God's next Army

Dirk Gently

mcgarnicle wrote:

if you believe the US is swinging more to the religious extreme, which I don't

What would convince you?

mcgarnicle

More evidence than a garbage channel's "documentary" would be a start. I just think the idea that America is turning into a fundamentalist christian state is a way for detractors to dismiss American condemnation of muslim extremism. I don't really see anything new in America at the moment, there has always been a strong religious right. Bush might be pandering to them more than Clinton did but I'm pretty sure there was a big religious debate when Reagan was in power too.

Dyr

A college that tries to churn out students with the same moral and social values of those that run it so they can shape society through their graduate's? Im shocked!
oh wait im not, thats pretty much what happens here with them (dang) liberals

Dirk Gently

Does the fact that more and more people with strong religious views are getting into positions of power and influence not alarm you. Not saying religious people shouldn't be in power but translating that religion into state policy is dangerous.

Hobbes

mcgarnicle wrote:

More evidence than a garbage channel's "documentary" would be a start.

You mean the list of people I gave that are running the school doesn't mean anything? Even read up on the sites they run.

It has nothing to do with Muslim extremism. That is just FOTM (we have since moved onto Mexicans being the latestest bug-a-boo).

Read thier agenda and what they have done so far. You have far-Right judges added that will change the laws of the land long after Bush has left office. They are campaigning to stamp out homosexuality, in fact one of the links I added even details a bill going through congress today and how they paid huge amounts of money to help get it passed (will ban gay marriages at a federal level). They plan to overturn Roe vs Wade, again something that is currently trying to go through. They want Creationism taught instead of proper science and are responsible for a lot of the cases where its being forced in schools and no more seperation of church and state.

Bush might be pandering to them more than Clinton

Do your research. Bush is one of them.

Bambi wrote:

A college that tries to churn out students with the same moral and social values of those that run it so they can shape society through their graduate's? Im shocked!
oh wait im not, thats pretty much what happens here with them (dang) liberals

Actually that particular school is more cult like. For example if anyone breaks the "Statement of Biblical Worldview" is shunned from the rest of the school.

mcgarnicle

Hobbes wrote:

You mean the list of people I gave that are running the school doesn't mean anything? Even read up on the sites they run.

It has nothing to do with Muslim extremism. That is just FOTM (we have since moved onto Mexicans being the latestest bug-a-boo).

Read thier agenda and what they have done so far. You have far-Right judges added that will change the laws of the land long after Bush has left office. They are campaigning to stamp out homosexuality, in fact one of the links I added even details a bill going through congress today and how they paid huge amounts of money to help get it passed (will ban gay marriages at a federal level). They plan to overturn Roe vs Wade, again something that is currently trying to go through. They want Creationism taught instead of proper science and are responsible for a lot of the cases where its being forced in schools and no more seperation of church and state.



Do your research. Bush is one of them.

So a far right Christian group are opposed to homosexuality, and abortion? Is that news? The trustees don't seem that impressive to me, maybe you know something I don't about how important these people are?
How can these judges change the law exacltly, it has been suggested here that these guys are going to make laws favouring Christianity over other religions, this would require the constitution to be changed and this would require control over both congress and the supreme court. I would say this is impossible.

I have done my research, Bush speaks their language but he is not one of them

Dyr

In reality we just replaced the mores and sacred cow's of the religious nutter's with the more's and sacred cows of the PC right thinking crowd.

Obviously american bible bashing fundamentalist's are bad news but they're nearly the same breed as the PC thought police that are currently imposing their own value's on everyone else these day's. As a matter of fact, i think they feed off each other. The times they are a changin' back as tim robbins said in some film thingy

Schuhart

There seems to be an incredible willingness to adopt fundamentalist beliefs by people who really should know better. I find it hard to believe such adoption to be unconscious – i.e. at some level people must make a conscious decision that they can’t hack life head on and they want to vanish into some system of belief that will allow them to function through its rules.

I don’t know if this view might seem weird, unclear or just plain irrelevant. For my part, its been on my mind for a while but when I read this story about people acting out some slave cult idea culled from a science fiction novel I felt there was no denying the fact that many people just want to immerse themselves in a system of belief, even if they know it to be false. They don’t want to think for themselves, and enjoy acting out roles.

In Ray Bradburys’ Fahrenheit 451, the reason books are burnt is not because some totalitarian regime wants to suppress independent thought. Its because people don’t care, and books are just making them unhappy anyway by taking their minds where they would rather not go. I think he expressed a core truth that we see here again. Yes, people may well embrace any system of fundamentalism that relieves them of the responsibility of standing on their own two feet in the world.

If this agenda is successful, it won't just be because of some institution run by well-resourced and competent people. That helps, but what makes it float is a supreme willingness of many people to embrace this kind of nonsense.

mcgarnicle

clown bag wrote:

Does the fact that more and more people with strong religious views are getting into positions of power and influence not alarm you. Not saying religious people shouldn't be in power but translating that religion into state policy is dangerous.

Not particularly as I don't buy it. I don't see evidence that there are more religious people in power now than there have been in the past.

Hobbes

mcgarnicle wrote:

So a far right Christian group are opposed to homosexuality, and abortion? Is that news?

On its own no, but if you read on the sites you will see they are pumping serious money and people into the government to get thier agenda across.

The trustees don't seem that impressive to me, maybe you know something I don't about how important these people are?

Looks that way.

How can these judges change the law exacltly

Supreme court Judges are the ones in the US that set the laws in the event of the disputes. They even voted in Bush for the first time.

Currently with the recent two new changes to the list Bush has stacked it to the far-right agenda. For example Judge Roberts is very anti-abortion and it is quite possible they will be able to get Roe vs Wade overturned.

You might remember him from the large group of far-right christian fundementalists who were allowed into the hall where the interview for his job was being held and they blessed all the seats and held prayers outside while he was being questioned for the job.

it has been suggested here that these guys are going to make laws favouring Christianity over other religions, this would require the constitution to be changed and this would require control over both congress and the supreme court. I would say this is impossible.

They already have both. :rolleyes:

While the seperation of church and state may be hard one to break, they have been trying.

Again another example is gay marriages. Currently it is a state issue, however they want to implement a law that makes it illegal at a federal level.

I have done my research, Bush speaks their language but he is not one of them

You need to research some more.
- Born again christian
- Said that "Jesus Christ favorite political philosopher"
- Said that "God speaks through me"
- Supports creationism
- Supports hetrosexual marriages only
- anti-abortion
- reports of holding prayer meetings in the whitehouse
- Referred to fight against anti-terrorism as "Crusade"
- Had prayers held at his inauguration.
- Actually has people from the university in his administration.

I could go on, but this stuff isn't new at all. What I found new was that there was an actual university where they were churning out an almost cult-like group to take control of the US government.

Nuttzz

at lot of those things could be levelled at irish politicals too i'm sure.

the fact that they are so open about their objectives really leaves them open to being sidelined once a democratic administration gets into power.

while they have the presidents ear at present, that doesnt mean they will always have it.

Anybody else notice the total lack of social skills of a lot of the students? They will get a wake up call in the real world

pete

Nuttzz wrote:

at lot of those things could be levelled at irish politicals too i'm sure.

the fact that they are so open about their objectives really leaves them open to being sidelined once a democratic administration gets into power.

while they have the presidents ear at present, that doesnt mean they will always have it.

Anybody else notice the total lack of social skills of a lot of the students? They will get a wake up call in the real world

And yet they were apparently exceedingly talented debaters* - didn't they say they took home as many trophys as all other competitors put together at some national national debating competition? - who also have a huge focus on "moot court"

Students also compete in the American Collegiate Moot Court Association (ACMA), where they carried away four of the top honors at the ACMA 2005 National Tournament, including Winning Team and 1st Place Orator. Moot court is a form of debate competition designed to simulate appellate court proceedings. Teams of two students function as co-counsels and stand before a panel of judges to argue one side of a legal matter. Then, in later rounds, the same teams defend the opposite position.

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry_College)

Their goal wasn't so much "getting the president's ear" as it was getting into positions of great legal and legislative influence (state attorney general being one i specifically remember being mentioned)

* insert obvious pun

mcgarnicle

Hobbes wrote:

Looks that way.

Well care to enlighten us?

Hobbes wrote:

Supreme court Judges are the ones in the US that set the laws in the event of the disputes. They even voted in Bush for the first time.

Yes and while some of them are Republicans, they are not fundamentalist Christians and none of them are from this crack pot university, like I pointed out in an earlier post the judges in the supreme court are all from Harvard, Yale and Georgetown, the three most prestigious law schools in America, they deserve to be there and are not a part of "God's next army". Bush may choose Republicans when he gets the chance but so what, Democrats do the same, this is not news.

Hobbes wrote:

Currently with the recent two new changes to the list Bush has stacked it to the far-right agenda. For example Judge Roberts is very anti-abortion and it is quite possible they will be able to get Roe vs Wade overturned.

Well people have been trying to have Roe vs Wade overturned since 1973, again, what is new here?

Hobbes wrote:

You might remember him from the large group of far-right christian fundementalists who were allowed into the hall where the interview for his job was being held and they blessed all the seats and held prayers outside while he was being questioned for the job.

No I don't remember this, even if it is true, so what? The Brazilian football team bless themselves and pray before football games, are they fundamentalist christians? Modonna used to pray before concerts, certainly not a fundamentalist christian. People do these things for luck.

Hobbes wrote:

They already have both. :rolleyes:

Not to the extent where they can re-write the constitution to their heart's content and you are seriously deluded if you think that Republicans in congress will follow some sort of whip ideals and support fundamental constitutional change. Say what you like about conservative Americans, they are passionate about their country and when it comes down to it I would say that many hold the constitution in higher esteem than the bible.

Hobbes wrote:

Again another example is gay marriages. Currently it is a state issue, however they want to implement a law that makes it illegal at a federal level.

That is hardly a fundamental Christian idea though is it?

Hobbes wrote:

You need to research some more.
- Born again christian

Show me one US President that wasn't a pretty devout Christian, I think it has been argued that Abe Lincoln only paid lip service to it but apart from that I think the rest were pretty set in their beliefs. Bush is certainly not unique here.

Hobbes wrote:

- Said that "Jesus Christ favorite political philosopher"

In that he feels that Jesus changed his own life for the better, what is the harm in this belief? Should the president of America be required to surpress his religious beliefs?

Hobbes wrote:

- Said that "God speaks through me"

According to a few Old Order Amish guys that he met behind closed doors, hardly deffinitive.

Hobbes wrote:

- Supports creationism

No he doesn't, he supports the idea of people being given all the information and being allowed to make up their own minds. As far as I am aware he has never said he actually believes it himself. Since he has never mentioned it prior to the current debate it is clear he is doing it for political reasons and could not give a fiddlers **** one way or the other.

Hobbes wrote:

- Supports hetrosexual marriages only
- anti-abortion
- reports of holding prayer meetings in the whitehouse
- Had prayers held at his inauguration.

How is this fundamentalist christianity, sounds like regular, maybe devout christianity to me.

Hobbes wrote:

- Referred to fight against anti-terrorism as "Crusade"

No he reffered to a "crusade against terrorism", not a "Crusade", the word may have negative connotations when considered in a christian vs muslim context but it is reading too much into the statement and it's pretty obvious he didn't mean it that way.

Hobbes wrote:

- Actually has people from the university in his administration.

Who?

oscarBravo

mcgarnicle wrote:

More evidence than a garbage channel's "documentary" would be a start.

Read this book and come back to us.

mcgarnicle

Sorry that's not evidence, that's a piece of opinion

Hobbes

mcgarnicle wrote:

Well care to enlighten us?

You have a group of very powerful people both with money and government ties and some leaders of groups that have millions with the same agenda.

Yes and while some of them are Republicans, they are not fundamentalist Christians and none of them are from this crack pot university

You don't need them all to be, you only need the majority to be. Which is what you have now.

Well people have been trying to have Roe vs Wade overturned since 1973, again, what is new here?

They are now in a position to do it.

No I don't remember this, even if it is true, so what?

What do you mean, if it is true? Of course its true. So what? There was a group of 10 or so people without authorisation let into a room to pour holy water on all the seats before the event.

If it had been say Muslims doing the same thing (to ensure thier god voted the right person in) they would all be taking a holiday in gitmo.

Not to the extent where they can re-write the constitution to their heart's content

Like what for example? Have you even read any of the laws enacted since Bush got to office?

No he doesn't, he supports the idea of people being given all the information and being allowed to make up their own minds.

Right, so why only say this about Creationism and not about any other religion being taught in schools? Creationism is a bunk science. Why not teach Telepathy in schools then? It has about as much credibility as creationism.

Would you want your child to believe that soil layers are caused by Noah and the great flood, that humans co-existed peacefully with dinosaurs and that all fossils that fall outside of the date that the bible says the world is created were in fact created by god to begin with?

Who?

Paul Bonicelli, - Prior dean of academic affairs at Patrick Henry College. Now the boss of USAID's democracy and governance programs. Position assigned by Bush.

Ashcrofts wife is on the board of PHC.

Rebekah McDonald - A PHC 2002 graduate, accepted a position in the Bush Administration as the Executive Assistant to the Director of Strategic Initiatives in the White House. "Rebekah's position offers her some of the best practical experience possible for someone interested in influencing politics and government".

Rachel Kozlowski, Faith Brobst, and Christy Ross - Recently given internships in the Dept of Labour (50 places a year assigned).

Michael Farris - testified before the U.S. Senate's Subcommittee on the Constitution. (not really a job but there to try and get same-sex marriages banned).

Derreck Hofrichter - intern in the Public Liaison's Office (had met Bush directly beforehand)

Thats just 5 seconds in google and only focusing on direct ties to the government. If you go into law/media then it gets even bigger.

Btw, calling it a crackpot college when its listed in the top 10 conservative colleges doesn't say much for the other colleges. Also the heads of it were invited to the Oval Office in 2003.

Hobbes

Just curious what exactly would be "evidence" to you? Appears you are just dismissing it offhand.

oscarBravo

mcgarnicle wrote:

Sorry that's not evidence, that's a piece of opinion

Have you actually read the (thoroughly researched, clearly presented and well-balanced) book? Or are you dismissing it because it doesn't seem to support your point of view?

Per Hobbes, what exactly would constitute evidence?

pete

oscarBravo wrote:

Have you actually read the (thoroughly researched, clearly presented and well-balanced) book?

Or actually seen the programme in question, in which they were quite clear what they aspired to for that matter.

mcgarnicle

Hobbes wrote:

You have a group of very powerful people both with money and government ties and some leaders of groups that have millions with the same agenda.

You have decided to ignore most of the answers I gave in my last post, many of them answer the questions you are asking now so I will just refer you back to my previous post.
As for the quote above quote it was implied they were extremely prominent figures, they are not. Ashcroft's wife is the only example that strikes me, the rest may have money but the don't look all that important.

Hobbes wrote:

You don't need them all to be, you only need the majority to be. Which is what you have now.

No it isn't. See previous post. The majority are Republicans not fundamentalist Christians, do the two go hand in hand?

Hobbes wrote:

They are now in a position to do it.

They have been in that position before.

Hobbes wrote:

What do you mean, if it is true? Of course its true. So what? There was a group of 10 or so people without authorisation let into a room to pour holy water on all the seats before the event.

See previous post, I explained why I said so what.

Hobbes wrote:

If it had been say Muslims doing the same thing (to ensure thier god voted the right person in) they would all be taking a holiday in gitmo.

Unlikely

Hobbes wrote:

Like what for example? Have you even read any of the laws enacted since Bush got to office?

Have any of these laws changed the constitution?

Hobbes wrote:

Right, so why only say this about Creationism and not about any other religion being taught in schools? Creationism is a bunk science. Why not teach Telepathy in schools then? It has about as much credibility as creationism.

Like I said he is saying it for political reasons, his voters are Christians, not telepaths. If he gave credence to telepathy it would obviously hurt him politicaly rather than help.

Hobbes wrote:

Would you want your child to believe that soil layers are caused by Noah and the great flood, that humans co-existed peacefully with dinosaurs and that all fossils that fall outside of the date that the bible says the world is created were in fact created by god to begin with?

Why is what I want relevent to this argument? I never implied I agreed with creationist ideas, my point was Bush has never said he does either. By saying he thinks people should be given the choice Bush is not giving support to creationism while ,at the same time, not isolating his voters that do support it. If you look back at this guy's history you will he is pretty politically astute, shamelessly so infact.

Hobbes wrote:

Paul Bonicelli, - Prior dean of academic affairs at Patrick Henry College. Now the boss of USAID's democracy and governance programs. Position assigned by Bush.

Ashcrofts wife is on the board of PHC.

Rebekah McDonald - A PHC 2002 graduate, accepted a position in the Bush Administration as the Executive Assistant to the Director of Strategic Initiatives in the White House. "Rebekah's position offers her some of the best practical experience possible for someone interested in influencing politics and government".

Rachel Kozlowski, Faith Brobst, and Christy Ross - Recently given internships in the Dept of Labour (50 places a year assigned).

Michael Farris - testified before the U.S. Senate's Subcommittee on the Constitution. (not really a job but there to try and get same-sex marriages banned).

Derreck Hofrichter - intern in the Public Liaison's Office (had met Bush directly beforehand)

Thats just 5 seconds in google and only focusing on direct ties to the government. If you go into law/media then it gets even bigger.

So in other words you can't name anyone in the Bush administration.

Hobbes wrote:

Btw, calling it a crackpot college when its listed in the top 10 conservative colleges doesn't say much for the other colleges. Also the heads of it were invited to the Oval Office in 2003.

What list?

mcgarnicle

oscarBravo wrote:

Have you actually read the (thoroughly researched, clearly presented and well-balanced) book? Or are you dismissing it because it doesn't seem to support your point of view?

Per Hobbes, what exactly would constitute evidence?

Evidence is something that is not the opinion of two journalists that had their minds made up before they started the book. If you want to derail the thread I can just throw up a tonne of books for you to read and let the thread die. I'm not dismissing the book I am saying it is not evidence because it is not. Evidence is unbiased facts, not a piece of opinion, which this book clearly is.

mcgarnicle

pete wrote:

Or actually seen the programme in question, in which they were quite clear what they aspired to for that matter.

Like I have said already I don't deny that these guys have aspirations to change America. My point is that they are not indicitive of America in general or Republicans in general.

Hobbes

mcgarnicle wrote:

No it isn't. See previous post. The majority are Republicans not fundamentalist Christians, do the two go hand in hand?

Well that is the plan of PHC.

They have been in that position before.

When was the last time the supreme court judges were stacked in the Republicans favour and had far-right elements on it? You seem to know, so let us know.

Unlikely

So your telling me that anyone at all can walk into a government building without permission to do so and do what they like in that area just prior to major government figures entering that room? News to me.

o_O

Have any of these laws changed the constitution?

Well the patriot act for starters.

Why is what I want relevent to this argument? I never implied I agreed with creationist ideas, my point was Bush has never said he does either. By saying he thinks people should be given the choice Bush is not giving support to creationism while ,at the same time, not isolating his voters that do support it. If you look back at this guy's history you will he is pretty politically astute, shamelessly so infact.

However Creationism only deals with Christian values. Why not teach other religous values and how the world was created in that way as a science? Find me where Bush agreed to that as well and then I will believe he doesn't believe in creationism.

So in other words you can't name anyone in the Bush administration.

I am really starting to wonder if your just trolling at this stage.

Two of those are in the Bush administration, one is the wife of someone who was in the bush administration. There is clear reports that PHC have been getting internship allocations over what other schools are getting for such a small school.

and like I said that was 5 seconds in Google. If you want a more in depth analysis you can either do it yourself or I am more then happy to (for a fee).

What list?

The "Young American's Foundation" list. Which is a well known conservative body.

http://www.phc.edu/news/docs/03022006Media.asp

mcgarnicle

Hobbes wrote:

Well that is the plan of PHC.

Oh so now it is their plan whereas you claimed in your last post that it was "what you have now". So in other words the Supreme Court is not dominated by far right christian fundamentalists and your point is that some crack pot university would like things to be this way someday. Never going to happen.

Hobbes wrote:

When was the last time the supreme court judges were stacked in the Republicans favour and had far-right elements on it? You seem to know, so let us know.

Are you suggesting that this is the first time the Supreme Court has had a Republican majority?

Hobbes wrote:

So your telling me that anyone at all can walk into a government building without permission to do so and do what they like in that area just prior to major government figures entering that room? News to me.

o_O

No I am saying that if a Muslim was going for the job and he did whatever muslim thing he wanted to do to help him he would not end up in "gitmo", which was what you suggested.

Hobbes wrote:

Well the patriot act for starters.

The patriot act has some parts that violate the constitution, not the first time this has happened in America. You are suggesting that they are willing to effectively re-write the constitution, a massive difference to what the Patriot Act does, to make Christianity the favoured religion in America, never going to happen.

Hobbes wrote:

However Creationism only deals with Christian values. Why not teach other religous values and how the world was created in that way as a science? Find me where Bush agreed to that as well and then I will believe he doesn't believe in creationism.

I have answered this twice already.

Hobbes wrote:

I am really starting to wonder if your just trolling at this stage.

Two of those are in the Bush administration, one is the wife of someone who was in the bush administration. There is clear reports that PHC have been getting internship allocations over what other schools are getting for such a small school.

and like I said that was 5 seconds in Google. If you want a more in depth analysis you can either do it yourself or I am more then happy to (for a fee).

No none of them are in his administration. Don't see where an analysis is required, you are either part of Bush's administration or you aren't, none of these people are.

Hobbes wrote:

The "Young American's Foundation" list. Which is a well known conservative body.

http://www.phc.edu/news/docs/03022006Media.asp

Well going by the criteria to get on the list, which include "promoting traditional values", "apprenticeship methodologies to produce graduates who are uniquely qualified to serve God" and "avoidance of more obscure topics that limit the student’s understanding of America’s founding principles."
it looks to me like inclusion on that list is a good indicator of just how bad this university is and if the other colleges adhere to these ideals then not only do I stand by my belief that this is a crack pot university but I would like to brand all the colleges on that list as crack pots too.

Zombrex

mcgarnicle wrote:

Like I have said already I don't deny that these guys have aspirations to change America. My point is that they are not indicitive of America in general or Republicans in general.

Your wrong about the Republican party.

In 2004 48 out of the 51 Republicans in the US Senate voted 100% of the time with christian right lobby groups such as the Christian Coalition. Compare that with the 30 Democratic Senators who voted 0% of the time with the Christian Coalition.

I agree with you that the Christian Fundamentalist Right is not indicitive of Americans in general, they are a minority (a sizable minority, but a minority none the less).

But for such a minority they have huge influence within the Republican party, and as such huge influence with in American government.

And this is not a "its always been like that" situation. 30 years ago most of these lobby groups didn't even exist, let alone have so much infulence within the Republican party.

Hobbes

mcgarnicle wrote:

Oh so now it is their plan whereas you claimed in your last post that it was "what you have now".

Actually in my OP I claimed (or rather PHC did) that they will be in full control of the government in 20-30 years. Only time I've claimed that a majority are far-right wing is in the case of the supreme court justices.

So in other words the Supreme Court is not dominated by far right christian fundamentalists

Define dominated. Have the majority? If so then yes.

Are you suggesting that this is the first time the Supreme Court has had a Republican majority?

That is not what I asked. I am asking you when was the last time they had a majority. You appear to know so please enlighten us. Stop trying to answer a question with a question.

No I am saying that if a Muslim was going for the job and he did whatever muslim thing he wanted to do to help him he would not end up in "gitmo", which was what you suggested.

Your missing the whole point that this group of people actually entered the government building without permission proceeded to sprinkle holy water (according to them) over all the chairs. Your telling me if a muslim group did the exact same thing that absolutly nothing would happen?

The patriot act has some parts that violate the constitution, not the first time this has happened in America.

That would make it unconstitutional then. You said earlier that they enacted no laws that did this, now you agree.

a massive difference to what the Patriot Act does, to make Christianity the favoured religion in America, never going to happen.

We'll see.

I have answered this twice already.

No, you have dimissed it twice already.

No none of them are in his administration. Don't see where an analysis is required, you are either part of Bush's administration or you aren't, none of these people are.

You really are incapable of reading. I have already pointed out who is in his administration. If you think any of them are wrong please point out which ones exactly. Here let me help you..

Paul Bonicelli - USAID boss. Government department, Bushes Administration.

Rebekah McDonald - Executive Assistant to the Director of Strategic Initiatives. Bush Administration.

Also take a look at the numbers in the school verus the number of internships given out to US universities per year.

While your at it denying Bush has no connection ask yourself why then did he invite the PHC heads to the Oval office in 2003 (you will even find a photo on the net).

For that matter why not look up why PHC has been routinely refused accreditation because it teaches Creationism only (no science) by a number of independant bodies yet in 2005 was given accreditation by the US department of Education.

Well going by the criteria to get on the list...

You may brand them as crackpots, but those crackpots are going into the US government.

pete

mcgarnicle wrote:

Like I have said already I don't deny that these guys have aspirations to change America. My point is that they are not indicitive of America in general or Republicans in general.

Can I take that as a "no", then?

mcgarnicle

Hobbes wrote:

Actually in my OP I claimed (or rather PHC did) that they will be in full control of the government in 20-30 years. Only time I've claimed that a majority are far-right wing is in the case of the supreme court justices.

I'm talking about your second post back when you claimed it was "what we have now".

Hobbes wrote:

Define dominated. Have the majority? If so then yes.

They are republicans, not fundamentalist christians. Not only that but it has been suggested that there is 4-4-1 split in the court, rather than a clear Republican majority. Also the appointees do not necessarily follow party lines, for example two of Reagan's appointees regularly voted with the liberals.

Hobbes wrote:

That is not what I asked. I am asking you when was the last time they had a majority. You appear to know so please enlighten us. Stop trying to answer a question with a question.

I would have thought that would be an easy one for you, wasn't it a Republican Supreme Court that handed Bush his first election victory?

Hobbes wrote:

Your missing the whole point that this group of people actually entered the government building without permission proceeded to sprinkle holy water (according to them) over all the chairs. Your telling me if a muslim group did the exact same thing that absolutly nothing would happen?

If the guy going for the job of member of the supreme court was a muslim I don't see why people would object to this. If anything I think the government would highlight such activity as proof of that it was open to all religions, cynical I know but I wouldn't put it past them.

Hobbes wrote:

That would make it unconstitutional then. You said earlier that they enacted no laws that did this, now you agree.

No what I said was they won't re-write the constitution, they won't.

Hobbes wrote:

We'll see.

Yes we will.

Hobbes wrote:

No, you have dimissed it twice already.

No I have answered it twice.

Hobbes wrote:

You really are incapable of reading. I have already pointed out who is in his administration. If you think any of them are wrong please point out which ones exactly. Here let me help you..

Paul Bonicelli - USAID boss. Government department, Bushes Administration.

Rebekah McDonald - Executive Assistant to the Director of Strategic Initiatives. Bush Administration.

I think we disagree on what actually being a part of the Bush administration means, you seem to be of the oppinion that just working for any government department is enough, I disagree.

Hobbes wrote:

While your at it denying Bush has no connection ask yourself why then did he invite the PHC heads to the Oval office in 2003 (you will even find a photo on the net).

Ozzy Osbourne was invited to the white house, does that mean president Bush wants to join Black Sabbath?

sovtek

I saw this the other night.
I found it pretty scary how the college uses poor fundamentalist saps to basically do free work for lobbyist (who make millions)...like FreedomWorks (the Congressional aid asked him if he was working for Dick Armey as soon as they explained they were with Freedom Works).
I'm just curious how Christian values coincide with allowing corporations to poison people and allow them to not be answerable for it.
At the same time it's kinda funny to see how sheep-ily they do whatever their told even if it goes against their professed values.

Hobbes

mcgarnicle wrote:

They are republicans, not fundamentalist christians. Not only that but it has been suggested that there is 4-4-1 split in the court, rather than a clear Republican majority.

If you bothered to look it up prior to the recent right wing judges being appointed the number of uncontested decisions ran in the low 40%, now it's 82.5% Which means a lot of decisions are being passed with right wing agendas.

I would have thought that would be an easy one for you, wasn't it a Republican Supreme Court that handed Bush his first election victory?

Actually it was an even split with one SCJ tended to change a lot. Anyway the vote that got Bush the election wasn't on letting Bush be president but if the recount was unconstitutional (as the recount as we now know after the fact would of allowed Gore to win).

Where votes took place as to who should win it was an even split between Democratic/Republican votes of SCJ.

If the guy going for the job of member of the supreme court was a muslim I don't see why people would object to this.

I am not talking about the SCJ, I am talking about a group of people (right wing christian fundimentalists) who went into the building without any permission to begin with.

No what I said was they won't re-write the constitution, they won't.

They never do. What the SCJ do is "interpret the constitution" and decide if a law enacted breaks it.

I think we disagree on what actually being a part of the Bush administration means, you seem to be of the oppinion that just working for any government department is enough, I disagree.

You do know there was a complete reshuffle across the board in the US administation when one president leaves and another enters. Hence the reason its called the Bush administration. And if you put enough people in that want the same Agenda then yes it does matter what departments they go into.

Incidently the two departments I listed above are clear departments where it fits PHC agenda.

Ozzy Osbourne was invited to the white house, does that mean president Bush wants to join Black Sabbath?

He was invited to a white house charity meal. Get back to me when Ozzy got invited to the Oval Office to oversee a bill that he helped get Bush to sign then you can compare the two.

Btw the bill they helped pass curtailed the rights of Social workers to react on investigations of Child Abuse claims.