0
   

Does Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictatate policy

 
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Apr, 2003 11:14 am
Haven't a clue what the outcome will be, Lola, but this president has more people actively working against him than... even Clinton! Clinton had a lot of opposition, but most of it was fanned and fed by the right wing media. It was mouthy but passive. The opposition to Bush comes from both right and left -- the Right who think he's taking away all their rights (he's now being pegged even as a gun controller) and the Left who tend to be (excuse me) better educated, more active(ist) and less conformist, are heavier internet users, and (to judge from the Wellstone campaign and MoveOn's fund raising ) astounding in the amount of money they are giving to causes and candidates. Money is a major issue and I think much depends on the degree to which people are increasingly sickened by corporate-bought presidencies. The non-fundamentalist Christian church is speaking up more -- that may influence the centrist Republicans (like the ones I know here) who keep remarking (re war, re civil liberties, re money, AND re political style) that Bush "worries" them a lot.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Apr, 2003 01:41 pm
It's good to hear this, Tartarin. It warms my heart. That's what I meant when I said it's started already. I just didn't know there were so many already on board. Excellent.

I'm going to trust my knowledge and experience with GW's type, and feel pretty confident that we'll not have GW in the White House after the 2004 election. If we do, we'll have to start looking around seriously for an impeachable offence. Like, say, voter fraud?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Apr, 2003 01:50 pm
Maybe, the right PR would be to begin using "regime change of GWBush" in all of our communication. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Apr, 2003 02:47 pm
Seriously, Lola, this could be one of the main reasons for the Syria threats -- and the rumor that we will go get 'em in N. Korea in October. An idiotic politesse keeps politicians from each others' throats during "times of war." Are you a member of MoveOn? They're starting a new campaign, per email today. If you're not, I'll be glad to zap you -- and anyone who's interested -- the email and you can decide whether you want to be part of it.

Cicerone. Very nice idea. Let's do it.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Apr, 2003 02:49 pm
Zap me please, tartarin. Thanks Off to work now. Back later
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 05:44 am
au

As snood notes, my opinion was just that, but I did stop for a bit to think it through. Britain of course had Thatcher, though it is not at all clear she was really a woman. Canada too, if briefly, had a female Prime Minister. Can it be that the US is actually so barbaric that neither a woman nor a black arrive as president?

We are all agreed that it is easily barbaric enough to deny leadership to a gay, a weirdo Buddhist, or a cocaine user (oops...scrap that last). It was the Jewish label that caused me the most difficulty in my little mental exercise. We know the Birchers would go ballistic, Charlton Heston would gather the NRA in the Bronx and give a rousing speech ("...from my Cold, Dead bank account!) and, of course, the Anne Coulter right would manage to insinuate that electing a Jewish president would be repugnantly anti-Semitic. The Republicans, presently constituted, wouldn't allow a yamulke anywhere near the leadership (unless of course it had a little propeller on top and was worn by an Alfred E Newman clone) because Judaism, though quaint, is a FALSE religion. But, and this is my secret dream, Tammy Faye and Lucianne Goldberg might one day reveal they've done a foursome with Carl Rove and a burro and the Christian Right will collapse in ignomy, the two ladies continuing on with the burro but not with Carl.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 05:49 am
burros have better taste
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 05:50 am
dys

You have me. My dream is in tatters.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 05:54 am
burros are dem's you know Wink
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 06:41 am
Blatham -
Yes, I think you did think about it before you came to the opinion that some of us would live to see a woman or black president. You make good points.

But the reason I disagree has less to do with barbarism than with a hypocrisy that's near schizo in depth.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 07:26 am
I have to agree with Snood here. Racism is so much a part of the American way (yes, I mean this quite seriously) that it should form a triad with mom and apple pie. As someone who is white and is expected to be part of the cheering squad -- "Don't be silly: We got over all that in the Sixties" -- I have to admit that having missed the '60's and '70's in the US (missed only in the strictly technical sense and without an ounce of regret), the naked hypocrisy hits me probably almost as much as it does Snood. I see it in our media; I see it in our self-congratulation; I see it in our self-consciousness. All day long, every day. In myself, in others, publicly, privately. There are not many opportunities for discussing this -- whites reject the notion, many blacks are exhausted by the subject. We may feel freer of racism than we once did, but both racism and paternalism follow us into the voting booth where "good sense" and "tradition" and uncertainty rob us of independence and intelligence. I don't think we'll see the end of racism in my lifetime.

Curiously, by the way, that's the only thing I have against Howard Dean who is otherwise my candidate. His is the kind of face we look for when we're edgy about "difference" -- that generic anglo-european, "sensible-looking," "one of us," "has the know-how." If he were saying and doing all the things he is and were black, gay, female, wouldn't we couch our worries in "but will EVERYONE ELSE vote for him?"
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 07:56 am
Somehow everyone seems to forget or disregards that truism of birds of a feather. Regardless of how enlightened we become people will have a bias towards the familiar. Someone who is different will always have a lot more to prove than one who we identify with. Be the difference, national origin, color, ethnicity or whatever.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 08:02 am
That's not good enough for a civilized democracy. Can't have it both ways. Either we give in to our worst instincts or we progress.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 08:04 am
Will you marry me, Tartarin? Exclamation Cool
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 08:07 am
Snood- I was ready to answer Tartarin's response, and I saw yours. Can't stop laughing! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 08:16 am
Tartarin- I agree that civilized societies must progress. But we have. The problem is, people are uncomfortable with change. It needs to come slowly in order for people to accept it. Too quickly and people rebel- then progress slows.

I don't know your age, but I can remember the brouhaha when JFK ran for President. Many people were concerned about the Pope having Kennedy in his back pocket. We all got over that.

Do you think that a Condi Rice or a Colin Powell could have been appointed for the positions that they have even fifty years ago?

I think that there has been great progress. I know people would like change to happen at a faster pace. But when I look at the US from the time I was a kid until now, I see tremendous differences.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 08:20 am
It ain't so much a "half empty" or "half full" argument, as it is a dispute about whats in the cup.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 09:14 am
au does speak to a characteristic of human behavior, but Tartarin's response is the only one possible. Rape too is natural - is part of the natural world, found in most primates and in most or all human communities - but this is where the 'ought' comes in.

snood...I didn't mean to suggest racism was of the past. I think gender prejudice will be with us for a long time too, but both been fought back with no small vigor and with real results.

On my use of 'barbaric'... I'll talk about that later, but it seems pretty sadly transparent to me that if one took a visigoth farmer, dumped his smelly hide into a pressed military uniform, and gave him a cell phone and a shiny M16, you'd have one more rousing chorus member for war in Iraq, one more justifier for the national museum, and one more Bush voter to counter. Technological advance is a good thing, but it's not the measure of all things.

Here is a lovely piece on Havel...note not only that his drug experimentations are NOT a matter of embarrassment, but note also how he thinks about the sixties (comparison to Bush and the American right is invited) http://www.reason.com/0305/fe.mw.velvet.shtml
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 09:33 am
Tartarin
You talk of what should be and I was just reminding you of what is.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2003 09:35 am
Hi All, I've gotta insert some balance here; we have made progress. I'm Asian American, one of those cultures/races considered the minority not that long ago. We don't see Asian Americans listed in any Affirmative Action policies any more. Why? Did we all of a sudden change the color of our skin? When I was a teenager, nobody in my peer group ever considered marrying outside our culture/race. What happened? Over 50 percent of our sons and daughters are now marrying all the represented cultures/races in the US. Is discrimination dead? Absolutely not! What has changed for me as an individual is that I no longer get the response, "you sure speak good English." "Where are you from?" c.i.
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 0.03 seconds on 01/07/2025 at 10:12:22