Your replies have turned quite bizarre in this thread, Pat.
"Did you ever think that Bush just might be sincere in his Christianity? Maybe not using it to forward his own agenda?"
Yes, I did consider this but as time passed he made me feel stupid for giving him the benefit of the doubt. This administration has played the "Christian card" like no other. Name a previous adminstration that has played religion so hard and used it as a tool to manipulate voters to such potent effect. These guys seem to love the example set by Joe McCarthy only instead of using communism it's Christianity. Of course, the whole "liberals are siding with the terrorists" thing is the same as ol' Joe's game. They just love his tactics. I'm just shocked you don't see it even slightly. There is a faction of these right wing nuts that want to get all revisionist on us and play McCarthy as a great American patriot. God help us, Pat.
No you would not and will never will believe that so you already
have preconcieived notions of him
At this point, yes, I have now conceived certain notions about the Bush administration based on his first term. I think that's fair and wise and we all should have some based on the actions they have taken across the board, not just in terms of the "War on Terror."
Really all I'm trying to do is see the bigger picture. They (the Bush administration) seem to want us, and this goes for Christians in particular, to focus on minor peripheral nonsense that inspires a knee jerk emotional reaction.
"These people are giving Christians a bad name. It's not the media or the Democrats...it's the Karl Roves and the Fred Phelps of the world that are destroying Christianity. I'm just pointing out that it sure as hell seems like that's what they want." -Reg
Step back there a little Reg. You are painting with the BIG BRUSH again. Anything to bash BUSH.
Actually, I would disagree that I'm painting with a big brush because I'm being very specific about who I'm talking about. I did not make some blanket statement about Christains, I wrote about Rove (who is a driving force behind Bush) and Phelps. To me Rove is scum and to associate with him or worse make him your top advisor is a clear indication of your thought process and feelings. I also don't think I'm Bush bashing here I was talking about a specific line of attack they have used to separate us as a nation. Would you deny that the Bush administration has used Christainity as a wedge?
Fred Phelps gives Christians a bad name. You would get that from 95% of the Christians out there in America.
I don't know about 95% but I would hope it would be the majority. I'm sure many of your 95% agree with the idea that all homosexuals are going to Hell. Why don't Christian leaders speak out against Fred Phelps? Where's their outrage over the damage he does to their religion?
But the Bush Administration is not giving the Christians a bad name. The MSM is giving him one.
This is an odd turn in your argument. Rather than give me some examples about how the tactics of the Bush administration have helped paint Christians in this country in a more positive light and create understanding and good will toward them, you have pointed me instead to the mainstream media. You have turned the conversation to it's "all just an attack on Bush", when in fact that is not at all what it was. You are diverting things here, Pat.
I will give you a prime example
Read this link:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050621/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_s_guards
Ok, I read it. It's a puff piece, Pat. It's a curiosity thing, what's he eating for breakfast, what's his favorite junk food...it's all nonsense. It's a waste of time article...one of those things you read while you are taking a crap. It's trivia.
I'll give you the cliff notes summary
1. Bush Sr. Bad
2. Bush Jr. Bad
3. Saddam an Ok guy (he is cool giving advice on women)
4. Saddam has no WMD (Even though every Intelligence Agency World Wide knew he did)
This is an odd assessment of this article. Saddam says he doesn't care for the Bushies...WHY WOULD HE? They both went to war with his country...the first provoked...the second unprovoked. This is not a piece that discusses WMD's...it's a junk piece to give you a couple of odd items...Saddam hates fruit loops...wow! There's a newsflash for you there.
Try reading this instead and point out to me where the bias is...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/04/AR2005070400551.html
This is the drumbeat we continually hear. This guy(RICHARD PYLE), is siding with the enemy. If you can't see how biased this article is then there is no hope.
Siding with the enemy? I think you could accuse him of some junk journalism but siding with the enemy? There's no bias there, Pat. It's a curiosity piece. Mr. Pyle knows our culture is fascinated by the mundane details of any type of celebrity...good guys or bad guys...and he's giving us mundane details to satisfy our craving in the same way they give Saddam Dorritios to satisfy his. Umm...so what. There's nothing of value in that piece, not a single important or critical statement. Plus the article does not even attempt to compare Bush and Saddam, which seems to be what you think it does. Your statement pretty much drips McCarthyism. That's a beauty, Pat. Shall we shoot this Mr. Pyle for treason or just ship him off to Gitmo? He did expose Saddam's hatred of a beloved American breakfast treat!
Again here Reg the MSM is VERY VERY select on which stories they run. On the whole they cherry pick the ones that either make Christianity look bad
Pat, Phelps and Rove generate those kind of stories and pray the media puts them out there. What stories have you read that the media created to make Christians look bad?
or bash the Bush Administration.
Basically it seems that any story that shows that the Bush administration is screwing up or creating a problem is called "Bush bashing."
Our media is supposed to be critical of the administration and reveal it's faults. That's how the public gets a chance to see how they are doing and it keeps the administration on it's toes. to label any such article as "bashing" is a partisan tactic used only for the purpose of deflecting the spotlight from the issue at hand. These guys want to shut down any argument against them...which could be called "fascism."
The fact Reg is that you do have issues with Christians. If you did'nt you'd be one.
Really, so if I don't have a problem with Jews, I'd be a Jew and if I don't have a problem with Muslims, I'd be a Muslim, and if I don't have a problem with gays, I'd be gay, and if I don't have a problem with Chinese people, I'd be Chinese and if I don't have an issue with Democrats, I'd be a Democrat...your logic here is impressive. So you are either saying I have to join all these different groups because I don't have an issue with them or...and this is a big or...you are saying you have an issue with anyone who is not a straight white Christian Republican...because that's what you are. You've got a mighty big chip on your shoulder if that's the case.
Hey, I don't have a problem with steel workers...I guess I'll need to join their union or something...I've got a lot of work to do.
Uh huh right. Actions and rhetoric speak volumes
So, I'm going to assume here if you have not taken action and become a Muslim and a Jew as well as a Christian then you have a big issue with these people. I'll also assume that if you have not done something to become Chinese, African American, and Native American...well then...you have a big issue with these people as well. Also, what have you done lately to prove you don't have it in for homosexuals and women...because if you haven't got it on with another guy and had a sex change operation well...by your logic you've got a problem with both groups. You must have a problem with them because you haven't become one.
"but then so is Bill Moyers and I guess you'd call him fringe..." -Reg
Uh huh right. Actions and rhetoric speak volumes
Hey, Moyers is a Christian journalist...just not your kind of Christian huh?
