Wiki:
Page name: Bush Haters Association-debate,discuss [Logged in view] [RSS]
2006-01-10 14:39:31
Last author: Lord K├╝genheim
Owner: Goldice
# of watchers: 9
Fans: 0
D20: 3
Bookmark and Share

Bush Haters Association - debate,discuss



<img:http://www.freewebtown.com/TwistedNet/Bush1.jpg>





Thanks to [Rondel] for the idea. You can all thank her however you wish (as long as it's friendly -- harassing messages don't count).

This page is for those who wish to express their feelings in deeper ways, rather than having to use lots of comments sections to get across an opinion. It is where you can hold debates and discuss things in ways you may feel uncomfortable doing so in the main wiki.

I have left this page with no password so new topics for debates and discussions can be added and comments written. I trust you however, to not write anything stupid, unecessary, offending or down right rude, as it will be removed and so will the person responsible. This wiki was made for YOU to use and we would hate to have to take this privelege away from you but if we are forced to we will. That is a promise. Please use the wiki responsibly.





[Dil*]:One of the important things about democracy; Seperation of church and state. Whatever the hell happened to that? We can't have any seperation of church and state with bush's constant rabble about how god gave him is bloody position. No, god didn't give you your positon, your fat wallet did.


[Darth Wobble]'s statment:

So Bush is looking for Osama bin laden because he killed lots of people in the world trade centres and that I don't mind because bin laden is proved to be guilty, but why suddenly start a war against Iraq, someone who has done nothing to affect the USA? (plus they havent got any proof that Iraq has weapon of mass destruction). I was very annoyed with that, so thats why i joned this wiki.

[Lord K├╝genheim] - Please write in proper english, i dont want to have to clean everyones statements.



[mnightshade]
During this presidency there have been many horrible decisions made to debate. In articles in Rolling Stone I have read of things that happened here at home that the 'War Coverage' seemed to neglect, or rather to distract us from. In the northwest (I believe Idaho-but don't quote me on that) trees that were long considered safe from harm were cut down with government approval literally overnight, without the permission of local inhabitants. Proposals were made by the administration to cut down part of the Everglades in Georgia(though they were denied), maximum pollution output levels were raised, tax cuts were made for the wealthiest, and the famous 'No Child Left Behind Act' cut money to schools that were most in need of funding (for instance the highschool I went to and the middleschool my brother attended). Efforts were and are still being made to ban the right to abortion(when the country is already over populated with welfare babies), and the war on drugs, esp. marijuana, was taken to an even higher level under the supervision of Donald Rumsfield(which in my opinion wastes tons of taxes that could be spent on catching murderers and rapists). And, of course, Freedom of speech took a hard blow after 9/11, when Bush protesters were deemed 'unpatriotic' because they protested for peace and certain songs(some that have been around for decades) were even banned from the radio because they were 'offensive'.War ? It seems to me like it's already within our borders.




From [Rondel]:

I know this is long, but I ran across these quotes (in the context of the short editorial comments which cause them to be part of a longer column, quoted here in full) and immediately thought of this group, but wasn't sure which forum to post them to, or how. So I mentioned it on the main page, and someone agreed that this would be a good place to post them. I'll let the reader draw their own conclusions -- and please, feel free to verify the quotes' accuracy for yourself. A thinking, informed opinion is always the best one to hold, in my (thinking, informed, yet humble) opinion.

---begin quoted material---

Notable, Quotable Presidents
Kevin Nelson, AlterNet
February 13, 2004

Forty-three presidents have served the United States in these past 228 years, overseers of the longest running democracy in the world.

While the Bush II Administration's "War on Terror" and its Orwellian progeny -- Patriot Acts I & II -- demand that Americans relinquish their civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and Constitution in exchange for Homeland Security, we must never forget that this country has survived a Revolutionary War, a Civil War, two World Wars, a Cold War, and half a century of CIA malfeasance, without devolving into a totalitarian state.

America's greatest presidents were keenly aware of the fragility of liberty and freedom of expression, and worked steadfastly toward their protection.

Consider how the following sentiments would be interpreted by today's media pundits, were each of these men currently campaigning for the office of the presidency. Which candidate would be endlessly derided as the "peacenik," the "America hater," the "anarchist," or the "lunatic fringe" candidate? Which candidates would be placed on terrorist watch lists?

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864, five months before his assasination

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." -Teddy Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." -Abraham Lincoln

"The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans' freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight." -John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Columbia University, 10 days before his assassination, Nov. 12, 1963

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison, June 16, 1788

"Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it." -Woodrow Wilson

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan, March 2, 1977

"There is more selfishness and less principle among members of Congress ... than I had any conception of, before I became President of the United States." -James K. Polk, December 16, 1846

"When we got into office, the thing that surprised me most was to find that things were just as bad as we'd been saying they were." -John F. Kennedy

"The best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation." -James E. Carter

"There is nothing wrong in America that can't be fixed with what is right in America." -William Clinton

"The goal to strive for is a poor government but a rich people." - Andrew Johnson

"The more I study it [the Constitution], the more I have come to admire it, realizing that no other document devised by the hand of man ever brought so much progress and happiness to humanity." -Calvin Coolidge, 1929

"We Americans have no commission from God to police the world." - Benjamin Harrison

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." -George Washington, Treaty of Tripoli, 1796

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1814

"War should never be entered upon until every agency of peace has failed." -William McKinley, March 4, 1897

"He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions." -Thomas Jefferson, August 19, 1785

"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." -Harry S. Truman

"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed." -Teddy Roosevelt, December 3, 1907

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror." -Franklin Delano Roosevelt, March 4, 1933

"In the field of world policy; I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor." -FDR, March 4, 1933

"I will never apologize for the United States of America -- I don't care what the facts are." -George Bush, Newsweek, August 15, 1989 (Commenting on the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by the U.S. warship Vincennes, killing 290 civilian passengers.)

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, in a final sense, [is] a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -Dwight Eisenhower, April 16, 1953

"Evil acts of the past are never rectified by evil acts of the present." -Lyndon B. Johnson, July 21, 1964

"Peace is more than just the absence of war. True peace is justice, true peace is freedom. And true peace dictates the recognition of human rights." - Ronald Reagan, September 22, 1986

"Depends on what your definition of 'is' is." -Bill Clinton, August 17, 1998

"Mothers all want their sons to grow up to be president but they don't want them to become politicians in the process." -John Fitzgerald Kennedy

"You know I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office." -George W. Bush, 1989

"I don't know whether I'm going to win or not. I think I am. I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes." -George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000

"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves." -George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier -- so long as I'm the dictator." -George W. Bush, Dec. 19, 2000

Honorable Mention: Scottish jurist and historian, Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) summed up the natural progression of self-governance thusly: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.

Kevin Nelson is editor of the weekly column Drug War Briefs, which appears on AlterNet (alternet.org).

---end quoted material---




Username (or number or email):

Password:

2005-09-17 [Rondel]: Other reasons on his list is the decriminalization of sodomy; the practices of bestiality and incest; and abortion access. ("Sodomy" is a term that is often used by Fundamentalist Christians to refer to homosexual behavior.) He concluded: "We're doing all the things that God said were so repugnant that the land itself would be repulsed and would vomit its inhabitants out. And, if there was ever a time that we need God's blessing, it's now. We don't need to bring in heathen, pagan practices to the United States of America. We need to call on God and ask him for revival." Some unstable individuals might interpret this as a call to physically attack religious minorities.

2005-09-17 [Rondel]: The Rev. Bryan Owen (Church of the Incarnation, West Point, MS) said: "In my mind, Falwell's statement flies in the face of what we're called to be as Christians. I can understand the anger, but to me it's morally reprehensible to say something like that. I have a hard time believing in a God who would try to wake up American by having thousands of innocent people killed. That is not the kind of God we find revealed in Jesus Christ. If the murder of thousands of men, women, and children happened with either God's active will or God's tacit consent, then the God of Jerry Falwell is a terrorist. The majority of Anglicans regard such a view of God as anathema to the gospel of Jesus Christ."

2005-09-17 [Rondel]: 2001-SEP-17: At about 13 minutes and 40 seconds into his Focus on the Family daily radio program, Dr. James Dobson said: "I also pray that the Lord will bring a national revival that will sweep through our nation and pull us back from the wickedness and the Paganism that's engulfed us in recent years." It is not clear whether Dobson is attacking the 750,000 Neopagans in the U.S. or is using the term "Paganism" in some other way. As noted elsewhere, it is a term that has multiple meanings. On 2001-SEP-18, we faxed Focus, requesting a clarification of Dr. Dobson's statement. Almost four years later, as of 2005-SEP-04, they have not yet replied. We have given up hoping for a response. (ibid)

2005-09-17 [Rondel]: Yet, as Jerry Falwell has said, no one from the Evangelical Christian community pressured him to apologize. We have searched the Internet, TV news programs, and the local, national, and international media in vain for some criticism of their statements by other leaders of the Christian community. A few have criticized Falwell during interviews initiated by reporters. But, to our knowledge, none have made independent statements. Some of the public will interpret this silence by fellow Christian leaders as demonstrating their agreement with Falwell and Robertson's statements of hatred against religions and secular movements.

2005-09-17 [Rondel]: As long as Bush is catering to the Evangelical Christian right as his primary base of political support, statements such as these are going to remain relevant to any American who does not wish to become disenfranchised, or lose their rights on the basis of their religious beliefs, or those of the party in power.

2005-09-18 [DNAra Broken Goddess]: THAT IS F***IN' BS!!!! Bush is relying on RELIGION for support?!!?!?!?! What the hell happened to 'Separation of Church and State'?!

2005-09-19 [Rondel]: Erm... how have you not noticed? That's the primary area in which he acted as a consultant for his FATHER, even! That's how Bush Sr. got the Evangelical vote! But unlike his son, Bush Sr. wasn't a "True Believer". Bush Jr. really does believe that every answer HE needs in life, and that ANYBODY needs in life, can be found in the Bible. It's the addiction he changed to when he gave up his alcoholism.

2005-09-20 [DNAra Broken Goddess]: I HAVE noticed, but i didn't think they had gone this far with it yet... I think I would have prefered the alcohol, the only book in the bible is 1 Corithians 6(forgive me if I mispelt the book, i'm not good w/ the christian bible) and that is because that is because it is all about love... above all things I believe in love. That chapter is the only reason I keep a bible.

2005-09-20 [Rondel]: Reminds me of when my step-father graduated from the School of Theology (before he left his job to enroll in seminary, to study for the priesthood). I congratulated him, then asked him to define "God" in three words or less. My mother got it right away: "God is Love". I have no use for Christians who believe anything else, to be honest. It's not my religion anymore, though I still know a lot about it from my time teaching Sunday School, etc. - but to me, the only worthwhile forms of Christianity (or any religion) are those in which the point is to be motivated by LOVE, not HATE, not CONDEMNATION - & CERTAINLY not DISCRIMINATION. But government & religion should be separate, regardless.

2005-09-20 [DNAra Broken Goddess]: yes they should...

2005-09-21 [Rondel]: I had to deal with a school once, which, after assuring me that they did not teach religion as a part of their curriculum, turned out to include an invocation to the sun god as a part of every meal. Now, I'm a practising pagan, & some would think that I'd respond to this positively, but I was just as horrified by that as I was to discover that every 8th grader was required to paint a "Madonna". I don't care whose religion it is, mine or anyone else's -- it doesn't belong in the schools, and it doesn't belong in the government. (BTW, those same schools are increasingly part of the public school system in the US, which supposedly guarantees freedom from religious bias in the public schools.)

2005-09-21 [DNAra Broken Goddess]: i think that's wrong to include religion in public schools, in private schools where you PAy to go, alright, that's fine with me, but in public school, there should b no religion.

2005-09-22 [Rondel]: It shouldn't be in private schools, either, IMHO, if they have to lie to the parents to convince them to enroll their kids... ...nor if those private schools accept public funding.

2006-06-15 [Evil Intentions]: why dose every one hate the president? seriously no matter who thay pick half of america hates them its hard enuff to be president but then you have every one bitching about how you do your job, so if your not going to try and help in sum way stop bitching about it!

2006-06-16 [chasingpeace]: not all presidents have been hated...clinton was an extremely well liked president until the whole blue dress thing, but he was at the end of his 8th year as president, so it didn't make much difference. Bush is just all over pretty much bad. He doesn't read any of the things he signs for one...or at least it seems that way. he hasn't vetoed a single thing, as an example. And there's not much anyone can do. I for one am not exactly schooledin the process of impeaching presidents, and in the last election, you had a choice between two piles of crap. One just smelled better (Kerry), but...i'm not sure he would have done a whole lot of good, even though bush is pretty horrible...

2006-06-25 [kduncan]: It's a sad fact that the vast majority of politicians in the US (and most other places) are subsidised by corporations.. and that's where the problem lies. You simply can't have corporations dictating public policy because what's good for the corporate bottom line is generally not what's good for you and me. For example: Do you like the idea of Walmart lobbying Congress on minimum wages in the US? Where do you think Walmart's interests lie?

2006-10-14 [Rondel]: I have to agree; that's one of the reasons why I think that the so-called "Business Councils" should NOT be made exclusively of representatives from the businesses themselves. There are other people who have a vested interest in businesses and their operations -- like the people employed by them, and the people who are "served by" the businesses; for instance, there are a lot of marketplace niches of products I know people are seriously wishing were available -- and nobody meeting those needs, not because the marketplace force of demand isn't enough to balance a supply, but because there is a sense of "conflict of interest" -- supply an affordable product that isn't a throwaway technology, in a market dominated by throwaway units, and every sale is a series of sales lost to another manufacturer.

2006-10-24 [kduncan]: There's this consideration also:
With international corporations how can the corporate interest lie with any one particular nation? A corporation will follow th e money, they are legally bound to follow the money. If, by chance, the US went to war with China, where would Walmart's interests lie? With a market that has reached its economic summit? Or with a nation ripe with eager new consumers who are just starting to make enough disposable income to spend on things other than the basic necessities of life?

Corporations are doing more and more to get legislation that relieves them of social, political, and environmental responsibility in the US, and not enough American voters are bothering to ask the question "Why?" What happens after twenty or thirty years of corporations being responsible for the "self monitoring" they have been awarded by a paid for Congress? Does Monsato really have the best interests of the public in mind? How about Con-Agra? Do most people in the US even recognise the names of these corporations?

2006-10-25 [Rondel]: Short answer (I know, not something I'm known for): No, most people in the US *DON'T* recognize the names of those corporations, so how can they possibly assess their actions, and reasonably take action to ensure that they are appropriately regulated.

Some years ago, I learned that I have a health problem which is directly connected to the actions of some of those corporations in their "self-regulation" on environmental issues (which I acknowledge are merely one aspect of their responsibilities), and their failure to take what most of us would consider to be appropriate care regarding the impact of their actions on others. If the average person were to impact another person in the way that these corporations do, every day, as a result of their "self-regulated" behaviour, they would be first in court, and then in prison. But the corporations are not held to the same standards. For every person who is awarded millions of dollars for a spilled cup of coffee (albeit superheated scalding hot coffee, unwisely held between their legs in a car seat), there are many others losing health, life, or family members to the side effects of corporate actions, without seeing the slightest bit of compensation, change in the behaviour, or even acknowledgement that their injury matters in the slightest. Efforts to remedy this, grassroots efforts to educate, initiatives to create legal changes to prevent these kinds of injuries, are all met with apathy on the part of a public who won't take any more responsibility than do the corporations themselves, and it is unsurprising that the corporations can (and do) literally get away with murder in that kind of an environment.

If you're curious as to just what that health problem I mentioned is, check out this article: http://www.emagazine.com/view/?1003

So yes, I'm well aware of Monsanto as a shaping force in the world I live in. If my illness created an obvious outward sign, like a cast on a broken limb, I'd be tempted to ask them to sign their handiwork. Of course, since instead it makes me mostly housebound, nobody'd ever get to see it... *sigh* ...which I think hinders our ability to engage in traditional activism to make change in this situation.

2006-10-25 [kduncan]: I believe that my mate is another such victim of the careless policies adopted by corporations such as Monsato and Con-Agra.

He has an abundance of allergies, includng many food allergies. The most interesting aspect of this is that he thought, all his life, that he has been lactose intolerant. His parents had him on soy products as a child. Whenever he would eat or drink milk products he would get severe abdominal cramping culminating in severe diarrhea. About six years ago I switched to using only organic dairy products at home. My reason for making this switch had nothing to do with my mates supposed lactose problem simnce I thought he wouldn't be able to drink milk, organic or not. I come from dairy country in upstate NY, most of the families in the town I grew up in were farming families. I have noticed a decline in the quality of milk, even whole milk is no longer creamy, and borders on a thin, weird sort of blue-ish colour. I tried organic milk at first just to see if I could get milk like that I'd had while growing up. I was pleased that I was able to, but what surprised me even more was that my mate no longer experienced problems with the lactose intolerance he'd thought he had. I didn't expect this, and he, being a member of the medical profession (phamacist), certainly didn't expect this. I've since come to the conclusion that something was very wrong with the milk we were drinking before.

We've wondered about a few other things as a result, most importantly is the increasing numbers of children with food (and other) allergies. Allergies are becoming epidemic in the US. He now wonders how many other illnesses that are becoming more prevalent in the US are a direct result of the poisoning of the US food supply by corporations. My mate is not a pharmcist who works at a community pharmacy, he is a consultant for resident facilities, which provide a fairly consistent control group. In his work, he has noticed a greater incidence of people with kidney stones in the past ten or so years. He thinks this greater incidence is due to problems with the water supply and with food additives.

I believe that some people are like the canaries miners used to use to determine if it was safe to go into the mine, my mate is one of thsoe "canaries", and it looks like you are too, Rondel. People like you and my mate are telling the rest of us that something is very, very wrong. We heed the warning.

2006-12-26 [Rondel]: Some heed the warning -- others shoot the messenger. I run a mailing list for just such "canaries" -- and the horror stories I could tell you about people having their lives made WORSE when people find out about their Environmental Illness would probably manage to distress even your limited faith in humanity, as I know they did mine. Not only is it common for people to deliberately expose "canaries" to the very toxins which make us sick, "in order to test to see if we really react if we don't know the substance is there" (yeah, right...), I've even known cases where people have gone so far as to spray the organic garden of a person who can't eat any food with pesticide residues (and can't afford to buy organic because they're disabled) with the very pesticides which are known to cause the reaction, thereby rendering not only every plant in the garden inedible, but the soil itself incapable of growing safe food for a period of YEARS. Why do people do this? Because they don't like the fact that THEIR lives are inconvenienced in the tiniest way by others' sensitivities -- and in some cases, that includes simply causing them to know about the toxins already in their lives, by having the bad grace to go into anaphylactic shock in their presence. So I'm always glad when I meet someone who reacts to the warning of the "canaries" by actually listening, and more so when they actually HEED it, as you do.

You might ask your mate if he's noticed any correlation between gall bladder problems and chemical exposure -- many of the "canaries" I've known (a disproportionate number) have had gall bladder problems (often requiring its removal), often at unusually young ages (as in my case -- I was 19), or unusually badly (my husband, whose gall bladder was 10x normal size and filled with literally hundreds of stones). We theorize that this is due to the way that the liver excretes (not necessarily fully) metabolized toxins into the bile, where they then sit in the gall bladder, before being released into the intestinal tract, where they are all too often simply absorbed again, to be cycled through again and again until the liver can fully metabolize and neutralize them -- or the body can stuff them into its fat cells to be stored until they can more easily be processed, later, often gaining fat as needed to make this possible (this being one of the reasons why toxicity causes people to gain weight, if they are physically capable of doing so).

Number of comments: 70
Older comments: (Last 200) 3 2 1 .0.

Show these comments on your site

Elftown - Wiki, forums, community and friendship. Sister-site to Elfwood