U.S. Interest Versus Bush's Interest

[Winstonm]

As I said does Congress not know this?  If they have evidence why do they not begin an impeachment trial?

You do not answer my main point, if Congress has the evidence what are they doing with it? If they do not have the evidence and you do, give it to them.

 

If you guys are convinced that Bush is a guilty where is Congress and where is the public outrage demanding Congress to have a trial?  I just do not  see the Public demanding this of Congress or voting Congress out and someone else in.

 

Is the Public or Congress guilty of a great coverup? You guys seem to say Yes, the American people and Congress are guilty of  criminal coverups.

Congress is aware - the president publicly admitted ordering illegal wiretaps.

They don't start an impeachment trial because the Speaker of the House stated before taking office that impeachment was off the table.

 

And there is a public outcry - but you have to search the internet to find it as the MSM isn't talking about it.

 

And I guess you didn't notice the 10.000 who gathered recently in Washington D.C. to protest the Iraq war.

 

Besides, Congress right now is involved in extremely important matters affect the whole country - making sure the minimum wage is $7.50 - we want to make sure the poor are compensated for sacrificing their Bill of Rights guarantees.

[Al_U_Card]

When the sands of time have run their course.....Bush will be lumped with the likes of McCarthy.....or worse

[pbleighton]

Bush has committed a war crime: the invasion of Iraq. All wars which are not (narrowly defined) defensive wars are war crimes under the Geneva Conventions.

 

However, we are complicit in this crime (even those, like myself, who opposed it), and we consequently don't have a sizeable majority in favor of his impeachment. Impeachment isn't just a prosecution, it's a profound political act, reverrsing an election, and shouldn't be undertaken until there is such a sizeable majority.

 

This may happen, but it is highly unlikely.

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

"When a Christian man stands up for what's right he's a liar, and when a horny pervert commits adultery in a national treasure he's a hero."

 

"One other thing, everyone who can, please vote for Obama. He's a good, devout Christian."

 

Why is the religious status of a President or Presidential candidate relevant to anything?

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Religion is the ultimate refuge of the ignorant.

 

Believe in your capacity to change and to understand the nature and import of those changes. Believe in the nature of humanity and how even one change for the better is still a change for the better.

 

Belief in someone else's idea of rules and codes of conduct for others????? Look at how Cheney acts relative to gay people having children to rear.... Hypocrisy is the creed, religion is vehicle.....

[luke warm]

Religion is the ultimate refuge of the ignorant.

ignorance of what, exactly?

[Al_U_Card]

Everything important.

 

Ignorance = the state of not knowing

 

Intelligence is a measure of the ability to discern and relate. Knowledge is the result that leads to evaluation which provides perspective which results in judgement that engenders consideration.

 

The ignorant have no consideration of others. Religious ignorance (belief) confers this state to its adherents so that they not only do not challenge the religious authority and structure but they end up not challenging themselves. A true opiate, as it were.

[pbleighton]

"The ignorant have no consideration of others. Religious ignorance (belief) confers this state to its adherents so that they not only do not challenge the religious authority and structure but they end up not challenging themselves. A true opiate, as it were."

 

This is true of many, not all believers.

 

Though I hate to admit it, it's also true of some atheists and agnostics ;)

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Sadly, all too true.

 

The shackles of oppression are often self-imposed....the result is always the same.

 

Any philosophy that espouses abdication of personal control and responsability is an accident waiting to happen.

[BebopKid]

Religion is the ultimate refuge of the ignorant. 

 

Hypocrisy is the creed, religion is vehicle.....

I believe I have proved my point by the responses to my most recent post.

 

Thanks to all.

 

Also, I wish someone would actually cite facts and evidence of crimes or illegal deeds by Bush instead of citing their opinions and misrepresentations.

 

And don't post it here, take it straight to Congress. Because if such evidence does exist, 2 Democratic houses of Congress will impeach and remove Bush.

 

BTW, I never said anything bad about other religions. You are mocking me and not the other way around.

 

Some choose to be ignorant of God. Some don't.

 

No one is perfect. Everyone is hypocritical. I still have not judged anyone to be unworthy based on my opinions.

 

In fact the only person I disparaged, was a former President--on that I voted for--by stating a fact. He testified to it and I have no reason to believe that he lied about it.

 

As a faithful Christian, I don't believe I'm any better than you. I'm not better than Bush. I'm not better than Clinton.

 

It sounds like some people are better than us, though. Please stand up and take charge. You know exactly what to do to fix everything.

Text in bold is sarcastic.

[luke warm]

Ignorance = the state of not knowing

there is a whole school based on the philosophy of knowledge, or epistemology... one of the recognized definitions of knowledge from this school is: a properly basic belief, with warrant, from a sound and functioning mind

 

to say that religion is a refuge for the ignorant is to, itself, show ignorance as to the nature of belief and of knowledge...

 

taking your definition of ignorance, and defining religion (for the sake of discussion) as the faith based worship of a deity, do you feel that you are ignorant as to the truth of these claims?

The ignorant have no consideration of others.  Religious ignorance (belief) confers this state to its adherents so that they not only do not challenge the religious authority and structure but they end up not challenging themselves.  A true opiate, as it were.

since i am ignorant (in this narrow sense we are discussing - i freely admit my ignorance of any number of things), you are saying i have no consideration of others... is this assertion based on knowledge? or is it ignorance, itself?

[pbleighton]

BebopKid:

 

Once again:

 

"When a Christian man stands up for what's right he's a liar, and when a horny pervert commits adultery in a national treasure he's a hero."

 

"One other thing, everyone who can, please vote for Obama. He's a good, devout Christian."

 

Why is the religious status of a President or Presidential candidate relevant to anything?

 

I expect a coherent answer from you on this

Text in bold is sarcastic.

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Since we all seem to be of a like mind here, it is clear that the effect of religion (as opposed to say, scientific principles or rational thought) in general is not one of benificence to the practitioner. It seems to have some advantages regarding obliviousness and also towards the material well-being of its leaders and espousers.

 

Wait a sec.....The industrial revolution....the Spanish inquisition. The renaissance....the crusades. The constitution of the US.....the Salem witch trials.

 

God REALLY works in mysterious ways....of which I am TOTALLY ignorant unfortunately as I would love to fully understand these aspects of religions of love and forgiveness.

 

Don't get me wrong. You hold your beliefs and practice your dogma and enjoy your socializing but I gather what with the supposed separation of church and state that used to exist in the US.....perhaps try to not impose it on anyone else systematically.

[Al_U_Card]

taking your definition of ignorance, and defining religion (for the sake of discussion) as the faith based worship of a deity, do you feel that you are ignorant as to the truth of these claims?

The ignorant have no consideration of others.  Religious ignorance (belief) confers this state to its adherents so that they not only do not challenge the religious authority and structure but they end up not challenging themselves.  A true opiate, as it were.

since i am ignorant (in this narrow sense we are discussing - i freely admit my ignorance of any number of things), you are saying i have no consideration of others... is this assertion based on knowledge? or is it ignorance, itself?

Hi J. Sorry to have touched a nerve. This discussion is just that and it is possibly much more relevent to the Christian vs Islam scenario which is playing itself out around the world.

 

Religion for me has little to do with faith/belief in a diety and much more to do with an organized process of intellectual impoverishment that seeks the control of those that adhere to the particular belief structure. My own particular set of beliefs, while not mainstream, certainly qualifies for the faith part. I avoid the other bit, obviously. ;)

 

You are certainly not ignorant in a way that has any impact on your consideration of others. This is obvious from your postings. My ignorance is sufficiently extensive that I understand that my only hope is to continue to challenge and investigate in such a way that the knowledge will eventually be forthcoming. It appears to be working.

[mike777]

"...Why is the religious status of a President or Presidential candidate relevant to anything?..."

 

Peter you are joking yes? Perhaps it should NOT be relevant but show me a viable candidate who says they do not believe in a God? In our lifetime I doubt it.

 

If a position on religion costs millions of votes I would say it is relevant in a practical sense of the word.

 

Am I suggesting there is a huge bias against an aethist candidate in this country and almost every country, Yes. Is there bias against some religions in some, almost all, countries including the USA, yes.

[Al_U_Card]

Interesting, as which religion shouldn't make a difference then....but what was that I heard about Obama rama lama ding-dong going to some Madrassa (Islamic school?) when he was a kid?

 

I remember the "controversy" when Kennedy was elected. Maybe if we can get someone to espouse Santaria or voodoo or ...wait a sec, isn't that Cheney?

[pbleighton]

"Peter you are joking yes? Perhaps it should NOT be relevant but show me a viable candidate who says they do not believe in a God? In our lifetime I doubt it.

 

If a position on religion costs millions of votes I would say it is relevant in a practical sense of the word.

 

Am I suggesting there is a huge bias against an aethist candidate in this country and almost every country, Yes. Is there bias against some religions in some, almost all, countries including the USA, yes. "

 

First, the question I asked BebopKid was specific to Christianity, not merely to the religious/atheist divide. I await his answer.

 

Second, are you suggesting that the popularity of anti-atheist bigotry provides an excuse for it?

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

>Also, I wish someone would actually cite facts and evidence of crimes or illegal

>deeds by Bush instead of citing their opinions and misrepresentations.

 

The most obvious example is the illegal wiretapping program that was exposed 2+ years ago. The following articles provides a good summary:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5121701233.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature...ying/index.html

 

The following articles contain a more detailed legal analysis

 

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives...d_his_powe.html

http://volokh.com/posts/1135029722.shtml

 

>And don't post it here, take it straight to Congress. Because if such evidence does

>exist, 2 Democratic houses of Congress will impeach and remove Bush

 

The Democratic leadership has already announced that they are not planning to impeach Bush for any actions that have come to light so far.

 

Do you see that last statement? Thats what's referred to as a "fact". You might want to acquaint yourself with these ...

 

Your statement that the Democratic majorities will impeach Bush...

That's an example of an ignorant conjecture.

[mike777]

Is a bias the same as bigotry? Are you suggesting that voting on the basis of religious bias is the same as bigotry?

 

If bias is prejudice, bigotry is hatred and intolerance.

If prejudice is damage to one's rights or claims, I would say they are damaged.

[pbleighton]

"Is a bias the same as bigotry? Are you suggesting that voting on the basis of religious bias is the same as bigotry?

 

If bias is prejudice, bigotry is hatred and intolerance.

If prejudice is damage to one's rights or claims, I would say they are damaged. "

 

If someone would never vote for an atheist for President, regardless of his/her political views and other qualifications, that person is an anti-atheist bigot.

 

You can substitute Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. for atheist in the above. It makes no difference.

 

Peter

[BebopKid]

"Peter you are joking yes? Perhaps it should NOT be relevant but show me a viable candidate who says they do not believe in a God? In our lifetime I doubt it.

 

If a position on religion costs millions of votes I would say it is relevant in a practical sense of the word.

 

Am I suggesting there is a huge bias against an aethist candidate in this country and almost every country, Yes. Is there bias against some religions in some, almost all, countries including the USA, yes. "

 

First, the question I asked BebopKid was specific to Christianity, not merely to the religious/atheist divide.  I await his answer.

 

Second, are you suggesting that the popularity of anti-atheist bigotry provides an excuse for it?

 

Peter

There is no separation of church and state in the USA. (BTW, if you find "Separation of church and state" in the USA Constitution I'll pay you money. Separation of church and state is a misrepresentation of the Bill of Rights that simply forbids the Government to establish a state religion.)

 

The Judicial Branch of the USA has created a state religion.

 

That state religion, Atheism, is the largest practiced religion in the USA.

 

People of all faiths other than atheism are persecuted in the USA. It started small but is growing bigger every day.

 

This is one reason why I want to vote for a Christian. Also, if Joseph Liberman were running, I'd consider voting for him.

 

In my opinion, people who practice strong faith generally do not waver on issues. I can listen to them before elections and after elections and they have the same answers. Generally people without faith tend to track polls and give constituents what they want to hear in order to get elected. This is in no way fact, and in no way can I prove or disprove this.

 

I did bring up the part about Barrack Obama, because the media did make false claims about his religious background. Since quite a few people were reading this, it was a way to advertise my favorite candidate. Obama never went to Madrassa as the media reported. He went to a public school for 2 years in a Muslim country. This information was easy enough for me to find out.

 

I guess the media didn't care that it took me 2 minutes to verify that the information about the Madrassa was wrong. So with this said, what information can we believe? Who is telling the truth? Beats me.

[pbleighton]

"That state religion, Atheism, is the largest practiced religion in the USA."

 

And your evidence for this is?

 

"People of all faiths other than atheism are persecuted in the USA. It started small but is growing bigger every day."

 

And your evidence for this is?

 

Peter

[mycroft]

While I think that Bebop is a troll - or at least a supporter of the cult of Murdoch (and no, even as looney-left as I am, I do not equate that with "Republican" or even "people who listen to Fox News"), he has said one thing that I can fully agree with.

 

I have no reason to believe that Bush is doing anything differently from what he thinks is in the United States' best interests.

 

I have no reason to believe anything different either. I think Bush truly believes that what he is doing is in the United States' best interests. Yes, I know what I'm implying.

 

On the other hand, I wouldn't vote for General Bullmoose, either.

 

Michael.

[macaw]

I did a google search for "bush lies documented" - it was interesting reading the results ;)

[luke warm]

taking your definition of ignorance, and defining religion (for the sake of discussion) as the faith based worship of a deity, do you feel that you are ignorant as to the truth of these claims?

The ignorant have no consideration of others.  Religious ignorance (belief) confers this state to its adherents so that they not only do not challenge the religious authority and structure but they end up not challenging themselves.  A true opiate, as it were.

since i am ignorant (in this narrow sense we are discussing - i freely admit my ignorance of any number of things), you are saying i have no consideration of others... is this assertion based on knowledge? or is it ignorance, itself?

Hi J. Sorry to have touched a nerve.

al, no nerve was touched, honestly... if i was any calmer i'd be comatose

Religion for me has little to do with faith/belief in a diety and much more to do with an organized process of intellectual impoverishment that seeks the control of those that adhere to the particular belief structure.

ok, but almost all definitions of religion i've seen use the word "belief" (i.e. faith) in them... while your definition might differ, there does need to be some general agreement on the terms we use

 

i was objecting, possibly because i'm too quick to go into 'debate' mode, to some of your assertions that seem to be based on personal views rather than fact, such as "Religion is the ultimate refuge of the ignorant" ... and when i asked the subject of this ignorance, you said "Everything important"... i do object on personal as well as philosophical grounds to statements such as those, and i think an objective examination would show me to be warranted in that objection...

 

now i'm not above that sort of thing, we each enter almost any discussion with our own presuppositions, based on our own particular worldview... but i do try to be extra careful not to make an assertion without at least attempting a proof (not that i'm always successful)

 

as far as ignorance vs. knowledge, that's a slippery slope... it's quite possible for a highly intelligent person to misstate the nature of knowledge...

Peter you are joking yes? Perhaps it should NOT be relevant but show me a viable candidate who says they do not believe in a God? In our lifetime I doubt it.

this is in response to peter's question "...Why is the religious status of a President or Presidential candidate relevant to anything?..." and mike rightly points out that the religious status of a candidate is of paramount relevance, if the aim is to get elected

Second, are you suggesting that the popularity of anti-atheist bigotry provides an excuse for it?

assuming such a thing exists, mike was not suggesting any such thing... he was merely showing that the religious status of a candidate is indeed relevant