Rush Limbaugh: turning the Rams into the 21st century version of the Lions!
Top 5 people you'd like to slap some sense into.(51 posts) (19 voices)
HA!! To late!! They have all ready beat the Lions losing streak.
1. Kent Hovind (he looks a lot more creepy than Comfort, and that counts for something in my lexicon)
2. Ray Comfort (nothing to add to him which hasn't already been said a million times)
3. That Dickpole Who Joins Comfort On Stage To Talk About Crocoducks Sometimes (for being so stupid, so naive, and so forgettable)
4. Benny Hinn
5. My idiot of a brother-in-law. His job? "Christian Youth Work" His thoughts on evolution? "Never really thought about it. Don't need to, I know the most important truth of all."
If I get to pick between your Brother-in-law's "never really thought about it" and Hovind's and Comfort's "I know the Truth about science's evil agenda and I'm gonna teach everybody about it who I can possibly find", then I'm gonna prefer dealing with your Bro-in-law any day.
Still the "greatest truth of all" thing is kind of cringeworthy.
@phrankygee: I agree it would be more practical to have to deal with my brother-in-law, but I find both Hovind & Comfort perpetuating lies and propaganda, and my brother-in-law's failure to think for himself equally monstrous.
So I am sitting and thinking who would I slap some sense into, but the problem is I would rather have them learn to think than have it indoctrinated into them. That said here is who i would like to have some serious internal reflection on the source of their faith
5. Stephen Harper
4. Ayatollah Kohmeni
3. Benjamin Netanyahu
2. Barack Obama
1. Gordon Brown
@puck Do you think Obama is sincere in his faith? I get the impression from a lot of politicians in the U.S. that they just tow the national line to avoid pissing off the Bible belt. I'm probably wrong.
@ George, Bush Jr. was actually more religious than he seemed in public judging by his comments about "Gog and Magog at work in the middle east" to some other world leader in private, but overall I agree. Just look at the surveys about the level of trust in various groups and look all the way down at the bottom to find atheists.
Re: Limbaugh-Rams. I kind of hope he does so then I can enjoy the Rams sucking rather than being kinda depressed about the franchise that first drew my interest to the NFL (Greatest Show on Turf, lead by local hero Kurt Warner). I'm just glad that the Colts drafted two of my all time favorite Iowa Hawkeyes before my allegiances were set on the Rams.
Kohmeni's faith comes from him getting to be the Supreme leader.
@george He claims to be guided by faith, he hinges his values on christianity. Ergo, he needs some deep internal reflection. How many issues could we solve as a world if we stopped letting religion get in the way.
Oh no. Some lesser evilism posted a month ago.
So...let's look at Saint Obama of Change.
Same Defense Secretary
Same ol' Wall Street clowns
Support for DOMA
Expanding the war in Afghanistan
Continuing the Iraq Occupation
Same old patriotic America is the Light of the World nonsense
Guantanamo is still open and we are EXPANDING Baghram Prison
Extraordinary Rendition? Wire Tapping? Still going on (or expanded)
Expanding military spending
More generally, our peace loving Democratic Party:
Involved us in WWI, which DIRECTLY led to the horrors of WWII
Involved us in Vietnam
Started the horrific human rights abuses of Central America
Funded Indonesia's genocide in East Timor and elsewhere
Arguably killed thousands of people through sanctions regimes that were utterly ineffective from a policy perspective but made the United States look tough
Started what has become the Afghani debacle (Charlie Wilson's War)
Killed welfare to punish them lazy poor people.
I think your agnosticism or atheism needs to expand a bit. Blind patriotism and naive nationalism are as much of a false religion as any Abrahamic creed. The democratic Party, by world standards, is a conservative, pro-business, pro-war party little differnet in real policy direftion than the Republicans. Observe what Obama is REALLY doing.
How do you suggest putting someone in the White House who would change all those things you suggest need changing?
It's easy enough to rant on a web forum about how "Obama is no different than Bush", but the fact of the matter is, he was the best choice we were given.
Palin could be co-piloting our country right now, if people hadn't gotten of their butts and organized behind a (compromised and flawed) candidate that they could see doing a much better job.
If you want a Kucinich presidency, then you are living in la-la land. Obama has to deal with reality, which is frequently ugly.
I have no easy answers.
I think the United States is so calcified, the system is so corrupt. There is just too much money being made running "the empire." I don't think electing any one man to the Presidency could change anything significantly. The military industrial complex would arrange a final solution to any man or woman who really threatened their power and profits.
As for Obama...I actually think he is objectively WORSE than the Bush Regime. Why? because he is being given a free pass by a significant percentage of that disorganized, weak class of people that call themselves "progressives" or "the left." healthy skepticism about the exercise of Amercan power has been replaced by hero worship or, worse, excuses. People were outraged during the Bush Regime. Under Obama, people are back to sleep. That is arguably more dangerous.
But, as I said, I have no easy answers. The United States lacks the self awareness to make a decision, as a society, to restore its republic at the cost of the empire. We have chosen and will continue to choose empire.
Kucinich is not an answer, either. He still remains with the War Party, providing a feeble voice that enables people to pretend that there is debate, there is a choice. Even when there is not.
Anyway...sorry for the cynicism. My solution would be "dissolution," a return to a much more federal system with a drastically reduced military. That is not going to happen under the current system. I wonder if total financial collapse is the only thing that will "change" the system? Certainly electing a machine politican beholden to Wall Street and other special interests won't.
Anyway, enough of my cynicism. I just can't help but react to the "Blame Nader" people or people who still believe the American government really is "good" in any sense of that word. That is a form of "religious" belief that should be challenged as vociferously as any fundamentalism. Especially as the American state, unlike Billy Graham or Dobson, has thousands of nuclear weapopns and hundreds of thousands of soldiers spread around the world.
After posting my previous response, I went back and looked at the Nader-related comments you were addressing. Your post makes a lot more sense in that light.
You have some good points, Brian, and I even agree with you to an certain (small)extent, but I tend to try and find opportunities to make a difference in whatever small way I can, rather than grow despondent over what can't be done.
In a complex system, small inputs can have huge ripple effects, changing the courses of empires. Of course, in a complex system, small inputs can also be completely absorbed, and have no effect at all. It is hard, if not impossible, to tell which will be the outcome when you take a step. But the result of not taking a step is all too predictable.
I give a lot of credit to the libertarians involved in the "free state" project, who are voting with their feet and moving to New Hampshire, in an attempt to build a significant electorate in that state, and put senators and governors with some clout into national politics from that base. They are upset with the 2-party system, but they are acting to change it through the existing political process. I say kudos to them.
And yet, even in that state, they are pretty much an ineffective minority.
Our two party system has enormous inertia.
A weekly rotation of any 5 fundies on the Texas State School Board. They lost the evolution/ID battle, so now they're trying the "US founded as a christian nation should be taught in history class" card.
I'm sorry, Brian, but to suggest that Progressives and people of the Left are disorganized and weak' is to take the Right's stereotypes at face value and just accept them as fact. The Progressives have always had a very strong grassroots effort and you are doing a disservice to many liberal campaigners by just throwing out false, recycled value judgments. For better or worse, Obama wasn't elected by himself and the equality campaigns all around the United States didn't spring up out of thin air.
I don't doubt that a huge amount still needs to be done and that Obama is never going to be able to live up to all the hype, but you might want to check your facts before you throw around the kind of statements that say a lot more about you than the people you are attempting to disparage.
The list of crimes of the Democratic Party ARE facts. 500,000 people died because of ineffective sanctions...and Clinton's representatives DID say that their deaths were regretable but not really a problem (they never are. if the deaths are of brown people, they are never a problem). The crimes were justified, always justified, by appeals to patriotism or by claiming that, for example, killing millions of Vietnamese was a noble and necessary struggle.
Voting for the war in Iraq was "politically necessary. Today, it is "necessary" to strengthen the Patriot Act. It was "necessary" to dump a trillion dollars into the banks with no real oversight. We "need" to stay the course in Afghanistan and ogh so regrettably kill more people. Strangely enough, these and other policies, which are always done oh so painfully and so reluctantly, still end up advancing the same long term policies and programs of the American State. And, the policies and programs always seem to kill a lot of people, either brown people overseas or the children of our own cannon fodder classes.
phrankeegee: Not sure I'm THAT kind of libertarian. The kind always seem to be mainly interested in freeing up large corporations to screw the rest of us. Still, I agree with your basic point!
It doesn't really address the point I was making. You classified all progressives as a disorganised, weak class of people. Unfortunately, you seem to be unable to make a distinction between Democratic members of Congress and other progressives, and to assume that there's not a difference between them is just lazy thinking. If by Progressives, you meant 'Democratic members of Congress' I might be more inclined to agree with you, but is Al Franken really the same kind of 'progressive' as Evan Bayh or Joe Lieberman? Not really.
You must log in to post.