PDA

View Full Version : The Reality of Red State Fascism



Redsfaithful
01-07-2005, 03:10 AM
This is from pretty well known libertarian Lew Rockwell.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.html


Year's end is the time for big thoughts, so here are mine. The most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing.

This huge shift has not been noticed among mainstream punditry, and hence there have been few attempts to explain it – much less have libertarians thought much about what it implies. My own take is this: the Republican takeover of the presidency combined with an unrelenting state of war, has supplied all the levers necessary to convert a burgeoning libertarian movement into a statist one.

The remaining ideological justification was left to, and accomplished by, Washington's kept think tanks, who have approved the turn at every crucial step. What this implies for libertarians is a crying need to draw a clear separation between what we believe and what conservatives believe. It also requires that we face the reality of the current threat forthrightly by extending more rhetorical tolerance leftward and less rightward.

Let us start from 1994 and work forward. In a stunningly prescient memo, Murray N. Rothbard described the 1994 revolution against the Democrats as follows:

a massive and unprecedented public repudiation of President Clinton, his person, his personnel, his ideologies and programs, and all of his works; plus a repudiation of Clinton's Democrat Party; and, most fundamentally, a rejection of the designs, current and proposed, of the Leviathan he heads…. what is being rejected is big government in general (its taxing, mandating, regulating, gun grabbing, and even its spending) and, in particular, its arrogant ambition to control the entire society from the political center. Voters and taxpayers are no longer persuaded of a supposed rationale for American-style central planning…. On the positive side, the public is vigorously and fervently affirming its desire to re-limit and de-centralize government; to increase individual and community liberty; to reduce taxes, mandates, and government intrusion; to return to the cultural and social mores of pre-1960s America, and perhaps much earlier than that.

This memo also cautioned against unrelieved optimism, because, Rothbard said, two errors rear their head in most every revolution. First, the reformers do not move fast enough; instead they often experience a crisis of faith and become overwhelmed by demands that they govern "responsibly" rather than tear down the established order. Second, the reformers leave too much in place that can be used by their successors to rebuild the state they worked so hard to dismantle. This permits gains to be reversed as soon as another party takes control.

Rothbard urged dramatic cuts in spending, taxing, and regulation, and not just in the domestic area but also in the military and in foreign policy. He saw that this was crucial to any small-government program. He also urged a dismantling of the federal judiciary on grounds that it represents a clear and present danger to American liberty. He urged the young radicals who were just elected to reject gimmicks like the balanced-budget amendment and the line-item veto, in favor of genuine change. None of this happened of course. In fact, the Republican leadership and pundit class began to warn against "kamikaze missions" and speak not of bringing liberty, but rather of governing better than others.

Foreshadowing what was to come, Rothbard pointed out: "Unfortunately, the conservative public is all too often taken in by mere rhetoric and fails to weigh the actual deeds of their political icons. So the danger is that Gingrich will succeed not only in betraying, but in conning the revolutionary public into thinking that they have already won and can shut up shop and go home." The only way to prevent this, he wrote, was to educate the public, businessmen, students, academics, journalists, and politicians about the true nature of what is going on, and about the vicious nature of the bi-partisan ruling elites.

The 1994 revolution failed of course, in part because the anti-government opposition was intimidated into silence by the Oklahoma City bombing of April 1995. The establishment somehow managed to pin the violent act of an ex-military man on the right-wing libertarianism of the American bourgeoisie. It was said by every important public official at that time that to be anti-government was to give aid and support to militias, secessionists, and other domestic terrorists. It was a classic intimidation campaign but, combined with a GOP leadership that never had any intention to change DC, it worked to shut down the opposition.

In the last years of the 1990s, the GOP-voting middle class refocused its anger away from government and leviathan and toward the person of Bill Clinton. It was said that he represented some kind of unique moral evil despoiling the White House. That ridiculous Monica scandal culminated in a pathetic and pretentious campaign to impeach Clinton. Impeaching presidents is a great idea, but impeaching them for fibbing about personal peccadilloes is probably the least justifiable ground. It's almost as if that entire campaign was designed to discredit the great institution of impeachment.

In any case, this event crystallized the partisanship of the bourgeoisie, driving home the message that the real problem was Clinton and not government; the immorality of the chief executive, not his power; the libertinism of the left-liberals and not their views toward government. The much heralded "leave us alone" coalition had been thoroughly transformed in a pure anti-Clinton movement. The right in this country began to define itself not as pro-freedom, as it had in 1994, but simply as anti-leftist, as it does today.

There are many good reasons to be anti-leftist, but let us revisit what Mises said in 1956 concerning the anti-socialists of his day. He pointed out that many of these people had a purely negative agenda, to crush the leftists and their bohemian ways and their intellectual pretension. He warned that this is not a program for freedom. It was a program of hatred that can only degenerate into statism.

The moral corruption, the licentiousness and the intellectual sterility of a class of lewd would-be authors and artists is the ransom mankind must pay lest the creative pioneers be prevented from accomplishing their work. Freedom must be granted to all, even to base people, lest the few who can use it for the benefit of mankind be hindered. The license which the shabby characters of the quartier Latin enjoyed was one of the conditions that made possible the ascendance of a few great writers, painters and sculptors. The first thing a genius needs is to breathe free air.

He goes on to urge that anti-leftists work to educate themselves about economics, so that they can have a positive agenda to displace their purely negative one. A positive agenda of liberty is the only way we might have been spared the blizzard of government controls that were fastened on this country after Bush used the events of 9-11 to increase central planning, invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and otherwise bring a form of statism to America that makes Clinton look laissez-faire by comparison. The Bush administration has not only faced no resistance from the bourgeoisie. it has received cheers. And they are not only cheering Bush's reelection; they have embraced tyrannical control of society as a means toward accomplishing their anti-leftist ends.

After September 11, even those whose ostensible purpose in life is to advocate less government changed their minds. Even after it was clear that 9-11 would be used as the biggest pretense for the expansion of government since the stock market crash of 1929, the Cato Institute said that libertarianism had to change its entire focus: "Libertarians usually enter public debates to call for restrictions on government activity. In the wake of September 11, we have all been reminded of the real purpose of government: to protect our life, liberty, and property from violence. This would be a good time for the federal government to do its job with vigor and determination."

The vigor and determination of the Bush administration has brought about a profound cultural change, so that the very people who once proclaimed hated of government now advocate its use against dissidents of all sorts, especially against those who would dare call for curbs in the totalitarian bureaucracy of the military, or suggest that Bush is something less than infallible in his foreign-policy decisions. The lesson here is that it is always a mistake to advocate government action, for there is no way you can fully anticipate how government will be used. Nor can you ever count on a slice of the population to be moral in its advocacy of the uses of the police power.

Editor & Publisher, for example, posted a small note the other day about a column written by Al Neuharth, the founder of USA Today, in which he mildly suggested that the troops be brought home from Iraq "sooner rather than later." The editor of E&P was just blown away by the letters that poured in, filled with venom and hate and calling for Neuharth to be tried and locked away as a traitor. The letters compared him with pro-Hitler journalists, and suggested that he was objectively pro-terrorist, choosing to support the Muslim jihad over the US military. Other letters called for Neuharth to get the death penalty for daring to take issue with the Christian leaders of this great Christian nation.

I'm actually not surprised at this. It has been building for some time. If you follow hate-filled sites such as Free Republic, you know that the populist right in this country has been advocating nuclear holocaust and mass bloodshed for more than a year now. The militarism and nationalism dwarfs anything I saw at any point during the Cold War. It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God marching on earth – not just godlike, but really serving as a proxy for God himself.

Along with this goes a kind of worship of the presidency, and a celebration of all things public sector, including egregious law like the Patriot Act, egregious bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security, and egregious centrally imposed regimentation like the No Child Left Behind Act. It longs for the state to throw its weight behind institutions like the two-parent heterosexual family, the Christian charity, the homogeneous community of native-born patriots.

In 1994, the central state was seen by the bourgeoisie as the main threat to the family; in 2004 it is seen as the main tool for keeping the family together and ensuring its ascendancy. In 1994, the state was seen as the enemy of education; today, the same people view the state as the means of raising standards and purging education of its left-wing influences. In 1994, Christians widely saw that Leviathan was the main enemy of the faith; today, they see Leviathan as the tool by which they will guarantee that their faith will have an impact on the country and the world.

Paul Craig Roberts is right: "In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush." Again: "Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy."

In short, what we have alive in the US is an updated and Americanized fascism. Why fascist? Because it is not leftist in the sense of egalitarian or redistributionist. It has no real beef with business. It doesn't sympathize with the downtrodden, labor, or the poor. It is for all the core institutions of bourgeois life in America: family, faith, and flag. But it sees the state as the central organizing principle of society, views public institutions as the most essential means by which all these institutions are protected and advanced, and adores the head of state as a godlike figure who knows better than anyone else what the country and world's needs, and has a special connection to the Creator that permits him to discern the best means to bring it about.

The American right today has managed to be solidly anti-leftist while adopting an ideology – even without knowing it or being entirely conscious of the change – that is also frighteningly anti-liberty. This reality turns out to be very difficult for libertarians to understand or accept. For a long time, we've tended to see the primary threat to liberty as coming from the left, from the socialists who sought to control the economy from the center. But we must also remember that the sweep of history shows that there are two main dangers to liberty, one that comes from the left and the other that comes from the right. Europe and Latin America have long faced the latter threat, but its reality is only now hitting us fully.

What is the most pressing and urgent threat to freedom that we face in our time? It is not from the left. If anything, the left has been solid on civil liberties and has been crucial in drawing attention to the lies and abuses of the Bush administration. No, today, the clear and present danger to freedom comes from the right side of the ideological spectrum, those people who are pleased to preserve most of free enterprise but favor top-down management of society, culture, family, and school, and seek to use a messianic and belligerent nationalism to impose their vision of politics on the world.

There is no need to advance the view that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. However, it is time to recognize that the left today does represent a counterweight to the right, just as it did in the 1950s when the right began to adopt anti-communist militarism as its credo. In a time when the term patriotism means supporting the nation's wars and statism, a libertarian patriotism has more in common with that advanced by The Nation magazine:

The other company of patriots does not march to military time. It prefers the gentle strains of 'America the Beautiful' to the strident cadences of 'Hail to the Chief' and 'The Stars and Stripes Forever.' This patriotism is rooted in the love of one's own land and people, love too of the best ideals of one's own culture and tradition. This company of patriots finds no glory in puffing their country up by pulling others' down. This patriotism is profoundly municipal, even domestic. Its pleasures are quiet, its services steady and unpretentious. This patriotism too has deep roots and long continuity in our history.

Ten years ago, these were "right wing" sentiments; today the right regards them as treasonous. What should this teach us? It shows that those who saw the interests of liberty as being well served by the politicized proxies of free enterprise alone, family alone, Christianity alone, law and order alone, were profoundly mistaken. There is no proxy for liberty, no cause that serves as a viable substitute, and no movement by any name whose success can yield freedom in our time other than the movement of freedom itself. We need to embrace liberty and liberty only, and not be fooled by groups or parties or movements that only desire a temporary liberty to advance their pet interests.

As Rothbard said in 1965:

The doctrine of liberty contains elements corresponding with both contemporary left and right. This means in no sense that we are middle-of-the-roaders, eclectically trying to combine, or step between, both poles; but rather that a consistent view of liberty includes concepts that have also become part of the rhetoric or program of right and of left. Hence a creative approach to liberty must transcend the confines of contemporary political shibboleths.

There has never in my lifetime been a more urgent need for the party of liberty to completely secede from conventional thought and established institutions, especially those associated with all aspects of government, and undertake radical intellectual action on behalf of a third way that rejects the socialism of the left and the fascism of the right.

Indeed, the current times can be seen as a training period for all true friends of liberty. We need to learn to recognize the many different guises in which tyranny appears. Power is protean because it must suppress that impulse toward liberty that exists in the hearts of all people. The impulse is there, tacitly waiting for the consciousness to dawn. When it does, power doesn’t stand a chance.

December 31, 2004

zombie-a-go-go
01-07-2005, 07:42 AM
Be real careful with this thread. Labelling something or someone "fascist" is pretty close to hate speech, and I won't hesitate to shut this thread down if it devolves into such.

Consider this a pre-emptive warning. Otherwise, I look forward to hearing what you cats have to say about the issues presented in this piece, as opposed to the insults.

KittyDuran
01-07-2005, 09:58 AM
Yeah, Rf, you should have titled it "Ladies and Gentlemen, your Republican congressmen and women"... ;) :MandJ:

Ravenlord
01-07-2005, 10:01 AM
logically, whenever you enter a war, you always become more statist. especially when your party is in charge.

in my world, none of this is suprising. you have no guarenteed rights now. it won't be used against most of us in our lifetimes. more like our grandchildren and great grandchildren's.

in a perfect system, one party majority would never happen. but of course, in a perfect system, we would have actually have built up for a war instead of spreading way, way too thin.

WVRed
01-07-2005, 10:51 AM
Im sure once our emoticon friend reads this, it will warrant RF opening a hatemail page on Reds Daily.:)

RedsBaron
01-07-2005, 11:14 AM
When you get past the fascist name calling, there are some kernels of truth in the article. As Ravenlord noted, the state tends to grow anytime there is a war, and usually does not then return to its former size once the war is over.
Unfortunately, a strong military is a necessity, and that requires some centralization in authority. I wish we still had the situation that prevailed for roughly a century between 1815 and 1914 where there was no grave foreign threat to America and we could safely maintain a very small standing military.
Whenever conservatives and Republicans support any expansion in federal control and power, they should first ask themselves if they would still support the expansion if Hillary Clinton was president and the Democrats controlled congress.

REDREAD
01-07-2005, 11:43 AM
what is being rejected is big government in general (its taxing, mandating, regulating, gun grabbing, and even its spending) and, in particular, …. On the positive side, the public is vigorously and fervently affirming its desire to re-limit and de-centralize government

I completely disagree with this. The federal government continues to grow and grow, and very few people disagree. We've got all the beuracracy with the Homeland/airport security, etc. Gov spending is even worse. Most Americans don't seem to care, because they figure the financial crisis will happen after they are dead.

Both parties always promise in their campaining to shrink gov, but the monster continues to grow and grow.

Also, I wouldn't really call the Republicans winning the last election any kind of mandate. I did vote for Bush, but I'm not a big fan of his. The democrats let America down by not presenting a compelling candidate. Oh, I wish we could get a candidate with a legitimate plan to reduce government in all areas and the guts to implement it.

Spring~Fields
01-07-2005, 11:45 AM
Interesting article.

MuEconRedLeg
01-07-2005, 12:04 PM
I have never cared much for Lew. We agree, but I think his style is over the top. This was an interesting article, though.

I completely agree that 1994 was a coup of sorts and that it was short lived. But, the problems are far more deeply rooted than the recent tragedies. We elect Representatives on their politics (etc.), but we only re-elect them every two years if they get us enough pork. This may be oversimplified, but at the very least a rookie Rep. needs to get at least the same amount as those before them.. So, a good libertarian is not going to get re-elected very often without giving into some big government. So, you have a group of Republicans who want to remain in office. The President Clinton thing blows up and the right has a new calling card, Christianity.

It is also important to note that President Bush has surrounded himself with NeoCons. I think this is very dangerous, because they make no bones about their hawkish, big government, deficit running, style. This certainly has not helped.

I completely agree that war leads to more statist tendencies and that might even be the right thing to do. But, imho the problem runs deeper than reacting to crisis and change can and will only start at the state level and that is where Libertarians and Constitutionalist need to really pick up the pace.

.

CbusRed
01-07-2005, 01:56 PM
Im sure once our emoticon friend reads this, it will warrant RF opening a hatemail page on Reds Daily.:)

:MandJ:

Rojo
01-07-2005, 05:40 PM
Lew Rockwell was banned from the right-wing radio station in SF after he disagreed with the host. (Lew thought Elian Gonzalez belonged with his dad.)

He's an interesting guy.

BTW, Not to pat myself in the back to heartily here but I brought up a lot of these same points before. Unfortunately that thread was derailed because I used the word "war-monger".

Anyhow, the ideological split between libertarians and tariff-and-subsidy, big government Bushies is one the fissures developing on the right. Another is in between the hispanic-courting Bush/Rove and Western Republicans.

wolfboy
01-07-2005, 11:48 PM
Be real careful with this thread. Labelling something or someone "fascist" is pretty close to hate speech, and I won't hesitate to shut this thread down if it devolves into such.

Consider this a pre-emptive warning. Otherwise, I look forward to hearing what you cats have to say about the issues presented in this piece, as opposed to the insults.

Have to disagree with you here zombie. Labelling something or someone fascist is not hate speech. In the context of the article, the term fascist is applied correctly. It notes reactionary tendencies that elevate the state above all else, a rejection of rationalism, and a belief in an Ubermensch type of leader. Granted, at times, the term 'fascist' is thrown around and meant as an insult, so I can see where you might be coming from. That isn't the case at all here. Fascism is a philosophy that is still studied and debated in political science. I find it disgusting, but it doesn't make it any less real. Using the term fascist is not necessarily an insult or hate speech. Rockwell makes some convincing arguments in the article. I don't line up with Rockwell in many areas, but I share his concerns over restrictions of individual liberties.

p.s.-zombie, I wasn't trying to criticize your modding here. You did a great job of looking after a potentially ugly discussion. I just wanted to add clarification to the context of the article.

Phoenix
01-08-2005, 11:30 AM
Have to disagree with you here zombie. Labelling something or someone fascist is not hate speech. In the context of the article, the term fascist is applied correctly. It notes reactionary tendencies that elevate the state above all else, a rejection of rationalism, and a belief in an Ubermensch type of leader. .

Is a rejection of "rationalism" really a part of the fascist party platform? I wonder if Redsfaithful really knows what Fascism is.

Redsfaithful
01-08-2005, 12:09 PM
Is a rejection of "rationalism" really a part of the fascist party platform? I wonder if Redsfaithful really knows what Fascism is.

I didn't write the article so why does it matter?

westofyou
01-08-2005, 12:14 PM
I didn't write the article so why does it matter?

Because anyone who dosn't stay in line gets poked, as apparent from the reaction you get for having the audacity to step out of line. ;)

Ravenlord
01-08-2005, 12:31 PM
I didn't write the article so why does it matter?
see the second part of my signature.

Phoenix
01-08-2005, 02:17 PM
I didn't write the article so why does it matter?

Good to hear you don't defend the article.

Redsfaithful
01-08-2005, 02:22 PM
Good to hear you don't defend the article.

Oh, I agree with the article in places, I just didn't really get why my definition of fascism had anything to do with the discussion.

It's really a shame libertarians aren't a more viable party. They'd be much better for our country that the current incarnation of the Republican party who are probably as close to anarchists as they are to classic conservatives.

Phoenix
01-08-2005, 02:26 PM
Oh, I agree with the article in places, I just didn't really get why my definition of fascism had anything to do with the discussion.

It's really a shame libertarians aren't a more viable party. They'd be much better for our country that the current incarnation of the Republican party who are probably as close to anarchists as they are to classic conservatives.

What did you title this thread?

Ravenlord
01-08-2005, 02:27 PM
What did you title this thread?
the article title:

The Reality of Red-State Fascism
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

CbusRed
01-08-2005, 03:32 PM
It's really a shame libertarians aren't a more viable party. They'd be much better for our country that the current incarnation of the Republican party who are probably as close to anarchists as they are to classic conservatives.

:cry:

GAC
01-09-2005, 12:28 PM
The vigor and determination of the Bush administration has brought about a profound cultural change, so that the very people who once proclaimed hated of government now advocate its use against dissidents of all sorts, especially against those who would dare call for curbs in the totalitarian bureaucracy of the military, or suggest that Bush is something less than infallible in his foreign-policy decisions. The lesson here is that it is always a mistake to advocate government action, for there is no way you can fully anticipate how government will be used. Nor can you ever count on a slice of the population to be moral in its advocacy of the uses of the police power.

Editor & Publisher, for example, posted a small note the other day about a column written by Al Neuharth, the founder of USA Today, in which he mildly suggested that the troops be brought home from Iraq "sooner rather than later." The editor of E&P was just blown away by the letters that poured in, filled with venom and hate and calling for Neuharth to be tried and locked away as a traitor. The letters compared him with pro-Hitler journalists, and suggested that he was objectively pro-terrorist, choosing to support the Muslim jihad over the US military. Other letters called for Neuharth to get the death penalty for daring to take issue with the Christian leaders of this great Christian nation.

I'm actually not surprised at this. It has been building for some time. If you follow hate-filled sites such as Free Republic, you know that the populist right in this country has been advocating nuclear holocaust and mass bloodshed for more than a year now. The militarism and nationalism dwarfs anything I saw at any point during the Cold War. It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God marching on earth – not just godlike, but really serving as a proxy for God himself.


Along with this goes a kind of worship of the presidency, and a celebration of all things public sector, including egregious law like the Patriot Act, egregious bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security, and egregious centrally imposed regimentation like the No Child Left Behind Act. It longs for the state to throw its weight behind institutions like the two-parent heterosexual family, the Christian charity, the homogeneous community of native-born patriots.

I simply had to "highlight" some of the simply absurb assumptions and misperceptions that this author took liberties with in this article. They simply made me laugh and shake my head.

And he talks about "hate" websites and organizations; but seems to limit his analysis to only those of a conservative nature. Balanced and objective?

He builds on stereotype that I can see would please most progressive liberals.

I'm glad this is only an editorial opinion though, with very little truth to it. So it doesn't worry, nor bother me.

But it at least helps to give some sort of relief to progressives as to why they lost this election. They need answers. ;)

Redsfaithful
01-09-2005, 12:54 PM
I simply had to "highlight" some of the simply absurb assumptions and misperceptions that this author took liberties with in this article. They simply made me laugh and shake my head.

And he talks about "hate" websites and organizations; but seems to limit his analysis to only those of a conservative nature. Balanced and objective?

He builds on stereotype that I can see would please most progressive liberals.

I'm glad this is only an editorial opinion though, with very little truth to it. So it doesn't worry, nor bother me.

But it at least helps to give some sort of relief to progressives as to why they lost this election. They need answers. ;)

You just wrote a lot of words and didn't present any kind of argument as to why Rockwell is wrong. Do you realize that?

RedsBaron
01-09-2005, 01:48 PM
You just wrote a lot of words and didn't present any kind of argument as to why Rockwell is wrong. Do you realize that?
Rockwell didn't really present much of an argument as to why he was right either. His article is full of assertions and opinions but virtually lacking any factual basis.
Rockwell appears to equate support for a strong military with fascism. By that standard, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK-heck for that matter George Washington-were fascists.
Rockwell asserts that large numbers of red staters "worship" George W. Bush-I've seen no more "worship" by Bush supporters than I did in the past from those people who supported JFK or Reagan or Clinton. I can recall female members of the media writing of their wish to "service" Clinton a la Monica-I have yet to read of any such "worship" of Bush.
I previously posted that there are portions of Rockwell's argument which I believe have merit. The state does tend to increase in size and power during wartime and then not return to its prior size when the conflict is over. Rockwell is hardly the first person to note this. But much of Rockwell's article is no more than a diatribe against those whom he disagrees, which probably "qualifies" him to be a RedsZone poster on this side of the board. ;)

Redsfaithful
01-09-2005, 07:58 PM
I've seen no more "worship" by Bush supporters than I did in the past from those people who supported JFK or Reagan or Clinton.

There are a great many people who believe Bush was chosen by God to lead our country. I consider that worship.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/156/story_15602.html


On the day after President Bush was re-elected, he gave much of the credit to his political adviser, Karl Rove, whom he called “the architect” of his campaign. But in evangelical churches, on Christian radio, and in voter precincts dominated by conservative Christians, the credit is going instead to someone a whole lot more powerful: God.

The Almighty intervened in the U.S. election, these evangelicals believe, to allow Bush to remain president. They say God has “blessed” America with Bush--and had Sen. John Kerry been elected, God would have “cursed” the U.S. By allowing Bush to be re-elected, God has given America “more time” to stop its slide into evil.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=280881&page=1


"I believe Our Lord elected our president and I believe he put him in office and it is my prayer that he will sustain him in office," said one woman at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Another was asked if she believed that God intervened in the election. "Absolutely," she said.

If America truly goes wrong, and that's assuming it already hasn't, then it will be because of the religious right. When people believe that God backs them, and only them, they tend to get up to some crazy stuff. Be it 9/11, the Holocaust, or what have you.

It becomes really easy to do some seriously terrible things if you believe it's what God wants. One could argue that Iraq is a great example of that.

Falls City Beer
01-09-2005, 08:01 PM
Long article, interesting points.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2005/001/3.8.html

Phoenix
01-09-2005, 08:06 PM
I don't know anybody who thinks Bush was chosen by God to be President. We usually have a wide array of opinion on this site. Does anybody on this forum believe that?

RFS62
01-09-2005, 08:09 PM
I don't know anybody who thinks Bush was chosen by God to be President. We usually have a wide array of opinion on this site. Does anybody on this forum believe that?


That's the craziest thing I've ever heard of.

RedFanAlways1966
01-09-2005, 09:22 PM
I don't know anybody who thinks Bush was chosen by God to be President. We usually have a wide array of opinion on this site. Does anybody on this forum believe that?

Doesn't apply to me. I may be wrong, but I thought he was chosen by 59 million or so American voters. And I thought that many votes, along with the guidelines of the Electoral College, meant that he was chosen by the system in this country that is in place to elect our president. Please... correct me if I am wrong!

I have to ask... did God vote? And if He did, does his vote count for more than the vote of anyone else? Be a great Twilight Zone episode. ;)

CbusRed
01-09-2005, 10:29 PM
I have to ask... did God vote? And if He did, does his vote count for more than the vote of anyone else? Be a great Twilight Zone episode. ;)

Yeah, God voted in Ohio, and since there isnt any record of his citizenship, the silly liberals contested the Ohio results.

WVRed
01-09-2005, 10:32 PM
You were my sun
You were my earth
But you didn't know all the ways I loved you, no
So you took a chance
And made other plans
But I bet you didn't think that they would come crashing down, no

You don't have to say, what you did,
I already know, I found out from him
Now there's just no chance, for you and me, there'll never be
And don't it make you sad about it

You told me you loved me
Why did you leave me, all alone
Now you tell me you need me
When you call me, on the phone
Girl I refuse, you must have me confused
With some other guy
Your bridges were burned, and now it's your turn
To cry, cry me a river
Cry me a river-er
Cry me a river
Cry me a river-er, yea yea

I know that they say
That somethings are better left unsaid
It wasn't like you only talked to him and you know it
(Don't act like you don't know it)
All of these things people told me
Keep messing with my head
(Messing with my head)
You should've picked honesty
Then you may not have blown it
(Yea..)

You don't have to say, what you did,
(Don't have to say, what you did)
I already know, I found out from him
(I already know, uh)
Now there's just no chance, for you and me, there'll never be
(No chance, you and me)
And don't it make you sad about it

You told me you loved me
Why did you leave me, all alone
(All alone)
Now you tell me you need me
When you call me, on the phone
(When you call me on the phone)
Girl I refuse, you must have me confused
With some other guy
(I'm not like them baby)
Your bridges were burned, and now it's your turn
(It's your turn)
To cry, cry me a river
(Go on and just)
Cry me a river-er
(Go on and just)
Cry me a river
(Baby go on and just)
Cry me a river-er, yea yea

Oh
(Oh)
The damage is done
So I guess I be leaving
Oh
(Oh)
The damage is done
So I guess I be leaving
Oh
(Oh)
The damage is done
So I guess I be leaving
Oh
(Oh)
The damage is done
So I guess I be... leaving

You don't have to say, what you did,
(Don't have to say, what you did)
I already know, I found out from him
(I already know, uh)
Now there's just no chance, for you and me, there'll never be
(No chance, you and me)
And don't it make you sad about it

Cry me a river
(Go on and just)
Cry me a river-er
(Baby go on and just)
Cry me a river
(You can go on and just)
Cry me a river-er, yea yea

Cry me a river
(Baby go on and just)
Cry me a river-er
(Go on and just)
Cry me a river
(Cause I've already cried)
Cry me a river-er, yea yea
(Ain't gonna cry no more, yea-yea)

Cry me a river
Cry me a river, oh
Cry me a river, oh
Cry me a river, oh

Cry me a river, oh
(Cry me, cry me)
Cry me a river, oh
(Cry me, cry me)
Cry me a river, oh
(Cry me, cry me)
Cry me a river, oh
(Cry me, cry me)

Cry me a river, oh
(Cry me, cry me)
Cry me a river, oh
(Cry me, cry me)
Cry me a river
(Cry me, cry me)

WVRed
01-09-2005, 10:33 PM
Nothing like a little Justin Timberlake:).

CbusRed
01-09-2005, 10:54 PM
:MandJ:

Rojo
01-10-2005, 04:37 PM
Does anyone really think that someone who believes that Bush was chosen by God is going to admit it on this board?

WVRed
01-10-2005, 04:52 PM
Does anyone really think that someone who believes that Bush was chosen by God is going to admit it on this board?

Honestly, I do believe Bush was chosen by God.

*hears a pin drop*

However, I would say the same thing if John Kerry was elected.

GAC
01-13-2005, 10:20 PM
Does anyone really think that someone who believes that Bush was chosen by God is going to admit it on this board?

Who has said that Bush was "chosen" by God? But yes, if some Christian(s) out there believe that Bush was chosen by God, then again, they are going to admit it. That's why you guys are talking about it, because someone said it. ;)

As I stated earlier... when Clinton stated that he was doing the will of God on this earth I didnt hear any of you liberals making much of a stink about it.

The last 8 Presidents claimed to be "born again" Christians and were just as vocal about their faith.

Bush is no more vocal about his faith then Jimmy Carter was (and is) about his. And many of the Founding Fathers were also vocal about their faith while serving in public office.

The author of this editorial paints this image of the "red state" electorate that voted for Bush (especially Christians) as some sort of cultic followers whose eyes are glassed over and blindly worship and follow this President, and want some sort of police-driven state that will sentence anyone to death who disagrees.

That's totally absurd. I have differences with this President, just as I have with most every other previous administration during my life time.

Most people, including Christians/religious people, who voted for Bush did not do so because of some "blind loyalty" to this guy. That is evident when one looks at his current popularity polls. My decision, and I think a vast majority of those who voted for Bush, did so not because of some divine mandate. That's ridiculous!

Why did a majority of the populace vote for Bush?

That's a complex question that doesn't have a simple, straightforward answer.

But it has nothing, or very little, to do with the influence of what some call the "religious right". I know some need to have someone to point the finger at; but they should maybe be looking at their own party/ideology, and figure out why they were not able to "connect" with a majority of the electorate.

I voted for Bush as more of the "lesser of two evils". And I think aot of people voted that way. It was not so much that they loved/adored Bush as much as they liked Kerry alot less.

And regardless of what anyone thinks of Bush, a majority of the citizens, regardless if they disagree with his policies/decisions, also know that he is a man who has firm convictions, and they know where he stands.

You can't say that about Kerry. Since the first day of the Democratic primaries this guy had been re-inventing himself. And he did so to the point that the American public didn't know who the real John Kerry was.

So for people to claim that the reason people voted for Bush was solely because of some mandate from God is purely absurd.

I think there is a "paranoia" among alot of progressives that is totally unfounded. ;)

RBA
01-13-2005, 10:25 PM
I thought this thread was locked.

OH, Disregard, that was the other Facist thread.

Spring~Fields
01-14-2005, 05:44 AM
I voted for Bush as more of the "lesser of two evils". And I think aot of people voted that way. It was not so much that they loved/adored Bush as much as they liked Kerry alot less.



Exactly,

If the people could have witnessed a much better candidate they would have been voted in.

GAC
01-14-2005, 09:25 AM
Exactly,

If the people could have witnessed a much better candidate they would have been voted in.

And so would have I. I really had alot of respect for Joe Leiberman, and if he had won the nomination I was seriously considering voting for him. Besides having firm convictions, the guy is alot more fiscally conservative than GW (who has upset me strongly on this issue), and has shown to be very strong on defense. I also think Leiberman is alot more moderate/centrist in his views (which is probable why he didn't have a snowball chance in heck of getting the nomination ;) ).

GW left himself very vulnerable for defeat in this election. I didn't blame him for the economy, but it's only natural that the "sitting" Prez is still gonna catch the heat from the electorate. That, coupled with the the lack of evidence of WMDs and the post invasion struggles in Iraq, I thought would surely leave him open for defeat.

For me, his victory, and the fact that the Repubs also gained in Congress, and I also think in state governorships, isn't evidence that the electorate are a bunch of igniorant buffons; but that there is a HUGE identity problem and "weakness" within the Democratic Party, and their inability to connect with that electorate.

And IMO, it's something they had better acknowledge, try to fix, and do some "damage control", instead of screaming, pointing fingers, and attaching ridiculous labels on people within middle America (red states). Or they are gonna have a rougher time in '08.

Ravenlord
01-14-2005, 09:28 AM
Exactly,

If the people could have witnessed a much better candidate they would have been voted in.
that goes back to 2000 too. if the Republicans had went with McCain, i think there would have been a landslide victory for him. in 2004, if Howard Dean hadn't done that scream, he probably would have crushed Bush. sad that someone actually being passionate about what they're trying to do can cause the public to lose faith.

RedFanAlways1966
01-14-2005, 09:53 AM
in 2004, if Howard Dean hadn't done that scream, he probably would have crushed Bush. sad that someone actually being passionate about what they're trying to do can cause the public to lose faith.

Actually RL, Mr. Dean did his scream during his "I am calling it a day" speech after the Iowa primaries. Mr. Dean couldn't even crush his own (finishing third in Iowa). I will not predict what he would have done vs. President Bush. However, I know that he could not defeat Sen. Kerry, who could not defeat President Bush.

Chip R
01-14-2005, 09:56 AM
Not trying to get this off track since it's kinda on the same subject but when did the Republicans become "Red" and the Democrats "Blue"? I always thought it was the other way around. I just finished reading a political novel by Jeff Greenfield and he had in there that the Republican states were noted by the color blue and the Democratic ones by Red. So I don't think I'm crazy but I'm confused as to when this switch took place. :confused:

RedsBaron
01-14-2005, 09:59 AM
Not trying to get this off track since it's kinda on the same subject but when did the Republicans become "Red" and the Democrats "Blue"? I always thought it was the other way around. I just finished reading a political novel by Jeff Greenfield and he had in there that the Republican states were noted by the color blue and the Democratic ones by Red. So I don't think I'm crazy but I'm confused as to when this switch took place. :confused:
I can recall in the 1980 election NBC commentators were referring to the "blue lake" as NBC's election board depicted Republican Reagan winning 44 states, all colored blue, while Democrat Carter had six red states. I know that by 2000 all the TV networks were coloring GOP states red and Dem states blue, but I'm not sure when the colors were switched.

RFS62
01-14-2005, 10:04 AM
I know that by 2000 all the TV networks were coloring GOP states red and Dem states blue, but I'm not sure when the colors were switched.


I believe the decision was made during the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Convention in the Summer of 1999.

RedsBaron
01-14-2005, 10:06 AM
I believe the decision was made during the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Convention in the Summer of 1999.
Shhhhh! Do you want to give everything away? :dflynn:

GAC
01-14-2005, 11:16 AM
I believe the decision was made during the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Convention in the Summer of 1999.

I remember you! You were that delegate dressed up like Spiro Agnew (or was it Nancy Reagan?)...they were so easy to get confused. :allovrjr: :mhcky21:

RedsBaron
01-14-2005, 11:52 AM
I remember you! You were that delegate dressed up like Spiro Agnew (or was it Nancy Reagan?)...they were so easy to get confused. :allovrjr: :mhcky21:
I was Agnew. RFS62 was Nancy Reagan-he said he wanted to wear the dress. ;)

Chip R
01-14-2005, 12:42 PM
I believe the decision was made during the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Convention in the Summer of 1999.
I knew it! :lol:

GAC
01-14-2005, 04:06 PM
I was Agnew. RFS62 was Nancy Reagan-he said he wanted to wear the dress. ;)

And all these years I thought I was being tailed at that convention by J Edgar Hoover! :D

RFS62
01-14-2005, 04:11 PM
Just say no.

Spring~Fields
01-14-2005, 11:19 PM
GW left himself very vulnerable for defeat in this election. I didn't blame him for the economy, but it's only natural that the "sitting" Prez is still gonna catch the heat from the electorate. That, coupled with the the lack of evidence of WMDs and the post invasion struggles in Iraq, I thought would surely leave him open for defeat.



Yes, and you and the rest us of could probably add some more details to your input above that we were skeptical of in the President and his cabinet that would convince most of us that GW would be the loser in the last election.

Something was missing though, a replacement that could convince us and instill confidence in us that he had the solutions as the next President. I believe that it takes more than to expound upon habitually your opponents mistakes and obvious blemishes. I think that you have to cause the people to believe that you as the next President have something more in the play book than bashing/exploiting your opponent well. Especially when we already knew GW and his staff had some real problems, not to mention that attempting to really deal with the Middle East with his new vision was a poison pill to begin with. Just because we individually can list several items with the current administration that we really do not appreciate, that does not qualify us as an individual to do a better job as the next President.

Unfortunately the other candidates did not convince the majority that they really did have the right answers and solutions that we as a majority could find credible and trust and we were left with a disappointing lesser of the two evils decision as you have already mentioned. Does the voting majority even know who the cabinet members were going to be for the opposing candidate in the past election that were to implement his plans and solutions? I don't think so, and within that line there might be a hint as to why he lost, I am not sure.

A side note: I think that a McCain/Leiberman or McCain/Dean type ticket would have defeated Mr. Bush and his cabinet.

RedsBaron
01-15-2005, 08:00 AM
In semi-defense of John Kerry's campaign, he did almost pull out a victory in the electoral college. Had he carried Ohio, a lot of people would now be hailing his brilliant campaign.
I continue to believe that the Kerry campaign erred in seeming to make so much of the 2004 election center around who did what 35 years earlier. IMO too much of the 2004 campaign was spent with Kerry's saluting and "reporting for duty" at the Democratic convention and talking endlessly about his military record, coupled with non-stop criticism by Democrats and their media surrogates about Bush's Guard service. Add the Swift Boat Vets attacks on Kerry to the mix and one could have easily thought the most important issue in the 2004 campaign was which candidate was better qualified to personally lead an assault by a platoon upon Viet Nam.

GAC
01-15-2005, 09:17 AM
Good point SF.

And I also agree with what you contend RB. With all the foibles that Bush had going on, I thought he was the most vulnerable incumbent President I have ever seen in my lifetime. Even surpassing that of one-termer Jimmy Carter.

Bush had set the stage and was ripe for defeat. And what really got to me was that the reason so many turned from Dean and the others during the Democratic primaries, and went with Kerry, was not so much because they agreed with Kerry, but because of the whole lot, Kerry seemed the most "electable", and able to send Bush packing (whom they felt should have never ben elected in the first place in 2000).

And they probably did put their best candidate forward. Personally, I think Dean would have gotten beaten bad if he had gotten the nomination. many were hoping that he would have gotten it. Kerry gave them their best shot. And yet, they still were not able to unseat a President who IMO was very beatable. And I think that still goes back to the Democrat's problem of being able to "connect" with a majority of the populace.

And I also think that during these troubling times of war, and Americans wanting to feel safe and knowing that someone is trying to look out after their security, it wasn't the right time to be pushing such "divisive" social issues as gay marriage, or even attacking or ridiculing people's religious beliefs.

One thing I have learned in my lifetime, especially during tense times, and especially during times of uncertainty and war.... more people do turn to God/religion because of that uncertainty.

RBA
01-15-2005, 10:00 AM
Yup, you guys are right. What the Bush campaign did with their dirty politics with their Swift Boat lies and playing the "Fear" and " God" cards was disgusting. But it worked for them, so that is all that matters.

GAC
01-15-2005, 10:07 AM
Yup, you guys are right. What the Bush campaign did with their dirty politics with their Swift Boat lies and playing the "Fear" and " God" cards was disgusting. But it worked for them, so that is all that matters.

Don't even think about considering that it may have been anything that your party/ideology did wrong that lost this election.

Typical liberal victimology.

RBA
01-15-2005, 10:11 AM
What the Democrats did wrong was they refuse to get dirty in a mud wrestling fight.

GAC
01-15-2005, 10:23 AM
What the Democrats did wrong was they refuse to get dirty in a mud wrestling fight.

Excuse me while I fall out of my seat laughing Mr Moore, Mr Soros, and MoveOn.org.

Both campaigns, and their supporters ran misleading campaign ads and played "fast and loose" with the truth when it was to their advantage.

Redsfaithful
01-15-2005, 10:32 AM
Excuse me while I fall out of my seat laughing Mr Moore, Mr Soros, and MoveOn.org.

Both campaigns, and their supporters ran misleading campaign ads and played "fast and loose" with the truth when it was to their advantage.

I'm looking for Kerry's name in your example and just not seeing it. Strange.


Typical liberal victimology.

Aren't comments like this against the board rules?

RedsBaron
01-15-2005, 10:34 AM
Excuse me while I fall out of my seat laughing Mr Moore, Mr Soros, and MoveOn.org.
Amen. IMO one of the absolute silliest myths in politics is the assertion that the Democrats refuse to "fight dirty." Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Bork, Thomas, Bush-the list is long of Republicans subjected to savage attacks by Democrats over the years.
I'm not saying that all of the attacks were unwarranted. I'm not saying that the Republicans haven't in turn subjected Democrats to some savage attacks. But it just amazes me that some Democrats seem to be utterly unable to recognize that both parties have engaged in some vicious political tactics.

Redsfaithful
01-15-2005, 10:37 AM
But it just amazes me that some Democrats seem to be utterly unable to recognize that both parties have engaged in some vicious political tactics.

I think lately it's been the Republicans who've controlled the negative. And more power to them, it's smart politics. I think that's changing though.

Ravenlord
01-15-2005, 10:54 AM
I think lately it's been the Republicans who've controlled the negative. of course you would.

i think it was about 60-40 repubs in the election.

GAC
01-15-2005, 11:40 AM
I'm looking for Kerry's name in your example and just not seeing it. Strange.

Oh, I could have very easily included Kerry (and quite a few others). Kerry ran alot of ads here in Ohio and elsewhere. Remember how he distorted the actual cost of the Iraq war, the 3 Million lost jobs, outsourcing exaggerations, and then telling seniors that Bush had a secret plan after the election to eliminate SSI. I could go on with more. My point is that the Dems were engaged in "dirty politics" and stretching the truth to suit their needs, just as much as the Repubs were.

And you're either in denile or blind if you think otherwise IMO.

You guys complained about impropriaties between the Bush campaign and Swift Boats vets; but said little about a MoveOn operative who joined the Kerry campaign (Zack Exley). That was all purely innocent because Dems would never stoop to any underhanded tactics to get below the radar when it comes to the campaign finance laws, and their dealings with former Kerry campaign chairman Jim Jordan's Media Fund, America Coming Together, and other liberal groups to run anti-Bush ads during the campaign.




Aren't comments like this against the board rules?

No more then you calling/implying that myself, and every other Bush supporter and "red stater" on here is fascist. You post threads on here to try an "bait" people who disagree with you ideologically, and knowing it may lead to some heated discussion, while also making comments that attempt to place demeaning, hateful, and unnecesary labels on people on here that disagree with you... and then try to call out to the mods that rules may be being broken when someone says something you feel is insulting?

If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen. ;)

westofyou
01-15-2005, 11:44 AM
Oh, I could have very easily included Kerry (and quite a few others). Kerry ran alot of ads here in Ohio and elsewhere. Remember how he distorted the actual cost of the Iraq war

Like the swift boat guys eh?

Remember how the president and his staff distorted the REASON to go to war?

Where's the laughs, giggles and outrage about that?

Ravenlord
01-15-2005, 11:46 AM
:deadhorse

Redsfaithful
01-15-2005, 11:49 AM
and then telling seniors that Bush had a secret plan after the election to eliminate SSI.

And boy was he ever wrong about that.

GAC
01-15-2005, 11:49 AM
Like the swift boat guys eh?

Remember how the president and his staff distorted the REASON to go to war?

Where's the laughs, giggles and outrage about that?

I think I already mentioned TWICE in my above posts woy that BOTH PARTIES were playing "dirty politics" and running misleading ads during this campaign didn't I?

What I am laughing at is the contention from a couple of my liberal friends on here, with their halos hanging over their heads, that somehow the Dems/DNC/Kerry didn't do it, and only took the "high road". It's laughable!

I guess some of you weren't watching the same election coverage the rest of us was. ;)

westofyou
01-15-2005, 11:50 AM
:deadhorse

While people die every day the horse will be beat.

Sorry.

westofyou
01-15-2005, 11:53 AM
I think I already mentioned TWICE in my above posts woy that BOTH PARTIES were playing "dirty politics" and running misleading ads during this campaign didn't I?

What I am laughing at is the contention from a couple of my liberal friends on here, with their halos hanging over their heads, that somehow the Dems/DNC/Kerry didn't do it, and only took the "high road". It's laughable!

I guess some of you weren't watching the same election coverage the rest of us was. ;)

No, I don't watch Fox news and when you criticize anything to do with the current administration with the fevor you reserve for sabermetrics let me know. :mhcky21:

Ravenlord
01-15-2005, 11:53 AM
so it's ok to continually start threads that breakdown into the same thing over and over and over again while 90% of the posts on them violate Rule 5 up the :censored:?

really, just stickey one of these topics, and then once every other thread starts degenerating, merge it to the sticky.

KYRedsFan
01-15-2005, 11:53 AM
And boy was he ever wrong about that.
Yes, totally wrong. Again, please don't let the facts of the early proposals on SS get in the way of scoring a couple cheap points of a message board.

GAC
01-15-2005, 11:54 AM
And boy was he ever wrong about that.

I'm glad you agree. Bush's plan is to allow only those young adults now entering the workforce to invest a small portion of their SSI money. His plan does not in any way involve the current plan seniors (and myself) are in.

Maybe you should quit listening to Ted Kennedy. ;)

westofyou
01-15-2005, 11:55 AM
so it's ok to continually start threads that breakdown into the same thing over and over and over again while 90% of the posts on them violate Rule 5 up the :censored:?

really, just stickey one of these topics, and then once every other thread starts degenerating, merge it to the sticky.
Maybe you should become a moderator then?

Ravenlord
01-15-2005, 12:04 PM
Maybe you should become a moderator then?
yeah, i'll just click the 'become a moderator button.'

Falls City Beer
01-15-2005, 12:06 PM
yeah, i'll just click the 'become a moderator button.'

I see nothing right now that violates rule 5 or any other rule. What gives?

Ravenlord
01-15-2005, 12:39 PM
But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

it doesn't start out with that intent, but it always comes back to the same 3 things...and usually within 5 posts. i'm done with non-baseball side for a long time.

RFS62
01-15-2005, 12:45 PM
As contentious as it often gets, I read a lot of the political threads. The thing I've learned is that I'm not as conservative as I thought I was.

Even when I don't agree with a person's point of view, I feel like I can learn something, much of the time.

The right to hold passionate opinions about our country, our system of government, and the world at large is an incredible thing in the history of mankind.

Spring~Fields
01-15-2005, 07:13 PM
it doesn't start out with that intent, but it always comes back to the same 3 things...and usually within 5 posts. i'm done with non-baseball side for a long time.

:deadhorse
It is the same premise, so it does start out with "that intent" it is just a bait and switch job, and thus beating a subject to death, anti-bush, blah blah, anti-conservative blah blah, anti-religion blah blah, as if anyone ever claimed they were impeccable to begin with, I think we have all gotten the points that mistakes and errors are made and that there are serious consequences, as well as several things are done right.

Blah Blah Blah....:deadhorse .... insert - excessive player/president/conservative/religous person criticism or anything along those lines. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player/president/conservative/religous person to death, please. :deadhorse

Spring~Fields
01-15-2005, 07:25 PM
Ted Kennedy. ;)

Did he ever learn CPR :all_cohol :all_cohol was he ever held accountable?

Spring~Fields
01-15-2005, 07:31 PM
Excuse me while I fall out of my seat laughing Mr Moore, Mr Soros, and MoveOn.org.



Did Kerry have anything else but mud to sling? Everytime I listened to his speeches he was certainly singing the praises of GW. ;)

GAC
01-16-2005, 06:41 AM
No, I don't watch Fox news and when you criticize anything to do with the current administration with the fevor you reserve for sabermetrics let me know. :mhcky21:

You'll have to show me this "fevor" (I think you meant fervor though) that I demonstrate in opposition to sabermetrics. It's none existent.

I have disagreements with aspects of sabermetrics, and it's application, that is true. But for the most part, I stay off of those threads on the baseball side that get into a deep analysis of statistical breakdown and application. And I do so out of respect. But even at times when I have "misspoke" (and been misinterpreted) I have come back and apologized. And I have also stated numerous times on here my admiration and respect for the knowledge that guys like yourself possess on here (especially when it comes to baseball history). Do I get any points at all for that? ;)

But fervor? :lol:

And my TV is not "locked" on Fox. I bounce around quite a bit when it comes to news and information programs. Fox is no better or worse then any of the other news agencies IMO. And they definitely have their faults and biases.

It's sad when you can't go to ANY news source and get objective truth anymore. Everything has become so partisan, which is why people need to make that extra effort to sort through the garbage.

Personally, I like blogger websites. :p:

Chip R
01-16-2005, 09:18 AM
Personally, I like blogger websites. :p:
Did you hear the Howard Dean campaign paid 2-3 bloggers to say nice things about them?

WVRed
01-16-2005, 09:43 AM
http://www.sdplastics.com/dedhorse.gif

Redsfaithful
01-16-2005, 11:15 AM
Did you hear the Howard Dean campaign paid 2-3 bloggers to say nice things about them?

He hired 2 bloggers as consultants. One stopped blogging during the primaries, and the other put up a disclaimer saying he was being paid.

GAC
01-16-2005, 12:06 PM
Did you hear the Howard Dean campaign paid 2-3 bloggers to say nice things about them?

Out of the entire internet he was able to find 2 or 3 huh? Amazing. :mhcky21: