Bush Adm. met with rapture Christians re Israel action

fox

Well, first off, if you consider "the modern Republican party to be too moderate to be considered conservative" it's tough to imagine where we might find agreement on related matters. So let's address that first.

What previous periods in your lifetime marked a less moderate conservativism within the party?

The Republican Party under Reagan was infinitely more conservative than the Republican Party is now. The Republican Party, at least the proactive freshmen who pushed through the 100-day reform in 1995, were infinitely more conservative than the Republican Party is now.

The current GOP are big spenders and social activists neither of which conform to the modern definition of conservatism.

Is the current GOP more socially and fiscally conservative than are the Democrats? Yes. But can the current GOP overall be classified as anything other than moderate only slightly right of center? No. I don't believe it can.

Big spenders I understand and agree with you. If by social activists, you mean forcing their conservative social views on others, then I also agree.

Rapture fanaticists also believe the Age of Aquarius signals the end as predicted in the Bible, which is why Bush told Bob Woodward he was unconcerned how history would look upon his admin because we'd all be dead ... aka The Rapture.

The religious beliefs of Bush and his followers are something to be feared Foxfyre. The paranoid prejudice his beliefs foster are not unfounded.

That was in Woodward's book? I missed it I guess. Going back to look again.

That was Bush's reply, but it is unclear that he meant what doglover suggests. Equally plausibly, he might have just meant that history will form some opinion after our lifetimes.

Fox

First, neither the Reagan administration nor this Bush administration have been fiscal conservatives, other than in pretense. Both administrations developed huge deficit budgets, with Bush putting the state far more deeply into the red than ever before. I acknowledge that taxes have been reduced for the wealthiest. The growing gap between the wealthiest and the poorest began its modern trend under Reagan, true, but continues to increase now (McCain spoke on this two days ago). But finance is not my thing, and you might check with Thomas, our resident economist.

In foreign relations, no administration from Nixon up has been as extreme as this one. That's true in terms of broken international agreements and treaties, disavowel of multi-lateralism and the UN, and in its doctrine of unilateral pre-emption. You can term these policies conservative or neoconservative, but they are historically extremist.

In matters of environment, the Bush administration has been so extreme that even its own science council has issued a warning that the misinformation and policies forwarded by the administration is unprecedented and dangerous. You'll perhaps recall that when the government's science council published its finding on global warming (it is real, and human activity is a likely contributor), Bush said "Yes, I read what those 'bureaucrats' said" (referring to some the best scientists in the country) and the findings were forgotten.

In matters of secrecy, absolutely everyone except some republicans (you are one) acknowledge that no administration previously has been as bad as this one. Stats on documents made unavailable have skyrocketed (not attributable to the war). Your protests on this point are not credible.

In matters of social policy, there is a very long list of acts this government has initiated which have reduced existing programs, made funding dependent upon doctrinal factors (eg reduced or no money for foreign aid where reproductive policies don't agree with anti-abortion and anti-sex ed doctrine), etc.

Could you please explain what policies were put into place under Reagan or while Knut was king which are not in place now.

Foxfyre
Doglover wrote :"which is why Bush told Bob Woodward he was unconcerned how history would look upon his admin because we'd all be dead Foxfyre."

Actually, The statement is in the last paragraph of Woodward's book. It referred to Bush's legacy and how history will evaluate the impact of his war in Iraq. He said none of us would know how history treats him because we would all be dead. He meant that it would take several decades before a judgment can be made. It had nothing to do with the "rapture."

BBB

George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism, by Reverend Rich Lang, of Trinity United Methodist Church, Seattle WA.

Pdiddie posted:


This is almost laughable as the current crop of folks in the current adminsitration are some of the most upbeat, fun loving, and forward thinking that we have had in awhile. I disagree with the distinguished Reverend who is obviously among the many mainstream liberal clergy who do oppose GWB and the current administration. I do get so tired of the overworked efforts to label the current administration as facist or Nazi however.

Doglover, until I see Christian dogma creeping into proposed or actual legislation, I will not accept that the President's religious beliefs are in any way dangerous or sinister. I find it perfectly acceptable that my President is unashamed of his Christian faith. If he was of another faith, I would find it perfectly acceptable that he was unashamed of that faith too.

That legislation is proposed that Christians favor is in itself just fine. I think if only legislation that Christians did not favor was proposed or passed, we would be in a world of hurt. Christians are Americans too and we do have opinions and hopes for the country and there are an awful lot of us. And I suspect except for a few hot button issues, people of faith and non-religious people will agree on most things relative to what is good for the the country.

Blatham, I appreciate that you have confidence in your view of the current administration, etc. I will simply respectfully disagree with most of it and I doubt any further discussion will be fruitful. (I will mention, however, except for two years in which the GOP had the senate, the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House and therefore the budgets and the spending. It was a GOP Congress during most of the Clinton years that brought spending and the budget under control. (As it turns out now, that may have been ill advised as it was done mostly at the expense of the military and intelligence--nobody was expecting a 9/11 or a war against terrorism at that time.)

And it is a GOP controlled Congress now who are spending like drunken sailors. That is why I say they do not share the conservative base of their predecessors.

Who's asking them for the money, for god's sake?

You make a claim that this administration is moderate, and I respond showing you just a few of the ways in which your claim is willfully blind, and you come back with this...

"The current crop in the White House are some of the most upbeat, fun loving, and forward thinking that we have had in awhile."

How upbeat and fun-loving it is to lie, to launch a war on false pretences in which thousands and thousands of people have been mutilated and killed.

fox...you go about two inches into any question, then you bail where things go bad for Bush or the administration or the involvement of the church in policy. Purposefully or not, you are fulfilling a propaganda function here.

Your last sentence is such a perfect example of what you can and cannot allow yourself to think, or say.

To bolster your claim that this administration is less conservative than many others, you point to the present creation of huge indebtedness. "See" you say "that's like a liberal thing". Not extreme at all. We'll leave out that parallel with this spending comes a huge tax break for the very wealthy and almost nothing for anyone else...except corporate friends who are now being taxed at the lowest levels in 70 years.

Tell ya what. Whenever you post stuff which is so patently false, I'll just respond and take your claims to task.

Okay Blatham. I accept that you think what I post is patently false and I think your views are so blinded by your prejudices against conservatives in general, the religious in principle, and the Bush administration in particular that we would likely not agree on any point. I doubt any further discussion on this thread will be fruitful or pleasant.