DescentBB

Bettina wrote:The government that restricted stem cell research on religious grounds

I hate to be defending Bush here, but I think it's important to clarify this point.

To the best of my knowledge, the government did NOT restrict stem cell research in any way. The ONLY thing they restricted was funding stem cell research with public money.

There is a big difference between saying "No one can do this" and saying "You cant use money that was taken from the general public to pay for something a large percentage of the general public considers to be wrong"

Will Robinson wrote:Theocracy is when the rulers of the government implement religious law.
That isn't happening and if anything the implementation of law has been of an anti-religion bent filtering religion, primarily focusing on Christianity, out of any part of government institutions. So in spite of your claims there is no theocracy looming. The truth is Islam has a better chance of gaining any consideration from our government than Christianity does!

I remember when GW Bush was running for President people started talking theocracy and abortion rights even though GW's comments during the campaign was 'America isn't in favor of anti-abortion law and we won't be seeing it happen.'
Fast forward to the end of his presidency: no anti-abortion law, no theocracy, etc.
So the Chicken Little tag applies.

I think Obama, in only one year, has implemented much more of his religion, extreme liberalism, than Bush did with any kind of Christianity in eight.

So you think I'm smoking something. Well, since I look at things from a more liberal point of view, I tend to see things from a different perspective than all you righties. I happen to see the forest for the trees. I'm NOT seeing much in the way of liberal policies coming out of this administration. Most of Obama's efforts have kowtowed to big business and lobbying interests, especially his health care debacle. Even his financial reform bill didn't go far enough. He's essentially been Bush the Second. As you've pointed out, he's done more with his religion than Bush did.

What I see is a movement called the Tea Party, founded and funded by rich conservatives like the Koch brothers and Dick Armey, who are using fear tactics, racism and hate and blending that with morality issues to whip up anti-Obama sentiment so that people will join their righteous cause, GET RID OF OBAMA AT ALL COSTS!. Independent my rear end! Most of these saps don't even realize that they are in bed with the very corporate slimeballs who have helped suck the life blood out of their wallets and this country.

I don't see socialism creeping in, I see something more insidious happening and it's definitely creeping towards a strange mix of Christian Theocracy and Corporatocracy. Most of these crazy tea baggers wear their Christian religion on their sleeves, like O'Donnell, and are proud of it. Why wouldn't they follow their beliefs like good Christians when they're running things? Many of these people campaign on bringing back the honor, morality and FAITH to this country, like Sarah Palin harps about all the time. What honor, morality and faith are these idiots talking the hell about? Are all these white male (and female) tea baggers reminising about going back to the 1950's of their youth, when men were men, women were kept, blacks lived stuffed in ghettos and gays where buried in the closet and everyone went to church like good little Christians?

They also seem bent on equating or combining morality, faith and religion with an unregulated free market system that has no taxes and very little government. It's called 'Prosperity Theology', an unholy wedding of greed, wealth and money and making it part of the new Evangelical Christianity, with a twisted belief that THIS is the way America should be run to restore her honor and morality! I call it a coming stagnation and hell for those who aren't Christian and rich!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

Kilarin, stem cell research may have been only restricted from using federal money in the past, but if more and more religious types get in office, how long before ALL stem cell research is halted. The government can do that if it wants. All they have to do is outlaw it. If you want to take it farther, most religious people don't think fertility treatments are moral because quite a few embryos are collected and thrown out (killed) in the process. So how long will it be before artificial fertility treatments are outlawed if we get more MORAL CHRISTIANS running government?

.

I see TC has been reading the talking points memo again. LOL!

TC wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

This just goes to show your clueless. Prosperity Theology has NOTHING to do with a Theocracy and NOTHING to do with capitalism.

I find it amazing that you continue to criticize some thing that you have absolutely NO idea of what it is about and what it means. pull your head out of the liberal blogs and LEARN. you'll be amazed at how it will open your eyes.

“Power corrupts. Knowledge is power. Study hard. Be evil.”

TC your whole paranoid belief is built on the question you asked Kilarin 'What will happen when more moral christians get in office'?

Well what will happen if more atheists and Christians-in-resume-only get in office?

I guess, using your logic I could go on about how we are headed toward a country where religion is outlawed and bibles burned by the government.
And if you count the number of \"moral Christians\" in office today and compare it to the number two hundred plus years ago you will find that the number of \"moral Christians\" in office has always been trending DOWNWARD! So using your logic and real simple provable math it is irrefutable that we are moving toward an anti-Christian government that will persecute Christians. Then here is where I should go off and list a bunch of anecdotal evidence of anti-Christian commentary and policy making (not hard to find at all)..just run on for about two paragraphs of bull★■◆● like that equating my \"proof\" into fact and who knows, maybe there is a rightwing version of Bee out there who could follow up, just as driven by ideology instead of thoughtful reasoning, and she'll post that I'm right and you are wrong...

The only difference is I'm not stupid enough to buy into your kind of assumption=proof logic! So I won't do it.

How about this. You give me the best example you can come up with of a Christian in office enacting legislation that is theocratic in nature. Don't go listing a bunch of editorializing or speechmaking just take the biggest single example of actual law enacted that supports your claim and I'll give you the best single example of Obama and his democrat Congress enacting legislation that is socialist in nature.

Then we'll all try to have an objective assessment of which example is a stronger one. Which example is more intrusive on the citizens it impacts. more effective at using federal policy to move us toward socialism or theocracy etc. etc.

If you are right and I'm wrong you should have no trouble owning me in this contest.

Will Robinson wrote:How about this. You give me the best example you can come up with of a Christian in office enacting legislation that is theocratic in nature. Don't go listing a bunch of editorializing or speechmaking just take the biggest single example of actual law enacted that supports your claim and I'll give you the best single example of Obama and his democrat Congress enacting legislation that is socialist in nature.

This I've gotta see.

you and me both

the·oc·ra·cy [thee ókrəssee]
(plural the·oc·ra·cies)
n
1. government by god: government by a god or by priests
2. community governed by god: a community governed by a god or priests

I think the closest thing I have seen to that is the current administration.

His majesty…Obama the magnificent.

……..Imperial margarine music…………

Will Robinson wrote:You give me the best example you can come up with of a Christian in office enacting legislation that is theocratic in nature.

Maybe letting staff off for Christmas?

.

Bet51987 wrote::words::links:

That site is completely full of it, both parties are just two sides of the same coin (a coin that is firmly in the pockets of Corporate America).

And if you really want to know, in the election I served as a poll worker for on Tuesday from 6:30 AM until 8 PM: I voted for the one poor fool that was brave enough to run as pure independent, even though he is probably a complete douchebag, freak, moron or all of the above and that is why he was independent.

Yet you leave out.

Liberals Increase the government and use more socialistic policies

Yet Obama continues with the faith-based government initiatives that Bush started.

.

Bet51987 wrote:

Krom wrote:That site is completely full of it...

This is why I won't respond to Will's post. No link will be good enough. Anyway, show me an alternative link that shows the conservative religious ideology to be the opposite of what's stated there.

Bee

This strategy of shouting past each other sure does change a lot of minds.

That said, that site is kinda-sorta in-a-wishy-washy-way correct. It does too much of "liberals are good" and "conservatives are bad" for my liking, though. Also, it's hardly compelling proof of some kind of theocracy conspiracy, I'm sorry to say.

Bee, even if we assume the site is unbiased and correct I don't see how that site addresses the challenge or even the point being discussed?!? I think you just googled for key words like \"conservatives more religious\" or something!

Are you still trying to say more conservatives are religious than liberals? If so then I concede but that was never in question. Theocracy was the topic we sort of latched onto and were asking TC to prove we are moving to that end. where does that site support that claim?

I think in spite of the discussion going on you have been consistently offering your opinion that conservatives are the more religious faction....OK but so what?!?

.

Bet51987 wrote:

null0010 wrote:This strategy of shouting past each other sure does change a lot of minds.

That said, that site is kinda-sorta in-a-wishy-washy-way correct. It does too much of "liberals are good" and "conservatives are bad" for my liking, though. Also, it's hardly compelling proof of some kind of theocracy conspiracy, I'm sorry to say.

Then try intelligent design, Kansas school board, Texas school board, Creation museums, Huckabee, Palin, etc... Or to get it all in one shot just look at Conservapedia - the republican handbook.

Bee

Can you just strip away the non-government elements of that list and pick your best example?

Bet51987 wrote: Or to get it all in one shot just look at Conservapedia - the republican handbook.

Conservapedia is a website - worse, a wiki edited by a bunch of nutjobs on welfare who live in trailer parks. While hideous and gross and frankly, frightening, it is hardly a good representation of the entire spectrum of conservative politics.

Well…what I posted was only a joke…glad you got a laugh.

But, I did post the definition of theocracy for a good reason.

Making law based on morality or religion does “not” fit the definition.

Will and everyone else, I can't give any specific examples because this movement to fully Christianize America is insidious and only in it's infancy. Any links I post would only be dismissed as leftie propaganda. The religious nutcases haven't obtained enough power YET to really do what they want to mold this country and it's laws in their image, but they're working hard at it through their mega churches and their captive receptive audiences. But Bettina gave good responses for the low level creeping methods that are being used to erode secularism at a base level in this country.

But I won't disappoint. I do have a name for this movement. It's called 'Reconstructionism' or 'The Reconstructionist Movement' and it's quite real.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... ?title=234

Most of you that put me down as a tin hatter are male, so you don't have a clue as to what's beginning to happen. You're all happy in your little catbird seats of male power positions. But we females see the threat to our freedoms and rights in the here and now. Our 'religion radar' is very attuned because we fought against religious-based male dominance in the 1960's! But the first new beachhead for Christian re-dominance in this country is happening in the form of direct assaults on our reproductive rights. But I fear even more is coming if more and more fundamentalists get elected to office and it won't be just women who become subjugated. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it in the future.

But I have to post this link to O'Donnell's little video and her beliefs about sex. Unfortunately you'll have to watch it from Maddow because she seems to be the only one that has the full MTV video. So hold your noses and watch the future of the Tea Party and our country, if the voters of this country are stupid enough to elect them to office that is!



Most of you think I'm paranoid? What about all of you paranoids that think it would be even be remotely possible for Sharia Law to ever be implemented in the U.S.? That's just plain fantasy!

Bout as much chance of those things in that link transpiring, as me becoming pope.

You're all happy in your little catbird seats of male power positions. But we females see the threat to our freedoms and rights in the here and now

interestingly several of us are Married so we have some insight to these issues. we just aren't look at them with blinders on.

I tell you my wife doesn't see things that way.

or my Mother,

or my Mother-inlaw,

or my Married Daughters,

or either of My Sister in-laws

or any of the Neighbor's wives I talk to. (not church people)

or the women I work with. (not church people)

or any of my wife's friend's. (not church people)

or any of my friend's wives. (not church people)

in fact the ONLY people I hear talking about it at all are you and Bee,

if the voters of this country are stupid enough to elect them to office that is!

well you and Bee both voted for Obama didnt you? Nuf said

It's possible the only data that is more useless than anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence from a single source.
That is what TC offers, she see's this conspiracy all coming together like some looming perfect imaginary storm.
But further than that, even if she is correct in all her fears she admits there is nothing to her claims other than the intent of some people to shape america in their image.
Well what the hell is new about that? At the same time the Christians are supposedly pushing toward this theocracy the actual laws that are being enforced, the policy that is being put in place, the pop culture attitude etc. are all of the same bent; government must remove God from the public's place. Christians have always wanted to make America more Christian! for hundreds of years their intent and effort hasn't changed. The only thing new is in the last few decades a political party found the targeting of those same old evangelists is useful for making political hay. You are reacting to liberal demagoguery not a real threat. At best you could say that by painting a target on the backs of the Christians the left has made them more savvy and more defensive.

President Obama, with the help of his liberals in power, are actually doing much more than that right now! They have expressed their intent AND ARE ENACTING THE DEEDS NOW!

So what they want isn't born out of a religious belief...so what?!? It doesn't mean their plan is a good one for America. It doesn't mean it is any less an assault on the majority of the citizens, forcing their brand of morality on us.
Really TC, the only difference is Obama isn't coming from an official religion instead he comes from the Church of the Militant Liberal and unlike your best case that Christians would like to implement their brand of society on us Obama is implementing his.
So back off the soapbox your turn is yet to come.
The Christians you fear are not an immanent threat the liberals are.

Here's something to think about as you sit back trembling at the prospect of O'Donnel being elected to the Senate (which is still a long shot and a half by the way).
There was no successful Tea Party movement until Obama pushed his agenda way to hard and too fast.
Using the old saw \"Put a frog in a pot of boiling water and he'll jump out. Put him in a warm pot and turn the heat up slowly and he'll not notice the danger until it is too late.\"
Obama turned the heat up way too fast and the frogs started jumping out of the pot that liberals had been warming for the last few decades.
So now he's created an insurgency and every already-unhappy voice that was lurking in the shadows has come out to sing along with the new choir of freshly scalded citizens. There's your Tea Party and the barista's name is Barack.

If the economy doesn't take a long hard miraculous turn for the better the great liberal experiment of the modern day is most likely toast. There is nothing quite like horrible economic times coupled with an overzealous leader who friks things up even worse to cause a groundswell of revolt against him and all he stands for.
God help us from the pendulums potential swing back toward the other extreme.
On that note, if we keep letting the two faces of Washington break things in their power struggle it won't be Americans who finally put the pieces back together.
I'll be advising my grandchildren to study Chinese language and business customs.

Please people! Stop being part of the problem and fire the bastards every November until they get the message!!

.

Tc one thing. That is about the funnest thing I have read in a long time. I really love the part where MALES don't have a clue of what's happing. It's a perfect example of Misandry.

.

Bet51987 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Please people! Stop being part of the problem and fire the bastards every November until they get the message!!

And vote for who Will? You always yell and scream about Obama but never tell us who you feel is vote worthy. I'm asking.

Bee

I've answered that question for you numerous times, both in detail and in simple terms. Literally at least 4 or 5 times. If you don't understand it by now I can't think of any more ways to help you grasp it. Search for the last time you asked that question and read my answer...

Bet51987 wrote:... and we study political candidates like this crazy person.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/us/po ... ell&st=cse

Look at her views and the baggage she carries. Yet she still got the votes because...well she's pretty?
...

Bee

If the reason she won seems to make no sense then maybe you aren't really looking at why she won! Maybe it wasn't about her qualifications at all. Obama won not because he had the best resume but because people were riding a wave of anyone but Bush. Well look around and see who's been stirring up waves lately!!

Bet51987 wrote:who you feel is vote worthy.

LOL it should be about who YOU feel is vote worthy.

Bet51987 wrote:

CUDA wrote:I tell you my wife doesn't see things that way.

or my Mother,
or my Mother-inlaw,
or my Married Daughters,
or either of My Sister in-laws
or any of the Neighbor's wives I talk to. (not church people)
or the women I work with. (not church people)
or any of my wife's friend's. (not church people)
or any of my friend's wives. (not church people)

Because they're either not interested in politics and are simply happy in their little world -OR- they're very family loving people and know that discussing politics with YOU would start a family and neighborhood feud. At least that's how I see it.

Bee

OR

Maybe they are just the more mainstream women in this country, yes I know it hard for you to understand why any woman would put her Husband and family first and think about more than just herself. it's typical for a liberal woman to think she is only worthy of scorn OMG the woman believes in family Values OMG and she's running for Political Office. OMG. she's trying to form a a THEOCRACY OMG. the world is coming to an end. they plan on chaining us to the kitchen sink and forcing to cook and clean, and make us have babies OH THE HORRORS

oh and FYI, I only fued with you Bee. you make it too easy

and yes they are the Family loving people.

Considering the alternatives? I would do it again. Now, what did you do? You either didn't vote, helped Obama to win by throwing your vote away on someone who had absolutely no chance of being elected, or [shudder] thought Sarah Palin was qualified to be a heartbeat away from becoming president. I wonder which it was. This is going to bug me now...

no need to be bugged about it. I voted for McCain. NOT Palin. but which one of us was the Fool?? the one who "thought" Palin was qualified NOT to be President but to be Vice President???
or the one who thought Obama was qualified to be President.

actually the question is retorical since we are seeing the results unfolding infront of us.

Mr. Obama has NOT shown himself to be a Leader. his own party is fleeing from him before he takes them down with him. he has shown himself to be a disastererous financial leader and world leader, along with a terrible diplomat. and a racist. WOW sounds like the man many of us warned about before the election. go figure.

and while the Anti Christ Palin, has lead the Teaparty movement to some stunning upsets in the election cycle and has a 24-11 record in candidates she's back for election. that tells me that many people like what she is saying. A leader perhaps??

again your so typical of a liberal woman. you think any woman that has *GASP* Christian values would be so dangerous.... you should actually look into those Christian Values. maybe go to Church or something

WATCH OUT Bee the Burqas are coming your way

I see the movement to De-Christianize America every day with one laws suit after another brought about by the ACLU.

How has this Christian nation declined over the years from founding? Just read the short essay below.

America's Moral Decline

Hah, morals.

null0010 wrote:Hah, morals.

Didn't read it did you.

Morals are a foreign concept to the immoral.

If you would have read it you would have seen that TC and Bee have it wrong about there being a Christian take over of America coming.

S. E. Cupp is a self-described atheist who see the attack on Christianity and has written a book on the subject. It's a pretty good read. The title is Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity.

While you're at it pick up Why You're Wrong About the Right: Behind the Myths: The Surprising Truth About Conservatives

null0010 wrote:Hah, morals.

You are trolling for what kind of response with that?

\"The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained...\" George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789

\"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.\" John Adams

\"Political interest [can] never be separated in the long run from moral right\"

\"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God? Thomas Jefferson

Bet51987 wrote:they're either not interested in politics and are simply happy in their little world -OR- they're very family loving people and know that discussing politics with YOU would start a family and neighborhood feud. At least that's how I see it. :wink:

Wow.

We're the only females here

No, you're not. But don't let that little fact get in the way of a good story...

Heretic wrote:

null0010 wrote:Hah, morals.

Didn't read it did you.

Morals are a foreign concept to the immoral.

If you would have read it you would have seen that TC and Bee have it wrong about there being a Christian take over of America coming.

I already know that they're wrong, I don't need to read some nonsense about a "moral decline" to understand that.

Heretic wrote:I see the movement to De-Christianize America every day with one laws suit after another brought about by the ACLU.

How has this Christian nation declined over the years from founding? Just read the short essay below.

America's Moral Decline

Yeah people were much more moral back then, when there still was slavery and stuff...

(nostalgia is a pet peeve of mine)