1
   

Are We To Become A Christian Fundamentalist Nation?

 
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 08:48 pm
I myself shall become a Christian Fundamentalist if that damned annoying Monger's signature-clock keeps on hypnotizing me!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 09:04 pm
fbaezer

How wonderful to see you! Hope life moves for you with the same sort of grace that my body does.

ebrown

I'm sorry, but your constant use of 'fear mongering' as the label for what I or another might be saying isn't terribly compelling. Nor is your maintenance that you hold some saner and more responsible middle ground. You do democracy and citizenship your way, and we'll do it ours.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 09:11 pm
blatham, reading your post and answering it has taken me 57,0 seconds. Wait, no, 1:09:08. Gawd!

As for life, it moves today like a disgraced mamoth (1:42:49)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 09:13 pm
My god! What on earth must a mamoth be doing which some other mamoth might find disgraceful?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 09:25 pm
Monger, that reminds me of what was one of my favorite jokes in the 1980's

Q: Now that the Soviet Union has fallen, whats the difference between the US and Russia.

A: We still have a communist party.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 09:25 pm
Waiting for the boss to arrive with more useless work to do, at 9:22 p.m.

But we digress...
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 09:31 pm
Hey, Fbaezer. How good to see ya! So you're working this time of night. Long time no see.
0 Replies
 
williamhenry3
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 10:30 pm
blatham wrote:
These aren't fringe people.


No, Blatham, these are not fringe people. Their latest victory over CBS concerning the "disrespectful," fiction-laced movie the network was to air about Ronald and Nancy Reagan underscores this point.

In a massive capitulation to prior restraint, CBS has given in to these right-wing groups and talk radio fans. As everyone knows, CBS has now decided not to show the movie, deciding instead to air it on the Showtime cable channel.

Now, many people don't have access to Showtime. Perhaps cable TV is not in their area and perhaps they can't afford a premium channel like Showtime even if it was.

Thus, by airing the film on such a channel, CBS dilutes its viewership and further stifles any dissenting viewpoint the film's producers were trying to attempt, if any.

Few people have actually seen the entire film. I would guess that none of the loud mouths are among those few. A threatened boycott of CBS advertisers proved too tough a challenge for the network.

The prior censorship of this movie -- merits or demerits aside -- further erodes First Amendment rights and further extols the power of the far-right in this country.

It's seemingly okay to act "hysterical" about political issues if one is a member of a group which acts hysterically. If you are not a part of the hysteric right-wing agenda, then you have no business in the America of Dubya and his minions.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 10:44 pm
well said, Williamhenry. Well said. Hysteria amock......but only if you're a maligned right wing evangelical fundamentalist minority (with lots of money and boycotters) Oh well, we shall over come.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 10:54 pm
I second Lola's post above mine. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Monger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2003 11:31 pm
fbaezer wrote:
blatham, reading your post and answering it has taken me 57,0 seconds. Wait, no, 1:09:08. Gawd!

As for life, it moves today like a disgraced mamoth (1:42:49)

LOL! I think I'll try'n cut the number sizes in half pretty soon.. maybe that'll be a little less vexing Smile
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 08:55 am
william

Well, I think we ought properly to differentiate someone like Rush from another like Ralph Reed. Rush, for all I know, lights black candles at night and speaks with Satan, and I suspect his goals are pretty much related to personal wealth and status.

Reed is a different sort of beast all together. He's extremely intelligent and politically savvy, and it seems clear his goals are rather more ambitious - a a broad national moral reawakening, with laws and institutional arrangements in place, permanently, to ensure a Christian nation.

The voices on the right are diverse in elements of ideology. The set of folks who brought enough pressure to bear on CBS so as not to diminish the mythologies of Reagan's tenure, may or may not be Reed's crowd...it may have been the RNC, or corporate voices worried about lost revenue.

These varied elements in the movement do operate symbiotically in certain instances, better to achieve power through the electoral process and courts. Gingrich isn't likely to hold notions of Armageddon, but he and those who do will work productively together, and have. The chap who owns Clear Channel, the rightwing radio network, is a sleezeball developer whom another person on this board has faced in court (and beat him) and he's no version of Christian that Christ would recognize.

But is has been, it seems, so well as one can trace these things out, particularly since Reed took over the reins from Robertson, that the CC has become extraordinarily organized and effective - and more fabian, as Lola points out...palatable talking points, rather than the weird ****.

I know you know all this, I just thought I'd revisit the variety point.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 10:44 am
We wonder who was behind the cancellation of the Reagan special? Who believes they stand to loose by the presentation of an alternative perspective on Reagan? The following is an excerpt from Pat Buchanan's speech at the 1992 Republican Convention.......the year George Bush (the elder) lost the election to Bill Clinton.

Quote:
Like many of you last month, I watched that giant masquerade ball at Madison Square Garden--where 20,000 radicals and liberals came dressed up as moderates and centrists--in the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in American political history.


One by one, the prophets of doom appeared at the podium. The Reagan decade, they moaned, was a terrible time in America; and the only way to prevent even worse times, they said, is to entrust our nation's fate and future to the party that gave us McGovern, Mondale, Carter and Michael Dukakis.


No way, my friends. The American people are not going to buy back into the failed liberalism of the 1960s and '70s--no matter how slick the package in 1992.


The malcontents of Madison Square Garden notwithstanding, the 1980s were not terrible years. They were great years. You know it. I know it. And the only people who don't know it are the carping critics who sat on the sidelines of history, jeering at one of the great statesmen of modern time.

Out of Jimmy Carter's days of malaise, Ronald Reagan crafted the longest peacetime recovery in US history--3 million new businesses created, and 20 million new jobs.

Under the Reagan Doctrine, one by one, the communist dominos began to fall. First, Grenada was liberated, by US troops. Then, the Red Army was run out of Afghanistan, by US weapons. In Nicaragua, the Marxist regime was forced to hold free elections--by Ronald Reagan's contra army--and the communists were thrown out of power.

Have they forgotten? It was under our party that the Berlin Wall came down, and Europe was reunited. It was under our party that the Soviet Empire collapsed, and the captive nations broke free.

It is said that each president will be recalled by posterity--with but a single sentence. George Washington was the father of our country. Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union. And Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. And it is time my old colleagues, the columnists and commentators, looking down on us tonight from their anchor booths and sky boxes, gave Ronald Reagan the credit he deserves--for leading America to victory in the Cold War.

Most of all, Ronald Reagan made us proud to be Americans again. We never felt better about our country; and we never stood taller in the eyes of the world.


The entire speech is here:

http://www.buchanan.org/pa-92-0817-rnc.html
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 10:49 am
[Yawn]
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 11:46 am
Some more material for your yawning pleasure:

I'm having a lot of trouble finding a transcript of Pat Robertson's 1992 speech at the Republican National Convention. Can anyone help me? It seems to have vanished off the face of the earth. There are many references to it as in the quotation below, but the actual transcript is proving to be illusive.
Help please........anyone?

Quote:
WE CAN'T JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT ---

Once again, "Face the Nation" let Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition
(CC) off the hook.

On September 10, 1995, Bob Schieffer asked Ralph Reed on Face the Nation
(CBS) about Pat Robertson's speech to the CC's annual Road to Victory
convention two night before -- when Robertson talked about taking over the
Republican Party. Reed said that Robertson didn't really say that.
Schieffer
-- instead of referencing readily available footage of Robertson's keynote
speech -- left it at that.

Today, Schieffer treated "Dr. Robertson" as some GOP elder statesman, not the
head of a highly controversial and questionable interest group -- letting Pat
talk about Dole ("a candidate I supported back in the primaries, who is Mr.
Republican"), Kemp (a "bold, dramatic" pick but sparks could fly), and
Buchanan ("He's certainly hurt Bob Dole a great deal around the country" and
"built up deep-seeded suspicions"). Robertson also said, on the issue of
abortion: "There's as much chance of a meteorite hitting this broadcast booth
as getting a constitutional amendment through this present Congress." The
only way is to reverse Roe Vs. Wade by getting three new Supreme Court
Justices.

So does the Christian Coalition have the power and the control in San Diego?
According to Robertson, the CC is "just a significant voice in the party."
The CC is "not some extremist group. All we want to do is to have Christians
sit at the table."

Schieffer's response? "And we'll just leave it at that."

What about the FEC suit? The $60,000 check to help re-elect George Bush? The
IRS non-ruling? The $2 million effort to elect CC delegates to a clearly
partisan GOP convention? The $750,000 convention control set-up? Is this how
Christians sit at the table?

(Ralph Reed did not get off so easy on today's David Brinkley Show (ABC)
despite his ability to slip and slide out of trouble in earnest. Reed was
grilled about the FEC suit ["not a grain" of truth to the allegations] and
the $60,000 check ["We are looking into it"/"Donors have a right to be
mistaken."] What happened with the platform was "a huge victory for Bob
Dole." He had no official comment on the Kemp selection.)

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

[Members of the Christian Coalition] do one thing moderates don't do. They
show up."
--Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard


http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:ZHHDIni9IbQJ:wlo.org/ccwatch/con1.html+1992+
Republican+convention+Pat+Robertson+
Pat+Robertson+speech&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 11:58 am
Quote:
KEEPING AN EYE ON THE CHRISTIAN COALITION
AT THE GOP NATIONAL CONVENTION
(Special Report from The "c.c.watch" Electronic News Service)

Thursday, August 15, 1996---Day 4

It's over! But what happened out there in San Diego?

Bernard Shaw of CNN said that the whole 1996 Republican convention was
scripted to erase the bitter memory of its Houston antecedent.
That's as
good a hook as any to hang our hat on.

Sure the whole thing was a show. And the Christian Coalition et al went along
with staying out of prime time even while it labored mightily to impact the
GOP.
GOP bosses may perceive the "religious right" as important or relevant
or at least a necessary evil. But they also understand that -- just like 1992
-- the majority of Americans simply will not buy a mean-spirited agenda.

Ralph Reed can say what he wants; the GOP is not a pro-life party. The show
and the message cut both ways, and the pro-lifers know it.

Indeed "c.c.watch" has reported for many months that Pat Robertson and Ralph
Reed support Bob Dole as their best hope for the election of a conservative
president and some power over the White House. In fact, on today's 700 Club,
Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed actually talked about Christian Coalition
participation in a Dole administration
. So in San Diego they continued to
support Dole like good Republicans. But they also aimed to flex their
muscles and earn some political capital. They managed to band together with
Gary Bauer, Phyllis Schlafly, etc., to control the platform proceedings and,
typically, hold Bob Dole hostage over abortion language.
They got their
platform and plenty of notice. What else?


http://wlo.org/ccwatch/con5.html
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 12:19 pm
There's a wonderful project being broadcast over a short period by NPR -- a series under the title "Whose Democracy Is It?" Highly recommended. Really good stuff. Lots of good discussion.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 12:29 pm
Blatham, I'm not so sure that Ralph Reed doesn't also light black candles and talk with Satan.....
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 12:42 pm
Bill -- I think he spends most of his time practicing looking normal in front of a mirror. (The rest he spends with his masseur or -euse or at the face-lifters.)
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2003 01:31 pm
Yes, I agree. Ralph Reed has tried to cleanse the Christian Coalition of all mention of theocratic wishes or activity. The new Family Research Council (doesn't that name say it all?) is the new political organization. The CC had made too many obvious mistakes and working through that organization was too politically risky, not to mention trouble with the IRS because of their church status taxwise. Ralph Reed is credited with the discovery of "stealth politics," but I don't think he deserves the credit. He was there as it happened and I think he agrees with the necessity of it, but I think movement toward concealing the political agenda (theocracy) of the CC and like, affiliated organizations has been happening gradually for a long time. They've been called to task too many times by the press and the voters (in 1992). It was obvious they had to go underground with their agenda. Ralph Reed may be smart, I don't know, or maybe he just gets credit for being at the wheel when it finally dawned on them that they better cover their tracks. About him being a true believer, Blatham, I agree wholeheartedly. All these guys are. And that's the most concerning part of all.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 08:09:15