Bush Wins!

[Black Dog]

I think there is a lot of hypocrisy here. If I would have made those comments about any other religion I would be branded an Alberta redneck or right wing bigot. The comments are unacceptable.

I feel the same way about the U.S. religious right as characterized by folks like George Bush, Pat Robertson etc., as I do about the Taliban. The only hypocrites are those who defend one and demonize another without seeing the commonality between them.

What about when Christ whipped the money changers in the temple. I would call that aggression.

"And they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the Temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the Temple, and He overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons; and He would not allow any one to carry anything through the Temple. And He taught, and said to them, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers."(Mark 11:15-17 RSV)

Like the false Christians, you are twisting the scripture for your own purposes. I think the "real" Christ would probably react in a similar way to those who make a mockery of his teachings today to support their political agendas of fear, ignorance and greed.

[Hugo]

I think there is a lot of hypocrisy here. If I would have made those comments about any other religion I would be branded an Alberta redneck or right wing bigot.

So you assume, but you have no proof that this would be so. In any case, the height of hypocrisy would be to call oneself Christian while violating the teachings of Christ.

What about when Christ whipped the money changers in the temple. I would call that aggression.

Christ said, "My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations."

The money-changers were trespassing in His temple and desecrating it. They were aggressing against Him, so He threw them all out.

I think the "real" Christ would probably react in a similar way to those who make a mockery of his teachings today to support their political agendas of fear, ignorance and greed.

Absolutely. Chapter 6 of Matthew says as much.

[I miss Reagan]

John 2:13-16 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. 15When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables. 16And He said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!"

Ya ya we can split hairs all day long, the fact of the matter is he unilaterally and aggressively drove the "evil doers" out of the temple. Nice try guys.

[Black Dog]

Ya ya we can split hairs all day long, the fact of the matter is he unilaterally and aggressively drove the "evil doers" out of the temple. Nice try guys.

No he didn't. As Hugo pointed out, the money changers were trespassing, using the Templre premises for personal gain. Christ's singular act of violence thus remains entirely consistent with all his other teachings.

The kind of Christianity you defend has little in common with Christ's teachings: indeed, the following passage could refer to the White House's current denizens.

"There is great gain in godliness with contentment; for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world; but if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs." (1 Timothy 6:7-10 RSV)

[I miss Reagan]

Lol. Geez BD for a secularist you sure would make a good religious fundamentalist. You manage to turn any scripture to suit your own purposes. You know very well that I could turn around and take any scripture, or otherwise, and spin it for my cause or against yours. Anyway, I apologise for contributing into making this a religious discussion. It's unfortunate that you see Bush's election as a religious issue. I see it as the only logical choice.

[Hugo]

Only John mentions the whip, not the other gospels. Matthew tells a different story, as do Mark and Luke. As a witness, John is disputed and outnumbered.

Furthermore, even when John mentions the whip, Christ is never described as having used it on a human, or even to actually strike an animal, merely that he used it to drive them out of the temple. Animals broken to the whip aren't so stupid that when you wave one around in front of them they hang around. Nor could the merchants have been particularly intimidated by his actions, because many of them hung around and talked to him later on.

Passive resistance is not restricted to polite requests. Christ, like Gandhi and others, taught passive resistance, which can include civil disobedience, creating a disturbance and generally making a nuisance of oneself, and Jesus certainly caused plenty of disruption and disturbances in his lifetime, habitually and intensely annoying the establishment. Pacifism means that, in the event of institutionalised wrongdoing, one shall fight the institution and not the people in it, and so Christ attacked the property of the merchants, not the merchants themselves.

One could also say that, since the merchants had put that property in Christ's house and then proceeded to break the rules that had been set out for that house, they had de facto relinquished their right to that property and therefore, Christ was not attacking their property at all since it had ceased to be rightfully theirs when they brought it into the temple and started hawking it.

As to "splitting hairs", it's plain to see that you see in the Bible what you want to, so any attempt at debate and clarification is likely to be ill-received. So be it.

[I miss Reagan]

As to "splitting hairs", it's plain to see that you see in the Bible what you want to, so any attempt at debate and clarification is likely to be ill-received. So be it.

It's this kind of arrogance that turns people off of religion.

[Black Dog]

Lol. Geez BD for a secularist you sure would make a good religious fundamentalist. You manage to turn any scripture to suit your own purposes. You know very well that I could turn around and take any scripture, or otherwise, and spin it for my cause or against yours. 

Which really speaks to the larger point, which is that religion and moral beliefs are personal, private matters.

Anyway, I apologise for contributing into making this a religious discussion. It's unfortunate that you see Bush's election as a religious issue. I see it as the only logical choice.

You brought it up by saying:

The left needs to realize that bigotry goes both ways. You can't spew hatred against values, like religion, that the majority of people believe.

Now, I know you don't have any examples of this. It's a straw man. But the point seems to be Americans voted for Bush because they agree with his moral/religious stance. Be that is it may, the fact remains that morality and religion are, as I said above, deeply personal issues that cannot and should not be legislated. However, it's the expectation of the religious right/"family values" that Bush will do just that by, for example, banning gay marriage, etc. Hence my utter distate and loathing for Bush and the faux-Christians who would support him.

[Argus]

Stamps and his family would like to take this opportunity to congratulate President Bush on his victory... I think this was a victory for substance over insincerity and emptiness, if you are just telling people what you think they want to hear there comes a point in time when most people detect that hollowness....

Sorry, but I have yet to detect any substance to George Bush. The story of this man, from childhood on is the story of a shallow, self centred and arrogant rich boy who never managed to suceed at anything without a lot of help from dad and his friends. His "moral, righteous, religious family man" act is just a little too insincere for me, and looks like a big phoney front. He exudes folksy charm and humour but apparently at the White House he's an arrogant tyrant.

[Hugo]

It's this kind of arrogance that turns people off of religion.

What arrogance? You declared that your interpretation, and your interpretation alone, was "the fact of the matter", and that any disagreement with you was "splitting hairs." Given that I think my summation was entirely justified.

[I miss Reagan]

No BD you did with this:

On the bright side, we in Canada can expect to see a "brain gain" as intelligent Americans come north and leave the States to the Bible-thumpers.

Besides you consistently gripe about Bush based on his religious persuasion.

Which really speaks to the larger point, which is that religion and moral beliefs are personal, private matters.

Couldn't agree more. Here in Canada we are fairly private and keep those things to ourselves. I think you are just intolerant of their beliefs. Those who are firm believers in no God need to also realize that their beliefs are religion as well. Anyway I refuse to believe that this election win was based soley on moral values as the left would like everyone to believe. I think the economy is good, Iraq isn't as bad as the press portrays it and Bush is trustworthy. All this not to mention the dems ran a lousy candidate.

[Argus]

The Dems have lost touch with Americans and themselves. I do not think they have a sense of who they are and what they represent. I found a lot of similarities between Kerry and Bush (because Kerry is an opportunist). I think that both sides have to create a coalition of sorts. Bush did this effectively (as did Clinton) and Kerry was just not able to.

The Republicans ran a better campaign. Yes, it was dishonest and dirty, but that works in elections. Just ask the Liberals. Every single speech by Cheney and Bush hammered at Kerry's alleged inconsistencies and flip-flops, and it didn't really matter that most of that was out of context and unfair. They repeated it and repeated it and repeated it until people began to believe it. And the "Swift Boat Veterans" was a brilliant piece of election slander. Sure it was gutter politics, but it worked very well. The Democrats never came up with anything to effectively link Bush with the screwups in Iraq which led to the current mess, nor Cheney or the others around Bush with corruption. They never articulated a good competing vision or plan for what they wanted to do.

Lost touch with America? I don't think so. If they'd won Ohio they'd have won the election. No, I think one of their major problems in this election and the previous one is putting up wooden, dull, plodding, boring speakers with absolutely zero charisma against a guy who exudes the kind of folksy charm which makes people feel comfortable.

One of the news guys said Bush seemed like the kind of guy people could have a beer with. No one could relate to Kerry, or before him, Gore. And Edwards, the running mate, contributed nothing to the campaign that I could see. He couldn't even carry his own state.

[I miss Reagan]

Sorry, but I have yet to detect any substance to George Bush. The story of this man, from childhood on is the story of a shallow, self centred and arrogant rich boy who never managed to suceed at anything without a lot of help from dad and his friends. His "moral, righteous, religious family man" act is just a little too insincere for me, and looks like a big phoney front. He exudes folksy charm and humour but apparently at the White House he's an arrogant tyrant.

See, when will you guys realize that this is why the left lost big time. You make these venomous attacks that do nothing but show your own blind rage. You make irrational attacks against Bush that could just as easily be made against Kerry. Bush could've easily have been beaten had the left controlled their emotion driven hatred and made a consise and more centrist message as to how things would be better. Instead you used hollywood and michael moore and moveon.org to fire up those who already hated Bush.

[Black Dog]

Besides you consistently gripe about Bush based on his religious persuasion.

Because, as I pointed out, Bush in a position to impose those beliefs on others.

Couldn't agree more. Here in Canada we are fairly private and keep those things to ourselves. I think you are just intolerant of their beliefs.

I'm only intolerant of people who distort the teachings of Christ or Mohammad, or whoever,when they try to use their views to deny rights to others or, to paraphrase Hugo, use violence and coercion to punish people for their lifestyles, sexual preferences or habits, or to expropriate their belongings, or wage a "just war".

Anyway I refuse to believe that this election win was based soley on moral values as the left would like everyone to believe.

Hold up. You mentioned the moral/rel;igious factor in your very first post when you stated:

But really it just comes down to this. The left needs to realize that bigotry goes both ways. You can't spew hatred against values, like religion, that the majority of people believe

Now you seem to be backpedaling away from that claim. (Not to mention that you still haven't supplied any examples of the democrats bashing religion.)

I think the economy is good, Iraq isn't as bad as the press portrays it and Bush is trustworthy

If the economy is so good, where are all the goo djobs? If Iraq isn't so bad, why is the violence there showing no signs of letting up? If Bush is so trustworthy, why has he lied to the American people so many times?

[Black Dog]

No, I think one of their major problems in this election and the previous one is putting up wooden, dull, plodding, boring speakers with absolutely zero charisma against a guy who exudes the kind of folksy charm which makes people feel comfortable.

The above personaes are total media fabrications. I watched the debates and numerous speechs and saw Kerry as a strong, confident speaker, in contrast to Bush, who smirked and stammered his way through the debates and pounded out stale platitude after stale platitude. But in this age of instant punditss, the establishment media has a way of fooling people into denying what their own eyes and ears tell them.

You make irrational attacks against Bush that could just as easily be made against Kerry.

Bullshit. The Kerry campaign pointed out the obvious failings of the Bush administration, while the Bush camp hammered away at the fear button, convincing Americans that a vote for Kerry would essentially guarantee a terrorist attack. You can't get much more irrational than that.

[I miss Reagan]

Because, as I pointed out, Bush in a position to impose those beliefs on others.

Well that's a little lame. So who should be president then. An aethiest, but he might impose secularism on us. A Catholic? but he might impose communion on us. A Hindu? he might ban beef.

I'm only intolerant of people who distort the teachings of Christ or Mohammad, or whoever,when they try to use their views to deny rights to others

No one likes a hypocrite so it's understandible why some would not like evangelicals or muslims. It's irking to be preached to about something by someone only to see them not follow the same teachings themselves. However, I wonder who it would be that would fit your vision of a model Christian. A Menonite or a Jehova Witness because they refuse to go to war? I don't think it's fair to say Bush is a hypocrite just because he doesn't fit your model of what a Christian should be.

Anyway I refuse to believe that this election win was based soley on moral values as the left would like everyone to believe.

Hold up. You mentioned the moral/rel;igious factor in your very first post when you stated:

Keyword: soley

you still haven't supplied any examples of the democrats bashing religion

I was referring to the left in general, not specific democrat candidates.

If the economy is so good, where are all the goo djobs?

5% unemployment isn't too bad, what is it in Canada, or NFLand for that matter? As for them being "good" jobs, merely a spin tactic by the dems.

[I miss Reagan]

Bullshit. The Kerry campaign pointed out the obvious failings of the Bush administration, while the Bush camp hammered away at the fear button, convincing Americans that a vote for Kerry would essentially guarantee a terrorist attack. You can't get much more irrational than that.

Oh jeez that falls along the lines of Michael Moore's "there is no terror threat, there is no terror threat, there is no terror threat" I don't know what world he's living in.

[Argus]

Sorry, but I have yet to detect any substance to George Bush. The story of this man, from childhood on is the story of a shallow, self centred and arrogant rich boy who never managed to suceed at anything without a lot of help from dad and his friends.

See, when will you guys realize that this is why the left lost big time. You make these venomous attacks that do nothing but show your own blind rage.

Sorry, sunshine, but I ain't no lefty. I'm a conservative. I'm just not the kind of bible-thumping, fiscally irresponsible big brother kind of "conservative" Bush is.

You make irrational attacks against Bush that could just as easily be made against Kerry

Not quite true. Kerry was a brilliant academic. Bush was a loser and alcoholic party boy who only got into university because of dad's influence. Nor did Kerry fail at project after project, business after business. Nor does he come complete with stories of his arrogance and shallow nature.

[Black Dog]

Well that's a little lame. So who should be president then. An aethiest, but he might impose secularism on us. A Catholic? but he might impose communion on us. A Hindu? he might ban beef.

How thick are you? I don't care what bloody religion the President follows in his personal life, so long as those beliefs don't dictate policy. Bush is not that president.

I don't think it's fair to say Bush is a hypocrite just because he doesn't fit your model of what a Christian should be.

Bush doesn't even fit Christ's definition of what a Christian should be.

Keyword: soley

No one is claiming religion was the "sole" cause. If you have a citation, by al means, let's see it.

5% unemployment isn't too bad, what is it in Canada, or NFLand for that matter? As for them being "good" jobs, merely a spin tactic by the dems.

Real unemployment is much higher. Unemployment figures don't include people who are unemployed but have given up looking for work, or people whose unemployment benefits have run out. Factor in an additional, what, 5 million peole in jail? and you have a false picture for the U.S. economy.

Oh jeez that falls along the lines of Michael Moore's "there is no terror threat, there is no terror threat, there is no terror threat" I don't know what world he's living in.

Actually that sounds more like George "I truly am not that concerned about (Osama bin Laden)" Bush.

[I miss Reagan]

Bush was a loser and alcoholic party boy who only got into university because of dad's influence. Nor did Kerry fail at project after project, business after business. Nor does he come complete with stories of his arrogance and shallow nature.

Pure irrational hatred. I rest my case.

[Black Dog]

QUOTE 

Bush was a loser and alcoholic party boy who only got into university because of dad's influence. Nor did Kerry fail at project after project, business after business. Nor does he come complete with stories of his arrogance and shallow nature.

Pure irrational hatred. I rest my case.

If your case was "I'm a moron" you'd have the jury convinced. But you haven't refuted any of Argus' claims (Bush's performance in academia and business is well-documented). You're just contradicting him without any evidence. Indeed you seem to have an irrational affection for Bush that borders on blind faith.

Sorry, sunshine, but I ain't no lefty. I'm a conservative. I'm just not the kind of bible-thumping, fiscally irresponsible big brother kind of "conservative" Bush is.

Well, Bush is nothing if not a uniter. On this thread alone, a libertarian anarchist, a conservative and a social democrat all are united in their disdain for Bush. That speaks volumes.

[I miss Reagan]

If your case was "I'm a moron" you'd have the jury convinced. But you haven't refuted any of Argus' claims (Bush's performance in academia and business is well-documented). You're just contradicting him without any evidence. Indeed you seem to have an irrational affection for Bush that borders on blind faith.

LOL. You cite some disputable incidents from the past and use them as evidence that Bush is unfit for president. Things like he partied in college and the same old diatribe of daddy got him in. Give me a break. No one buys it. So far I see that in order for Bush to be a decent President in your eyes he must have no past mistakes, no identifiable religion and must be perfect. We could talk about the past ghosts of Kerry, Clinton, Martin or who ever else but you know as well as I do that your unreasonably high standards apply only to George Bush.

Well, Bush is nothing if not a uniter. On this thread alone, a libertarian anarchist, a conservative and a social democrat all are united in their disdain for Bush. That speaks volumes.

Ya speaks volumes from a group of indocrinated and irrelevant Canadians. Lol.

[Slavik44]

For those looking for Acedemic comparisons:

SAT:

Gore 1355

Bush 1206

Kerry 1190

Clinton 1032

IQ:

Bush: 125-130

Kerry: 120

Those are the only two stats I could find where I got both Bush's and Kerry's results. I looked for the LSAT but couldn't find it for either of them, although they both took it. Kerry has yet to release his college grades but Bush's were at a dismal 2.35, perhpas he was lazy but not neccasarily stupid. Kerry's GPA may not be out however he went to Law School at Boston College. Currently the average GPA for acceptance into Boston College is 3.3, however Acedmic standards have increased tremendously in the past 30 years, and I would be willing to bet that Kerry's GPA floated around 2.90-3.10, or he would have gone to a much better school. But even if Kerry had a 3.3 GPA it doesn't really make him an acedmic genuis, but certianly more motivated the George the drunk Bush.

[Guest eureka]

The GPA you have for Bush is correct. I don't know about his IQ. I suspect that it is at the lower end of your range or he would have done a little better academically.

The estimate for Kerry is absurd. Kerry was President of the Political Union at Yale and a consummate debater at an early age. You don't get that with an IQ of 120. And, why should he not have gone to Law School at Boston. Would you denigrate someone from say Dalhousie because he did not go to Osgoode? Kerry's father went to Law School at Yale - he did not need inflience to get him in there.

Bush, BTW, was denied admission to Texas U Law School.

[Slavik44]

The GPA you have for Bush is correct. I don't know about his IQ. I suspect that it is at the lower end of your range or he would have done a little better academically.

The estimate for Kerry is absurd. Kerry was President of the Political Union at Yale and a consummate debater at an early age. You don't get that with an IQ of 120. And, why should he not have gone to Law School at Boston. Would you denigrate someone from say Dalhousie because he did not go to Osgoode? Kerry's father went to Law School at Yale - he did not need inflience to get him in there.

Bush, BTW, was denied admission to Texas U Law School.

I am just going on what was extrapolated from Kerry's Naval Record, 120 is a well above average I.Q and I.Q is not solely a measure of being a good debator, bismarck could kick anyones ass when he went to school in a debate, but he did horrible at school and was not thought of as a smart student. Niether was Hitler a smart student but a talanted orator no one can deny. Being a good speaker doesn't mean you have a high I.Q, even being president of a student union doesn't mean you have a high I.Q. 120 itself is like 85th percentile (just off the top of my head could be wrong). Teh test he took on his Navy records aparently put him slightly above average

for university graduates enterign the navy.

now for the distinguishing between school's I was simply trying to find a way to get an Idea of what Kerry's GPA was if the average let into BC, now is 3.3 I was just assuming that it was probabley not as high 30 or 20 years ago, so Kerry's GPA may be lower then 3.3. For instance both Kerry and Bush went to yale with a sub 1400 SAT score, that never happens now. So even if we eliminate distinguishing between schools (besides BC is a notable school now, i don't know about then) it is likely that kerry's GPA was in a range around 3.0 I would lean to slightly higher.

the purpose of my arguement above was not to paint Kerry as a toal un-accomplished idiot, because he is not. But my purpose was to point out that Bush and Kerry are close in intelligence. With perhpas Bush being Slightly Smarter but lazy and Kerry much more organized and motivated then bush but not neccasarily more intelligent.