a dimensional pocket to keep fundies in.

:hb:

Ummm...don't Baptists and Methodists believe in Jesus already?

[rikzilla]

Badnarik has stated that he wants to prosecute Congressmen if "they ever again violate the rights of Americans" and senior members of the IRS "if it's found that they knew that there is no legal basis for an income tax". I'm paraphrasing here, but I'm sure that the content is accurate. Would you like me to find the quotes, or would you like to claim that the quotes mean something different from what I said? Perhaps what kind of decisions that Congress members make that they should be tried for, or perhaps that people who believe that the income tax is illegal can accurately asses, whether IRS employees are aware of this fictional fact?

For me "libertarian" is more a place marker for "none of the above".
-z

[zenith-nadir]

People aren't over Jesse Jackson even after all his hypocrisy, I expect some will follow Falwell blindly to their graves.

http://cargo.ship-of-fools.com/Captain/Images/TinkyJesus.jpg

[gnome]

Liberals don't want to monitor phone calls....Again that's the Repugs right?


Please let me at least clarify here--Liberals want terorrists' phone calls monitored as much as Republicans do... they simply wish for a warrant to be obtained first. Or at least afterwards. Please do not be a tool of the Republicans by spreading the falsehood that liberals actually do not want wiretaps on suspected terrorists.

On another point--rather than convince you that you're wrong about current Democrats... if you encountered one that you felt took the Islamofacist threat seriously, would you vote for them?

[daredelvis]

So with that last sentence you are saying that there are currently no Islamofascists, AQ, or terrorist enemy of any kind in Iraq? Remember I


David, I fully understand and conceed that there is no credible evidence that Saddam's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks...but this bit of info is yesterday's news. Currently there is a insurgency in Iraq that is at least in part led by elements of AQ. The time-worn mantra from the left that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 is beside the point. We are fighting AQ in both Iraq and Afghanistan right now and they most certainly were behind 9/11.

Live in the now man.
-z
There are undeniably a huge he** of a lot more of them then there were before we invaded and before we let them move into the lawless vacuum that we stood by and watched. Have you been paying attention man? There was almost NO AQ in Iraq pre invasion, no connection, no support. No matter what you say.

"The now" as you put it was created by those you chose to keep us safe. What do they have to do for you to realize that they are not competent to deal with the mess they made?

Daredelvis

[Tmy]

I really dont think anyone signifigant follows Fladwell, Coutler, Farrahkan. Its the press that deems them to be leaders just so they can have outragous soundbites to write about.


Dont most religions believe that NON believers go to hell? Thats nothing new.

[rikzilla]

Please let me at least clarify here--Liberals want terorrists' phone calls monitored as much as Republicans do... they simply wish for a warrant to be obtained first. Or at least afterwards. Please do not be a tool of the Republicans by spreading the falsehood that liberals actually do not want wiretaps on suspected terrorists.

On another point--rather than convince you that you're wrong about current Democrats... if you encountered one that you felt took the Islamofacist threat seriously, would you vote for them?

That's pretty much what I've been trying to say. I like Lieberman. Also I like Hillary alot too...but I think that may just be my bias talking. I am practically always attracted to smart women and Hillary though repugnant to many is just...I dunno...I respect her and I've always really wanted to vote in a Woman POTUS! Also she makes nice centrist noises...but I'm not sure that I could or should trust her.

So there...I've got a thing for Hill. Please beat some sense into me before the other VRW conspirators get wind of this!!

-z

[gnome]

That's pretty much what I've been trying to say. I like Lieberman. Also I like Hillary alot too...but I think that may just be my bias talking. I am practically always attracted to smart women and Hillary though repugnant to many is just...I dunno...I respect her and I've always really wanted to vote in a Woman POTUS! Also she makes nice centrist noises...but I'm not sure that I could or should trust her.

So there...I've got a thing for Hill. Please beat some sense into me before the other VRW conspirators get wind of this!!

-z

Let me help: You cannot and should not trust any politician. That said, feel free to vote for whoever you think will do the best job.

Regarding Lieberman... he'd be no horror as president... but for picking up on your foreign policy concern, he takes on a lot of the flaws of republicans as well--for example, trouble with civil rights issues.

Let me put my own POV into perspective though: given a choice between an insufficiently answered terrorist threat, and slowly eroding freedom, I'll take the former. Jumping out of the false dichotomy, I'll take the former and try to make it better.

[corplinx]

With any luck Falwell will die of autoerotic impalement or a heart attack. From the look of how fat he has gotten, either cause of death is quite likely.

[LostAngeles]

I ask myself, "How did my thread on Falwell's 'Bigot God' turn into being about partisan politics?"

It was Cleon's fault, but then I remembered where I posted this. :p

I can't believe that we didn't get Israel/Palestine, considering what Falwell said. Has that become passe or something?

[rikzilla]

I ask myself, "How did my thread on Falwell's 'Bigot God' turn into being about partisan politics?"

It was Cleon's fault, but then I remembered where I posted this. :p

I can't believe that we didn't get Israel/Palestine, considering what Falwell said. Has that become passe or something?

No...more likely my fault. Doing your political soul-searching in public is not always the smartest move.

As for Israel/Palestine becoming passe? You might as well pray it becomes passe for all the good it'll do ya. That place is like the Bermuda Triangle of sense, reason, and human dignity. If there ever really was a God he/she/it'd be like as not to take out a big eraser and start over again.

-z

[rikzilla]

Let me help: You cannot and should not trust any politician. That said, feel free to vote for whoever you think will do the best job.

I feel like you're telling me that there's a room full of monkeys that may or may not hurl their feces at me...that said I should feel free to pick the one who will do the best job of self-restraint.

How pitifully bleak that picture is. No wonder there are so many true-believers in politics! It's a happy illusion just like religion. Instead of a made-up god; we get a fake leader whose made-for-tv image we either worship or deride according to our creed. Now I'm becoming depressed.

Regarding Lieberman... he'd be no horror as president... but for picking up on your foreign policy concern, he takes on a lot of the flaws of republicans as well--for example, trouble with civil rights issues.
I admit; Lieberman's a bit of a "stealth" republican. Sadly he's way too Jewish to ever be a contender. Maybe thats too harsh? It's also sadly a truth. Americans like their presidents male, white, and xtian you know.... As for me I'd rather pick from that room full of scat-tossing monkeys than see another born-again fundy in the WhiteHouse. We can clearly do well without a NASA or public school system that pushes Intelligent Design off onto an ever more ignorant populace.

Let me put my own POV into perspective though: given a choice between an insufficiently answered terrorist threat, and slowly eroding freedom, I'll take the former. Jumping out of the false dichotomy, I'll take the former and try to make it better.
I work in DC. I drove past the south entrance to the Pentagon about 20 mins before the plane hit it there. I watched it burn. It affected me deeply since I used to work there myself. Perhaps this has given me a psychological need for revenge? I'm not sure...maybe...but all I know is that an insufficiently countered terrorist threat is something we can never again allow to happen.

Perhaps because the fundies (IMHO) correctly see this as a religious/civilization war they are more apt to fight it with righteous Christian vigor? I don't know that either but clearly seems that they take the Islamic terrorist threat much more seriously than the pascifists among us.

Personally I prefer the company of liberals and pascifists. I just don't trust them to lead during crisis and make war when war is what is called for. OTOH I don't like religious fundie types at all...but I find that politically they have their uses...especially when it comes to fighting fire with fire.

Yes; in my perfect world I set the Christian soldiers against the Islamic jihadis and hope that they somehow nullify each other without blowing up the world. A forlorn hope I know....but wouldn't that be cool?

-z

[ImaginalDisc]

Rik, seriously, the Dems are as militant as the Reps. Clinton f***ed up other countries as much as most Republican presidents. Democrats as just as hawkish as anyone else. This "peacenik hippe pot smoker" thing is just a smokescreen.

[LostAngeles]

Rik, it's interesting that your world and my "bleeding-heart liberal" mother's world are so similar. She thinks we should have thrown our fundamentalists at the Islamic fundamentalists who advocate and carry out terror attacks.

I believe she said something to the effect that it was only fair that if they were going to throw theirs at us, we should do the same.

[TragicMonkey]

I would think Liebermann's "Let's censor evil rock music" act of years past would haunt any presidential campaign.

[aerosolben]

The vast right-wing conspiracy is driving the debate and facts don't matter?
...
Seriously; the Dems have nothing to do with their own poor image on national security? Frankly the "soft on terrorism" tag was well earned by Dems. That's a fact, and it matters a lot.
I have to point out that DavidJames and others have indeed provided facts in this thread that support Democrats not being soft on terror. You have not, as far as I can tell, and that last bit above feels like spin to me ("soft on terror", "that's a fact", no facts provided).

I don't think you're intentionally trying to neglect facts for spin, and maybe you do have a wealth of facts indicating that Democrats want to do nothing about terrorists. I haven't seen this, but I have seen information to the contrary. I'd encourage you to really critically examine the facts on which you have based you opinion, especially in light of all the Democrat "pros" you'd indicated that would be sacrifices for a single issue.

[RandFan]

Please let me at least clarify here--Liberals want terorrists' phone calls monitored as much as Republicans do... they simply wish for a warrant to be obtained first. Or at least afterwards. Please do not be a tool of the Republicans by spreading the falsehood that liberals actually do not want wiretaps on suspected terrorists. That's what Rush Limbaugh says.

:boxedin:

[RandFan]

Wait, this is about Falwell. The guys a moron.

[LostAngeles]

Wait, this is about Falwell. The guys a moron.

In other news, the sun rose this morning. But that's not why I started the topic. I wanted to know why he hadn't moron-ed himself into irrelevance and obscurity.

[Nyarlathotep]

How pitifully bleak that picture is. No wonder there are so many true-believers in politics! It's a happy illusion just like religion. Instead of a made-up god; we get a fake leader whose made-for-tv image we either worship or deride according to our creed. Now I'm becoming depressed.


Welcome to my world. Because that is EXACTLY how I view modern politics.

[RandFan]

In other news, the sun rose this morning. But that's not why I started the topic. I wanted to know why he hadn't moron-ed himself into irrelevance and obscurity.Damn, I try to be relevant and I fall flat.

I've actually thought about this alot. Well, not about Falwell but why the hell do people believe stupid things and follow stupid people. Myself included.

I don't know, religous memes are, from an evolutionary stand point, fit (see Dennet (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Conf/MemePap/Mason.html)). I'm not certain that idiocy is sufficent to dispell the beliefs of the faithful.

[LostAngeles]

Damn, I try to be relevant and I fall flat.

I've actually thought about this alot. Well, not about Falwell but why the hell do people believe stupid things and follow stupid people. Myself included.

I don't know, religous memes are, from an evolutionary stand point, fit (see Dennet (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Conf/MemePap/Mason.html)). I'm not certain that idiocy is sufficent to dispell the beliefs of the faithful.

This is a part of something I've been chewing over and spitting out half baked abortions of an essay on to pay for my TAM. Because with all the cool stuff in the world, why go with lies and stupidity?

[TragicMonkey]

Because with all the cool stuff in the world, why go with lies and stupidity?

Because it's easier. You don't have to check your facts, or provide evidence, or make any effort to study or explain or understand. You can just shrug and call it a mystery. Marvelling at things without examining them saves time and energy. The universe and all its wonders exist to entertain us, not to be understood or explored.

eta: Er, I thought this was another thread, the one with the fake jellyfish photo. However, I think my remarks fit the case of religion, too.

[rikzilla]

I have to point out that DavidJames and others have indeed provided facts in this thread that support Democrats not being soft on terror. You have not, as far as I can tell, and that last bit above feels like spin to me ("soft on terror", "that's a fact", no facts provided).


Well I went back and tried to find his facts. The way I see it they consist of him asserting that the Dems supported the President right after 9/11. Basically that they gave the nod to both Afghanistan and Iraq (before WMD was not found). While this is true, it is also akin to ancient history. In the here and now many Dems (Murtha, Boxer, Kennedy, Feingold, Kerry, Kucinich,...for just a few...and the leader of the band; Dean) want to cut-and-run from Iraq. But just as the invasion of Iraq was frought with unintended consequences; a precipitous disengagement would come with unwanted baggage as well.

Just as Somalia was touted by AQ as an object lesson in American spinelessness; a bolt from Iraq would insure civil war there, inspire further insurgency in Afghanistan, embolden Iran even further in pursuing their nuke ambitions, and strengthen the jihadi terror network worldwide.

I don't want any of these people getting closer to the WhiteHouse than LaFayette Park. I bet they'd be fun and interesting at parties...but honestly they scare me on national security issues. For me this issue trumps domestic culture-war issues. :(

I don't think you're intentionally trying to neglect facts for spin, and maybe you do have a wealth of facts indicating that Democrats want to do nothing about terrorists. I haven't seen this, but I have seen information to the contrary. I'd encourage you to really critically examine the facts on which you have based you opinion, especially in light of all the Democrat "pros" you'd indicated that would be sacrifices for a single issue.

I was venting when I earlier (regretfully) used the universal to describe Dems. I know that there are many good Dems whose national security policies I could in fact trust. But the party as led by Howard Dean does not inspire much confidence. If a centrist/non-lefty Dem does not get the party nomination I guess my friend Cleon is right and I'll find myself holding my nose and voting for another Repub. But honestly I hope not!

-z

[DavidJames]

Well I went back and tried to find his facts. The way I see it they consist of him asserting that the Dems supported the President right after 9/11. Basically that they gave the nod to both Afghanistan and Iraq (before WMD was not found). While this is true, it is also akin to ancient history. In the here and now many Dems (Murtha, Boxer, Kennedy, Feingold, Kerry, Kucinich,...for just a few...and the leader of the band; Dean) want to cut-and-run from Iraq. But just as the invasion of Iraq was frought with unintended consequences; a precipitous disengagement would come with unwanted baggage as well.-zThe fact that AQ is in Iraq is due to Bush's invasion. How convenient that the very reason why you will won't vote for a Dem is because of what Bush did. Don't you feel manipulated?

[DavidJames]

You are saying by leaving Iraq, the Dems would...
leave every Islamofascist alone to strengthen and plan a bigger, nastier 9/11. Where were the Islamofascists before the Iraq invasion and what were they doing? Were they planning a bigger and nastier 9/11? If the answer is yes, then the invasion of Iraq made no difference. If the answer is no, then wouldn't the invasion of Iraq be considered a reason why.

[rikzilla]

The fact that AQ is in Iraq is due to Bush's invasion. How convenient that the very reason why you will won't vote for a Dem is because of what Bush did. Don't you feel manipulated?

I feel more manipulated right now by your rhetoric. So you are saying that AQ is only in Iraq because of Bush? If so you need to check your facts. Zarqawi was known to be operating in Iraq prior to the invasion. This belies the rest of your post.
-z

[rikzilla]

You are saying by leaving Iraq, the Dems would...
Where were the Islamofascists before the Iraq invasion and what were they doing? Were they planning a bigger and nastier 9/11? If the answer is yes, then the invasion of Iraq made no difference. If the answer is no, then wouldn't the invasion of Iraq be considered a reason why.

I guess you're saying that there were no AQ jihadis in Iraq yet again? Now you're being a bit redundant...my last post remains sufficient as the rhetoric remains the same.
-z

[Cleon]

I feel more manipulated right now by your rhetoric. So you are saying that AQ is only in Iraq because of Bush? If so you need to check your facts. Zarqawi was known to be operating in Iraq prior to the invasion. This belies the rest of your post.
-z

Oh, they were there, they were just completely insignificant instead of operating openly and gaining momentum.

[gnome]

I work in DC. I drove past the south entrance to the Pentagon about 20 mins before the plane hit it there. I watched it burn. It affected me deeply since I used to work there myself. Perhaps this has given me a psychological need for revenge? I'm not sure...maybe...but all I know is that an insufficiently countered terrorist threat is something we can never again allow to happen.

We all have our nightmares I suppose. Mine is seeing my country turn into just another squabbling nationalist plutocracy, where freedom exists in name only, and the only moral difference between ourselves and our enemies, the only reason offered to be a patriot, is that we live here and they don't. The savage damage I envision to the very idea of America cuts me to the bone far more than the tragic loss of lives on 9/11. I would rather accept more risk than lose more freedoms--and theare are myriad alternatives besides appeasement and complacency.

This isn't to change your mind... we all have our own opinion of what's at stake, and what we stand to lose, and arguing it won't change that.

I was venting when I earlier (regretfully) used the universal to describe Dems. I know that there are many good Dems whose national security policies I could in fact trust. But the party as led by Howard Dean does not inspire much confidence. If a centrist/non-lefty Dem does not get the party nomination I guess my friend Cleon is right and I'll find myself holding my nose and voting for another Repub. But honestly I hope not!

This brings to mind my favorite scene in Naked Gun 2 1/2...

Frank: I want a world where Frank Jr, and all Frank Juniors, can sit under a shady tree, breathe the air, swim in the ocean, and go into a 7-Eleven without an interpreter. I want a world where I can eat a sea otter without getting sick. Where the Democrats put somebody forward WORTH voting for.

George Bush Sr: *nods knowingly, then catches himself and looks embarassed*

I think this just goes to my theory... America loves democrat ideals... they just can't stand the candidates themselves.

[rikzilla]

Oh, they were there, they were just completely insignificant instead of operating openly and gaining momentum.

I would hardly characterize Zarqawi's group as "operating openly"...as for "gaining momentum" this may be so...but only because they've turned their tactics toward fomenting civil war.

Here's a narrative of Zarqawi's time in pre-invasion Iraq:
his page shows all events that either reference, or are referenced by, the event 'Late 2001-May 2002'.
Late 2001-May 2002 Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
Jordanian Muslim militant Abu Mussab Al Zarqawi flees Afghanistan and heads to Iran where he continues to run his Islamic militant organization, al-Tawhid, using telephones and a network of couriers to maintain contact with his operatives in Europe. Al Zarqawi's organization establishes another poison and explosive training center camp in northeastern Iraq in an area controlled by Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist group opposed to Saddam Hussein. In May 2002, Zarqawi goes to Baghdad and has an amputation performed on his leg, which had been injured when he was fleeing US forces in Afghanistan. According to the Bush administration, Al Zarqawi stays in Baghdad for two months, during which time some two dozen “al-Qaeda affiliates” establish a base of operations in the city. The group presumably “coordinate[s] the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network.” Then Zarqawi reportedly travels to the Ansar al-Islam-controlled region in Northern Iraq, before eventually returning to Iran. [Newsweek, 6/25/03; Knight Ridder Newspapers, 1/28/03; Independent, 2/6/03] In an effort to justify military action against Iraq, the Bush administration will later claim that Saddam Hussein is aware of Al Zarqawi's presence in Baghdad and therefore is guilty of knowingly harboring a terrorist (see September 26, 2002). The administration will also allege—falsely—that Al Zarqawi is a senior al-Qaeda agent and that his visit is evidence that Saddam's regime has ties to Osama bin Laden. [Guardian, 10/9/02; Independent, 2/6/03; Newsweek, 6/25/03 Sources: Shadi Abdallah] But the administration never offers any conclusive evidence to support this allegation. The claim is disputed by intelligence analysts in both Washington and London. [Telegraph, 2/4/03]
People and organizations involved: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden

I do not submit these facts as an attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq itself. Just giving DavidJames some information on recent history that he can't get from reading bumperstickers.

-z

[rikzilla]

We all have our nightmares I suppose. Mine is seeing my country turn into just another squabbling nationalist plutocracy, where freedom exists in name only, and the only moral difference between ourselves and our enemies, the only reason offered to be a patriot, is that we live here and they don't. The savage damage I envision to the very idea of America cuts me to the bone far more than the tragic loss of lives on 9/11. I would rather accept more risk than lose more freedoms--and theare are myriad alternatives besides appeasement and complacency.

I like how you think. It's very likely the polarization we see in this country is nothing more than a fragile veneer of indecision? Maybe if the Dems and Repubs could drop the biased rhetoric for a while and calmly discuss their true hopes and fears for the nation in an environment of trust and mutual respect....?
:dl:

...then we'd all live happily ever after in the land of peace and plenty! :grouphug: :heartbeat:

...I guess human nature being what it is rules that out eh? But your point is a good one. I hope we can find a logical and sane way forward....but frankly the future scares the crap outta me.
-z

[Cleon]

I think Rik just wants to buy the whole world a Coke.

[rikzilla]

I think Rik just wants to buy the whole world a Coke.
Kumbayah baby!
...and now for my next trick...
:dig:

[gnome]

It's been a pleasure discussing it. Now... back to kicking around Falwell...

[ImaginalDisc]

I think this just goes to my theory... America loves democrat ideals... they just can't stand the candidates themselves.

I always imagined the American voting public to be like the Queen of Hearts. "Scentence first, verdict afterward." with us, it's "Rhetoric first, politics afterwards." We vote based on rhetoric. "Oh look, the Republican canidate talks tough, and has shiny spurs. The Democrat has a plain suit, and an honest face, but I don't trust 'im."

[Hutch]

In other news, the sun rose this morning. But that's not why I started the topic. I wanted to know why he hadn't moron-ed himself into irrelevance and obscurity.

Well, to try and get back on topic (cue theme to Mission: Impossible) the easiest answer is that there are people out there who think he is right most of the time. There are people who simply do not take advantage of this big brain of ours and are much more comfortable with "Leaders", especially those they believe speak with the authority of God, telling them what to think.

And in some cases, they ignore (or never take the time to find) the evidences that are clearly available. For an example, I just finished reading "The Faith Healers" by a certain white-bearded fellow we know, and his complete and utter exposure of one Peter Popoff as a fraud, a fake, and a charalatan. This was in the 1970's

Now look here: http://www.peterpopoff.org/

Some people have more of a willingness to believe than a willingness to think. Hopefully the number of thinkers will never decrease pass critical levels, or hello 13th century.

Sorry, always grumpy on Fridays. Press on.

[rikzilla]

Well, to try and get back on topic (cue theme to Mission: Impossible) the easiest answer is that there are people out there who think he is right most of the time. There are people who simply do not take advantage of this big brain of ours and are much more comfortable with "Leaders", especially those they believe speak with the authority of God, telling them what to think.

And in some cases, they ignore (or never take the time to find) the evidences that are clearly available. For an example, I just finished reading "The Faith Healers" by a certain white-bearded fellow we know, and his complete and utter exposure of one Peter Popoff as a fraud, a fake, and a charalatan. This was in the 1970's

Now look here: http://www.peterpopoff.org/

Well done Hutch. What a great illustration of idiocy in action.

Well that should answer your OP pretty well Lost. A large percentage of humans are frail, needy, lost, credulous, and have short memories. They don't like thinking critically...especially about things they desperately want and need to be true. Critical thinking has a way of yielding answers that are usually less satisfying than the exciting fantasies we spin in our heads.

This is why I think idiots like Fallwell thrive....and even outted con-men like Popoff can find customers for his vials of "miracle spring water". People want to believe in vast conspiracies, alien visitations, and Jerry's strange god. They think it makes their dull lives more exciting or fulfilling....but as you and I both know...the real problem is with these dullards themselves. They need to pull their heads out of their collective a$$es and have a look around at the real world. Like you said; there's plenty of cool stuff to wonder at...and it's alot more fulfilling to live a life of substance than one filled with BS.

But that's basically the message of JREF. Promote critical thinking. If we are successful then religious con-men like Falwell and Popoff will not be able to make a buck. Obviously we still have alot of work to do!

Some people have more of a willingness to believe than a willingness to think. Hopefully the number of thinkers will never decrease pass critical levels, or hello 13th century.

Sorry, always grumpy on Fridays. Press on.

Yeah, 13th century with the neat addition of 21st century weaponry thrown in for laughs. Humans love their myths you know, but even most of the nuttiest religious folks still take their kids to real doctors when they're sick. I find this to be a hopeful sign that the myth only sinks in so far...and that when real danger appears most of the religious are still sane enough to seek out real science.

...then again maybe I'm still wearing those rosy glasses?

Kumbaya anyone?
-z

[gnome]

Humans love their myths you know, but even most of the nuttiest religious folks still take their kids to real doctors when they're sick. I find this to be a hopeful sign that the myth only sinks in so far...and that when real danger appears most of the religious are still sane enough to seek out real science.

...then again maybe I'm still wearing those rosy glasses?

Kumbaya anyone?
-z

People are still sane enough to seek out real science, when it actually does have an answer. But the first time a scientist says "I don't know." instead of accepting ignorance they'll turn to myth, superstition, or Wild Ass Guessing, that nonetheless they are certain is correct.