ThinkFast: June 12, 2008
ThinkFast: June 12, 2008
As Bush arrived in Italy yesterday for meetings with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi and Pope Benedict XVI, he was greeted by hundreds of anti-war activists and other demonstrators who marched through the capital. The AP writes that these protests show “anti-Bush sentiment over the war in Iraq still lingers.”
A new WSJ/NBC poll finds that, increasingly, voters don’t like President Bush personally. “By 60% to 30%, they have negative views of him, his worst showing ever.” By a majority of 54% to 42%, “voters say they’d prefer a president ‘who will bring greater changes’ over one who is ‘more experienced and tested.’”
Despite fierce opposition by Iraqis to his call for a long-term occupation of Iraq, President Bush yesterday expressed confidence that a status of forces agreement would pass. “Bush said that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ‘appreciates our presence there‘” and suggested much of the opposition “is based on inaccurate media reports and misunderstandings.”
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) “said he’s not going to let his effort to impeach President Bush die a quiet death in committee. He said Wednesday that he’ll bring his resolution back in 30 days if the Judiciary Committee…doesn’t act on it.” “In 30 days, I’ll be joined by many more” members, he said.
On the trail today: Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is holding a town hall meeting in Kaukauna, Wisconsin, “where he’s expected to push his economic plan to help struggling people like those hard-hit by a downturn in Wisconsin’s paper industry.” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) holds a media availability in Boston at 11:30 am “followed by town hall meetings in Nashua, NH, and New York City.”
“As Bush travels across Europe to gain support for possible new sanctions against Iran, Israeli leaders have been working to lay the psychological foundation for a possible military strike if diplomacy falters. In public threats and private briefings with American decision-makers, Israeli officials have been making the case that a military strike may be the only way to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”
Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) are expected to introduce legislation today that would close “loopholes that lobbyists for foreign clients sometimes use to keep their activities under wraps.” The bill would “require those who meet with American officials outside the country on behalf of foreign politicians to register as lobbyists, a step that existing law does not require.”
A CNN investigation has found “FEMA gave away about $85 million in household goods meant for Hurricane Katrina victims.” FEMA said, “We determined that they were excess to FEMA’s needs; therefore, they are being excessed from FEMA’s inventory.” But Martha Kegel, the head of a New Orleans nonprofit agency, responded, “These are the very things that we are seeking right now.”
Yesterday, the House fell just three votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass an extension of unemployment insurance benefits. House leaders plan to bring the legislation to the floor again today. The legislation will “will be considered under a rule…on the floor, and will only need a simple majority to pass.”
“The financial credit crisis is squeezing student loan programs that offer breaks to borrowers who enter critical fields such as nursing and teaching,” as state-backed lenders in at least six states “have dropped or scaled back programs.”
And finally: June seems to be music month on Capitol Hill. On Monday, the House passed legislation honoring recently deceased blues legend Bo Diddley. On Tuesday, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) “introduced a resolution to make September ‘Gospel Music Heritage Month,’” and Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) proposed “a bill honoring country singer Toby Keith’s commitment to the armed forces. “Although the troops have been hearing his hit ‘I Love this Bar,’ our office is so proud of our hometown hero that we hope he’ll be singing, ‘I love this bill,’” Cole’s spokeswoman said.
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) “said he’s not going to let his effort to impeach President Bush die a quiet death in committee. He said Wednesday that he’ll bring his resolution back in 30 days if the Judiciary Committee…doesn’t act on it.” “In 30 days, I’ll be joined by many more” members, he said.
I’m glad Kucinich is not backing down. Here's their oath of office:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'
Pelosi and Conyers should be 100% behind Kucinich, and they are not. They are just as guilty as the GOP’s who think this is “Just Political Posturing”. Since when did their oath of office become meaningless and irrelevant? There are over 4,000 dead soldiers and over 1.2 million dead Iraqi’s; but they feel there are more meaningful ways to be productive with their time than discussing why President Bush lied to start a war in Iraq. They dishonor the memory of all the soldiers that have died defending our country and the blanket of freedom they provided. These patriots deserve better than to have their sacrifice become relegated, by armchair politicians that have never served their country, or fought on the frontline, secured bunker, or laid down their life to protect others in harms way.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:01 amRep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) “said he’s not going to let his effort to impeach President Bush die a quiet death in committee. He said Wednesday that he’ll bring his resolution back in 30 days if the Judiciary Committee…doesn’t act on it.” “In 30 days, I’ll be joined by many more” members, he said.
GO DENNIS!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 9:01 amFreedom Rebel,
You are one fast woman -- and I mean that in the best possible way. :)
June 12th, 2008 at 9:02 amEvangelicals Bemoan Stereotypes
Sphere: Related Content
In what has to be one of the most bizarre stories to emerge this year, it appears that evangelical Christians are upset that educated Americans find them ridiculously absurd and have decided to do something about it. They aim to change how they are perceived through a large-scale study of an "evangelical intelligentsia."
Where do I start here? It sounds like evangelicals feel that they have been misunderstood, stereotyped, and even persecuted. But they control the American government! The Bush administration has catered to them in a way now previous administration has (and with disastrous consequences). How bad can public perceptions be when one of theirs is still in the Oval Office and faith-based programs throughout the country receive federal funding?
According to Peter Berger, a Boston University sociologist, educated Americans look down on evangelicals. Well, yes. Educated Americans do tend to look down on bigotry, whether it is directed at homosexuals, women, ethnic or racial minorities, or even atheists. How is this a bad thing?
The crux of the evangelical persecution claim is that there is room for everyone but them under the banner of tolerance. The problem with this claim is that they re trying to have it both ways - practicing intolerance while whining that we refuse to tolerate their intolerance!
Evangelicals say people often see them as Bible-banging, evolution-hating caricatures.
Absolutely! When they show up on our doorstep waving their bible or try to force our schools to teach manufactured controversy as science, we take notice. If their complaint is that not all evangelicals are like this, then it is time for those evangelicals to take a stand against those among them who are engaging in door-to-door proselytizing and promoting intelligent design.
Personally, I think a large-scale study of American evangelicals is a good idea. However, it is disappointing to see that it will be carried out by a research team that includes only Christians. One, Timothy Shah, is even described as an evangelical. Worse, his goal involves creating "more room for a religious perspective in various academic disciplines." So much for anything scientific here.
If it is true, as Shah claims, that the American culture makes fun of evangelical Christians, we should ask why.
An estimated 75 million Americans are evangelicals, people who emphasize a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and commit to spreading the message of salvation through his redemptive death.
And there is our answer. Evangelicals believe that they have a "personal relationship" with someone who has been dead for over 2,000 years, if he lived at all, and they want to tell you about it. This is why they are mocked.
I want to be very clear on what I am about to say so there are no misunderstandings. Evangelical Christians are ridiculed because of the absurdity of their beliefs and not because of who they are or even what group with which they are identified. I'll say it again - evangelicals are mocked because of what they believe. The fact that what they believe has the label of religion attached to it does not make it immune from criticism or mockery.
http://www.atheistrev.com/
June 12th, 2008 at 9:03 amWhen Congress Had a Chance, Food Safety Wasn’t Its Choice
Tainted tomatoes highlight how Congress forfeited some food-safety opportunities in the new farm bill. A nationwide salmonella outbreak attributed to tomatoes comes just as Congress and President Bush are finishing their farm bill tug-of-war. The bill about to become law omits some of the highest-profile food-safety proposals that lawmakers once offered.
“Food safety is never a key issue for any farm bill,” Chris Waldrop, the food policy director for the Consumer Federation of America, said Tuesday. The omission appears particularly poignant now, as at least 167 people in 17 states have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning since mid-April. The Food and Drug Administration is urging consumers to avoid raw Roma, plum or red round tomatoes. This isn’t a one-of-a-kind occurrence. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 300,000 Americans are hospitalized each year, and 5,000 die, because of food-borne illnesses. The farm bill nonetheless remains silent on many food-safety issues.
Procedurally, responsibility for food safety is scattered among some 15 federal agencies. The farm bill focuses on the Agriculture Department, which handles meat and poultry. Produce and seafood are handled by the Food and Drug Administration.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/11/9563/
We all saw how well “self-regulation” worked last year with the E-coli contaminated Spinach. The bottom line is; that it’s about profit over people. Whenever the Republicans can save the corporations money, that will always come before protecting the consumer from harm.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:04 amA CNN investigation has found “FEMA gave away about $85 million in household goods meant for Hurricane Katrina victims.” FEMA said, “We determined that they were excess to FEMA’s needs; therefore, they are being excessed from FEMA’s inventory.” But Martha Kegel, the head of a New Orleans nonprofit agency, responded, “These are the very things that we are seeking right now.”
Shorter FEMA: What? Do you think we're here to help YOU?
June 12th, 2008 at 9:05 amA new WSJ/NBC poll finds that, increasingly, voters don’t like President Bush personally. “By 60% to 30%, they have negative views of him, his worst showing ever.” By a majority of 54% to 42%, “voters say they’d prefer a president ‘who will bring greater changes’ over one who is ‘more experienced and tested.’”
In addition, since Clinton suspended her campaign, Obama's support from women has grown significantly. He leads McCain by 13% points.
Since women are the largest voting block in the country (over half the population), we need to encourage the women we know to get out and vote.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:06 am#3 Zooey Says:
Freedom Rebel,
You are one fast woman — and I mean that in the best possible way. :)
Good Morning Zooey!! I am when I'm very passionate about something!! And this is an isssue I just can't let go of without a good fight!!!
Good to see you:)
June 12th, 2008 at 9:06 amISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan released footage Thursday of a skirmish with militants that Pakistan claims resulted in an airstrike on one of its border posts that killed 11 of its troops. ´
unemployment figures
Dow off 206-washington mutual-steve jobs is sick-anheuser-busch
June 12th, 2008 at 9:07 amYesterday, the House fell just three votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass an extension of unemployment insurance benefits. House leaders plan to bring the legislation to the floor again today. The legislation will “will be considered under a rule…on the floor, and will only need a simple majority to pass.”
If the Republicans don't want to keep their jobs, why don't they just quit instead of giving us more just cause to fire them?
June 12th, 2008 at 9:08 amYesterday, the House fell just three votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass an extension of unemployment insurance benefits. House leaders plan to bring the legislation to the floor again today. The legislation will “will be considered under a rule…on the floor, and will only need a simple majority to pass.”
House Republicans block extended benefits that would have helped many people in this tough economy. They are all rotten to the core.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:09 amChina denies hacking U.S. lawmakers' computers
China on Thursday dismissed accusations from two United States lawmakers that it had hacked their office computers as alarmist and unfounded. U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican, said his office computers had been compromised in August 2006 and that he was told by the FBI and other officials the source of the attack was inside China. Rep. Christopher Smith, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said his computer had also been attacked from China.
Wolf said the computers that were targeted contained sensitive information about human rights in China, while Smith, a New Jersey Republican, said he had "every reason to believe" the Chinese government was to blame.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSPEK34803820080612
First thing I noticed, both were Republicans…and they had no evidence..
State Farm drops Mississippi coast
State Farm Insurance Cos. won't renew homeowners policies within 1,000 feet of the beach on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, an area devastated by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the company said Wednesday. State Farm spokesman Jonathan Freed said the change will not take effect until after hurricane season is over Nov. 30. Freed said no more than 892 policy holders would be affected by the 1,000-foot limit. However, he said about 4,000 more customers living between 1,000 feet and 2,500 feet of the water won't have their wind coverage renewed.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-11-state-farm_N.htm
Let’s see the government didn’t help the Katrina Victims, now State Farm is turning their backs on them too..
June 12th, 2008 at 9:12 am69 Says: Is Obama’s candidacy even constitutional?
Boy, you neocons are seriously desperate!
His mother was from KANSAS. I know geography isn't a strong suit of the rabid right (like most things that require education) but Kansas is a US state.
Obama was born in the US and that's all that actually matters when it comes to his qualification.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:15 amYou all realize why impeachment isn't happening don't you?
I believe it is because the leadership in Congress was briefed on all the illegal crap that the Prez has been up to, and they didn't say anything about it when they were told. They can make a lot of hay about it, but they never seem to do anything about it.
Mukasey says he wont investigate the admission by the CIA that they tortured people. Why doesn't Congress seem to care? Why wont they hold him responsible for doing, or 'not' doing his job?
The only reason I can think that they aren't doing it, is that they are in some way culpable. I don't like this idea, it makes me want to throw up, but it's the only thing that makes sense at this point.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:15 amThe Hill report is inaccurate stating there are no co-sponsors. Wexler is the first co-sponsor and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
I also suspect most of the 2 dozen that co-sponsored the Cheney impeachment will join.
The Democratic Leadership wants to kill impeachment and the ONLY Rational conclusion on can come up with for their reasons in the face of such heinous crimes is that they are part of the conspiracy and part of the coverups.
Impeach the f-king traitor Pelosi too.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:16 amGood morning, Freedom Rebel. :)
Fighting the good fight is a common thread in we parents of children with autism -- we NEVER give up! Keep up your excellent work. I really admire your dedication and tenacity.
I'll check back to see the things you post. Busy day -- I just may get out of IL soon!!
June 12th, 2008 at 9:16 amJeez. Whyever would Iran, a signatory to the NPF, want a nuke? It's not like anyone's threatening them.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:18 amMr.Bungle Says: The only reason I can think that they aren’t doing it, is that they are in some way culpable. I don’t like this idea, it makes me want to throw up, but it’s the only thing that makes sense at this point.
Considering how many of our elected officials just jumped on the Bush bandwagon in the wake of 9/11, it's very likely that some of them either approved of, or looked the other way on other atrocities. You could be right.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:18 amTSA to let polite terrorists fly without ID
A new Transportation Security Agency (TSA) policy will block passengers from flying if they do not have proper ID, but only if they exhibit defiance. Passengers who merely forgot to bring ID will still be permitted to fly, but will be subjected to a physical screening and enhanced baggage screening. "Passengers that willfully refuse to provide identification at security checkpoint will be denied access to the secure area of airports. This change will apply exclusively to individuals that simply refuse to provide any identification or assist transportation security officers in ascertaining their identity," TSA said in a policy statement.
"With hundreds of millions of dollars having already been spent on the various no-fly lists, it is at least interesting to see that someone at TSA is now spending time on fixing the loopholes in the system. The most glaring of this has long been the fact that passengers can refuse to show (or claim to have forgotten) their ID," said Soghoian. TSA claims that the function of the new policy is to "enhance the agency's risk-based focus on people, not things," but the entire approach lends strength to the arguments made by critics who say that the TSA peddles security theater rather than legitimate security.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080610-tsa-defiant-passengers-wont-get-to-fly-without-id.html
“The no-fly list is a collection of hundreds of thousands of people who are too dangerous to fly, but not guilty enough to be charged with a crime.” So much for the increased security; a terrorist forgets his ID, is subjected to a pat-down and then he can board the plane. Wow, sounds like enhanced security me, don’t you feel safer? *head shaking*
June 12th, 2008 at 9:19 amNew Gang of 14 won’t back McCain
At least 14 Republican members of Congress have refused to endorse or publicly support Sen. John McCain for president, and more than a dozen others declined to answer whether they back the Arizona senator.
Many of the recalcitrant GOP members declined to detail their reasons for withholding support, but Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.) expressed major concerns about McCain’s energy policies and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) cited the Iraq war.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/new-gang-of-14-wont-back-mccain-2008-06-11.html
June 12th, 2008 at 9:19 am69
If you look hard enough you can probably find evidence that Obama jaywalked at some point as well. He is one baaaaaad man.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:21 am#17 Zooey Says:
Good morning, Freedom Rebel. :)
Fighting the good fight is a common thread in we parents of children with autism — we NEVER give up! Keep up your excellent work. I really admire your dedication and tenacity.
I’ll check back to see the things you post. Busy day — I just may get out of IL soon!!
I hope you get to leave today Zooey, you have been away from home to long. I'm glad your mother is on the road to recovery. Have a great Day!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 9:21 amCongress has a Constitutional responsibility to deal with the bill of impeachment which Kucinich has brought. If the charges are sound, they must be dealt with. If they are not, then that should be cleared up. Burying the charges bears the responsibility of complicity!
June 12th, 2008 at 9:23 amRep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) “said he’s not going to let his effort to impeach President Bush die a quiet death in committee. He said Wednesday that he’ll bring his resolution back in 30 days if the Judiciary Committee…doesn’t act on it.” “In 30 days, I’ll be joined by many more” members, he said.
And a list of constituents and petitions to fill the Washington Monument. Despite "our" corrupted media's attempt to marginalize an authentic patriot like Kucinich, he insists on doing the right thing, alone if need be as in being the lone voice against the Patriot Act, or (from Wiki):
Kucinich is the only congressional representative to vote against the symbolic "9/11 Commemoration" resolution. In a press statement he defended his nay vote by saying that the bill did not make reference to "the lies that took us into Iraq, the lies that keep us there, the lies that are being used to set the stage for war against Iran and the lies that have undermined our basic civil liberties here at home."
Kucinich has a pair of Patriotic Brass Cojones bigger than nearly all of the chicken-congress and dem leadershi(t) combined. It's his country...and we should be fighting as hard as he does.
Dennis Kucinich is what a real leader looks like.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:27 amPolls: Obama extending lead over McCain
Obama us ahead in the latest CNN poll of polls.
(CNN) — Barack Obama is continuing to extend his lead over John McCain in a head-to-head matchup nationwide, a new CNN poll of polls indicates.
The Illinois senator now holds a 5 point lead over McCain among registered voters, 48 percent to 43 percent. In a CNN poll of polls conducted earlier this week, Obama's lead stood at 4 points, and in an average of national polls shortly before Hillary Clinton dropped out of the presidential race, Obama only held a 3 point lead over the Arizona senator.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
June 12th, 2008 at 9:27 am#16 Wayne Says:
The Democratic Leadership wants to kill impeachment and the ONLY Rational conclusion on can come up with for their reasons in the face of such heinous crimes is that they are part of the conspiracy and part of the coverups.
Impeach the f-king traitor Pelosi too.
I agree with you. If she isn't going to be part of the solution than get out of the way and get someone in who will. I'm sick and tired of her. Good Morning Wayne :)
June 12th, 2008 at 9:27 amunbelievable,
I hope I'm wrong, but I can't see what the problem is otherwise.
Over all the other possible, and obvious crimes, we have an admission of torture. AN ADMISSION!!! But they do nothing.
If it's one thing Americans universally care about, it's accountability. We didn't like Nixon getting away with it, we didn't like Libby getting away with it. Impeachment is a political winner and it's the right thing to do.
I think impeachment sends the right message to the rest of the world that we will not tolerate lawlessness by anyone. If we want to improve our 'standing' around the world, then we MUST hold our own accountable for their actions.
It sends the right message to those who seek the office of the Presidency that they we will not tolerate nor allow them to do whatever they choose without repercussions.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:32 amThey don't like W in Italy! Imagine that! Well, Italians, we don't like him either.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:32 am69, which I highly doubt has ever done, is just another moniker for the Michael Savage spam poster.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:32 amConsider yourself flagged!
#25 hanshiro Says:
Kucinich is the only congressional representative to vote against the symbolic “9/11 Commemoration” resolution. In a press statement he defended his nay vote by saying that the bill did not make reference to “the lies that took us into Iraq, the lies that keep us there, the lies that are being used to set the stage for war against Iran and the lies that have undermined our basic civil liberties here at home.”
Kucinich has a pair of Patriotic Brass Cojones bigger than nearly all of the chicken-congress and dem leadershi(t) combined. It’s his country…and we should be fighting as hard as he does.
Dennis Kucinich is what a real leader looks like.
I second that!!! That is why I get so ticked off when the Republicans call him the "laughingstock" of the house.
I contributed to his presidential campaign bigtime. I wanted him as our next president, he is the only one I trusted completely that was running.
Have a great day hanshiro :)
June 12th, 2008 at 9:35 amunb; check this out at http://www.AlterNet.org
Worse Than Fascists: Christian Political Group 'The Family' Openly Reveres Hitler
June 12th, 2008 at 9:35 amby Lindsay Beyerstein.
ccokz Says
June 12th, 2008 at 9:07 am
__________________________________________
Wow. Three links -- all to your blog. No original thought on your post besides your spam.
*FLAGGED* -- that's not what this site is for, whether we agree with your views or not.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:36 amBest wishes to those survivors & condolences to the families of those killed or injured in last night's tornadoes here in the Midwest. This weather is just the beginning of atmospheric anomalies to come with global warming.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:36 amHere in MN, we've seen temps in the mid-40's overnight. Cold temps accompanied by heavy rains are setting the farmers back. Many won't even have a corn crop to market this year. Those that replant will most likely go with soybeans, while corn could hit $7-8 / bushel.
With oil approaching $140 / barrel, our grain & corn exports to the middle east should be charged likewise. How would the Saudis like $140 / bushel corn or wheat?
Mr.Bungle Says: It sends the right message to those who seek the office of the Presidency that they we will not tolerate nor allow them to do whatever they choose without repercussions.
I saw that the U.N. has a photo of a man who was tortured. I think the link to the article was at Buzzflash. If nothing happens with that - solid, irrefutable evidence - then I think it'll be exceedingly difficult to come to any other conclusion.
We need the American public to vote these people out of office over and over until they get who's the boss an start doing the jobs for which they each take at least $162,000 dollars a year from our tax dollars. My sister-in-law thinks that loweing their salaries to $60,000 might be a good start in getting rid of some of them.
Sadly, I don't think you are wrong. We've seen too much from the past 8 years to trust these people.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:38 amDespite fierce opposition by Iraqis to his call for a long-term occupation of Iraq, President Bush yesterday expressed confidence that a status of forces agreement would pass.
My question is why is Congress letting him get away with this. Just because he calls it something other than a treaty doesn't mean it isn't a treaty. Congress needs to put a stop to this now. Otherwise it will just be one more complication Obama will have to deal with when he takes office in January.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:40 am“Bush said that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ‘appreciates our presence there‘” and suggested much of the opposition “is based on inaccurate media reports and misunderstandings.”
Poor President Bush, He is so victimizd by the Corporate Media. I mean, here at home, the evil Corporate Media has convinced Americans that the Bush Boom is actually a recession, with job losses left and right, gas prices spiking and home values plummeting. Even in Iraq, the Corporate media is so powerful that it can convince Iraqis that the garden paradise we've built for them is some kind of hellish war zone.
It's just not fair.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:40 amAnd like a good neighbor, State Farm is...GONE.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:41 amMr.Bungle Says: The only reason I can think that they aren’t doing it, is that they are in some way culpable.
I've thought that it's more about having that unfettered power once a democrat gets in the WH. The Ds seem to be forgetting about republican trademark hypocrisy. As soon as a dem secures the WH, the investigations into 'wrongdoing' will commence, no matter if Rs have a majority or not. Suddenly, Rs will find their (false) claim of moral high ground and use it to continually investigate, citing the duty of oversight.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:41 amIn public threats and private briefings with American decision-makers, Israeli officials have been making the case that a military strike may be the only way to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”
You mean the nuclear ambitions that are pretty much only in the minds of people like Olmert and Bush?
On the other hand, why is it OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but it isn't OK for Iran to have them? Because you don't like Iran's leaders? Well, many people in the middle east don't like Israel's leaders, including many people in Israel.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:43 amA CNN investigation has found “FEMA gave away about $85 million in household goods meant for Hurricane Katrina victims.”
Ok, and who did FEMA give them to? Friends of Bush?
June 12th, 2008 at 9:44 am#39 Zimzone Says:
And like a good neighbor, State Farm is…GONE.
Thanks for the laugh Zimzone, that was a good one...:)
June 12th, 2008 at 9:44 amHouse leaders plan to bring the legislation to the floor again today. The legislation will “will be considered under a rule…on the floor, and will only need a simple majority to pass.”
It doesn't matter. Bush will just veto it. He doesn't care about all the people in this country who are hurting financially. He only cares about all those poor millionaires and billionaires who need bigger tax breaks.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:45 amBy a majority of 54% to 42%, “voters say they’d prefer a president ‘who will bring greater changes’ over one who is ‘more experienced and tested.’”
______________________________________________
I seem to recall that about eight years ago, we elected (or more accurately, the SCOTUS appointed) a president who was neither tested nor very experienced, and he brought about probably the greatest changes to our country, our culture, our society, and our standing in the world that we have ever seen.
The pollsters may wish to qualify the "greater changes" in their question. They may get more than 54% in that column.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:46 amMorrning to you as well Freedom Rebel.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:46 amAnd nice first post. We all need to be reminded of that oath Pelosi feels no guilt in breaking.
Uncle Ho Says: unb; check this out at http://www.AlterNet.org
Thanks Uncle Ho!
Now, that's downright scary! Too many people in power associated with those fruitcakes. If Jesus were a real person, had he know what would be done in his name, he probably would have kept his mouth shut. But, there probably just would have been someone else who didn't. Truly a bane in our country's existence!
June 12th, 2008 at 9:47 amIs Obama’s candidacy even constitutional?
If Obama was born in the United States or if one of his parents was a United States citizen, he is a citizen and eligible to run for the presidency.
Sheesh...what will these scared angry Republics come up with next?
June 12th, 2008 at 9:50 am69 Says:
YOU MISSED THIS
No, we didn't "miss" this. None of what was posted was relevant in any way. Just the desperate postings by a scared Republican troll.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:51 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says: On the other hand, why is it OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but it isn’t OK for Iran to have them? Because you don’t like Iran’s leaders? Well, many people in the middle east don’t like Israel’s leaders, including many people in Israel.
The hypocrisy is staggering. Especially when we, who have 3,000 nukes, are telling other countries that they can't have one.
If we're so anti-WMDs, then we should begin by destroying ours. And if we will not, then we have no right to condemn those who want one, just in case crazy George gets an itchy trigger finger... Again, that is.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:51 amHere's a good one:
The Right just can't resist going after the candidate's spouse as part of their desperate smear-all campaign. now Faux News is identifying Michelle Obama as Barack's "Baby Mama".
They just can't help themselves, can they?
June 12th, 2008 at 9:52 am69 Says:
get your facts inline before you make false accusations.
The irony just drips from this one.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:54 am69; the Constitution requires a president to be 'natural born', i.e. born in the USA.
Obama was born in Kansas. McPutz was born in Panama
Do you REALLY want to debate who is legally qualified to be president?
Go Cheney yourself!
June 12th, 2008 at 9:54 amralph the wonder llama Says:
Here’s a good one:
The Right just can’t resist going after the candidate’s spouse as part of their desperate smear-all campaign. now Faux News is identifying Michelle Obama as Barack’s “Baby Mama”.
They just can’t help themselves, can they?
If either of the Obamas got student financial aid, you can bet that FoxNoose will be blathering about "welfare queens" soon.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:57 am69
FLAGGED
June 12th, 2008 at 9:57 amUncle Ho Says:
69; the Constitution requires a president to be ‘natural born’, i.e. born in the USA.
Obama was born in Kansas. McPutz was born in Panama
Actually, he was born in Hawaii. Which, the last time I checked, was a state.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:58 am#21 unbelievable Says:
New Gang of 14 won’t back McCain
At least 14 Republican members of Congress have refused to endorse or publicly support Sen. John McCain for president, and more than a dozen others declined to answer whether they back the Arizona senator.
Many of the recalcitrant GOP members declined to detail their reasons for withholding support, but Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.) expressed major concerns about McCain’s energy policies and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) cited the Iraq war.
Good Morning Unbelievable:)
Don't you just love the way Republicans cannibalize their own? They are not even loyal to their own party candidate. So much for party unity.
Of course, they have many good reasons for not backing him. I'm glad to see some of them aren't turning a blind eye to his delusional support of the Iraq War. That his Economic Plan and Energy Policies are a complete joke with no obvious thought put into them. (Just trust me it will all be okay rhetoric)
June 12th, 2008 at 10:00 amBush on widespread Iraqi opposition to the illegal US-Iraqi treaty: "Noise in the system".
Classic Bush. He believes "the will of the people" Americans or Iraqis, is just annoyance interfering with his grand plans.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:02 amgummitch Says:
Actually, he was born in Hawaii. Which, the last time I checked, was a state.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:58 am
_____
A Freak State, but a state nonetheless...
June 12th, 2008 at 10:03 amIf either of the Obamas got student financial aid, you can bet that FoxNoose will be blathering about “welfare queens” soon.
What they are blathering out is the "secret" film footage someone has with Michelle Obama calling us "whitey". Funning thing about that film, no one seems to be able to find it. Don't you think it would be out there by now if it existed?
Every time the right attacks Michelle it will only hurt them. It just shows how little they have on Obama when they have to start going after his wife.
I also think they don't want to go there because if someone were to compare Michelle with Cindy (the drug addicted, thieving adulteress), I don't think Cindy is going to come out on top. Unfortunately Obama will probably stop people from going after Cindy, even if the right goes after Michelle. I'm kind of torn on that one. I understand his desire to run a clean campaign, but the devil in me seriously wants to see Cindy taken down a peg or two.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:04 amLover of Progress Says:
unbelievable,
I think Muslims also should be mocked. They believe in imposing their religion and culture on us. Muslims, like Evangelicals are not Progressive. They shouldn’t get a pass because they’re a minority. They are as vile as Evangelicals.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:00 am
_______
Please provide us with one concrete example in which Muslim culture was imposed upon you.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:04 amCould we get an upgrade, perhaps V2.0 of Trolls, please? They're beginning to sound as dumb as their Chimp 'N Chief.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:06 am#38-Ralph
One of our less than intrepid media should ask Bush if he would appreciate if there were foreign troops occupying this country. The last thing that the Iraqis want is for the U.S. to keep its troops illegally in their country, despite what Iraq's puppet government might say.. This is why Obama's plan to leave 80,000 troops in Iraq or in the region after his phased [not immediate] withdrawal finally takes place will never work. The Iraqis, like the Vietnamese, will continue to fight until the United States military is finally driven from their land.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:09 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says
June 12th, 2008 at 10:04 am
What they are blathering out is the “secret” film footage someone has with Michelle Obama calling us “whitey”. Funning thing about that film, no one seems to be able to find it. Don’t you think it would be out there by now if it existed?
______________________________________________
I expect to see lots of smears like this between now and November, because it's all the opposition has in their quiver. Fortunately, the Obama people put up a website to address this problem, and they will be keeping it updated:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/
This gives us all the content we need to counter this garbage, and it will be in the words of Obama's campaign.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:09 amFreedom Rebel Says: Don’t you just love the way Republicans cannibalize their own? They are not even loyal to their own party candidate. So much for party unity. Of course, they have many good reasons for not backing him. I’m glad to see some of them aren’t turning a blind eye to his delusional support of the Iraq War. That his Economic Plan and Energy Policies are a complete joke with no obvious thought put into them. (Just trust me it will all be okay rhetoric)
Hi there!
Good point. I think they many of them realize that they are in a 'wolf in the trap' situation. Either they gnaw off their own arms, or they will die. They will have to distance themeselves from the Republican reputation if they are to stay in office.
Most of my conservative friends will be voting for Obama because McCain scares them. Good news :)
June 12th, 2008 at 10:11 amOh good. Another troll sockpuppet.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:12 amWell, Turdblossom has another one of his propaganda lines ripped out from under him.
"President Bush is personally popoular."
Nope, the world can't stand him and neither does the U.S.
-GSD
June 12th, 2008 at 10:12 amRep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) “said he’s not going to let his effort to impeach President Bush die a quiet death in committee. He said Wednesday that he’ll bring his resolution back in 30 days if the Judiciary Committee…doesn’t act on it.” “In 30 days, I’ll be joined by many more” members, he said.
WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO CO-SPONSOR THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH.
https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
June 12th, 2008 at 10:13 amLover of Progress Says: I think Muslims also should be mocked. They believe in imposing their religion and culture on us. Muslims, like Evangelicals are not Progressive. They shouldn’t get a pass because they’re a minority. They are as vile as Evangelicals.
No argument from me. I am very anti-organized-religion. I think religion is destructive, divisive and ignorance-pushing. I have gotten a lot of crap about this viewpoint, but lately it seems that a lot of people are starting to realize the same thing, thanks to people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:15 amBorderline Case: U.S. Attacks Pakistan Military
By Chris Floyd of Empire Burlesque
OK, maybe I was wrong -- maybe Pakistan is not going to have to wait to have its turn as a Terror War target.
[...]
http://airamerica.com/blog/2008/jun/11/borderline-case-us-attacks-pakistan-military
June 12th, 2008 at 10:15 amExcellent link, misshusseinmolly! Thanks.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:16 amLover of Progress Says:
unbelievable,
I see you bash Evangelicals, why do you give Extreme Muslims a pass? They are just as vile and Non Progressive. I basically hate Religion and believe it should be banned in a Progressive America. Religion is evil and it must go!
Uhh, you never mentioned EXTREME in your original post. Makes a big difference!
Also, by trying to eliminate religion from this country, you are imposing your will on others; something you complain about.
CREEPY!
June 12th, 2008 at 10:16 amYou are a sockpuppet who thinks that spreading a falsely intolerant image of progressivism will help your side. You're not fooling anyone.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:18 amgummitch; I stand corrected.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:19 amLover of Progress Says: I see you bash Evangelicals, why do you give Extreme Muslims a pass? They are just as vile and Non Progressive. I basically hate Religion and believe it should be banned in a Progressive America. Religion is evil and it must go!
I don't. I dislike all organized religion.
When you ban something you ensure it's survival (the forbidden fruit is always the sweetest). I prefer to educate people. 97% of the members of the National Academy of Science are atheists.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:20 amYou do realize Lover of Progress (a new poster) is here to disrupt, masquerading as an extreme progressive, probably to use on another blog, revealing how "pro-muslim" Think Progress is.
My guess? Mr. P.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:21 amDRxJ Says:
You do realize Lover of Progress (a new poster) is here to disrupt, masquerading as an extreme progressive, probably to use on another blog, revealing how “pro-muslim” Think Progress is.
My guess? Mr. P.
Yes, or his girlfriend, Twaije aka The Joker. Spelling is probably too good for that one, though.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:24 amTo obvious. Lacks even the facade of sincerity. I say gong em
June 12th, 2008 at 10:25 ambut first add an extra o
June 12th, 2008 at 10:25 amLover of Progress Says: Well, we agree to disagree. I am a real Progressive. I want Religion destroyed.
You cannot be both a Progressive and someone who seeks destruction by force. They are incompatable ideologies.
Education is the best means for instilling a Progressive population. Not force.
Progressives also use logic. Until you make an argument based on logic, it's as pointless as typing and posting: "jncv uf blv bdvb sdj kb lbvdbvi lu hvfi vnvld".
June 12th, 2008 at 10:26 amWhy do YOU think Democrats don’t support IMPEACHMENT?
I think it’s because Democrats were briefed on torture including waterboarding, black site prison renditions, and warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Democratic Leadership were taken on “virtual tours” of overseas detention sites and shown the harsh techniques interrogators had devised. The full Intelligence Committees were briefed in 2006. Democratic Leadership were also briefed on warrantless wiretapping.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:26 am[...]
(read the rest)
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=2497
Can I hit the gong this time?
June 12th, 2008 at 10:27 amNot completely as pointless. See, if the sockpuppet had just typed “jncv uf blv bdvb sdj kb lbvdbvi lu hvfi vnvld” it would take us a lot longer to discern its sad intentions.
By instead cheerfully presenting an unconvincing cartoon of a progressive, it's helped us to see instantly what it was up to.
Thanks, sockpuppet!
June 12th, 2008 at 10:30 amFundamentalists in any shape or form are dangerous..
June 12th, 2008 at 10:33 amLover of Progress Says
June 12th, 2008 at 10:15 am
We need to ban Religion in America, then Progress will be achieved.
__________________________________________
Hmmm...sounds familiar. Oh yes -- wasn't this one of the major tenets of the Soviet Union? How well did that work out for them?
I don't see the problem as religion itself. Furthermore, to "ban" it would violate one of our most cherished freedoms, guaranteed by the first amendment. I am willing to fight for the right of anyone to worship as they wish.
No, the problem is religious zealots telling the rest of us how to live our lives and attempting to hijack the laws of our land to conform to their ideology.
If an evangelical Christian wishes to eschew homosexual relationships, or choose not to have an abortion, fine. But I get a little testy when I'm told I have no right to do what I want with my own body or how to conduct my own sex life with another consenting adult.
If a Muslim wants to avoid pork and alcohol, fine. But I would object if they told me I can't put bacon on my cheeseburger. (Actually, I HAVE Muslim friends -- and they don't care if I eat pork, as long as I don't do it in their house and on their dishes, which I think is reasonable.)
We have room for people to worship as they please in this country. It's one of the pillars on which this great country was founded. However, the price we pay for this freedom is that we respect the rights of others to enjoy it as well.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:34 amModest African footprint still approaching limits
Individual Africans might consume less on average than residents of any other continent, but rising population is bringing Africa close to its ecological limits, the first ever detailed assessment of Africa’s ecological footprint has found.
Africa-Ecological Footprint and human well-being, prepared for WWF by the Global Footprint Network and released at the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment today finds the average African had an Ecological Footprint (an estimate of the area of land or sea used annually in providing for personal consumption) of 1.1 global hectares in 2003, well below the global average of 2.2 hectares per person.
“Our research shows that the average African has a low environmental impact by western standards,” said Chief Emeka Anyaoku, President of WWF International. “But a growing number of African countries are now depleting their natural resources - or will shortly be doing so – faster than they can be replaced.”
Egypt, Libya and Algeria head the list of African countries living well beyond their ecological means, with the ecological footprints of Morocco, Tunisia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Senegal, Nigeria, South Africa and Zimbabwe also exceeding national bio-capacity.
Globally, world consumption exceeded biocapacity by 25 per cent in 2003. Current business-as-usual projections show that humanity will require the resources and waste absorption capacity of two planets by 2050.
Clear dangers loom from a projected more than doubling of Africa’s population by 2050, taking it from about one eighth to nearly a quarter of the total world population.
“Development that ignores the limits of our natural resources ultimately end up imposing disproportionate costs on the most vulnerable and the most dependent on the health of natural systems such as the rural poor.”
“There is no doubt that Africa faces major ecological challenges, but there are positive signs that environmental impacts can be reversed,” said Chief Anyaoku. “Africa’s Ecological Footprint is getting bigger – but it is not just Africa’s problem. It is up to us all to help reverse the trend.”
http://us.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.panda.org%2Findex.cfm%3FuNewsID%3D136521
June 12th, 2008 at 10:35 amralph the wonder llama - I too would hve prefered if he/she would have typed “jncv uf blv bdvb sdj kb lbvdbvi lu hvfi vnvld”. At least it would have been honest. :D
June 12th, 2008 at 10:39 amNot. Fooling. Anyone.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:40 amLover of Progress Says:
unbelievable,
We are educating the people. We have control of most of the School systems. So we will be the majority in 20-30 more years.
What we need to focus is on spreading Atheism in Latin America and the Muslim World. With Islam especially we must teach them the truth about Muhhamed and his lies. We are already beating the Christians and the Zionists, the Muslims should be our next targets to spread Progress.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:31 am
_______
Atheism IS a religion, idiot. By evangelizing atheism, you're just as bad as people who try and force any other religion on people.
Why not just let people worship - or not worship - how they chose to? Seems like a pretty American idea to me...
June 12th, 2008 at 10:42 amLover of Progress Says
June 12th, 2008 at 10:24 am
As An Atheist we are winning here in America and Europe. Our next battle front must be Latin America and the Muslim World. We need to start telling those people the truth that is Atheism.
________________________________________
Oh, please. If you're going to masquerade as a real progressive, could you at least come up with something credible? Nobody would ever believe this twaddle comes from a genuine progressive.
We're about preserving freedoms -- not eliminating them.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:42 am"Yesterday, the House fell just three votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass an extension of unemployment insurance benefits"
You'd think the Republicants would be more sympathetic towards the unemployed considering that they themselves will more than likely be in the very same position after this November.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:43 amTrust me - it's definitely the religious right that control the public school system. It's why I left, and now teach college instead.
If we eradicate absurd religious beliefs that keep people from supporting progress through valuable programs like stem cell research, then it will be a "win" for everyone. Even for people like you who think you're making a point, but are only making a fool of yourself with you false claims about a subject you do not understand.
Start with educating yourself.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:44 amIt'll tucker itself out in time...
June 12th, 2008 at 10:44 amLover of Progress Says:
"We need to achieve Progress."
At least we agree on one thing poser. We could all achieve a bit of progress this morning by flagging and removing fake progressives from the thread. Go sell your bullsh1t somewhere else, P.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:46 amLover of Progress Says: stupid chit
LMAO
You know the trolls have NOTHING when they try to pass themselves off as "progresives" to try to smear us.
Too bad they are too stupid to even be believable, just like they are too stupid to intelligently debate any real issues.
Give it up troll, you only prove to everyone your own lack of coherent rational thought.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:47 amLover of Progress Says:
hussein toasterhead,
Look why should you Muslims get special priviledges? That’s not Progressive. Evangelicals are mocked and are rejected by America’s emerging Atheistic majority. Muslims should be mocked too. Their religion is just as stupid as all of them. We are winning and the Christians, Jews and soon Muslims are losing. America will be an Atheistic Progressive Republic. There’s nothing you MUslims can do about it. We have already beaten the Christians, you are next.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:46 am
What special priviledges do "we" Muslims get, exactly? The right to exist?
June 12th, 2008 at 10:48 amBush said that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ‘appreciates our presence there‘” and suggested much of the opposition “is based on inaccurate media reports and misunderstandings.”
Damned Iraqi media anyhoo.
Uh, chymp? They hate us for our freedoms, remember?
June 12th, 2008 at 10:48 amhussein toasterhead Says: Atheism IS a religion, idiot. By evangelizing atheism, you’re just as bad as people who try and force any other religion on people.
Atheism is NOT a religion. It's a lack of religion [or specificallly a lackk of god(s)]
Actually, it's not about evangelizing Atheism, but education, knowledge and our right to freedom from religion. We wouldn't have to do this if religioun weren't such a destructive and divisive force in our country.
Why not just let people worship - or not worship - how they chose to? Seems like a pretty American idea to me…
The problem is that this isn't happening, and that we Atheists have had to do what women did to gain the right to vote and blacks did to gain civil rights - become visible, and vocal.
LOP, by the way, is not an Atheist.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:49 amFlag the fcking fake foney poseurs.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:49 amLOP appears to be an Idiotist.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:50 amThere's a pig out there somewhere named Progress who's very lonely this morning.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:51 amLover of Progress Says
June 12th, 2008 at 10:42 am
misshusseinmolly,
Those Muslims should relize, they are in America. You have a right to eat Pork in front of them. Secular Jews don’t complain why should Muslims be special. Sorry, it’s not Progressive for one group to get special priviledges and others not!
_____________________________________________
I think you misread my post. I suggested that my Muslim friends would object to my eating pork in THEIR home and on THEIR dishes. I don't see that controlling what goes on in your own home is a "special privilege".
If you actually want to be taken seriously, try posting a list of what you consider to be "special privileges" that Muslims receive in this country. Or you can just continue with your current pointless drivel and be flagged when we are no longer entertained by it.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:52 amRUCerious Says: There’s a pig out there somewhere named Progress who’s very lonely this morning.
Best post of the morning! ha ha ha!
June 12th, 2008 at 10:53 amWell, we agree to disagree.
I am a real Progressive.
I want Religion destroyed.
.
"one of these things is not like the other..."
jeez, what a tool...
June 12th, 2008 at 10:53 amThis is an incredible weak effort
June 12th, 2008 at 10:54 amhussein toasterhead Says: Atheism IS a religion
Have to respectfully disagree with you there. I am A-thiest, which is by definition the lack of belief in a deity.
I follow NO RELIGION. It is irrational to label my NON BELIEF in an invisible being in the sky a religion.
I would really rather not see Bartlebee's totally irrational debate on this be risen from the grave where it belongs.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:56 amLoverofProgress is ObamaLover. Same pus-filled cranium. Flag on sight. Or hook, or gong.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:57 amLover of Progress Says: Why are all of you against me?
Because you are being dishonest, and advocating oppression. Two things that Progressives do not support.
As my article stated, tolerance of intolerance is not acceptable. Just because we're a lot of "peace and love hippies" to you doesn't mean that we're lacking in critical thinking skills. You've been hanging around the non-thinkers at Red State for too long. We can recognize a Republican in sheeps' clothing much better than you realize.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:58 amRUCerious, you made my morning thanks! And the pig named Progress will feel the love in 3..2..1..
June 12th, 2008 at 10:59 amPsst, 69, those pictures in the Kama Sutra were not intended to be poses for the family album. Tell Mom quick.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:01 amI figured throwing facts at LOP would scare it away. You know how muc the Righties flee like cockroaches from the light... But, apparently, it is immune. Probably can't recognize a fact in the first place.
Oh well.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:01 amLover of Progress Says
June 12th, 2008 at 10:52 am
I thought this websit4e was about Progress. Why are all of you against me? Is there an anti-Atheist sentiment amiong the so called Progressives around here. In order to achieve Progress, religion must be banned.
___________________________________________
1. This website is about Progressive ideas.
2. We are against you because the troll persona you have adopted for this performance art is a sick cartoon intended to do nothing more than fling poop all over the thread.
3. We have nothing against atheists. We have nothing against believers of God in any form, either. We have a great deal against anyone who wishes to force their religious views on others. Oh, and by the way, we also have a great deal against those who spew hatred in a vague manner with nothing to back it up.
4. I think only you could constantly spout the phrase "achieve Progress" while obviously having no clue as to what it means. Mainly because without definition, the phrase is meaningless.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:02 amRim shot! Thanks all, and try the veal cutlets!
June 12th, 2008 at 11:03 ammisshusseinmolly for vp!
June 12th, 2008 at 11:05 amunbelievable Says:
Atheism is NOT a religion. It’s a lack of religion [or specificallly a lackk of god(s)]
Actually, it’s not about evangelizing Atheism, but education, knowledge and our right to freedom from religion. We wouldn’t have to do this if religioun weren’t such a destructive and divisive force in our country.
We can debate semantics about this all day, but I'm going to hold firm in my worldview that atheism - the belief in the lack of a God - is still a religion. Yes, it doesn't have all the frills and frippery of popes and muftis and tithing and churches, but it's still a system of belief and philosophy that many people use as the basis for their personal morality and societal outlook. That, like Confucianism or Animism or other systems that don't have a central diety, is by (an admittedly stretched) definition, a religion.
Just like Christians and Jews and Muslims have no proof - only faith - that there is a God, Atheists have no proof - only faith - that there is no God. This is the very essence of religious belief - it is on a different playing field than that of science.
>Why not just let people worship - or not worship - how they chose to? Seems like a pretty American idea to me…<
The problem is that this isn’t happening, and that we Atheists have had to do what women did to gain the right to vote and blacks did to gain civil rights - become visible, and vocal.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:49 am
To what end, though? What is the end goal you're trying to achieve? If it's the removal of all auspices of any religion from any facet of public life, I think you may be on the wrong track. What the goal should be is an equal and non-favoritist recognition of all faiths, in which Atheism is included.
The goal we should seek in the public sphere is secularism. Not, mind you, the term as corrupted by Bill O'Reilly and others like him to mean anti-religion. Secularism has gotten a bad and inaccurate name in this country. I mean a secularism that embraces all faiths and shows favoritism to none. Including Atheists.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:05 amIsraeli officials have been making the case that a military strike may be the only way to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”
May I offer a hearty "GOD DAMN ISRAEL" to all this morning?
June 12th, 2008 at 11:06 amun! I'll second that emotion for MHM!
June 12th, 2008 at 11:07 amShe'd help Obama carry NC, and be a breath of fresh air on the American Political Landscape.
Kudos for misshusseinmolly
Awesome post as always
June 12th, 2008 at 11:07 amCo Exist
June 12th, 2008 at 11:10 amAtheism IS NOT a religion.
Is NOT playing tennis a sport?
So how can non-belief be religion?
(Although our troll does seem to be trying to force his non-religion in a very evangelical manner.)
June 12th, 2008 at 11:10 amWayne Says:
I would really rather not see Bartlebee’s totally irrational debate on this be risen from the grave where it belongs.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:56 am
_____
Nor would I, which is why I'm proposing a worldview that unites, rather than divides.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:11 amhussein toasterhead Says:
We can debate semantics about this all day, but I’m going to hold firm in my worldview that atheism - the belief in the lack of a God - is still a religion.
Until you can back up your "worldview" with rational proof, it is still only your "belief" that my "non belief" is somehow a religion.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:11 amYou are usually more rational than this.
Where's the outrage over McCain's comment about it's not important if and when the soldiers come home?????
June 12th, 2008 at 11:21 amI read in the Inquirer today that Adm. Mullen dosent know when Stop Loss will end so our soldiers will be there indefinetly.
McCain must be confused and I'd like him to clarify , does he know this war is being fought by the same soldiers over and over again.They're on their 2nd or 3rd or 4th tour . I repeat their on their 2nd or 3rd or 4th tour some maybe up to 5 tours.My sister did did one tour and after 22 years in the Army she got out . We knew it be like playing Russian Roulette with her life when you do repeated tours , and we didnt want her 3 sons to be motherless, not if we could help it.
He says it like Korea or Germany but soldiers are stationed there and their families are there with them .
When does he foresee it will be safe enough for the soldiers and their families to be stationed in Iraq. Bush says we need about 40-50 years to work the kinks out.
McCain dosent care about the broken army.
Wayne Says:
hussein toasterhead Says:
We can debate semantics about this all day, but I’m going to hold firm in my worldview that atheism - the belief in the lack of a God - is still a religion.
Until you can back up your “worldview” with rational proof, it is still only your “belief” that my “non belief” is somehow a religion.
You are usually more rational than this.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:11 am
_______
This is completely rational. It's just a matter of perspective. I am applying rational Aristotelian logic to the concept of faith.
What you are terming "non-belief", by the logical relationship of contraposition, is also "belief in the not." The statement IF NOT P -> Q is equivalent to IF P -> NOT Q. Therefore, if you do not believe there is a God, then you also, logically, believe that there is not a God.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:22 amHey Toasterhead!
Is there a difference between being an atheist and being uninterested in religion? (The answer to my own question, I would usually think, is that atheism is a more declared and passionate rejection to religion, but I need other input.)
Anyone with good insight, besides toasterhead, I would find their input valuable! That would tie some loose ends, if any exist.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:24 amMcWars Says:
Hey Toasterhead!
Is there a difference between being an atheist and being uninterested in religion? (The answer to my own question, I would usually think, is that atheism is a more declared and passionate rejection to religion, but I need other input.)
June 12th, 2008 at 11:24 am
________
I think there is a difference, yes. Atheism is a belief in no God. Being uninterested in religion is a belief that organized religion is unimportant. As I see it, they're two separate things.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:30 amhussein toasterhead sez:
the belief in the lack of a God - is still a religion.
Is my non-belief in Odin a religion?
June 12th, 2008 at 11:32 amhussein toasterhead Says:
The statement IF NOT P -> Q is equivalent to IF P -> NOT Q.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Oops! That relationship is the inverse, not the contrapositive. The contrapositive would be IF NOT Q -> P. My apoligies!
June 12th, 2008 at 11:32 amThanks toasterhead!
June 12th, 2008 at 11:34 amTeleMan Says:
Is my non-belief in Odin a religion?
June 12th, 2008 at 11:32 am
____
No, it's just ludicrous. Mr. Wodin is happily resting in a bed somewhere outside London, with very fresh sheets.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:34 amhussein toasterhead Says:
What you are terming “non-belief”, by the logical relationship of contraposition, is also “belief in the not.”
I now see. Your application of logic is faulty because you are trying to prove your actual rationalization, rather than viewing empirical evidence then making your deduction.
Lack of belief in something for which no empirical evidence exists cannot be labeled a belief. That is ludicrous.
Your "logic" could also argue that because flower does not believe its a rock, it really is some form of rock, and it would still be wrong.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:35 amGood Morning poster's. just making my quick fly over this day...Great post's and link's BTW...Thank you..
A gentle reminder of past truth's...The madam of our whore house said she knew about the wiretapping before 9/11...Seem's to me many representative's knew a lot of thing's that were both illegal, immoral and against our constitution from the get go and have gone along for the ride...Use to be the driver of the get away car in a bank robbery was as guilty as their cohort's gathering up all the money...In the case of murder and other crime's if one stand's by, help's get rid of the evidance and say's nothing they also are just as guilty...Here in lies the answer why many in the know democrat's don't want impeachment....GUILTY..We need some major house cleaning....
Guess I had better make a fast getaway this morning before the new troll tries to eliminate witch's along with all other's....I send Blessings and hope's of Peace..
June 12th, 2008 at 11:39 amToasterhead,
Someones lack of empirical evidence to support their religion, does not make another persons rejection of such a fantastical, unprovable belief a religion onto itself in any reasonable argument.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:41 amOn the topic of impeachment, I find refreshing Kucinich's persistence! WHAT A TRUE AMERICAN.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:42 amhussein toasterhead Says:
June 12th, 2008 at 11:32 am
No, it’s just ludicrous. Mr. Wodin is happily resting in a bed somewhere outside London, with very fresh sheets.
I hear that's the highlight of his day - clean, crisp, nicely pressed sheets. (RIP D.A.)
June 12th, 2008 at 11:45 amDidn't we have the entire gamut of the atheism is/isn't religion with the now dear departed BartleBee some while ago?
The key is the word belief.
If all beliefs are religion, then belief in no Godhead existence would be a religion.
If lack of belief is the absence of belief, then it wouldn't be...Depending on the definition of the word 'is'...heh.
There. That's my 2.75 cents.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:51 amMy head hurts.
hussein toasterhead, I have to differ. You are offering a false dichotomy, he two are not mutually exclusive. There is no evidence to either believe or not believe in a God.
My biggest problem is with people who claim to know one way or the other the existence of God. And how in Satan's good name do you even define what you supposedly believe or disbelieve in? What is God?
June 12th, 2008 at 11:52 amRUCerious Says:
There. That’s my 2.75 cents.
My head hurts.
LOL
June 12th, 2008 at 11:55 amGood post.
Atheism is a belief in no God.
I think it's more an embrace of the natural order, more than a non-belief in God.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:55 amWayne Says:
I now see. Your application of logic is faulty because you are trying to prove your actual rationalization, rather than viewing empirical evidence then making your deduction.
Lack of belief in something for which no empirical evidence exists cannot be labeled a belief. That is ludicrous.
I disagree. By the very nature of faith, it is irrelevant to empirical evidence. Empirical evidence can no more prove that there is a God than it can prove that there is no God. Empirical evidence can prove or disprove scientific theories based on observable phenomena. God, by the nature of being a deity, is not an observable phenomenon. God is a matter of interpretation, not observation.
This is my argument. I'm conflating the terms "belief" and "faith" and "religion," but in essence they all describe the same thing. To me, belief is like mass. You have to have it. You may not want it, you may not like it, you may try to ignore it or lose it or gain it or hide it, but no matter what you do you will still have mass.
Your “logic” could also argue that because flower does not believe its a rock, it really is some form of rock, and it would still be wrong.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:35 am
No it can't, because these are two separate arguments. Whether the flower believes it is a rock or not is irrelevant to the fact of the flower not being a rock. The flower that firmly believes it is a rock will not be swayed by empirical evidence, nor will the flower that firmly believes it is not a rock.
Of course, this is all a matter of perspective.
The flower could make a logical argument that since every single molecule of every cell in its body, from root to stem to stamen, was once part of a rock before it was eroded and converted into soil nutrients and sucked up in a root system and converted to mitochondria or cell membrane or whatever it eventually became - it is indeed still a rock. Those minerals may be two billion years removed from their origins in a rock, but they are still indeed rock-descended.
However, this argument comes from empirical evidence. The flower could use this argument to support its belief that it is a rock, but the argument does not prove this belief. A rock-believer flower will use this evidence to state that it was once a rock, therefore it will always be a rock. A non-rock-beliver flower will use this evidence to argue that it is so far removed from its rock origins that it can no longer be considered a rock.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:00 pmbarfly Says:
I think it’s more an embrace of the natural order, more than a non-belief in God.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:55 am
______
Fair enough. Isn't that embrace of the natural order also a belief?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:03 pmI don't mean to be rude but if you folks wish to attempt to make a go at Bartlebee's long standing record, you better have a hell of a lot of stamina, insommnia, coffee, and meth. It's lunch time so I quess I'll check back on your progress in like 3 days. Good Luck to you
June 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pmOMFG!!! What has this world come to?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:06 pmbarfly Says:
Atheism is a belief in no God.
I think it’s more an embrace of the natural order, more than a non-belief in God.
The natural world can be proven to exist in reality. A rejection religion in a supernatural being that cannot be proven, does not make the rejection, because of total lack of proof, a religion itself.
Rejection of the belief in unicorns is not a belief, it is a rejection of something unprovable.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:06 pmI think it's funny how some people seem to be allergic to certain words for fear of the stigma attached to it by other words.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:13 pmdon't you believe in yourself? Do you believe you exist or are you a skeptical solipsist?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:15 pmlike is but a dream, that sort of thing, eh?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:16 pmoops, I meant life is but a dream.. sorry
June 12th, 2008 at 12:17 pmI've got no time for this belief stuff. That why I have an Electric Monk to do it for me.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pmWayne Says:
The natural world can be proven to exist in reality.
Can it really?
The entire natural world that you observe consists solely of chemical impulses transferred from nerves in your eyes, ears, skin, tongue, and nose, and are assembled by your cerebral cortex into a visual, auditory, tacticle, gustatory, and olfactory perception of reality. Every single observable phenomena that exists in this natural world is still subjective by the very nature that it is, fundamentally, a copy of reality that is created inside your brain. At a really really really fundamental level, you believe that this natural world does indeed exist and is not merely an illusion in a Wachowski brothers movie.
However, you can never prove beyond all doubt that it exists. All the evidence is already tainted by the time it gets to your brain.
What is reality? What is matter? What is time? We don't really know yet.
Some theories of quantum mechanics state that the universe is destroyed and a new one created every instant, and what we percieve as time is actually an illusion created by a cosmic flipbook of static universes.
Ludicrous? Totally! But it makes some equations work. And there's really no way to prove that time is not a cosmic flipbook, because we can never escape time in order to truly observe it. We're bound by its constraints.
A rejection religion in a supernatural being that cannot be proven, does not make the rejection, because of total lack of proof, a religion itself.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
This is a non sequitir. My whole point is that proof is irrelevant to religion. You can decide taxonomically what you choose to call "religion," but a belief in a negative is still a belief.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pmHTH, seems to me you're stretching the term "religion" too far, trying to make it into a synonym for "belief".
One may hold a belief without it being a religion.
I believe that I was born in New Jersey. That doesn't make it my religion, despite my personal inability to recollect the event. I have empirical evidence: my birth certificate, for instance.
In order for this discussion to make sense, someone's got to lay some groundwork by defining "religion" in a reasonable way.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pmCall on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, my children! Only in pasta can we find peace.
Pass the pesto! ;o)
June 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pmtoaster, I do believe you just attained Nirvana...
June 12th, 2008 at 12:31 pmnanlichi Says:
hussein toasterhead, I have to differ. You are offering a false dichotomy, he two are not mutually exclusive. There is no evidence to either believe or not believe in a God.
Exactly. Now you're getting it. There can be no evidence that proves the existence or nonexistence of God, because God does not exist, in the most basic sense of the word.
To exist is to be observable. To be observable is to be provable. What is provable can no longer be believed in, for it simply is, or is not.
My biggest problem is with people who claim to know one way or the other the existence of God. And how in Satan’s good name do you even define what you supposedly believe or disbelieve in? What is God?
June 12th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Mine too. They are substituting the word "know" for "believe," that's all.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:33 pmLeftside Annie Says:
Call on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, my children! Only in pasta can we find peace.
Pass the pesto! ;o)
MMmmmmm pasta.
Thanks Annie,greatidea.
I "believe" I shall have lunch today at the Olive Garden.
The "proof" may be a pasta stain, if I forget the napkin =)
June 12th, 2008 at 12:37 pmrAmen!! ;o)
June 12th, 2008 at 12:39 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
I believe that I was born in New Jersey. That doesn’t make it my religion, despite my personal inability to recollect the event. I have empirical evidence: my birth certificate, for instance.
In order for this discussion to make sense, someone’s got to lay some groundwork by defining “religion” in a reasonable way.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
______
Ok, fair enough. I'm defining it - and this is a really quick stab at a definition - as an overarching system of belief that colors and contextualizes an individual's perception of the world and frames their sense of morality and relationship to the world around them.
Now in your example, your belief of having been born in New Jersey would not constitute a religion. It does not necessarily frame your entire worldview, unless you're a Devils fan.
However, for many indigenous tribes around the world, the place of their birth has far more significance. A fundamental tenet of their religion is a spiritual connection with the land of their birth and their ancestors. Without this land, they have lost their culture, identity, and religion. So your example is not necessarily trivial.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:44 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
In order for this discussion to make sense, someone’s got to lay some groundwork by defining “religion” in a reasonable way.
Then the discussion will never make sense.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pmReasonable and religion are two concepts that rarely match =)
Wayne Says:
MMmmmmm pasta.
Thanks Annie,greatidea.
I “believe” I shall have lunch today at the Olive Garden.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
RAmen!
I think I'm going to have some rocks for lunch, since I already proved that they're salad.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
As always, a refreshing debate.
**hat tip**
I am off to see if the FSM will make a surprise visit to the holy Olive Garden =)
June 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pmIs it kosher having your noodles with white sauce and chicken for a Pastafarian?
June 12th, 2008 at 1:02 pmHTH, your definition of "religion" is a useful one, and there's no doubt that some who consider themselves atheists could be seen as devout in a religious sense.
But atheism itself, as a concept, is not a religion. A broad statement that it is, in my opinion, is mistaken.
I would be tempted to include ritual in my definition of religion, since every religion I can think of, from Catholicism to being a Red Sox fan (or Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers, Celtics, Lakers, whatever), has its own rituals intended to support one's devotion. By that measure, which I think is a reasonable one, atheism -- the belief that there is no god -- is not a religion.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:06 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
I would be tempted to include ritual in my definition of religion, since every religion I can think of, from Catholicism to being a Red Sox fan (or Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers, Celtics, Lakers, whatever), has its own rituals intended to support one’s devotion. By that measure, which I think is a reasonable one, atheism — the belief that there is no god — is not a religion.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
______
This is a good point, thoough I'd counter that these rituals are more a product of culture than religion. Catholic rituals and traditions in Rome are not necessarily the same as rituals practiced in Miami or Kenya or among indigenous tribes in Chile.
Ritual is, perhaps, what delineates "religion" from "organized religion." Atheism, then, would simply be a "disorganized religion."
June 12th, 2008 at 1:18 pmHTH, under your definition, "progressivism" would be a religion, no? As would "conservatism".
June 12th, 2008 at 1:23 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
Ritual is, perhaps, what delineates “religion” from “organized religion.” Atheism, then, would simply be a “disorganized religion.”
False premise.
Example:
Solitary Wiccan practitioners daily perform ritual, yet can hardly be designated as "organized religion", just as the Catholic church performs ritual yet is organized religion.
Ritual is a part of many religions, even defines many of those religions
My argument is still:
Rejection of the belief of something unprovable is not in of itself a belief or a religion. It is only a rejection of something that cannot be proven.
Kind of like me rejecting what the silly trolls post is not a belief or religion.
What ritual do you propose I perform that would designate my non belief in a diety as a "belief" or a "religion"?
June 12th, 2008 at 1:48 pmAnd I am sorely disappointed that the FSM never showed, but the Alfredo sauce was excellent =)
June 12th, 2008 at 1:57 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
HTH, under your definition, “progressivism” would be a religion, no? As would “conservatism”.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
_____
No - these are, at best, amalgams of a variety of political and economic philosophies. Now, many of these philosophies may be shaped by an individual's religious belief, but that doesn't make them religious beliefs in and of themselves.
Yes, someone might say "I believe in a cap & trade system" or "I have faith in the free market." But what they're really saying is that their fundamental understanding of the nature of the relationship between humans and each other, humans and their country, countries and other countries, and humanity and the planet so shapes their worldview that it leads them to conclude that climate change should be stopped and that the poor should be provided health care, and that a cap & trade system would best stop climate change or that the free market would best provide health care to the poor.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:12 pmWayne Says:
Solitary Wiccan practitioners daily perform ritual, yet can hardly be designated as “organized religion”, just as the Catholic church performs ritual yet is organized religion.
Ritual is a part of many religions, even defines many of those religions
It depends how you define ritual. What Western Europeans consider ritual may not be what Mayan shamans consider ritual. Defining religion in terms of ritual is also problematic because it allows people who are just going through the motions to be religious.
My argument is still:
Rejection of the belief of something unprovable is not in of itself a belief or a religion. It is only a rejection of something that cannot be proven.
I understand what you're trying to say, but I think we're getting caught up in terminology.
In rejecting something that cannot be proven, you are still exhibiting belief. You are stating a belief in the nonexistence of a metaphysical - a belief that all there is to the universe is what is directly or indirectly observable, and that there is nothing else to it. If you don't consider that a religion, fine. But it is a belief system.
Kind of like me rejecting what the silly trolls post is not a belief or religion.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
True - because what the trolls post can be disproven by emprical evidence. Often overwhelmingly.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:24 pmCome on, HTH, that's a cop-out. Your definition of "religion" was:
an overarching system of belief that colors and contextualizes an individual’s perception of the world and frames their sense of morality and relationship to the world around them.
That describes progressivism or liberalism or conservatism at least as well as it describes Judaims or Christianity. And better than it describes atheism.
You tried to claim that atheism is a religion because it "colors and contextualizes an individual's perception of the world". Hence, it's an individual thing, not a collective one (otherwise you could not include atheism, which is non-collective) yet you say that progressivism is not a religion because it's too varied in its influences -- in other words, because of its collective nature.
This is a contradiction.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:45 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
Fair enough. Isn’t that embrace of the natural order also a belief?
Not unless it leads to a belief in elves, pixies, and harpies. By "embrace of the natural order" I mean the observable, quantifiable, world. Secularism, I guess, comes closest.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:52 pmHere's the most simple explanation I can come up with.
I am an atheist. I don not believe there are gods. I don't believe there are no gods. I admire the wisdom of many philosophies. I have no religion.
[NOTE: For those who don't understand my part in the Bartlebee debate, atheism wasn't the issue to me. It's a subject I can easily discuss in a civil and reasonible manner. It's "safe".
My issue with Bart, which coincidentally happened in a discussion about atheism, was his infuriating habit of presuming what one (I in this case) think and believe; only to follow up with claims of liar, idiot and worse, when one (I in this case.) tell him his presumptions were wrong.]
June 12th, 2008 at 2:54 pmFEMA gives away $85 million of supplies for Katrina victims
June 12th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Understood, pete. I don't think anyone who took part in any of Bart's screamfests had a problem with the subject being discussed. It was all to do with Bart's awful troll-like argumentation.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pmOh man...I was LMAO at the Obama cigarette controversy until I read #144...which completely sobered me up.
Wow. Just wow.
We need to watch what we post...BushCo gets off on torture so we don't want to give them any additional ideas.
(After posting the above, I am trying to get back into a smiling kind of mood, so, on a side note: Are you a first class snarker? I am looking for YOU! You're gonna love this! Come join the fun and tell us why YOU are voting Republican.)
June 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pm