the_gneech | Argh

Okay, look:

The capture of Saddam Hussien is not as significant to internal U.S. politics as a lot of people seem to think it is. Swing voters generally swing on economic issues, not foreign policy.
Saddam Hussien did not "magically appear during an election year." What do people think those guys in Iraq have been doing for the past year, standing around with targets on their chests until it was politically expedient to do something? The man was hard to find, for cryin' out loud.
How come if something is perceived as being going badly in Iraq, Bush gets all the blame, but if something is perceived as being good, he gets none of the credit? Is he "Fall Guy in Chief?"
Most importantly, on Saddam's orders, populations were slaughtered; one of his elite guard's favorite ways of dealing with dissenters was to force them to watch family members being raped or brutalized; he basically bled the country dry so his own family and favored lackeys would be rich, rich, rich. If somebody's first reaction upon hearing of his capture is to think, "Uh oh, Bush might get a blip in the polls," I gotta think that person's priorities are way out of whack. It's like the Palestinians saying, "Yes, he was a brutal tyrant, but at least he's Muslim" -- isn't that missing the big picture? There is so much more going on in the world than the incessant bickering of Demidupes vs. Pooblioobs!

Let fly with your flames if you want, I'll put on my asbestos undies. But if you decide to yell at me, at least try to understand my point first.

-The Gneech

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

That's kinda cutting off your nose to spite your face, isn't it?

-TG

The sooner he is gone the better. Unless, of course, you think all these new tax cuts are going to be so beneficial for us 5 years down the line... if so, by all means, do vote for him.

I do not believe in Bush, I do not trust him nor do I think he is capable or able. And above all, if you can't generate ONE non-prompted sentence without sounding like a goddamn idiot, then perhaps you -shouldn't- be president. If compared to you, Goofy sounds like Aristophanes, then perhaps you shouldn't be president. If you have quite a few bakrupcies in your record, you shouldn't be president. If you push your religion onto others and make a political show of it in order to get the bible thumpers' votes, you shouldn't be president. George is the Christina Aguilera of politics: a lot of glitz, good advisors, a little talent, money and a lot of blonde.

Yes, well, cutting through all the personal insults you enjoy throwing at Mr. Bush, your statement that the worse Bush does, the better, implies that it's fine and dandy if the country goes up in flames, just so long as it gets Bush out of office. This is not a view I share.

I want the U.S. to be a prosperous, safe, and free country, regardless of who is in office, myself.

-The Gneech

That may be so, but I'm a realist: With Bush in office, it ain't gonna happen. Therefore, the faster he gets out, the better. Whether it be a Republican or Democrat or an independent Candidate that has the capacity, I would cheer them on. Right now, though, I do not see many candidates I WOULD cheer on, but most of them are preferable to Bush 2004 (by most I mean FEASIBLE candidates. Pat is, of course, what I like to call the Bat-mite of elections. He's there for humoristic appeal, as well as most of his ilk). Edwards supposedly is a good candidate, but I am very suspicious. The man is too charming and has a squeaky-clean feel to him I do not trust on a politician. I do not believe Bush can make the U.S. prosperous, or safe- although at this point, considering what the present and previous presidents have done with foreign policy, I do not think 'safe' will be a word we'll ever use again with all security. I want to see this country prosper as well, but I have never for a moment believed that Bush was the man to do it.

But perhaps more important, I want to note that Bush is not "pushing his religion to get the Bible Thumper's votes". He is one of the few politicians in the last fifty years at least who has not simply worn his Christianity on his sleeve. It is rare indeed to find a politician brazen enough to stand against the national Anti-Christian sentiment and express the beliefs which purvey his every action. For that is what it is: a belief so strong that it infuses every action of his life. Sure he's not perfect, but he is striving to be so, and is not ashamed to let us know it. If that means that the Christian community applauds, then so be it. For as Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, "let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and praise your Father, who is in Heaven".

-=TK

Religion has NO PLACE in politics. EVER.

Then you will have to purge the head of this government of anyone influenced by Christendom. Not Christianity-- Christendom: the general set of thoughts, and beliefs by which our society is founded, and has been founded, for the last 1679 years, since the joint edict of Milan by the Roman and Byzantine emperors.

If you want to get closer, you'll have to strip the United States of it's history, because we were founded on the principles of Puritans, Quakers and Presbyterians. The very basis and shape of our government was borrowed from the leadership of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

In addition, you will have to execrate religion of any sort from every single person who ever sets foot in a government building. Not just the people who hold offices there-- but every person who enters. Because this is a republic, which means the people are still the heart of the system. Thus, the officers and bureaucrats are answerable to the people. Which means they are answerable even to the individuals guided by religion who come in to their offices.

You will have to strip the United States of most of its laws, because they are founded on the moral principles of Christendom. That includes the laws protecting property (thou shall not steal), life (thou shall not murder), even the sanctity of marriage (thou shall not covet thy neigbor's wife). And of course, the Declaration of Independence is null and void, because it explicitly states that we are created equal, which requires that there be a Creator. So in that case, I guess you belong to England.

But of course, you can't belong to them, either, because the power of their government stems from the Divine Right of Kings, as all European Thrones were established by the Papacy. So that means you are an individual without a nation, which means you are not protected by any laws anywhere. See, the muslim governments are set up by the divine laws of Allah, the Chinese government gained it's legitimacy from turning Buddha into a god, the Japanese empire believed the Sun God gave them their authority. Even the tribes in the Amazon base their local government on religion.

So please tell me how you are ever going to strip religion from the government?

-=TK

And as far as 'praising the father', I guess that since Gandhi was an infinitively greater man than a lot of christians in this century have shown to be, I guess we should be praising Rama and Sita now?

Your god is not the only god, your religion is not the only religion there is, and neither is it the 'right' religion. Older religions have laid claim to the right path just as yours has, and guess what? Neither has shown irrefutable proof of such a miraculous power.

Religion lies in the world of the subjective. It has NO PLACE in politics, where VERY objective subjects are treated, and religion's pestilent prejudices become obstacles (the execution of gay men in Egypt, the refusal to grant such marriages in the state, the stoning of women who refuse to wear the garb, the list is endless.)
Politics is about administration and diplomacy. Keep the pustulant religions OUT of it, they have caused nothing but trouble.

Ok, now you're just succumbing to the fallacy of ad-homonym attacks. In which case, your argument really has no value or worth, other than to feed anger, which I must refuse to allow myself to succumb to in The Gneech's journal. Out of respect for The Gneech, this conversation is over.

-=TK

Argh

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

In defense of the President's faith...

Re: In defense of the President's faith...

Oh, really?

Re: In defense of the President's faith...

Fallacy!