theocracy in America

Post Reply New Topic

A non-intrusive fundimentalism has every right to exist within itself, an invasive fundimentalism against the free has not the right to intrude upon others freedoms.

Actually, you need to do a bit of research on this subject.

First, Bush does have his hands in FOX News, and it is well documented. He does not own FOX, but one of the executives happens to be none other than his cousin, John Ellis. Whether or not he's still there is irrelevant, because he was there in 2000, when Bush stole the election. Nobody will ever really know how much of an influence Ellis had on this, other than reports from insiders at FOX, whom are probably either biased or afraid to speak the truth, and most of which, in actuality, downplay the situation. What is also well-documented is that FOX called the election before other media sources did, which is an act of bullying. FOX empowers itself by bullying everyone else that it does not agree with, and it features a wide range of pseudo-facist hosts.

Second, "we are apathetic because we think we are on top" may be accurate, but what happens with this question: "Why do we think we are on top?" To answer that, you'll have to analyze the sources we use to justify our being on top. We form opinions and base our decision on what we read and hear, pure and simple. So, whether we like it or not, we are controlled by what we read and hear, because we do not own what we read and hear. We do not advertise in what we read and hear. That's not to say that none of us own or advertising anything regarding what we read and hear, but advertisement and ownership predetermine what is printed and said, in many cases. That's how Jim Hightower got his ass thrown off the air. That's why Bill Maher had his ass thrown off one station. The only credible case in the media is: "America is #1" If you say anything else, they'll brand you a communist or a leftist, and your life will change as you know it.

Also, look at who the Democrats nominated in 2004. John Kerry! Of course, Bush is going to win.

- Ray M -

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library ... finger.htm

This is the President Bush that claims to be a Christian, remember politicians are power hungry, they would say they are anything to gain power. A christian doing this on national T.V in the highest office, in world leadership? I think not, instead it's Bush the posser christian.

Dude, what I said was absolutely and completely correct, I don't see how being correct means that I must do research. He does not own fox news, saying that he does is stupid. I never said that he wasn't buddies with the dude that does, nor did I say that Fox was unbiased. Fox is widely known for being biased but that does not mean that Bush owns it. I think that the claim that Bush stole the election in 2000 is too confident if all things are looked at one would see that there is great controversy and mixed results based upon measures and standards used. Some reports still say that Bush would have won and others claim it is Gore and which candidate wins is primarily based upon what evidence you would choose to look at as different sources come to different conclusions. Anyway, I am not going to dispute that Fox is biased though, I know that Fox is biased but that was not what was said, what was said was that Bush owned Fox news, ownership only occurs when Bush literally owns the news station which by your own word he technically doesn't.

We think we are on top due to nationalism partially and because of the economic strength of our nation. Truly we are on top at this point, US has great technology, a powerful economy, a strong military, and so on and so forth, however this does not mean that we aren't losing our edge. Most Americans don't know that their nation does not have cell phones that are as cool as some of the other nations, nor do they know the dedication of other peoples to getting what they have, nor do they know the truth behind the strengths of foreign systems. They take the strength of America for granted and do not realize that we will not always be a superpower and especially not if our young people only watch American Idol instead of improving themselves. We are the most powerful nation on earth but we are not as great as we think we are and we are losing steam.

John Kerry came across as cold to many voters I think, which would have definitely hurt him. Even though Bush is a horrible debator(everyone remembers the deer in the headlights moment during the debates, right?) he just seems to have more warmth than Kerry does.

The USA is not, and never has been, in danger of becoming a theocracy.

Certain people from the left have taken to using the word "Christian" to broadly paint a large group of people in a negative light. This has been picked up on by the media, and now there is a wide misconception that all Christians are jingoistic and anti-gay, and want to live in a theocracy.

The goal of these leftists is the exact same thing as what they accuse Bush of doing in the war in Iraq/Afghanistan - dehumanizing the people this description is aimed at.

I'm neither dem or republican, but the dems want to bring back seperation of church and state. This is a good thing, because it's not right to make people of other religions forcibly comply to christian law. That my friend, is discrimination.
Not all christians are anti-gay, or pro Bush, or whatever... There are good christians out there, but the bad ones are standing out right now because theyr becoming too powerful and are attacking our constitution. If you've read a history book you should be able to see what is going on. It's the EXACT same formula to power Hitler followed. Now, I think it's dumb to follow any label fully, but I can get along with liberals sometimes, bush supporters are like psycho-religious nazi's who hypocritically complain theyr being attacked when theyr the ones attacking everyone else's religions (or lack thereof).

The far right are like America's taliban.

I think that the person who said that Bush owned FOX News was simply misinformed. I imagine that he had heard at one point that John Ellis, or some relative of Bush, has been in the ownership circles of FOX News. Now, it's easy to understand how someone can become confused and say that Bush owned FOX, because he didn't properly connect the associations in his mind. Remember, this happened years ago. Remembering something from way back then can be confusing, with all the information that is thrown at us each and every day. Like, I knew by assocation that "a relative of Bush" has been around FOX, so I just researched the info quick through a search engine and found out what I was looking for. Then, I posted my message. I don't expect everyone else to do the same sort of thing. I just like to have my facts straight when I post.

- Ray M -

I'll agree with that, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a political spectrum, of who's Left and Right, etc... It has to do with how the media conducts their business, and then to understand how public thought actually works.

Everything is categorized using "anti-" and "pro-" prefixes. This insures that a person who only supports a type of abortion is to be seen as being pro-abortion. The same is true with the concepts of anti-environmentalism, anti-communism, anti-capitalism, pro- labor, pro-choice, etc...

Saying someone is "anti-American" has the same concept. This goes on all over the political spectrum, and it is done to polarize social constructs and have them identified with a political party line. This is pure propaganda, and is the reason why people tend to see the nation as being heavily polarized, when, in actuality, it is not.

- Ray M -

I have read history books and no, this is not like Hitler's rise to power. In fact, this is just like another American election, maybe even with less corruption than some. I mean, the corrupt bargain that kept Andrew Jackson out of the presidency was a lot worse than any believed stealing of the election in the year 2000. Hitler's rise to power had a lot to do with the depression and anger over the loss of WW1 and you know, he actually had a personal army at the time which he used to destroy buildings of his enemies and blame it on his enemies. Hitler also used the Jews as a scapegoat for all that was wrong with the world and started removing their rights. Bush got the office under very different circumstances and really has not removed the rights of any individual group. He has fought for the Arab company Dubai world so he doesn't hate the Arabs. He actually tries to defend Mexican immigration so he doesn't hate those people. It is arguable that he hates gays but even then he has made comment on supporting civil unions and has appointed an openly gay person as an assistant secretary for the department of commerce.
Civil Union page http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking ... -1337r.htm
Openly gay appointment page http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _n15390133
So really, I don't think that he hates gay people, he may be opposed to them having the term of marriage and his Christian values might find their acts sort of repulsive but he still does not seem to want to eliminate them.

Dude, get a grip, Bush and Hitler are not very much alike, I have read history and that includes reading a Hitler biography and from my knowledge from that and my knowledge about Bush(who I may not have studied as much about but still know something) I can safely say that Bush is not like Hitler and is not going to put in place a theocracy. The claim that he is going to do that is like a conservative claiming that Gore will destroy the nation with multiculturalism by severing the bonds that make us all American, such a claim is nonsense.

Yeah now Bush has a reason to indirectly imply in the minds of conservative masses for arabs to become the scapegoat. Also high on the list are gays, atheists, poor, disabled, and people of any religion other than christianity.

Well, he is spouting out a lot of crazy stuff so it was hard to give him benefit of the doubt, he was ranting more than expressing educated opinions. I just knew for certain that Bush was not the owner and really do not like all of the crazy conspiracy theories.


Look, I have not even heard of any scapegoating going on. It is not like Bush is claiming that the gays are driving up the deficit, or that atheists are responsible for inflation. He has not done anything similar. The closest thing he has done applies to foreign countries run by 3rd-rate dictators. I am not going to say that Bush is the patron saint of tolerance but he has hardly done anything to use anyone as a scapegoat. Hitler was pretty openly anti-semitic and ther were plenty of staged attacks and posters supporting his views, Bush has not done anything similar to demonize any group. I have not even heard of him trying to demonize any group and start some massive slaughter campaign against any people.

*sighs* Okay then. How do you justify calling yourself a Christian?

Just thought I might point this fun little document out.

Life in our Anti-Christian America

Aspies ranting? I doubt it. Aspies tend to be overly rational creatures. If he appeared to be ranting, then he couldn't communicate his ideas that well. I doubt, however, that he was truly ranting. It's just not an aspie thing to do, at least not without some sort of evidence to back it up.



Now, I think this is a matter of how deeply someone looks into the situations set forth by Bush and Co. If you look deep enough into his policies, you'll find that Arabs have become the ultimate scapegoat. Bush, through his War on Terror and further through the Patriot Act, has simply made Arabs an overall enemy of the American State, so long as someone sees them as suspicious. Or, have you ever wondered why many conservative commentators supporting Bush tend to say that we should be checking only the Muslim people going through the airports? This is common rhetoric in many circles, and Bush is in his ultimate glory. He knows that he doesn't have to be a fascist outright, since he'll just let the pigs within the framework do it for him. All you have to do is listen to FOX News, and you have scapegoat heaven.

Now, think about this, say, if you have an Arab neighbor:

Is your neighbor pissing you off? You don't have to worry. Don't bother to be an antagonist. Just pick up the phone and turn in a terrorist!

- Ray M -

The stuff he is spouting out isn't rational but rather the product of many misconceptions and warped logic. We may be rational but that does not we are total logic and many of the things he has said do not match up with the information that is out there or are simply unverifiable conspiracy theories built off of minimal fact. We may have some rationality but we also have a desire to see the world in black and white as well and I think that this person does not see the full shade of grey that this administration is.

He does not hate Arabs though. His actions during the Dubai Ports deal, which were opposite to both the people and the Democrats, shows that. He wanted to allow an Arab company to invest in American ports which is something that a racist wouldn't do. He has made certain Arab backed terrorist groups the enemy of the American state but not the actual people. The patriot act is weak anyway and even has targeted non-violent groups for surveilance, it is less of a threat to our rights and probably more of a waste of our time and money. The argument of the conservative commentators is that we should focus on people who are more likely to be problems, they are mainly concerned with not having little old grannies checked at the airport and recognize that most of the terrorists are arabic. I am not going to say that their logic is correct, it could very forseeably lead to misunderstandings with the local Arabic/Islamic communities, however, I don't think that very many groups out there broadcast messages of Arab ethnic cleansing. I think that people do not like Arabs and I don't really think that this is Bush's fault but rather one of anger due to 9/11 and the fact that Arabic nations do not give a very good image to the world due to their harsh laws, the large amount of terrorism, the lack of common culture, the history we share, and because they seem primitive in our eyes. The pigs in the system probably hurt him from supporting this view as it did hurt Bush on the afforementioned Dubai Ports deal, I tend to doubt that Bush is a fascist, if he is a fascist then he is one of the worst fascists in history, I figure that Bush simply qualifies as a mediocre or worse President more than anything.

I don't think that turning in random Arab neighbors is really an incredibly common occurance, it could be due to a lack of Arabs but I think that the so called "police state" is something that comedy tends to overstate. I remember seeing an episode of the daily show a while back and it made fun of the Patriot act because the comedian would make some anti-American comment just to get guys to show up because they would know where his car keys were due to the monitoring. Then he accused someone of terrorism just to get with their hot female companion. It was really funny but I doubt it ever happens, if it did then they would probably not joke about it in the same manner at least not have a true occurance mixed in with a false one.