[Odd then, that so few of the godless liberal intellectuals voted for him. In fact, that was one of his rallying cries, if I remember correctly.]
It doesn't matter what his rallying cries were, or who voted for him. Bush's actual actions and policies reflect an atheistic, or possibly Judaic, ideology. Christianity has played little to no role in Bush policies.
56 comments
It doesn't matter what his rallying cries were, or who voted for him. Bush's actual actions and policies reflect an atheistic, or possibly Judaic, ideology. Christianity has played little to no role in Bush policies.
Um... you are so wrong on just about every level. Stem cell research? Abortion laws? Invoking God in practically every interview he's done?
Do you even pay attention to what you own president is doing in, and to, your own country???
"Athiestic" doesn't mean "incompetent, stupid, and/or corrupt." Neither does "Judaic." Atheism does tend to connote rationality, however -- a trait that George W. Bush has rarely exhibited (probably less often than would be accounted for by random chance).
Well, it's true. The teachings of Christ have played little to no role in Bush policies. You know, all that love your neighbor, do good to those who persecute you, whatever you do unto the least of these you do unto me, let the little children come unto me... all that stuff? Social justice? Niceness? Love and charity? The modern church as seen in the media and the courts in North America has little to nothing to do with Christ, especially the Republimentalist movement. And Jesus had lots to say about them. Verse 21 is the money quote , but the whole chapter is relevant.
@guh?
Well, it's true. The teachings of Christ have played little to no role in Bush policies. You know, all that love your neighbor, do good to those who persecute you, whatever you do unto the least of these you do unto me, let the little children come unto me... all that stuff? Social justice? Niceness? Love and charity? The modern church as seen in the media and the courts in North America has little to nothing to do with Christ, especially the Republimentalist movement. And Jesus had lots to say about them. Verse 21 is the money quote, but the whole chapter is relevant.
He is partly correct. Bush stole the election with untraceable voting machines, skewed voter lists, etc. Also, his policies and programs bear little resemblence to the teachings of Jesus.
When asked what we should do to prepare for this hurricane season, Bush said "First, we should pray to God that we don't have any hurricanes."
it doesn't matter what Bush purports to be, it is his actions which should show his "Christianity" and there is little evidence of that. To consider that his actions reflect a Judaic bent is not correct - Jesus was a Jew and all his teaching reflect his religious background. If we don't care for each other and assist each other to live well both spiritually and physically, then all our so called "religion" mean nothing.
Someone please explain to me one thing Bush has done for Christian America. Abortion is still legal; Bush has authorized terrorist attacks against American citizens; Bush forces Americans to die in illegal, unjust wars totally against Christian teaching.
Defensor Fidei #66575 "Someone please explain to me one thing Bush has done for Christian America. Abortion is still legal; Bush has authorized terrorist attacks against American citizens; Bush forces Americans to dye in illegal, unjust wars totally against Christian teaching.
While America's poor suffer, billions of dollars go the Zionist regime to build weapons of mass destruction or for tax breaks to cronies of the Bush crime family. Bush forces America to support a terrorist state which bombs our Christian and Moslem brethren both in the Middle East, as most recently in Lebanon.
Since taking office, only Bush and the atheistic/ Judaic corporate elites have benefitted from policies of the Bush regime. His actions are however 100% in line with Talmudic doctrine."
Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is the one and only veto he's made to date -- namely, the one to prevent a law that would have allowed federal funding for the use of embryonic stem cells for research instead of simply throwing them in the trash, which the Christian Right seems to think is morally superior treatment for them.
Note, D.F., that I do NOT claim that this constitutes "Christlike" behavior; I am saying that it was done specifically to appease his largely Christian Right support base, and so was done "for" them (and, most likely, for himself, since he seems to believe as they do). This item, at least, surely does not benefit any "atheistic/Judaic corporate elites" (whoever the frell THOSE might be -- I'd love to hear some names mentioned).
And what the heck is this about Bush authorizing terrorist attacks against American citizens?!? Is D.F. one of those folks who think the 9/11 attacks were actually engineered and carried out by our own government, or is he talking about some other event that I haven't heard about?
~David D.G.
"And where the heck in the Bible does it even MENTION abortions?" Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.
(Prophecy Of Jeremias i. 5)
"Supporting the Zionist regime -- by which I assume you mean the Israeli government -- is part and parcel of Christian Fundamentalism.
Supporting the Zionist regime is completely antithetical to Christian principles.
"Fundies believe that Jesus will return when the Jerusalem Temple is destroyed. (c.f. Revelation.) But in order for the temple to be destroyed, it must first be rebuilt. And the only ones likely to have enough oomph to rebuild the temple (and get rid of that ornery Dome of the Rock currently sitting in its place) are ... the Israelites."
The Israelites have been dead for 2,000 years.
And what the heck is this about Bush authorizing terrorist attacks against American citizens?!? Is D.F. one of those folks who think the 9/11 attacks were actually engineered and carried out by our own government, or is he talking about some other event that I haven't heard about?
And you think that some ragtag Muslims engineered and carried out those precision military strikes on American civilian targets in the most secure nation in the world?
<<< And you think that some ragtag Muslims engineered and carried out those precision military strikes on American civilian targets in the most secure nation in the world? >>>
""Most secure" my ass. We're able to detect "traditional" attacks quite easily and react quite severely to them, but if we don't see it coming (and no one did see 9/11 coming) a small group could pull something like that off very easily.
The biggest strike against the consparicy theories is the sheer number of people who would have to be involved in order for it to work. The larger the conspiracy, the harder it is to hide. It's damn near inconceivable that they'd be able to hide one that big.
"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."
Have you never heard of NORAD? Jet fighters could be scrambled in minutes unless deliberately ordered to stand down as they were on September 11 directly from the mouth of Dick Cheney... many many previous airliner hijackings where planes were deliberately flown into buildings certainly meant we were familiar with the situation and knew what to do on the spur of the moment.
Come on. Every previous hijacking that had ever occurred resulted in (A) the hijackers flying to Cuba, or (B) the hijackers landing and using the passengers as hostages to negotiate. It wasn't until the first airliner struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center that the hijackers tipped their hand, and by then it was too late to scramble anything except a couple of eggs.
Monday Morning quarterbacking won't bring the 9/11 victims back to life, any more than it will bring the Pearl Harbor victims back to life.
"And you think that some ragtag Muslims engineered and carried out those precision military strikes on American civilian targets in the most secure nation in the world?" civilian airplanes (hijacked at the point of box-cutter knives, of all things) to crash them into civilian buildings hardly qualifies as "precision military strikes" by any definition I'm aware of. Coordinated criminal carnage, sure -- but executed by a group that is not an official military of any nation, using nothing but everyday civilian technology, weaknesses in our security, and murderous thought processes we can hardly be blamed for not anticipating in detail.
~David D.G.
Yes, and I'm sure the many many previous airliner hijackings where planes were deliberately flown into buildings certainly meant we were familiar with the situation and knew what to do on the spur of the moment. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/politics/14terror.html?ex=1155182400&en=9c87a17a12734598&ei=5070
WASHINGTON , Sept. 13 - American aviation officials were warned as early as 1998 that Al Qaeda could "seek to hijack a commercial jet and slam it into a U.S. landmark," according to previously secret portions of a report prepared last year by the Sept. 11 commission. The officials also realized months before the Sept. 11 attacks that two of the three airports used in the hijackings had suffered repeated security lapses.
"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
-Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta
In addition to what Crosis points out about the U.S. hardly being as secure as D.F. seems to think, I would point out that flying civilian airplanes (hijacked at the point of box-cutter knives, of all things) to crash them into civilian buildings hardly qualifies as "precision military strikes" by any definition I'm aware of.
Defensor Fidei #67095 "The events of September 11th could be classified as nothing other than precision military strikes.."
Could you at least do me the courtesy of providing SOME kind of support for this assertion? Just throwing it out there like that amounts to nothing more than saying, "Is so!"
I just said it doesn't amount to anything remotely military in nature (the only military aspect of the whole operation being that the Pentagon was one target, but that still doesn't change the people doing it or the methodology), and I gave reasons to support my position. I'm actually wanting to know WHY you think this. By what criteria do you claim that this operation can ONLY be "classified as nothing other than precision military strikes"?
~David D.G.
"I just said it doesn't amount to anything remotely military in nature (the only military aspect of the whole operation being that the Pentagon was one target, but that still doesn't change the people doing it or the methodology), and I gave reasons to support my position. I'm actually wanting to know WHY you think this. By what criteria do you claim that this operation can ONLY be "classified as nothing other than precision military strikes"?
Performing elite military manuevers with aircraft, using them as missiles to hit U.S. targets on American soil, all the while evading any U.S. military intervention...?
<<< Your assertion that "a small group could pull something like that off very easily" is simply ridiculous. >>>
So flying into a building qualifies as an "elite military maneuver" now? And just a moment ago, you were complaining that no fighters were scrambled to intercept the airliners. How complicated could it be to "evade" military intervention in that kind of bogey-free aerial environment? Ya can't have it both ways.
It is very complicated and near impossible to evade military intervention in that situation, unless you have friends in high places who are deliberately ordering the military to stand down. In the case of 9/11, a vice president...
If they missed the first plane, perhaps it is an example of extreme incompetence at NORAD. When you get to 2, 3, 4, the only logical explanation becomes apparent...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1173334&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
[b]Pentagon Revokes Clearance of Officer Who Claimed Military Unit Identified Four 9/11 Hijackers
WASHINGTON Sep 30, 2005 (AP) An officer who has claimed that a classified military unit identified four Sept. 11 hijackers before the 2001 attacks is facing Pentagon accusations of breaking numerous rules, charges his lawyer suggests are aimed at undermining his credibility.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300_pf.html
[b]9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.
Defensor Fidei #67110 Hmm, let's see... Performing elite military manuevers with aircraft, using them as missiles to hit U.S. targets on American soil, all the while evading any U.S. military intervention...?
When did successful missile strikes become a misdemeanor?
You gave no valid reasons to support your claims.
D.F.: Obviously you have a very different notion of "valid" from mine; you still have provided no underlying rationale that holds up. As others pointed out, merely cruising a plane and crashing it into a huge building is hardly a Blue Angels maneuver; and as you yourself point out, there was NO military intervention for them to evade. (The reasons for that seem most likely to be confusion and incompetence, which are more than adequate motivation for the military's CYA lies that you indicate -- and I do believe they merit investigation, but are wildly unlikely to indicate any conspiracy). The idea to use our own civilian airliners as missiles is admittedly a cruelly clever strategem, but it hardly speaks of "elite military" thinking -- more like "elite terrorist" thinking, which tends to be much more unconventional.
And I never suggested that "missile strikes [were] a misdemeanor." That is a heinous misrepresentation of my position; in fact, I did characterize the attacks as monstrously criminal. I simply took exception with your characterization of the methodology as being "elite military"; this switch to attacking some phantom belittling of the attack's scope is both completely disingenuous and immaterial to the point under discussion.
~David D.G.
"I just said it doesn't amount to anything remotely military in nature (the only military aspect of the whole operation being that the Pentagon was one target, but that still doesn't change the people doing it or the methodology), and I gave reasons to support my position. I'm actually wanting to know WHY you think this. By what criteria do you claim that this operation can ONLY be "classified as nothing other than precision military strikes"?
Missile attacks on American soil are military acts of war. Only elite military could have pulled off the 9/11 attacks the way that they did.
You say that ONLY elite military could have accomplished the in-flight hijacking of civilian planes with box-cutter knives and then crashed them into huge buildings. NO NATIONAL MILITARY WAS INVOLVED, as far as any investigation has revealed so far.
Sayeret Matkal is a part of the Israeli Defence Forces.
The United States military was also complicit in the attack.
You say that ONLY elite military could have accomplished the in-flight hijacking of civilian planes with box-cutter knives and then crashed them into huge buildings. NO NATIONAL MILITARY WAS INVOLVED, as far as any investigation has revealed so far.
Sayeret Matkal is a part of the Israeli Defence Forces.
The United States military was also complicit in the attack.
<<< Much less, a group of Muslim rejects who practically failed out of flight school >>>landing the plane, though they were competent enough in other tasks.
No, they never even tried to learn how to land the plane. They already had pilots' licenses from outside the country when they entered the American flight school. The only thing the flight school judged them on was their in-air flying skills, and they were below-average.
Defensor Fidei #67834 No, they never even tried to learn how to land the plane. They already had pilots' licenses from outside the country when they entered the American flight school. The only thing the flight school judged them on was their in-air flying skills, and they were below-average.
It would take a skilled experienced military pilot to pull off the sort of precise manuevers that were performed on 9/11.
I still don't know what "precise maneuvers" you could possibly be talking about; it's not like they were having to do an aerial dogfight, and it doesn't take a freaking Top Gun pilot to aim the plane into some of the biggest buildings on the planet.
~David D.G.
Bush and other "New Conservatives" follow the gospel of the rapture. This does not appear anywhere in the bible. It is an invention of the "Scofield Reference Bible". This doctorine is used to subvert the ten commandments and Jesus' sermon on the mount. Lying, stealing, killing, etc. are all OK if it advances the cause of Zion. Scofield and his backers incorporated elitist elements of the Talmud into modern Christianity, thus nullifying Christianity. Read the Scofield Bible and the Talmud and you will understand Bush.
I still don't know what "precise maneuvers" you could possibly be talking about; it's not like they were having to do an aerial dogfight, and it doesn't take a freaking Top Gun pilot to aim the plane into some of the biggest buildings on the planet.
Today's news is one more nail in the coffin for the conspiracy wackjobs. If it were really a Bush conspiracy, wouldn't he have set this one up so that *he* got credit for catching them rather than the UK? The other possibility is that there really are some wackjobs out there who actually want to pull off attacks like this, and then it becomes clear that the more credible explanation for 9/11 is that it was their doing and not Bush's.
Defensor Fidei #67872 Uh, yeah it does. Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to fly a commercial airliner just feet from the ground into the Pentagon, or into a narrow slice of the New York City skyline? >>
In case you hadn't noticed, the Pentagon was damaged far less than it might have been if the pilot had been experienced; it came down well short of a maximum-damage impact point.
And as for hitting the WTC, it used to stick up well above the rest of that skyline, making it far easier to hit than any of the lower buildings; it's not like the pilots were navigating the right-angle turns of the streets below to get there, like in a Bugs Bunny cartoon! If you don't believe me, check the video of the second plane's approach (the only one that got filmed, as far as I know) it's a straight line, well above the surrounding buildings.
~David D.G.
"Bush is an atheist," 9/11 conspiracy theories, and blather about the evil "Zionist regime?!" It's obvious that Defensor Fidei is a troll.must have been a massive conspiracy. It must have been pulled off by a massive elite military with all the knowledge and resources that they need. Anything to avoid accepting that an attack can be launched by "some ragtag Muslims" and still cause that much devastation.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
