<br><br>

<br><br>Kansas and JC are both duped.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener

but what?<br><br>

Incredibly offensive, YoYo.<br><br>But it's good that you point out John Kerry has not once, not ever, run one negative ad during his campaign. Why, that George Bush is the only one who has. <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

Incredibly offensive, YoYo.<br><br>To whom specifically- Bush-supporters or Christians? <br><br>[color:red]C'mon...you know me.</font color=red>

Jesus lived in poverty and was sadistically murdered. Ooooo were do I sign up?<br><br>

Christians. Would he have had the balls to post that if it mocked Allah instead of Jesus? <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

Enough already. I'm boycotting MAD Magazine. You guys with me?<br><br><br><br><br>

it doesn't mock jesus; it mocks dubya for the way he uses jesus.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

did some work for the California Province (Jesuits of California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada and Hawaii) and they're pretty offended by George W. and his reasons for war. And I can say that is their official stance as I was working for the office of the Provincial. <br><br>So I guess it depends on which Christians you talk to.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> it mocks dubya for the way he uses jesus.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm not sure I've ever heard Bush comment on Jesus specifically. I have heard Bush say OUTRAGEOUSLY OFFENSIVE things like "May God continue to bless the United States of America."<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

You know, I was going to respond in kind, but it's pointless. A person whose mode of argumentation is to repeat talking points ad nauseam, and when that fails then to attack people's courage (my balls are fine; thanks for inquiring), and then ultimately to subside into grossness doesn't deserve a response.<br><br>

I love how liberals in this forum, when confronting those who support the President, accuse them of the ol' "talking points" charge, in that special MCCARTHYISM sort of way: <br><br><blockquote>"republicans can stick to the talking points that are short and sweet."<br><br>yep, talking points, get the c...tion."<br><br>"That's fine and it's a good ide...uous."<br><br>"this vietnam stuff is a nice di...sing."<br><br>"nice calling us women. you got ...ican."</blockquote><br><br>TALKING POINTS, TALKING POINTS!! RRRUUUUUUNNNNNNN<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

Yoyo, so if you have McCarthy's balls in a jar and they are fine, would you consider offering them up for stem cell research? See, our President banned federal funding for creating new embryonic stem cell lines and your balls might be just the ticket.<br><br>But I think you are right, this thread is dead and does not deserve a response. Instead of a highly dubious segue I will start a new thread about how anti-science our current President is.<br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener

everything from whitehouse.gov:<br><br><a href="http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=bush+"jesus"+site:whitehouse.gov&btnG=Search">a few Jesus references mixed in</a><br><br><a href="http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=bush+lord+site:whitehouse.gov&btnG=Search">559 for bush and Lord</a><br><br><a href="http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=bush+god+site:whitehouse.gov&btnG=Search">1,740 references for bush and God</a><br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>And it still moves me to think that there was a powerful message being delivered by nature, to the point where I remember turning back to the people of Romania and said, "God is smiling on Bucharest." And I meant that.<p><hr></blockquote><p>almost as if God talks with him given his sincerity.<br><br>or this<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> We pray for wisdom to know and do what is right. And we pray for God's peace in the affairs of men.<p><hr></blockquote><p>he turned around less than 2 months later and invaded iraq. <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

I like this first Google hit from the your "Lord" expose link . . . <br><br><blockquote>For Immediate Release February 19, 2003. President Bush Meets with NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson.</blockquote><br><br>So Bush is a religious man, so what? Why does this whip liberals in to hysterics? <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

i saw that, but i figured that out of over 500 Lord references, the vast majority are religious and that's what i was using to help illustrate to you that dubya is religious b/c you seemed to imply that dubya doesn't comment on jesus and a deeply religious man would clearly comment on jesus from time to time. <br><br>this doesn't whip me into hysterics . . . i expect it from the guy. i do find it a bit disingenuous that you make statements to the contrary to try and make a point.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

[color:red] bush lord site:whitehouse.gov -"lord robertson" -"drug lord" -"Lord Shaftesbury" </font color=red><br><br>513 hits. Hey, that's kind of cool. I knew a google would do that but a use I never thought of.<br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>b/c you seemed to imply that dubya doesn't comment on jesus and a deeply religious man would clearly comment on jesus from time to time.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Wrong Sean. I never implied that at all. On the other hand, you seem to pass yourself off as a "Bush uses Jesus" scholar when you said in an earlier post:<br><br><blockquote>it mocks dubya for the way he uses jesus.</blockquote><br><br>My reply to that was:<br><br><blockquote>I'm not sure I've ever heard Bush comment on Jesus specifically. I have heard Bush say OUTRAGEOUSLY OFFENSIVE things like "May God continue to bless the United States of America."</blockquote><br><br>Which is a far cry from your accusation that I'm implying dubya doesn't comment on Jesus. I just don't remember hearing Bush comment on Jesus specifically, (have you?) I never said he doesn't. <br><br>That said, why don't you enlighten us all in the ways Bush uses Jesus, since you know all about it.<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

2003 Newsweek While Rove and Hill leaders work the domestic side, Bush is dwelling on faith-based foreign policy of the most explosive kind: a potential war in the name of civil freedom—including religious freedom—in the ancient heart of Arab Islam. The article also touches on stem cell , abortion etc..Holy Bush considering this was in 2003 I would say he is following his Gospel according to plan. Perhaps Newsweek's next headline will be.."God tells Bush he is a Republican" <br><br>

There's nothing wrong with religion, I think. If the man is religious, great for him, so long as he doesn't seek to impose his erligion on others. But don't buy into the spin doctoring in this thread. The picture I posted presents images of Christ, but has nothing to do with Christianity. Instead, it has a great deal to do with Bush's rhetoric, which takes almost any position and does the same hatchet job on it. You'd think people would be wise to it by now.<br><br>

<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Which is a far cry from your accusation that I'm implying dubya doesn't comment on Jesus. I just don't remember hearing Bush comment on Jesus specifically, (have you?) I never said he doesn't. <p><hr></blockquote><p>okay, i'll be more poignant . . . i believe you can make statements like this because of your selective hearing (read: you don't have to have heard "jesus" directly to know that the guy is wearing his religion on his sleeve and using that religion in many different ways -- at the core of his religion is jesus, fwiw); the same hearing that only sees the liberal bias in the media and is deaf to the anecdotes going the other way. the same way you can complain about photos of dubya and then turn around and get your kicks off of photos of gore. <br><br><br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

No no no--I'm the one with the balls, right?<br><br>I wonder if there's going to be outrage at this image, which is clearly blasphemous and anti-Christian both in letter and spirit? <br><br>

yeah, i wrote a whole chapter in my textbook that deals with information literacy and provides a bunch of strategies for searching the internet more effectively. those of us who know how to really use google are so much more efficient with our time than those who are clueless, aren't we? with over 4 billion pages indexed, who has time to sift through generic searches? <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

Instead, it has a great deal to do with Bush's rhetoric, which takes almost any position and does the same hatchet job on it. You'd think people would be wise to it by now.<br><br>Some of us are..except of course for the spin Dr.. I understood where you were coming from with the picture..but you post and then you have to bite the bullet..cause you know the Dr..he is a coming with his but but but..or is that Bush Bush Bush.. <br><br>

<br><br>

it doesn't mock jesus; it mocks dubya for the way he uses jesus.<br><br>I didn't come away with that impression- to me, the ad is a send up of (or, for Matt's sake, the cartoonist's perceived notion of) how the Bush camp is running the smear ads against Kerry. And therefore, if Jesus were alive and running for some sort of office, these are the negative slants the Bush advertisers might impose upon him and his philosophy...<br><br>Anyway, *I* thought it was funny, and I consider myself a Christian. Heck, I don't get offended when I see Jesus walking around in South Park hosting his own talk show either...<br><br>[color:red]C'mon...you know me.</font color=red>

that's exactly what i read -- how do you see that as mocking jesus and not dubya? and, of course it's funny.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

Well, I agree that it didn't mock Jesus, but I guess we differed on the 2nd part slightly...<br><br>[color:red]C'mon...you know me.</font color=red>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>that's exactly what i read -- how do you see that as mocking jesus and not dubya? and, of course it's funny.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Would you see it as funny if it were mocking the religious figure of, say, Islam? Well, just as long as you don't see it as offensive . . . right Sean?<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>you don't have to have heard "jesus" directly to know that the guy is wearing his religion on his sleeve and using that religion in many different ways -- at the core of his religion is jesus, fwiw<p><hr></blockquote><p>I believe Bush is a religious man, but I don't see him "wearing his religion on his sleeve." But this is beside the point. You said "in the way that he uses Jesus." Jesus is a specific religious figure, Sean, that you called out by name. You didn't say God and you didn't say the Lord. You said Jesus. Now I'm asking you to back up your accusation by showing me exactly where President Bush is specifically using Jesus. Can you show me? Can you point it out? <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You said Jesus. Now I'm asking you to back up your accusation by showing me exactly where President Bush is specifically using Jesus. Can you show me? Can you point it out? <br><p><hr></blockquote><p>Here you go. He's clearly helping to make decisions.<br><br><br><br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Would you see it as funny if it were mocking the religious figure of, say, Islam? <p><hr></blockquote><p>As Pete pointed out, it's not mocking Jesus. It's mocking the smear techniques of the status-quo candidates (in this case Bush). It could have worked with any generally seen-as-benign figure being ripped apart by a political campaign. Insert Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Ghandi, Vishnu, Bhudda, or a boy scout for all I care. It would still be the same satire. <br><br>

<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

<br><br>Okay, now that could be offensive to some. However, I for one don't think Jesus was a light-skinned European. Just a hunch. Call me crazy. <br><br>

Well. WE mormons believe that after he finished whatever he was doing over there in the middle east he came over to America and hung out with some of the people here. Maybe he lost some pigment in the travel? <br>Perhaps he appears to us as we would like to see him, or takes the shape of those around him. Not unlike a chameleon.<br><br>This might be a good point to plug this fantastic upcoming feature. Lord of the Rings? Star Wars? Pfft!! They ain't got nothin' on this epic! (8 MB)<br><br>

Clearly that picture is a photoshoped forgery. Here is the original:<br><br><br><br><br> <br><br>

<br><br>I'm glad to see they've finally put aside their differences to work on this economy!<br><br>

one last slice of blasphemy to call it a day.<br><br><br><br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You said "in the way that he uses Jesus." Jesus is a specific religious figure, Sean, that you called out by name. You didn't say God and you didn't say the Lord.<p><hr></blockquote><p>matt, forgive me for being less christian than you, but i urge you to read through this topic and you'll find that i equate 'jesus' with christianity. the specific image that yoyo displayed uses jesus, but the message is clearly against dubya's use of his religion since jesus is at the core of his religion. this is what makes the poster funny b/c it does nothing to mock the religious figure who is presented as a something quite good and everything to mock dubya and how he uses his political machine.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>matt, forgive me for being less christian than you<p><hr></blockquote><p>I never said you were less Christian that I am. Stop making inflamatory remarks, Sean. You specifically said "In the way he uses Jesus. All I'm asking you to do is point out where President Bush uses, specifically, Jesus. <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

i also specifically said that, "i equate 'jesus' with christianity." <br><br>i'll refer you to the hundreds and hundreds of religious references on the whitehouse.gov website. there are even many jesus ones there, matt, but again, jesus = christianity. if it means that much to you, i'll say i was mistaken for making this assumption and thinking it was common knowledge (thus, my forgiveness for being less christian than you, which was not meant to be inflammatory; rather, it was trying to make the point that i could be mistaken in assuming that jesus is a symbol of christianity) and say that i should have used the word christianity or religion even thought the poster contains a picture of jesus to make fun of a self identified christian.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>JESUS -- That Jesus, as the only-begotten Son of God, actually claimed to be God, equal with the Father, is clear from numerous Scriptures. For example, He said:<br><br>"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8).<p><hr></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t002.html">christian answers website</a><br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>i'll refer you to the hundreds and hundreds of religious references on the whitehouse.gov website. there are even many jesus ones there, matt<p><hr></blockquote><p>Sean:<br><br>1). I don't need a condescending lecture from you on who Jesus is.<br><br>2). You said: <br><br><blockquote>"it mocks dubya for the way he uses jesus."</blockquote><br><br>You didn't say:<br><br><blockquote>"it mocks dubya for the way he uses religion."<br>"it mocks dubya for the way he uses Christianity."<br>"it mocks dubya for the way he uses the Lord."<br>"it mocks dubya for the way he uses God."<br>"it mocks dubya for the way he uses his faith."</blockquote><br><br><br>3). I'm asking you, show me how "dubya uses Jesus", Sean. <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

clearly, you do need a lecture because you take a post out of context of my entire body of posts in this topic. here's my first post on this topic: <a href="http://www.macminute.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=politics&Number=195863&page=0&view=expanded&sb=5&o=0&vc=1">link</a> -- obviously, i am using religion in a broader context since i am taking the posts above to imply jesus, lord, and god (those were terms i thought i could use to get at the religious nature of this administration and how they use their religion, which is christianity). you are the person who keeps trying to turn it to jesus apart from christianity. like i said, i probably slipped up for saying jesus when i was referring to religion and christianity, more specifically, but i had no idea that you would be so adamant about separating the two when i think one stands for the other. but, that's also why i've qualified it a few different times for you. i'll kindly provide links to those posts as well if you think it would help. <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>clearly, you do need a lecture because you take a post out of context of my entire body of posts in this topic.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Clearly, Sean, I am only taking you at your word:<br><br><blockquote>it doesn't mock jesus; it mocks dubya for the way he uses jesus</blockquote> <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>here's my first post on this topic: link<p><hr></blockquote><p>Incorrect. Here is your first post on this topic. The post your referencing doesn't come until later, nearly three hours later. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>obviously, i am using religion in a broader context since i am taking the posts above to imply jesus, lord, and god (those were terms i thought i could use to get at the religious nature of this administration and how they use their religion, which is christianity).<p><hr></blockquote><p>Sean, you're doing a soft shoe here. Again, you didn't say it mocks the way "dubya uses religion, God, his faith, the Lord" etc, in that "broader context" sort of way. You said "Jesus," who is a very specific, religious figure in Christianity. Your backpeddling is hilarious.<br><br>So show me exactly where "dubya uses Jesus" as you've accused him of doing. <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

i think you're avoiding the issue.<br><br>dubya may use Jesus (noun), but i am not going to look for any examples because it's not the point i was trying to make and i've told you that repeatedly. again (said in multiple posts now) i should have said religion or christianity instead. every post after that initial post has implied and/or made clear this is what i meant. why is this so hard for you to hear (read)?<br><br>i can clearly see where you're coming from and i've tried to address it and i've even tried to backtrack . . . certainly not in what i meant, but in how it should be interpreted by you. i was trying to reach out and help you with your perceptions, but you appear to be unable to listen. this is unfortunate.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>i think you're avoiding the issue.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm not avoiding anything. I'm not, however, letting you reframe the issue that you and I are discussing. I'm asking you to back up your own words. Not redefine what you "really said". <br><br>So are you going to continue to avoid and evade, or will you back up your charge and show me examples of how "dubya uses Jesus"? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>i was trying to reach out and help you with your perceptions<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's a total load from you Sean. My perceptions are fine, I'm taking you for your words: "it mocks dubya for the way he uses jesus."<br><br>Show me in what way "dubya uses Jesus"<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

after my initial post, you did not go on the attack over my words -- you merely claimed not have heard any examples yourself (or something like that). my very first response to that post was the one i linked a few posts ago and that's the post where i displayed what i meant by "jesus" as i linked to jesus, lord, and god in my searches in the response to you. you responded to that post in a way that didn't call into question my use of jesus ("I like this first Google hit from the your "Lord" expose link"). it wasn't until a few posts later that you returned to my initial post and interpreted it in a literal manner, which was not supported by any other post i've made on this topic. can you find any other posts where i've said that i meant jesus as the character as opposed jesus as the symbol for christianity? find one post matt and i'll kindly admit i was wrong. it's that easy.<br><br>i apologize if you feel that you can only accept a literal interpretation of my words to save face. that's unfortunate.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>i apologize if you feel that you can only accept a literal interpretation of my words to save face. that's unfortunate.<p><hr></blockquote><p>What's really unfortunate is that I've asked you to simply back up your accusation by demonstrating in what way "dubya uses Jesus." Again, you didn't say "dubya uses God" or "dubya uses the Lord" or "dubya uses his faith", you specifically pointed out Jesus.<br><br>So let's have it Sean. You made the charge, now back it up. Point it out. <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

matt, i've already told you i have no intention of backing up the literal interpretation. i have even told you that it was an unfortunate choice of words given the way you've latched onto them. as far as i am concerned, i can do nothing further in this topic to help make this more clear. <br><br>until next time . . ..<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>matt, i've already told you i have no intention of backing up the literal interpretation<p><hr></blockquote><p>HAHAHA. Sean, your argument amounts to this: <br><br><blockquote>"I know I said Bugs Bunny, but I meant Warner Brothers, you're just misinterpreting me."</blockquote> <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>i have even told you that it was an unfortunate choice of words given the way you've latched onto them.<p><hr></blockquote><p>"Latched on to them." <br><br>So next time, when you say Jesus, I won't take as your meaning . . . you know . . . JESUS! You're really talking about God, Buddah, Allah and Goat Squire, the animal God of the Mountain People . . . right Sean? <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

next time i say jesus in one sentence with no other context around it and then proceed to provide context in post after post, you'll probably still not understand, so forget about it. cheers!<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>next time i say jesus in one sentence with no other context around it and then proceed to provide context in post after post, you'll probably still not understand, so forget about it<p><hr></blockquote><p>The next time you use Jesus, I'll take it you're meaning Jesus, regardless of whether of not you launch in to an emphatic display of Olympic power-backpeddling.<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

Ihesitate to do this because it lends credence to the spin doctoring and the hectoring bluster, but some might find it interesting.<br><br>oldie but goodie, and snopes's take on it<br><br>thorough<br><br>"accidentals" 1, 2 and 3<br><br>irreverent<br><br>at the FDA<br><br>pop theology<br><br>Christian Science Monitor editorial, which presupposes but doesn't demonstrate the use of Jesus (of course the presupposition must be wrong, for obvious reasons)<br><br>an analysis of the rhetorical craft involved<br><br>a liberal rag quotes Cal Thomas<br><br>another liberal rag attacks Bush's words<br><br>CNN concurs, damned liberals!<br><br>even the godless russkies<br><br>Very little direct reference to Christ, Sean--but a wink's as good as a nod, and the Evangelicals revel in it. Again, nothing wrong with that until it becomes inscribed in policy.<br><br>

Holy jumpin' Jesus! <br><br>Thanks for those links. I've only watched one of those PBS movies so far, but they are great!<br><br>"Jesus Day"? Uhhh, don't we already have a couple of those a year?<br><br>

that's nice al. i liked this one:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>When Bush was asked in a December 1999 presidential debate to name the philosopher who had most influenced his life, Bush answered, "Christ — because he changed my heart.<br><br>"When you accept Christ as your savior, it changes your heart, it changes your life," he explained<p><hr></blockquote><p>of course, "christ" and "jesus" are spelled differently. christ != jesus. <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

Wow! I don't remember this from '99 at all. I wouldn't have believed he really said that if it wasn't right there in front of my eyes. That number 2 video is the best one. Incredible stuff.<br><br>Boy, looking at that '99 primary, with the exception of Keyes, they all look pretty good now! <br><br><br><br><br><br><embed src="http://weinertlab.kicks-ass.org/~hunter/test/christ.mov" autoplay="false" width="340" height="220"></embed><br><br>

Oh......my......(well, you know)<br><br>[color:red]C'mon...you know me.</font color=red>

Impressive declaration... I'd say.<br><br>got to let your eyes adjust

I find it entertaining that whenever somebody on the right mentions their religion, it is the beginning of the end of the world; the final domino falling in religious domination of the government. <br><br>Yet, when somebody on the left mentions religion (as Clinton used to do all the time,) liberals and the media give them the 'drive-thru and wave' EZ-Pass on the whole issue. <br><br>The bottom line for me (as a non-religious person,) I don't care. As a Bush supporter, I admire anyone who says religion is a positive force in their lives.<br><br>Somebody already touched on this, but if you dare to mention that all of the terrorists in recent years have been Muslims, you are tarred and feathered for your religious intolerance and hatred for others. Yet it is perfectly acceptable to mock Bush for mentioning Jesus Christ. <br><br>

"Mentioning?" Mentioning?? Bush claimed Christ as the political philosopher or thinker he most identified with. He has "turned his life over to Christ". He's a born-again, evangelical Christian. He has developed a "faith-based" agenda that has greatly influenced his choice of cabinet and it influences his policy making decisions. He uses the bible in his speeches to the nation...<br><br>Apparently a lot of people in this country dig it. They like the preacher-in-the-White House routine. The polls prove it, whether others want to accept it or not. <br><br>But you think people are upset because he "mentions" Christ? I think there are times when George W. Bush thinks he is Christ! Not the actual Jesus Christ of Nazareth, but the saviour of a people. He actually told a preacher he is close to that he thought God wanted him to become president. Wow.<br><br>

Exactly why I didn't want to post the links. That's not the issue raised by the graphic that began this thread. The problem is that the graphic has been spinned into meaning what you allege.<br><br>When someone on the other side of the issue (and to say that Clinton is "left" is absurd, by the way) makes an error in naming--saying Jesus when he meant religion, and then acknowledging the error over and over and over--he gets badgered, berated, in effect called a liar. I'm called a coward because it's presumed I wouldn't attack Islam--when as a matter of plain fact, I did not attack Christinanity in the first place, nor would I attack any religion as a religion.<br><br>This thread, in short, illustrates the rhetorical approach of your side of the coin so clearly that I'm tempted to use it in a class as an example of spin doctoring.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Bush claimed Christ as the political philosopher or thinker he most identified with.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Bush was asked the question and he answered it. He come in, sit down and say "Before we start, who here isn't saved" . . . Nor does Bush go around Evangalizing. Since being elected President, show me where he talks about his faith beyond answering direct questions about it or "May God bless America." <br><br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

Are you originally from Missouri by any chance? <br><br>Did you watch those PBS movies that Yoyo posted? You might see a liberal conspiracy somewhere, but if you read the responses on that site there are many Bush fans expressing their gratitude toward PBS for posting them. Apparently they saw nothing demeaning about it.<br><br>Its not about what he says, but what he does. He's a born-again Christian and its a huge part of his life. Therefore, understandably, it also has huge effects on his policies. But, one might argue whether a religious extremest is the best choice for the executive office?<br> <br>I'm not going to get into one of your "show me" arguments. I can tell right now, from reading this thread, there is nothing I can say that will make any difference. <br>

Oh you think you can wriggle out of this one, Trog--you called him a religious exremist, and I want you to provide evidence of that charge. Where has Bush ever said that he's a religious extremist? You can't find an assertion like that anywhere because Bush has never said he's a religious extremist. If you're going to make charges, you had better provide the evidentiary link. If you can't find where Bush said he's a religious extremist, then I'd suggest you shut up about it right now. And you can't find that Bush ever said he's a religious extremist because he's never said it. Your left wing propaganda is just so misleading that it makes me sick.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> But, one might argue whether a religious extremest is the best choice for the executive office?<p><hr></blockquote><p>So Bush is a religious "extremist" because of his faith in God? And here I thought liberals were the most tolerant people on earth. Silly me. <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

Nothing like a little baracuda bait.. Your good.. <br><br>

i think of myself as tolerating quite a bit, but the one thing i won't tolerate is intolerance -- except for my own intolerance of intolerance. and yes, this makes perfect sense! <br><br>religious extremism tends to manifest as intolerance, fwiw.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

George W. Bush is a born-again Christian. That should be enough right there to say he is an extremist in the eyes of American voters. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure we've never had one of those in the White House before? They've always been Christians, but not quite to the extreme that born-agains are.<br><br>Did you watch those PBS movies yet? <br>How about this story. In one of the four chapters George Jr. has an argument with Barbara (mommy) about whether people who haven't accepted Christ as their saviour can go to heaven. Barbara wasn't as certain of that requirement as Jr. So, what did George do? He called a good family friend, Billy Graham, the evangelist, and asked him who he thought was correct. As it turns out Billy actually sided with Barbara and told Jr. that he was thinking a bit too literally about the requirements to get into heaven, rather you should just do your part to help people understand the greatness of Christianity. Well, George jr. wanted no part of either his mother or Billy Graham's philosophy and he continued to believe the idea that if you haven't accepted Christ as your saviour you will burn in hell after you die.<br><br>So, he's a born-again Christian, his close family members are evangelicals like Billy Graham and he's more extreme in his beliefs than they are! What is an extremist to you, a witch doctor?<br><br><br>Honestly, Matt, is that really what you think or are you baiting me? Nevermind, don't answer that. <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Your left wing propaganda is just so misleading that it makes me sick.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well, at least I made that point clear! <br><br>

Call me a prophet, eh <br><br>

Why do you baste born-again Christians in the "extreme" label? Just the liberal thing to do? What's with the intolerance? <br><br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

So a president can't be Christian?? When the majority of folks in the US are Christian?? (I thought you libs love that majority rules stuff... or is that only in Florida... when it's convenient?)<br><br>

interesting question, sam; however, born again and christianity are not the same thing though there is some overlap in that almost all born again folks would consider themselves christians. on the other hand, many folks would consider themselves christians, yet they would not consider themselves to be born again (most catholics and a great many other denominations). born again christianity is just one sect of christianity. <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

Hello??? That's Christianity 101. What's the point of being a Christian if you don't think Christ being your savior is necessary? It's sort of why Christianity exists. An a la carte viewpoint isn't Christianity, nor Biblical.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What's the point of being a Christian if you don't think Christ being your savior is necessary?<p><hr></blockquote><p>this is a bit of a slippery slope because the term, "born again" is not mentioned in the bible, thus many people interpret it in many different ways, i suppose. here's a nice description from wikipedia that will help clarify how i am using it: <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Most Christian denominations would agree that a true Christian must be born again, based on the above passage, and thus that those who are true Christians are in fact born again, whether they describe themselves as such or not. The Roman Catholic church, for example, considers that "Baptism is ... the sacrament by which we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost" [1] . However the term is most frequently used by Evangelical Protestants, where it is often associated with an intense conversion experience and an encounter of the individual with the power of God. Some would deny that those without such an experience are true Christians, based again on the above passage. It is common to find that Christians who describe themselves as born again consider those who do not to be counterfeit.<p><hr></blockquote><p>the bolded part is how i've always thought of "born again." i was baptized as a catholic and i never considered myself to be "born again" and most evangelical protestants would agree with me, though i did consider myself to be a christian for most of my life.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

My own personal experience with born-agains is that they tend to be a little over-zealous about their Christianity, so maybe that's the case with Bush too.<br><br>Friends of my in-laws are almost pushy when the subject of religion comes up- how we should accept Christ, live life as Christ would, etc, etc, ad infinitum. Great people overall, but you should see the look in their eyes when they're discussing their faith.<br><br>A *tad* frightening.<br><br><br><br>[color:red]C'mon...you know me.</font color=red>

I know what you mean, but as you say, great people on the whole. The problem is when zeal and government power work together.<br><br>As a historical side note, it's sort of interesting (and part of my field of study, as it happens) that the experience of the indwelling spirit of the born-again, who in the 16th and 17th century were called "visible saints" has, for better or worse, always been politically charged. In 1649 the visible saints cut the head off their king. And one version of visible saints, who established the theocracy in New England from 1636 onwards, had a heck of a hard time with other visible saints who rejected the official theocracy. Read Roger Williams' Bloudy Tenet of Persecution some time! The beauty of Williams' argument is that it leads directly to the separation of church and state, since any state religion is by definition an imposition on the freedom of the indwelling spirit of the visible saint. That definitely shocked the theological establishment in the Massachusetts Bay Colony--and led to Williams' exile to found that radical enclave, Providence, RI.<br><br>