President bush!

[CD27]

lol, well, that's the first i've seen someone throw out the fact of being a role moel. but hey, i guess it was a good decision i do form my own ideas, but likewise to you, they are torn apart. lol.

 

freethinker, i must highly disagree with what you say.

 

"Ah, actually studies show an inverse (negative) correlation between IQ/ Education/ Scientific Standing... and religious belief. The higher the IQ, the better the education, the more highly regarded the scientist, the more likely they are to be a non-believer."

 

i know many many people who are very dedicated christians, and much much smarter and more intelligent than all of the non-belivers i know put together, including you. no offense of course.

[IrishEyes]

From Uncle Martin:

Nudity is not a moral issue. Why is it educational to see open heart surgery(inside of a chest) on TLC, and somehow immoral to see the outside of a chest on network TV or in National Geographic? If you want to discuss morals you've got to do better than that.

 

I don't think that you can honestly compare open-heart surgery with someone baring their breast during prime-time, can you? Well, maybe you can, who knows.

 

I don't think it's the body, or the exposure of any specific part of the body, that is immoral. The immorality is in the motive behind the exposure.

 

Exposing a breast during an open-heart surgery is vastly different than baring a breast during a half time show. If it wasn't different, Ms. Jackson wouldn't have done it, and I think you know it.

 

Maybe it's just perception though. Again, her breast was barely visible, unless you had TiVo, yet the feeding fenzy, er I mean - media coverage, was tremendous. Knowing that the vast majority of Americans wouldn't even be watching the game, she chose to draw attention to her body in a way she knew most would find shocking, yet wouldn't be instantly obviously offensive. I mean, it was only part of her breast that was exposed, it wasn't as if she did a Marilyn Monroe pose on a grate in a white fly-away dress with no panties or anything, right?? Yet she had to know, in spite of her claims on the late night talk circuit tot he contrary, that the story would be picked up and carried around the world virtually overnight. I mean, she DID tell people about it BEFORE the event, insuring that at least SOME would be keyed in, in case it wasn't as obvious as she planned.

 

So WHY was it wrong to show her breast? Was it the breast that made it bad? Well, my children have seen breasts before that. I nursed all of them, so it was pretty natural around my home. Also, we've visited MANY museums that displayed art containing various nudes. And of course, they've watched those heart transplants, as well as the live birth shows on tv in the past. However, as their mother, I would prefer that they be exposed to nudity only when I feel it is to their benefit to experience it. I think many other parents feel the same way. That particular stunt took that decision out of my hands, and that was wrong.

 

Nudity is not a moral issue? Maybe that's true, from your POV. I don't know that her partial nudity offended me quite as much as what that nudity represented though - a general decline in what is considered acceptable in this country. Yes, people were enraged, at first. And yes, it was blown way out of proportion. But my point was that she would have been dealt with much harsher 50 years ago than she was 5 months ago, and that clearly indicates a difference in what is morally acceptable. To me, this difference indicates a decline in the moral climate of this country. If you view it as an improvement, we are obviously of differing opinions. But I will fully accept your opinion as valid, though I don't agree with it.

[GAHD]

gotta love how Bush turned to christianity and Janet's Tit....

[Uncle Martin]

IrishEyes,

 

As far as you being able to determine what your children are exposed to, I couldn't agree more. I doubt I'd agree on the subject matter, but in all fairness GAHD has made it clear that this is WAY off topic. I'm sure that someone will eventually start a thread on morality where I'll be happy to discuss this further.

[CD27]

yea, i'd agree, why doesn't someone go ahead and do that..considering how this bush topic isn't really gonna go far anyways. if you haven't noticed, we have strayed from the topic many times, which means no one really cares about the topic, lol, i opw i didn't offend anyone.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

 

Reagan, Hmmmm, the media blitz seems proportional to other U S president's deaths. So far, they could drag it out, that remains to be seen. Euphimistically Reagan died in 89, I mean after retiring he did as good a disappearing act as Johnny Carson. For respect of his family, or fear of Nancy, the media left him alone. Now he is fair game and I think the media machine may want to play catch up. Especially considering that it is a mostly republican owned media machine! I just hope ol' dubya doesn't try to ride on his coat tails, but they must be considering that angle. In my opinion he wasn't a great president, but he wasn't as bad as what we have at present.

 

Well it looks like Ol' Dubya is going to try the Reagan coat tail ploy after all. That should backfire, since all Reagan gave us was "trickle down economics". Which is the politically correct way of saying, let the rich piss on the poor, and the poor better thank us for it.

 

I've seen alot of the republican media machine equating GW to Ron. I hope all the sentimental BS is over before the election, this nation, no, the world, may not survive 4 more years of Bush. This guy is dangerous. He has much more in common with Adolph Hitler than Reagan.

 

Where are the Democrats? Is everyone afraid to speak out against Bush? If this forum is indicative of popular opinion(and I think it is), why can't I find any mainstream news or television with the intestinal fortitude to tell the people the truth? If the info contained in this thread was on billboards, radio and television not even an intelligent Christian would vote for dubya.

[Freethinker]

INTELLEGENT Christians WON'T vote for Shrub. In fact, it is interesting to find that the EXTREME Religious Right think Dubya is TOO FAR LEFT!

 

Ya ain't that a kick?

 

As why the media is silent, Media Ownership Deregulation is one of the main reasons. The overwhelming majority of media outlets in the US are owned by a small number of very Conservative Corporations. 5 Corps, General Electric (MSNBC and NBC), News Corp (Fox), Disney (ABC), AOL-Time Warner (CNN) and Viacom (CBS) currently control 75% of what the American public accesses on television. Once again, the White House Resident is putting massive money into the pockets of his cronies and getting the rewards of controlling information to the public in return.

 

Howard Dean was a example of the power of the media to stop the Democratic process in the US. Going into Iowa, Dean was the clear winner. But some time before the Iowa Caucuses, Dean came out against the Corporate strangle hold on the media. He stated he would break up the Media Conglomerates. While 3 of the top 10 contributors to Kerry's campaign were from those top media players. Suddenly Dean got nothing but negative press. Reports have shown that Kerry, who was out of money and had no following what so ever, started getting over a 75% positive press coverage, while Dean wwas getting below 20% positive coverage. And we all know about the various "sound bites" intentionally edited to make Dean look like some raving maniac.

 

While the Media Conglomorates feel comfotable with Kerry in their pocket, (they win regardless of who is elected from that angle) they still prefer the Conservative Tax (break) Tit to suck from. Don't expect the major media outlets to give negative news on their golden boy, Bush. and the Bush machine, headed by the highly unethical Carl Rove, is a finely tuned machine. They "embed" reports so only the news they WANT out is even heard of.

 

And the average Democrat is a typical nice caring individual as opposed to the hateful angry mob mentality of the Repukes. There is not the drive and venom in the Demos to counter the unrelenting lies of the Right.

[Freethinker]

In the book, "Lies and the Lying Liars that Tell Them". (Al Franken), the following FACTS tell us quite a bit.

 

There were more US citizen's deaths from terrorism during Regan years than Clinton. In fact Regan basically created the Taliban by funding them, giving them weapons, training them and helping them dig the tunnel network they hid in when we tried to attack them in Afganastan, and they STILL hide in!

 

The 1st WTC attack happened 38 days into Clinton's term. Shortly after, the terrorists were captured and are still in prison. He then set up programs that stopped an assasination attempt on the Pope (too bad!), a cell planning on blowing up 12 airliners simultaneously, a cell planning on blowing up the UN, the FBI HQ, the Israeli Embassy in DC, LA and Boston Airports, the Licoln and Holland tunnels, G Washington Bridge, US Embacies in Tirana and Albania. He increased the FBI Counter Terrorism budget by 3X and the overall CT budget by 2X. Created a Top Level National Secuarity post. Pushed 2 crimes bills with strong counter terrorism measures including local, state and Fed post attack reaction simulations. Bult an International effort to counter terrorist activity. The Washington Post stated that Clinton was the "1st administration to undertake systematic anti-terror effort".

 

And the Republicans at the time? They stopped a Clinton Bill which featured even greater expansion of anti-terror efforts in the US prior to the Oklahoma Terrorist Bombing.

 

As Clinton was leaving office, Regan's Counter Terrorist Ambassador stated his "only criticism" with Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts was his "obsession with bin Laden"! However Paul Bremer, currently the US top civil administrator in Iraq, stated at that time that Clinton's efforts were "Correctly focused on bin Laden".

 

Cliton hired Richard Clarke, towards the end of his admin, to create a specific detailed comprehensive plan to help stop terrorism in the world. The stated goals were to

 

Break up Al Quida cells

Arrest it's members

stop it's funding sources

Freeze it's existing bank accounts

Aid troubled governments to stop their citizens from finding groups like Al Quida of interest.

Increase covert activities in Afganastan

GET bin Laden!

 

Clinton did not want to "hand an active war" to Bush, so he had Clarke hold the Plan till after Bush took office. Clarke had a meeting with Rice and Berger and presented the plan along with an admonision that Bush would have to spend "most of the time stopiing Al Quida and bin Lauden".

 

Then Bush takes over. Coundy LIED to the press and claimed the meeting never happened. Changed her story later when news clippings and HER RECORDS PROVED the meeting took place! She claimed to just not remember it!

 

But Bush dropped the entire anti-terror effort. Instead he pushed funding of "Star Wars". He did not want to upset his "friends" in Afganastan because he was trying to get a oil pipline deal signed for Halburton. So he arranged for a $43,000,000.00 bribe to them, 3 months before 9/11. BUt why should the Bushies accept ANYTHING that Clinton said/ did? Or even bi-partisen efforts like the Hart- Rudman Report of 2/15/01 which stated "Mass casualties from terrorismagainst eh US homeland a serious and growing concern". And urged a Homeland Security Agency. But the Bushites did not totally ignore Terrorism. 5/8/01 Chaney was made head of the Terror Task Force. IT NEVER MET!

 

Clarke, not wanting to be blamed when the now well established knowledge of terrorist activiets in the US finally resulted in some major attack, created a NEW version of his plan on 6/30/01. The Exec Admin REFUSED to review it. But being anxious to protect us from terrorism, on 9/10/01 (yes one day before 9/11), after now years of identifying bin Lauden and Al Quida being active in the US, a request by the FBI for $58M in increased funding to help identify and stop terrorist attacks was veto'd by Bush. Just as the Congress' request for reallocating $0.6B of the aprox

[Uncle Martin]

Freethinker,

 

Thanks for posting all of that information. I've spent the evening searching the web and alot of what I find corroborates your statements. At least the truth can be found on the internet. Ooh how the politicos must hate the www. I wonder what schemes they've got in mind to rid the world of that.

[Freethinker]

Yes Unc, these things are historical facts. I always try to validate my statements first. Besides having watched as most of this was going on. Wondering as the Media parrotted the latest Repuke Corporate line, why no one else remembered what ACTUALLY happened?

 

As to methods being attempted to stop the general public from getting factual info from the internet, check into the continual attempts to control access to sites at libraries and schools. As well as attempts at laws that would punish (remove) sites that promote ideas the Admin do not like by labling them pornographic (because of support of gay issues) or terrorist (because they speak out against the Admin).

 

"A coalition of trade associations, electronic publishers and civil liberties groups filed suit on Jan 14, 1996, challenging that a New York law imposing criminal penalties for electronic transmission of "indecent" material "harmful to minors" is an unconstitutional restriction of speech.

...

Because of the way the Internet works, the Act's prohibition on certain communications with minors effectively would ban those same communications between adults. The Act targets speech that is constitutionally protected for adults, including, for example,

valuable works of literature and art, safer sex information, examples of popular culture, and a wide range of robust human discourse about current issues and personal matters that may include provocative or sexually oriented language. There are no reasonable technological means for users of the Internet to ascertain the age of persons who access their communications, or of restricting or preventing access by minors to certain content. The Act will thus reduce the adult population in cyberspace to reading and communicating only material that is suitable for young children. In addition, because the Act makes no allowance for the varying levels of maturity of minors of different ages, the Act prohibits speech that is valuable and constitutionally protected for older minors, but that may not be appropriate for younger children."

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/cyberlaw/ny_decency.html

">http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/cyberlaw/ny_decency.html

</a>

 

"Being a Webmaster for Controversial Islamic Websites Not a Crime

In a victory for the First Amendment rights of Internet users, jurors returned a verdict today acquitting University of Idaho graduate student Sami Omar Al-Hussayen of terrorism charges. Hussayen had been charged in federal court with providing "material support" to terrorists in the form of "expert advice and assistance," based on his activities as webmaster for a number of web sites and message boards serving Muslims. This same law, which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act, has already been found unconstitutional by one federal court. "

http://www.eff.org/

 

Actually I have been waiting for them to pass an Internet Anti-Obscenity law after which I can file law suits against site that post the bible on them. The bible is so filled with obscenity it would be an easy case. And it woould force them to drop the law or outlaw the bible or try to make a special exception for it, which would then turn into a 1st Amendment issue.

[GAHD]

LMAO, you really hate that book don't you?

 

On the topic of bush though; http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/932C762E-3379-4E61-BA10-22BC639B0649.htm

"The rare criticism by career officials on Wednesday was a direct challenge to one of Bush's main arguments for re-election."

I wonder why this statement was so quickly squelched from the North amarican news? I certainly hadn't heard anything about it untill recently. FT, I'd love to hear your views on this particular incident. Others as well ofcourse, but FT's just got this black hearted charisma that adds emphasis to what he says .

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

LMAO, you really hate that book don't you?

Actually I do!

 

I hate having to read all of the blatant lies the Repukes and Right continually use and keep getting away with. How the Religious Right owned Media pushes out the lies by continued repetition until it gets picked up by the entier media as if there were facts behind it, but never checking to find out.

 

It is truly depresing to know that the political party that is control of this country has absolutely no compunction against outright lies. And it's followers have no desire have them corrected. They want to be lied to so they con continue to support selfish, environmentally and societally disasterous agendas.

 

I do not find it enjoyable that that large of a percentage of my fellow citizens are so shallow and mean spirited.

 

Christians! So no surpise I guess.

[GAHD]

Little anti-bush rant from what appears to be a christian source Go Figure.

"Every "good Christian" who votes for Bush is signing a pact with the devil, and helping his demonic bishops do their evil trickery..."

 

 

Likewise a humourous portrayal of G.W.'s left ear!

 

Edit: another story I for fgot to post;"George Bush, Save the Sales Pitch"

[Freethinker]

Let's start a betting pool. Let's bet on which story the US media is going to bury faster.

 

1) 26 bipartisan retired long term Ambassadors and Military leaders rip the Idiot Child's damaging U.S. national security interests and America's standing in the international community, calling it a Disaster and that he should be voted out of office!

 

2) Shrub and his gangland crew continued blatant lies about Iraq/ Saddam and 9/11. Month's ago Bush himself made the public statement that Saddam was not connected to 9/11. Then a couple days ago, one of the main Lying Liars, VP Chaney states very specifically that Iraq WAS connected and gave specific examples. Bush was ruight there the next day contradicting his earlier statement by saying he stood behind Chaney's lies. Fortuntely the 9/11 committee that BUSH HIMSELF setup makes the FORMAL statement that they could not find ANY evidence to support an Iraq/ Saddam connection with 9/11.

 

The Google News does not show either story in their headlines. I guess we would have had to do a time line delineated in seconds, rather than weeks or days for the lifecycle of such relatively unimportant news stories. We sure would not expect our media to bother with such unimporantant info when they need to cover stories about:

 

Spears cancels remaining leg of Onyx Hotel Tour

TheCelebrityCafe.com - and 208 related »

 

Researchers say liposuction doesn't reduce risk of fat-related illnesses

WIS - and 205 related »

 

Cabir: World's First Wireless Worm

 

OH NO! Where is Homeland Security? My PHONE is under attack! Level Orange, Level Orange!

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

This guy is dangerous. He has much more in common with Adolph Hitler than Reagan.

 

I beg to differ; Adolf took an economically destroyed country and turned it into a major world power...quite the opposite of what George has been up to. As well Adolphf promoted science, no matter what the cost; again a complete 180 of George.

Now if you were referring to both men's ability to get the wold to hate them, then you'd be mostly right; atleast Adolph made a few friends in the war. Lastly if the end of George's political life could be made akin to the end of Adolph's, the world would be a better place .

 

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Where are the Democrats?

Hiding

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Is everyone afraid to speak out against Bush?

looks like it, the Dixie Chicks got theirs.

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

If this forum is indicative of popular opinion(and I think it is), why can't I find any mainstream news or television with the intestinal fortitude to tell the people the truth? If the info contained in this thread was on billboards, radio and television not even an intelligent Christian would vote for dubya.

Agreed, but with a Republican controlled Media, and the support of the Oil Industry there isn't a hell of a lot working class individuals(RE: Democrats) can do except move to Canada if Bush gets another term.

[Uncle Martin]

Some very good observations Gahd. I stand corrected(by a Canadian no less). If Dubya gets another four years I'll take you up on that offer to move to Canada. Is there by chance an overwhelming need for skilled cabinetmakers?

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Some very good observations Gahd. I stand corrected(by a Canadian no less). If Dubya gets another four years I'll take you up on that offer to move to Canada. Is there by chance an overwhelming need for skilled cabinetmakers?

 

I try and stay up to date on world politics as much as possible, and with a 'big ugly ogre' like bush sitting next door with his finger on THE red button it's kind of hard not to pay attention. Not to mention the marked 'mistake' by the meth-addicted pilot within the last few years (I'm still surprised, even with 'smart' bombs aimed directly at a troop of men, they only managed to 'get' 6...), all in all it's VERY unsettling.

 

LOL, I wouldn't say there's an overwhelming need, but if you can stand temperature ranging from +40 to -40 Celcious and promise to be nice I'm shure you'll fit in just fine.

 

Remember; we all live in log houses in the snowy mountains surrounded by nature and stuff .

 

ok, maby that's just some people in BC and Alberta, but you get the idea.