Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Liberals exposed in all their glory. SM

Posted By: MT on 2005-09-18

Ain't it grand.

Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

Cap and trade - in some of it's glory
Here's where you can find the first 900+ pages of the bill. I haven't yet found anywhere that has up the 300+ pages of addendums that were added, but I'm still looking. Please try to read some of it if you have the time - I'm about 200 pages in and there's nothing good as far as I can see yet.


Don't forget to email and/or call your senators about this one - it's not too late to stop this thing. Go to congress.org, put in your zip code and you'll get the names and email addresses of your senators and for most of them, you can email them directly from this site or there will be a link to thier personal website and you can email them from there.

Hillary Exposed? Not quite....

I took the time to watch the trailer of Peter Paul's Hillary Exposed trailer again this morning, took a few notes, and did a little internet research.  It is my conclusion that this is mostly fabrication with a stab at Hillary because he is angry that his investment/ideas didn't go as he had planned.

The 2000 Hollywood Gala was a farewell for Bill to garner his favor in supporting him on a business venture, with the added benefit as a fundraiser for Hillary.  Paul also gave fundraisers for others.  For whatever reason, this didn't go as he had planned.  Paul specifically stated that he only gave the fundraiser for Hillary to get to Bill.  There is no evidence suggesting that Clinton told Levin to seduce Oto to oust Paul to destroy him and SLM. 

The phone call to SLM from Hillary says nothing other than that she is pleased with what they are doing for her and thanking them.  I do not believe that she helped plan the gala whatsoever nor knew the full details. 

Is being a fundraiser the same as campaign contributor?  If you are shelling out money for the affair, is that considered a campaign contribution?  I didn't have time to dig into that this morning.

As David Rosen was Hillary's finance director, if he falsified documents, whether on his own or told by someone else to do it, he is the one culpable.

Digging into Peter F. Paul's past doesn't lend much to his credibility.  I am loath to believe anything from such a person.  I think he is just trying to save his own butt and trying to get back at Bill through Hillary. His stint in Brazil and being put in jail was of his own doing.

In essence, there is just not much substance here when you start digging.  This is the first of many attacks that are just beginning for Hillary as well as the other presidential candidates and should not be taken at face value.  

Ron Paul exposed, literally!
This is priceless! Ron Paul being backed by pimp Denis Hof and traveling with Tucker Carlson. OMG! Could this get any better? Per Huffington:

False charge exposed
RE: Obama filed lawsuit that "bullied" banks into giving risky loans.

Buycks-Roberson vs CitiBank Federal Savings Bank 1994. This was a class action lawuit which sought to challenge the practice of redlining, based on the 14th Amendment requirement of "fair and equal treatment for all citizens." The lawsuit charged that CitiBank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. This was settled out of court. Some class members received cash payments and CitiBank revised its discriminatory lending practice policies.

The action was brought against a single bank…CitiBank, though redlining was a widespread practice at the time. Obama DID NOT FILE this lawsuit. He was a junior member of an 8-member team that worked on the case. The lead attorney for CitiBank does not recall ever seeing Obama in the court during the proceedings. Obama charged a total of 2 hours and 50 minutes for his work on the case for reviewing some documents before a deposition and appeared ONCE before the judge to request an extension of time for filing a response to a motion in the case.

This decision did not "force banks" to do anything except to process minority loan applications the same as they were processing loans to white applicants. If this outcome in any way contributed to the mortgage crisis some 14 years later, it would be based on the fact that the banks were already handing out those "bad loans" hand-over-fist to the white applicants…a practice they agreed to extend to ALL applicants as "fair and equal treatment" under the 14th Amendment.

Once the facts get a thorough look-see, it becomes evident that the charges the McCain camp are trying to lay on Obama are (surprise, surprise) patently false.

Exposed urban myth. nm
Ashley Todd exposed as HOAX.
What facts support that the "left" exposed this news as you say?
get the information that it came directly from the left? A left-leaning media doesn't count, either. When you say it came from the "left," it insinuates Barack's camp was responsible somehow. Is that the case?
Why aren't you getting it - Snopes is not a credible source. They've been exposed - link inc
They are not credible for putting out truthful information. It is a site run by a couple from California, Barbara and David Mikkelson. They met at an alt.folklore.urban newsgroup. This by no means is a site to find out truth or fiction, especially since the couple is very liberal and choose to put their opinion up rather than fact, and site things as hoaxes when they are not. They are a very liberal couple and of course liberals love this as it always puts their viewpoint in a favorable light, but again this is in no way a credible source. It was recently found that snopes had many things listed as a hoax, when in fact they've been proven to be true. There is another site with better sources and it is called truth or fiction. Attached is an about.com link for info about snopes. But for your everyone's information, do not take snopes to be the truth. Research for yourself with many other links out there.


Exposed: Prop. 8 part of 'Christian Taliban's' move to make Bible the law

The Protect Marriage Coalition, which led the fight to pass an anti-gay marriage initiative in California, is now suing to shield its financial records from public scrutiny.

The lawsuit claims that donors to Protect Marriage and a second group involved in the suit have received threatening phone calls and emails. It asks for existing donation lists to be removed from the California secretary of state's website and also seeks to have both plaintiffs and all similar groups be exempted in the future from ever having to file donation disclosure reports on this or any similar campaigns.

Although public access advocates believe this sweeping demand for donor anonymity has little chance of success, it does point up the secretive and even conspiratorial nature of much right-wing political activity in California.

Howard Ahmanson and Wayne C. Johnson

The man who more than any other has been associated with this kind of semi-covert activity over the past 25 years is reclusive billionaire Howard Ahmanson.

Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist, a devout follower of the late R.J. Rushdoony, who advocated the replacement of the U.S. Constitution with the most extreme precepts of the Old Testament, including the execution -- preferably by stoning -- of homosexuals, adulterers, witches, blasphemers, and disobedient children.

Ahmanson himself has stated, "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."

As absurd as this Reconstructionist agenda may seem, the success of Proposition 8 demonstrates the ability of what is sometimes called the "Christian Taliban" to pursue its covert objectives behind the screen of seemingly mainstream initiatives and candidates.

Ahmanson's role in promoting Proposition 8 has drawn a lot of attention, but he appears to serve primarily as the money man, leaving his associates to carry out the practical details. One name in particular stands out as Ahmanson's chief lieutenant: political consultant Wayne C. Johnson, whose Johnson Clark Associates (formerly Johnson & Associates) coordinated the Proposition 8 campaign.

Johnson has spent many years working for Ahmanson-funded causes -- such as the battle against a 2004 initiative to promote stem cell research -- and organizations, like the anti-spending California Taxpayer Protection Committee.

Johnson Clark has also operated PACs for many candidates supported by Ahmanson. It ran Rep. John Doolittle's leadership PAC, which became notorious for sending a 15% commission to Doolittle's wife out of every donation received. It currently runs the PAC for Rep. Tom McClintock, a strong Proposition 8 supporter who was narrowly elected last fall to succeed the scandal-plagued Doolittle.
Proposition 8

The series of events leading to the approval of Proposition 8 began in 2000 with the passage of Proposition 22, which defined marriage in California as being solely between one man and one woman -- but did so only as a matter of law and not as a constitutional amendment.

Proposition 22 was quickly challenged in court, leading to the creation by its supporters of the the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund. In 2003, Johnson Clark Associates registered the domain ProtectMarriage.com on behalf of that fund.

ProtectMarriage.com began campaigning in early 2005 for an initiative that would add its restrictive definition of marriage to the California constitution, but it failed to gather sufficient signatures and was terminated in September 2006.

In 2008, however, a reborn ProtectMarriage.com, flush with nearly a million dollars in funding from Howard Ahmanson and tens of millions from other doners, succeeding in getting Proposition 8 placed on the ballot and approved by 52% of the voters.

Proposition 8 is now California law -- at least for the moment, pending challenges to its constitutionality -- and ProtectMarriage.com has turned its attention to demanding that all 18,000 existing same-sex marriages be declared invalid.
The Ahmanson-Johnson Strategy

The partnership between Ahmanson and Johnson, however, did not begin in 2003 or even in 2000. It goes back to at least 1983, if not earlier, and has been a continuing factor in California politics for the last 25 years.

In a 1994 article on Christian Reconstructionism, Public Eye described Johnson's central role in an Ahmanson-financed attempt by the Christian Right to take control of the California state legislation. The strategy involved first pushing through a term limits initiative, which was accomplished in 1990, and then promoting its own candidates for the seats this opened up:

"The practical impact of term limits is to remove the advantage of incumbency ... which the extreme Christian Right is prepared to exploit. ... At a Reconstructionist conference in 1983, Johnson outlined an early version of the strategy we see operating in California today. ... The key for the Christian Right was to be able to: 1) remove or minimize the advantage of incumbency, and 2) create a disciplined voting bloc from which to run candidates in Republican primaries, where voter turn out was low and scarce resources could be put to maximum effect. ...

"Since the mid-1970s, the extreme Christian Right, under the tutelage of then-State Senator H. L Richardson, targeted open seats and would finance only challengers, not incumbents. By 1983, they were able to increase the number of what Johnson called 'reasonably decent guys' in the legislature from four to 27. At the Third Annual Northwest Conference for Reconstruction in 1983, Johnson stated that he believed they may achieve 'political hegemony. . .in this generation.'"

The mention of H. L. "Bill" Richardson as the originator of the Johnson-Ahmanson strategy is both eye-catching and significant. Richardson, a former John Birch Society member, was considered to be one of the most extreme right-wing politicians of his time. In 1975, he co-founded Gun Owners of America (GOA), an organization which is widely regarded as being well to the right of the National Rife Association.

Wayne Johnson began his political career in 1976 by working for Richardson -- and Johnson Clark Associates still operates a PAC for GOA's state affiliate, the Gun Owners of California Campaign Committee.

In 1992, Johnson and Ahmanson managed to help send a batch of conservative Republicans to Congress. Foremost among these was Richard Pombo, one of whose first acts after taking office was to introduce a resolution of commendation for the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation.

In 2004, Johnson told an interviewer that Pombo's election was a high point of his political career. "There have been a lot of great moments, but Richard Pombo's 1992 upset victory in his first congressional primary has got to be near the top. The television stations didn't even have his name listed on their pre-programmed screens election night. Today, he's chairman of the House Resources Committee."

Two years after Johnson's enthusiastic declaration, Pombo was defeated by a Democratic challenger, following wide-ranging allegation of corruption, including being named as the Congressman who had received more donations from Jack Abramoff than any other.
The Anti-Homosexual Agenda

Although the Christian Right never achieved its original goal of taking over California state government -- which may be why Ahmanson and Johnson have turned their attention to passing socially conservative initiatives instead -- it has been far more successful in establishing dominance over that state's Republican Party.

In 1998, Mother Jones reported:

"First they packed the then-moderate California Republican Assembly (CRA), a mainstream caucus with a heavy hand in the state party's nominating process, with their Bible-minded colleagues. By 1990 they controlled the CRA, and since then the CRA's clout has helped the religious conservatives nominate and elect local candidates and—crucially—catapult true believers into state party leadership slots. ...

"From radical fringe to kingmakers in a decade — how did they do it? 'Basically, there's two places you have influence: one is in the nominating process in the primaries, where you can elect people in ideological agreement with your views, and the other is in the party structure,' says former CRA vice president John Stoos, a former gun lobbyist, member of the fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement, and senior consultant to the State Assembly."

Stoos appears to come out of precisely the same background as Johnson and Ahmanson. He served as the executive director of Gun Owners of California and was also the chief of staff and a legislative advisor to Tom McClintock from 1998 until 2003, when he got into trouble for his over-the-top Reconstructionist sentiments.

In the Mother Jones interview, Stoos referred to Christian politicians as God's "vice-regents ... those who believe in the Lordship of Christ and the dominion mandate" and pointed to the repeal in the 1970's of laws against homosexual acts as an example of the need for rule by "biblical justice."

"The proof is in the pudding," Stoos told Mother Jones. "Since we lifted those laws, we've had the biggest epidemic in history."

To many who voted for it, Proposition 8 may have been no more than a nostalgic attempt to keep a changing world more like the way it used to be. But for Reconstructionists like Ahmanson, Johnson, and Stoos, it clearly represents something else -- a dramatic first step towards "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."

No, there are a few liberals here.

But they're outnumbered by neocons who are more like roaches than people.  They're nasty, keep multiplying, aren't very nice to be around, are very hard to get rid of and are just creepy and disgusting.

You know nothing about liberals
I really truly get upset when a conservative neocon tries to tell liberal democrats who is a liberal who is a democrat..You know nothing about liberals or democrats so I think you need to keep you derogatory comments to the conservative board..
To Liberals
Please list 5 negative things that President Bush has done since becoming President.  (Feel free to add more if you desire.) 
For liberals only.

 This is a good read. Would be funny if not so true.


For Liberals


Also click on the ***back to main page*** link. 

It is truly only the liberals

who repeatedly say that Palin has hurt McCain.  I think some people are obviously put off my Sarah Palin but others find her refreshing.  The media is generally more liberal and so we obviously hear more about how she hurts McCain than helps, but I think she is doing great.  I think they make a great team.  You could say that Biden hurts Obama especially with some of the boneheaded things he has said but you don't hear people continually bringing that all.  Nope....it is always Sarah.

I saw an interview with that Rothschild woman yesterday.  She stated that she is not only is voting for McCain and Palin, even though she is a major democrat, but she is also going around and talking to many democrats who are not so extreme left as Obama.  They too are voting for McCain.  She would not name names but there are many democrats who do not want to go so extreme left.  You might be surprised at the outcome of this election.  It will most definitely be close either way.

And this is why the liberals are trying to
talk shows and freedom of speech where conservatives speak out against them. If you cannot be for them they want you to go away, and remember, they are in control now. That is what we are seeing every day and hearing right here on this board, an arrogant attitude. A new page, a new direction, like the whole world has already changed. The whole world does not need to be changed and will not be changed for the reasons these liberals are counting on. There are too many people wise enough to know what is happening, thank God!
Not all of us liberals do that

I never call Republicans any of those names and I don't like it when Republicans use the same derogatory names for liberals.  I don't like Ann Coulter because I just think she uses her intelligence for fear and hate mongering, but that's just me.

When people of any ideologic viewpoint call each other names, it diminishes their own standing, imo.  Use your words, people!  Stop name calling and have intelligent debates about the issues.  That's much more fun anyway.  And I've never seen Ann Coulter be able to do that, hence my dislike for her.

I like this one because liberals can
No big words or subtleties for them to wrestle with.
I do believe that the liberals

have spoken out about the war in Iraq over and over and over again and just recently there was an attack on a military recruiting center by a man who said the reason for his attack was for "political and religious" reasons and his disagreement over military operations.  Gee....sounds to me like he did something because he kept hearing the libs on TV disagreeing with military operations in Iraq. Hmmm....if you want to spin something, it can be spinned both ways.....just remember that.

The only people to blame are the people who do the crime.  I can't blame libs for this guy opening fire on a recruiting center just as you can't blame Bill O'Reilly for that nut job who opened fire on Tiller.  So give it up, give me break, and get a clue.

What values do liberals have?
While at a pro bush rally I knew I was surrounded by people who generally agreed with my morale values. I knew these people were pro life, believed in god, loved America, believed all nations and people deserved freedom, and finally supported our troops. I thought if the liberals generally disagree with the conservatives moral compass what do they believe?. They support the killing of children in there mothers womb, they have on many occasions attempted to rid god from the publics view, they opposed liberating the people of Kuwait and Iraq, and are quick to call our brave troops who would die for our nation war criminals.
Hear that liberals

just get better producers and your radio shows and T.V. networks/shows will be raging successes!!! 

   Bill Maher's cheese slid off his cracker a long time ago....

This is too funny! It isn't the liberals who are

"willing to totally put" their lives in the hands of some politicians.

It's the Neocons who are the Stepford Wives of the Bush administration, who follow in step, never varying in their pro-Bush propaganda mantra, who make excuses constantly for Bush, and who treat Bush more like a god than the lying, manipulating, misleading, very dangerous moron that he is.

Well..I know liberals..yada

LOL, your first sentence sounds like back in the 1960's..Well, I know some Blacks..and they are my friends..Well, geez, you know some liberals..yada yada yada..

It is still a free country and if we want to bash Bush we can..Most certainly throughout the 1990's most republicans bashed Clinton and his wife and unfortunately his daughter..Now, who has turned out to be stellar and giving back to society..Chelsea..Not Bush's daughters, they are too busy partying and getting drunk and certainly not Bush's nephew, drunk in public..OMG..As much as you republicans bashed Clinton, he is loved by many and a statesman and handles himself quite well these days..like I said, loved by many..and his daughter is contributing to society, an intelligent, upstanding citizen, his wife is a senator in NY who will most probably be re-elected as many in NY love her..So..mmmm..seems to me Bush and his family fall just a bit short..So bash Bush, you bet, sweetie, every chance I get.

Gt, I know and like and get along with many liberals.. You are not a liberal,
Yes, there are other families (liberals)

with the same problems as well.  Bush's family seems to take the lead as far as number of people who are drunks or drug addicts.

Now, if you don't mind, I think I will stop responding to your posts.  It's much more entertaining watching you talking to yourself on this board. 

I hope you find the attention you so desperately seek, but you're not getting any more of it from me.

Have a pleasant day, dear.

No, only the ones made by liberals.
Amen,sm! I noticed that you used one word in one of your responses that is the tell-tale sign distingishing conservatives from liberals, that word being logic. Liberals have no logic and cannot reason, else why would they support Bill Clinton going to war in Bosnia/Yugoslavia when no attack at all had been made on our country and deploy our troops all over the world for no good reason, then pounce on President Bush who is only engaging us in this war on terror to protect all of us here at home, as well as those of our loved ones who have to travel the world over for companies they work for or those who serve our government in various capacities all over the world? Prior to 911, we had been attacked 19 times by terrorists over a period of 20 years or so and not one single president but Ronald Reagan and finally George W. Bush had the gumption to be a real leader and respond, with very noticeable results I might add. Does anyone remember Moamar Kadafi and how his terrorism stopped after President Reagan took care of him?? Bin Ladin and his terrorist organization had attacked us so many times without any response that he called the United States a paper tiger, believing his dreams of total destruction of our country were an inevitable event. I suppose the liberals prefer having our schools, supermarkets, shopping malls, sports arenas, etc., etc., be the targets for terrorists rather than following the advice of every top military general I can think of (save Wesley Clark who obviously has political ambitions)and fight the terrorists where they are amassed rather than fighting them here. To say that Saddam Hussein had no connection to terrorist organizations is nonsense. He hated us with the same vitreolic hatred Bin Ladin had for us and would have loved nothing better than to see us go down. In addition, he was paying a $25,000 reward for each Israeli killed in a terrorist attack. He was a WMD himself, just as Adolph Hitler was. You don't have to possess WMDs to be a WMD; the result is the same. Immediately after the 9-11 attack, 27 Al Qaeda terrorists were rounded up in the very small community in which I live (makes one wonder how many were in the larger cities and communities), and believe me, I feel a lot better knowing that they, along with their terrorist network, have been put out of commission under President Bush's leadership.  As of today, our military has brilliantly performed the task of reducing the entire terorrist organization to about 17,000 in number. Quite a feat!! God bless them all!! I recently heard that a letter from a top terrorist leader was intercepted and stated, We are losing the war. I have much more I could say, but I'll save it for another time as it is getting late.
Liberals: Please read.

I see that I’m being nailed to the cross on the Conservative Board by the usual suspects with more, I'm sure, to follow.  Perhaps my post came too close to the truth and struck a nerve or two.

Just to clarify, my post is not a result of all the mean, nasty personal characteristics they attribute to me.  It is the result of 5 years of watching a President and certain members of his following.  Again, my post didn’t read ALL followers, just the most “radical religious followers,” a point ignored by those who wish to condemn me, unless, of course, they are a part of this rather large group.  My post isn’t a result of hatred; it’s a result of genuine fear about where our country is headed and the true motives behind it.  There have been many articles written about this.  As you can see by the date of this article, this isn’t a new concept.

May 21, 2003

The Rapture of Destruction

Shopping, the End of the World, & Bush


There shall be a fourth kingdom on earth that shall be different from all the other kingdoms; it shall devour the whole earth,and trample it down, and break it to pieces.--Daniel 23

As I browsed the New York Times for news of Iraq, terrorism, SARS and the latest environmental disaster, my teenage daughter and her friends arrived with the nutritional equivalent of ecological bio-terrorism. They opened Burger King bags and unveiled cheeseburgers and fat-laden fries (the French might reject their name connected to such items) dipped into what Ronald Reagan called a vegetable (ketchup). They drowned this cholesterol feast with noisy slurps from 22 oz. plastic coke containers.

As they slowly sucked in the artery clogging fast food, I recalled the messianic words from the Prince of Darkness, Richard Perle: This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there, he told John Pilger in the New Statesman, December 16, 2002). If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now

If kids eat food like this, I thought, the only songs they'll sing in the future will be hymns at each others' premature funerals. Fast food, shopping and total war! Can one encompass epic concepts like waging perpetual war for perpetual peace on the one hand and harmonize them with a vision of a trivialized society whose spiritual glue is perpetual shopping?

The Bushies address this issue through religion, not political philosophy. For example, their policy planners reject scientists' prognosis of disasters that will ensue from global warming. Indeed, neither corporate CEO's--except for insurance chiefs --nor government heavies seem to factor global environment into their plans.

The May 7, 2003 LA Times reported, for example, that lawyers representing some 30,000 impoverished Ecuadoreans are expected to sue Chevron Texaco Corp. today, accusing the second-largest U.S. oil company of contaminating the rainforest and sickening local residents. The suit alleges that a Chevron Texaco unit discharged billions of gallons of contaminated water, causing widespread pollution and illness.

Other oil companies used similar practices in Nigeria. In 1999 Shell Oil injected a million liters of waste into an abandoned oil well in Erovie in the Niger Delta. Those who ate the crops or drank water in the area fell ill. Almost 100 people died from poisonous amounts of lead, mercury and other toxics. In 2001, exploration for new wells by western oil companies contaminated the fresh water supply, causing serious illness among the local population. The typical oil company responds to such mishaps by explaining: hey, people drive cars, cars need gas, we supply the gas. Neither oil company CEOs nor the President addressed the implications of using more fossil fuels.

When pushed, one corporate executive alluded to God's will. At the 1997 Kyoto Conference on environment, Jeremy Leggett, who wrote The Carbon War: Global Warming and the End of the Oil Era (2001), cornered Ford Motor Company executive John Schiller.

Leggett, a Greenpeacer, asked Schiller how he dealt with a billion cars intent on burning all the oil and gas available on the planet. Schiller first denied that fossil fuels have been sequestered underground for eons. He claimed, instead, that the Earth is just 10,000, not 4.5 billion years old, the age widely accepted by scientists. Schiller then referred Leggett to The Book of Daniel: The more I look, the more it is just as it says in the Bible. In other words, Schiller's theological interpretation of the world foresees earthly devastation [that] will mark the `End Time' and return of Christ.

So, like members of the powerful in the White House, just refer to biblical passages to understand those photos of melting ice caps on the Andes and breakups of polar ice caps, like the warming effects of the now frequent of El ninos, which have a devastating impact on the sea and land's wellbeing.

I juxtapose my fears over deteriorating environment with the rapture experienced over such ecological decay by the very people who manage the destruction. They view optimistically the dire environmental warnings as sure signs that the end is near and the Messiah will return. As a kid in Hebrew school the Messiah would supposedly arrive and take all the Jews to Israel. When my father told my mother about this imminent event, she wailed in despair: Just after we spent all that money fixing up the house?

In the no laughs born-again world, however, the Millennium means that the Lord will welcome a smog-filled planet so he can redesign it as it in its original Edenic form. Somehow he will afford to the true believers the necessary lung power to survive and live for a thousand years in Nirvana.

If this sounds bizarre, then read Joan Bokaer, who studied the fundamentalists at the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University. Tens of millions of Americans, she reports, have taken up this apocalyptic form of religion. Not all of them shape their lives dogmatically around this religious vision, but they do tend to dismiss environmentalists as worry warts.

Bokaer adds that these serious soldiers of God see their role as paving the pious road for the Lord's return. Like the Puritans who settled Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 17th Century, these modern zealots predict Christ's return only at the time when they have successfully carried out His work: purged the country of sinners and replaced the corrupt civil law with the dictates of the Bible--which includes, in foreign policy, promoting the battle of Armageddon by supporting Israel.

Like the Puritans, they do not believe in the separation of church and state. The Puritans, however, studied science, believing that God had placed the challenge of discovery before them. Modern fundamentalists tend to disparage the discipline of research to learn about God's ways and instead direct their energies at promoting ultra right politics: including belittling environmental concerns and supporting Israel. So, long live Israel (even with its population of Jews, whose prayers God doesn't hear); hooray for depleted uranium in military shells and bombs.

This religious vision --or nightmare--coincides with a society whose main spiritual value is shopping. Place at the political head of this nation a born-again alcoholic and you may have the glue albeit not one that's logical or holds together disparate pieces in any other way. George Bush's inflexibility of thinking on the one hand--his dogmatic use of good and evil as politically defining poles--allows him to live with or ignore the obvious contradictions in his imperial plan for world domination on the one hand and his destructiveness on the other. We need an energy bill that encourages consumption, he told a Trenton, N.J. audience on September 23, 2002.

In the October 11, 2002 Counterpunch, Katherine van Wormer cites brain studies to reinforce what recovering alcoholics and their counselors have been saying for years; long-term alcohol and other drug use changes the chemistry of the brain These anomalies in brain patterns are associated with a rigidity in thinking.

My wife first said it during the presidential campaign debates, when issues emerged for which the programmers had not prepared Bush. He's a dry drunk, she said, referring to the Alcoholics Anonymous term that describes the alcoholic who no longer drinks, but has not stopped thinking about drinking and has not entered a program to deal with his addiction.

Van Wormer, a professor of social work at the University of Northern Iowa and the co-author of Addiction Treatment: A Strength's Perspective (2002), says dry drunks tend to go to extremes. I immediately thought about his religious fundamentalism, his insistence on an extreme tax plan, his threat to smoke 'em out. As we all have heard, Bush called for a crusade after 9/11--which he later rescinded, but he loved to label his enemies as evil. Van Wormer also lists exaggerated self-importance and grandiose behavior as characteristics of dry drunks. Judge for yourselves!

Arguably the least qualified president, Bush presides over the most complicated period of world history. The American economy needs a public in a constant shopping frenzy. That requires certain kinds of freedom--freedom to confuse desire with need. Shopping needs advertising, which needs broad freedom to lure anxious customers into purchasing goods and services to elevate their status, self esteem, sexual prowess, and power, as well as to improve or enhance their body features. In Upside Down: A Primer for the Looking-Glass World (2001), Eduardo Galeano calls advertisers who know how to turn merchandise into magic charms against loneliness. Things have human attributes: they caress, accompany, understand, help. Perfume kisses you, your car never lets you down.

The car--or SUV--has become a basic capital good which our system must mass produce. The very act of producing gas burning vehicles, however, conflicts with the future of human life on the plant--global warming, ozone layer depletion etc... Bush's policies exacerbate the environmental issue. Instead of confronting this reality, Bush and his followers pray that the end will soon come. Perhaps his troublesome teenage twins contribute to his desire to bring it all to an end.

My teenager finishes her greasy burger, belches and does not sing great songs about Bush.


How do you know what most liberals thought?
 I mean, that is quite a sweeping statement. My husband and I are both liberals. I thought Colbert was hilarious. My husband said he felt 2 things at the same time, one humor...he thought it was funny but at the same time he felt it was disrespectful. I thought it was interesting in the video that when they would pan the crowd we could see people laughing but as soon as they realized they were on film, they stopped.  There is a thankyouSteveColbert site, much like the Harry Taylor site. By the Thursday following the dinner it had 40,000 replies, many more now. I still don't know what **most liberals** thought; I don't even know how many liberals there are but at least 40,000+ of us thought he was funny and said what we would LOVE to say given the opportunity.
Nobody stereotypes like liberals
They preach at conservatives all day about the evils of stereotyping, and then in their next post they stereotype. They want the world to think that all Christians are like Coulter. It's just a further attack on Christianity and conservatism. They think if they shout a lie long enough people will believe. Fortunately, not all of us are tin-foil-hat wearing, hick numbskulls they think we are.

I'll get my spiritual opinions from my pastor and people older and wiser than me and not some columnist who has self-appointed himself a religious pundit.
It's obviously okay when they threaten liberals.

Sure comes across as intimidation.  Creepy, isn't it?

Funny how on their board, they defend posting under other monikers.

For the record, though, I did NOT post under the moniker of Stephen Crockett.  Everything I have said in these posts is the truth.  Obviously, when they can't find a truthful response, true to the Republican party these days, they stalk, intimidate and threaten. 

They think they're coming across as credible and all knowing, as if they are actually speakng *FACTS*.  They should continue to post so people can see what they're truly all about.  Might not be safe for you (or me or anyone) to respond to them any more, though.  They're obviously and unfortunately unstable people.  They've already admitted to stalking, so who knows what else they're capable of?

And this board is for liberals so as we say it here...sm
You ain't gone yet???
A little humor for the Liberals sm

He falls off bikes, gets black eyes from pretzels, and nearly flattens his staff with a tractor -- Dubya's middle name should be Clouseau.  Wonder if he went to strongarm Caterpillar over their recent acknowledgement of global warming. 

The White House announced its visit to a Caterpillar factory in East Peoria, Illinois, yesterday, where President George W. Bush advanced his case for expanding free trade negotiations. But it didn't detail the President's clumsy driving of a giant D-10 tractor that sent the White House press corps and presidential staff scrambling, which was reported at a Newsweek blog.

At The Gaggle, Newsweek reporter Holly Bailey writes that the president clambered into the driver's seat of Caterpillar's giant D10 tractor. I would suggest moving back...I'm about to crank this sucker up, she reports him saying.

But as White House staff started to move the press corps back, the situation became more chaotic. Bailey writes that the tractor lurched forward and White House staff too were forced to scramble for safety. Get out of the way! a news photographer yelled. I think he might run us over!

Bush chuckled about the incident, and referenced driving the tractor during his speech, saying I'm impressed by a culture of excellence and accomplishment that is the spirit of Caterpillar. I also appreciate the chance to drive a D10. If you've never driven a D10 -- (laughter) -- it's a cool experience. (Laughter), according to the White House website.

Bailey looked less fondly upon Bush's test drive of the D-10. Yeah, almost as much fun as seeing your life flash before your eyes, she wrote in response to the president's remark about his cool experience.

Joke for liberals. sm


How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to change a light bulb?

The Answer is ELEVEN:

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed.

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed.

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb.

4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either: For changing the light bulb or for darkness.

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb.

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a stepladder under the banner Light Bulb Change Accomplished.

7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark.

8. One to viciously smear #7.

9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light bulb-changing policy all along.

10. One to change the wrong lightbulb.

11. And finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

Another joke for liberals...

Hillary's Deal With the Devil

Hillary was finishing up a day as Senator for New York when the Devil suddenly appeared in her office and made her an offer...

I am here to offer you a deal, the Devil said. I will give you unlimited wealth, even more power, and a media that will pander to your every whim. In return, all I ask for is your soul, the souls of every member of your family, and the souls of all your constituents.

Hillary pondered for a moment and then asked, Unlimited wealth and power?

Absolutely unlimited, the Devil asserted.

A pandering media? she asked.

They'll fall over themselves to support you, no matter what you say or do, the Devil assured.

And you want my soul, my family's souls, and the souls of my constituents? she asked.

Yes. All of them, the Devil answered.

Hillary was deep in thought for a moment, then finally spoke:

So...what's the catch?

I never said liberals were bad people...

and I have no doubt most of you sincerely individually believe what you are saying...just like most conservatives do.  Debating is not "trying to shove something down someone's throat."  I truly come to this board to learn...I want to know what everyday liberals/Democrats are thinking, not what I hear coming out of Washington.  While sometimes you hear the rote party line here, you also hear the moderate and conservative Democrats (yes, there are some) and I like to hear their point of view as well.  I am not arrogant enough to think I know everything and I am concerned about what my fellow Americans are thinking...not what the DNC is thinking, but what my fellow Americans are thinking.  I think if you don't listen to other viewpoints it leads to narrow-minded robot-like following of a set group of ideas and I think that is dangerous.  That being said, I don't think everyone who posts here does that.  But it is not across the board.

By the same token, just because conservatives (myself and others) counter-post here does not make us bad people either.  We love our country too.  We just have a different view of the direction we think she should go.  That does not make us better than you or worse than you.  We are all Americans.  We are so divided now, because there are too many who do not want to debate and share ideas and learn.

That being said, the views I expressed here regarding children's health care are my own and should not be attributed to all who call themselves conservative.  Too often things get painted on this board with a broad brush...one person posts an opinion and all of a sudden it becomes "conservatives think..."   I just want everyone here to know that all of those opinions were Observer's opinions and not meant to be construed as the "conservative stand" on that issue.  It was my stand.  And I would like to set that record straight...I do believe children should have health insurance.  I believe we as a country should help those who cannot help themselves...the low income families who really cannot afford health insurance for their children, and we were doing that.  What I was..and am...against is expanding the program further and further up the income ladder.  I would like to encourage responsibility...and keep people off programs instead of getting more and more of them on.  A 100% tax refund on health insurance premiums paid makes more sense to me than government-subsidized health insurance for higher income families.  What I do not and will never understand is why the Democrats in Congress could not let the program stand as it was for another 6 months, still covering the families it has covered for the last 10 years, and worked out a compromise. 

So, if you liberals who post here really do not want to engage, I will just come here and read to learn, and will not "force" you to defend your ideas.  In asking my questions I was seeking to learn why you thought what you thought and if there were facts to substantiate it so that I could go and look and continue to hear another viewpoint.  I would think if you were secure in your beliefs you would welcome the chance to explain them.  Color me wrong.


Is that what liberals are about, really? Intolerance? nm
Are posts like this really what liberals are about? nm
Okay. I have a question for liberals. sm

Where do you stand on these issues:

1. Homosexual marriage

2. Welfare

3. Abortion


I'm neutral in my views. I don't think I'm Republican or Liberal. I'm just trying to learn the mind of a liberal.  In short, could you tell me where you stand on these issues?

we could easily do what the liberals
constantly do and spin that out and say that was a set up by the Obama campaign to make McCain supporters look bad. 
See how hateful liberals are? Which is why I no
Please don't lump all us liberals together

I don't like Ann Coulter but not for any of the reasons you said.  I don't like her because I think she uses fear mongering tactics to get her point across and as she proved with the comment about Michelle Obama, she is unable to do it without resorting to name calling.  That doesn't speak to any level of intelligence for me.

I don't like any of the pundits who are either so far right or far left that they are unable to see any other viewpoint but their own.  Anyone like that is just scary to me.

PLEASE READ...You have just described yourself, and most of the liberals
lots and lots of (to use your own words) sad, miserable, angry people whose candidate won, and seem to have to smash and bash the losers into the ground under their feet with their neverending toxic posts.

Yours today have been terrible, along with JTBB, woofer, and others.

I'm not saying that Lu isn't over the top on the right, because she is. I wish she would stop also.

But all of the liberal posters should try a bit of hope and kindness towards those you continually stomp upon.

A lot of us have refrained from commenting lately on this board one way or another, just to stay out of the fray, and allow you and Obama your day to shine, on this upcoming historical next few days, especially.

But really.....the whole board has gone to heck in a handbasket, with mostly the winning libs loud and nasty the most to the rest of us.

I won't be back, as there is such a hypocrisy among the winning side this time round.

No tolerance except towards their own.

Very, very sad, indeed.

I seriously doubt liberals have anything
Republicans, the party of whiners.
Ask the liberals who are posting there to come over to this board.
I know it is tempting to want to post on the opposite board, I try to fight it though because I know anything I say over there will only start a fight.
No liberals here just extreme leftists

I know some good liberals and the ones who are here are not them.

If you are not a Bush hater or a Bush basher on this board then you're a troll.

God help these people if they ever do get in a real fight.

With liberals it's not the proof behind the accusation
it's the seriousness of the charge....
No when I see liberals, no leftists, I SEE hate
I have some liberal acquaintances, and they are not the least bit like the ravenous tar and feather stuff I SEE here. I don't think anything. I observe, and what I observe is the out and out attack on anything conservative. We don't see things the same way, that's obvious, but you all are out for blood which is supposedly to be what you all are against. The hypocrisy is staggering.

BTW, we are dicussing issues on the C-board. We don't always agree, and we don't always agree with Bush, but obviously you would rather turn a blind eye to that in order further your revenge agenda on anything conservative.
Note to uptight liberals
It was s-a-r-c-a-s-m.   Humor is lost on you all...
The term *Christian Right* was given our by liberals
so, giving us the defination of Christian right is condeming us for the title your group gave us.
A little Friday humor for liberals ONLY, as
You Know You Are Still a Republican If ...

by Jimmy Lohman

You are more upset about Brokeback Mountain than Abu Ghraib.

You can’t stand Hilary Clinton’s hair but you have no problem with Tom DeLay’s.

You think Global Warming is no big deal but environmentalists are a major problem.

You support the war on drugs but think Rush Limbaugh is being prosecuted unfairly.

You think professional athletes make too much money but Sam Walton’s kids deserve everything they have.

You like the way George Bush walks.

You think Al Gore is wooden and Donald Rumsfeld has charisma.

You think CNN is biased but Fox News is neutral.

You like the sound of Newt Gingrich’s voice.

You are sure the United States has the best education and health care systems in the world.

You think Dick Cheney is a straight shooter.

You think Michael Chertoff’s beard makes him look distinguished.

You think the problem with our health care system is lawyers.

You think it was more important to locate Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress than to locate weapons of mass destruction.

You don’t believe terrorism has made Rudy Giuliani an incredibly rich man.

You believe freedom of speech covers everything Pat Robertson says and does, but burning a flag should be illegal.

You can be in the same room with Brit Hume.

You have yourself convinced that the country and world are better off now than 5 years ago.


Jimmy Lohman is a musician and human rights lawyer in Austin, Texas, and an occasional contributor to Buzzflash