patrick.net

Paralithodes says

Meanwhile, I take your response to indicate that you believe that coverage of protests by those on the left against many movements vs. “tea party” movement coverage has been about equally fair?

I think that people perceive a bias when the coverage doesn't conform to their views. I heard much the same nonsense when Palin was interviewed by Katie Couric...

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

So you believe that what a President does during his second term does not deserve acknowedgement and that the following President deserves the credit for originating a plan actually developed and implemented in the previous administration? You agree that the Status of Forces Agreement implemented under Bush was “no plan,” and that Obama essentially following the same was in fact Obama coming up with a plan?

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. But I’m usually pretty good at forming them myself–my wife would argue that I probably could stand to talk(or write in this case) a little less frequently…

You said:

I guess it’s because it wasn’t signed until he was a lame duck President. Hard to give him much credit for it..

I initially brought up the Status of Forces Agreement due to someone claiming that it was very "clear" that Bush had "no plan" and that Obama did have a plan. Given your response above, what words did I put in your mouth, and how did I misinterpret your statement above?

If Bush deserves no "credit" (or more appropriately, "acknowledgement" due to the original "clear" claim of "no plan") for the Status of Forces Agreement because he was a lame duck President (your very clear argument), then how can you give any President credit for anything, good or bad, that they do in their second term?

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

Meanwhile, I take your response to indicate that you believe that coverage of protests by those on the left against many movements vs. “tea party” movement coverage has been about equally fair?

I think that people perceive a bias when the coverage doesn’t conform to their views. I heard much the same nonsense when Palin was interviewed by Katie Couric…

And likewise, they don't perceive a bias when the coverage does conform to their views.... Like interpreting coverage about the coverage of something as coverage of the thing itself...

Faulty perceptions of bias (on either side) does not refute that there is bias. You may wish to cast this in "conspiracy" terms in order to discredit those on the right who complain of left-leaning media bias, but that in itself doesn't refute the argument of bias either.

Paralithodes says

If Bush deserves no “credit” (or more appropriately, “acknowledgement” due to the original “clear” claim of “no plan”) for the Status of Forces Agreement because he was a lame duck President (your very clear argument), then how can you give any President credit for anything, good or bad, that they do in their second term?

I find that argument to be borderline ridiculous. There is a clear difference between day 1 of a second term and the final few months when the next President has already been elected. To imply otherwise is simply dishonest.

Paralithodes says

And likewise, they don’t perceive a bias when the coverage does conform to their views…. Like interpreting coverage about the coverage of something as coverage of the thing itself

No, no, no. Who's on first. What's on second.

thunderlips11 says

Ray, it’s just two actors on the same script. I think it’s funny how the “Surge” script was used twice, once by Bush and now by Obama. Two different actors/narrators, slightly different backdrop/props. One is more like Jim Varney trying to be John Wayne and the other one has a kind of Morgan Friedman vibe. Both Parties are MIC advocates - except for the “Whacky Extremists” on both sides (Paul, Kucinich, etc.) I know they’re extremists because the MSM tells me so, over and over again.

I agree completely. Very good points. It's pretty amazing that the Neocons (military-industrial crazies) are still calling the shots and that the "evil" Halliburton continues to operate as if Bush/Cheney were still in office. To that, the Kool-Aid Drinkers are completely silent. The military-industrial complex, along with the mega banksters that finance it, control events and politicians. Obama is just like Bush, et all, just another puppet whose strings are being pulled by these evil people that make money off of innocent blood. Afghanistan continues to deteriorate with no end in sight (9 years and counting) and no one seems to even know why we are there. Obama expands this stupid war and receives not only the mindless accolades of the left wing nuts, but also the Nobel Peace Prize. Truth absolutely is much stranger than fiction. No one could make this kind of stuff up.

RayAmerica says

Obama expands this stupid war

He can only end one war at a time. You look at all the crap he gets from so many sides. People calling him a socialist, etc., all the hate, the whole fundy racist crowd.

And you thought with all of that going on, he would step up and end both wars at once, just boom,...done. Politics Ray. It's sad yes. But you and your hater friends were going to hate what he does no matter what. I am one of those who thinks he is on track to be a great president. That's right, I said it !!

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

If Bush deserves no “credit” (or more appropriately, “acknowledgement” due to the original “clear” claim of “no plan”) for the Status of Forces Agreement because he was a lame duck President (your very clear argument), then how can you give any President credit for anything, good or bad, that they do in their second term?

I find that argument to be borderline ridiculous. There is a clear difference between day 1 of a second term and the final few months when the next President has already been elected. To imply otherwise is simply dishonest.

I'm not quite sure what you are implying is dishonest, given your initial statement that didn't differentiate between the beginning of a lame duck term and the ending of it. To be sure, the Status of Forces Agreement was signed in very late 2008, but was being negotiated through the year.

Regardless, the intial claim to which I was responding was essentially (1) Bush had "no plan" and (2) Obama developed a plan. When looking at the actual facts, Obama "inherited" a plan - the Status of Forces Agreement - that he is largely following.

You believe it is dishonest to not differentiate when something was developed within lame duck term, but don't object to 1) completely denying that there was any plan and 2) giving Obama credit for coming up with a plan from scratch? Please clarify.

Paralithodes says

I’m not quite sure what you are implying is dishonest, given your initial statement that didn’t differentiate between the beginning of a lame duck term and the ending of it. To be sure, the Status of Forces Agreement was signed in very late 2008, but was being negotiated through the year.

I made no such statement. I'm saying that general acceptance of "lame duck" occurs after the election of the next President. Not at the beginning of ones 2nd term. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

I’m not quite sure what you are implying is dishonest, given your initial statement that didn’t differentiate between the beginning of a lame duck term and the ending of it. To be sure, the Status of Forces Agreement was signed in very late 2008, but was being negotiated through the year.

I made no such statement. I’m saying that general acceptance of “lame duck” occurs after the election of the next President. Not at the beginning of ones 2nd term. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

Do a Yahoo search on "lame duck definition" and many of the definitions linked from the first page of entries, in well known references, will also include someone ineligible to run for office again. This is simply a misunderstanding or disagreement on the definition of terms. There is nothing "ridiculous" or dishonest about it, so let's not try to escalate a flame war unnecessarily.

In any case, I was responding to someone who claimed it was very clear that Bush had "no plan" and credited Obama with the plan to withdraw forces from Iraq.
Your response to my bringing up the Status of Forces Agreement was that Bush deserved no "credit" for it because he was a lame duck President [presumably because the agreement was signed after 11/11/08].

Does this mean that Bush had "no plan" and that Obama developed the plan? I'm not asking you whether you made this statement, but since you are coming to the defense of someone who did, whether you agree with the statement. Do you?

What if the Status of Forces Agreement was signed on 11/10/08: would you then give him some credit? Would Bush have had a plan if the Agreement, worked on throughout 2008, was signed on 11/10, but had "no plan" if signed after 11/11/08? Does Obama get credit for developing the Status of Forces Agreement because it was signed by the Bush Administration during its lame duck (using your definition) time period? If No to all of these questions, then what exactly does "lame duck" status - regardless of which definition we use - have to do with anything?

Para--

OK-- Here's my take. The final days of the Bush presidency did see him change somewhat. It appears that Dick Cheney's influence had waned and other advisors had gained more traction. So, I'll agree that he probably did come up with a plan at the end of his 2nd term.

I won't, however, give him much credit for it. He basically had to be led kicking and screaming to that decision...

I think it's fair to say that the Bush administration failed in the Iraq war planning. And I also think it's fair to say that the vast majority of the credit for the withdrawl goes to the current administration. If you want to give some small sliver to Bush, so be it.

marcus says

But you and your hater friends were going to hate what he does no matter what.

This is where your crowd is way off in left field (no pun intended). I don't hate anyone. Furthermore, I don't know of anyone that personally that "hates" Obama. I certainly don’t. What I do "hate" is that this guy is just another political hack that has been packaged and sold as someone that isn't. It's a pretty lame tactic that any opposition to Obama, et all, is labeled either "racist" or "hate." This is the same tactic used on a variety of leftist causes and positions. Example: if you oppose gay “marriage,” you must be a hate filled homophobe. If you’re against affirmative action, you must be a hate filled racist. And on it goes.

RayAmerica says

What I do “hate” is that this guy is just another political hack that has been packaged and sold as someone that isn’t.

And this is where you go "astray".

Bigotry is the irrational and obstinate attachment to one's prejudices and intolerances.

You have no real evidence to believe that Obama and his administration is fraudulent, but since you have an irrational attachment to conservatism these feelings bubble out of your subconscious and become opinion, then fact.

You become a "hater".

We all have our own bigotries, I'm bigoted against money-grubbing Jews, urban gangstas that have been in this country all their lives but can't form a proper English sentence, Mexicans who don't give a shit and throw their bottles into the street, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims that put their religious bullshit before individual freedom and rationality.

These bigotries become hate when they are over-generalized and over-applied. It's OK to hate homosexual child abusers and even the gay parades featuring public licentiousness, but it's bigoted hate to want to exclude all homosexuals from public life and the opportunity to form partnerships in the eyes of the law.

The recent brouhaha about the islamic center planned for lower Manhattan is another example of bigotry -- hate -- in action. It is very ugly out there now as you haters have successfully been seizing the narrative.

Troy says

We all have our own bigotries, I’m bigoted against money-grubbing Jews

Wow !! What a revealing statement.

RayAmerica says

I don’t hate anyone

I said you were going to hate what he does no matter what. And it's probably not about race with you, it's probably just political bias. (but the racism is there and even played to on the conservative side).

I had what was probably an equally strong bias against Reagan when he became president and the same with Bush Jr., very strongly biased against both. Those biases are a lens I saw things through. In the case of Reagan, after the fact I can see some Presidential strengths he had that made him a great figure head. He was a great "don't worry be happy" daddy figure that many feel was exactly what we needed at the time. He also took some pretty big risks that worked out. But also he was in the right place at the right time ("tear down this wall").

I know I will always think GWB was a terrible president. As for Reagan, it's a bit more mixed, but he had an effective team (teams), and he certainly made changes he wanted to make. Likewise, if Obama somehow became the all time greatest president, translated by your bias, you might be able to eventually admit that he's not the worst.

Troy says

These bigotries become hate when they are over-generalized and over-applied.

Troy says

It is very ugly out there now as you haters have successfully been seizing the narrative.

You condemn generalizations on the one hand, and then utilize the same when it fits your position. Very interesting tactic.

I find it interesting that 7 + million registered voters in California voted not once, but twice to successfully overturn gay "marriage." According to you, all of these voters must have been "haters" because they collectively had only one thing in mind (again, according to you) and that was to "deny a lawful contract." The CA Constitution helps define "lawful contracts" and Prop. 8 was in fact a constitutional amendment to define marriage contracts. It seems pretty apparent that you are under the delusion that anyone that disagrees with you, or Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et all, must be “haters.” Is the left so lacking in the ability and substance to debate that they are left with only applying generalized labels (haters, homophobes, racists, etc.) in order to defend their positions? It sure looks that way to me.

I know that not nearly all fundamentalist or Tea Baggers are extreme or ignorant or racist. But the ones who are, that is the ones who listen to the fear mongering and the hate mongering, the divisive talk, those are the ones who give the anti -Obama rhetoric a hateful vibe. Maybe it's also that the more moderate conservatives, who did not vote for Obama, are on some level happy to see him fail, and almost amused by the birther bs and other nonsense spewing from the propaganda machines.

That is, in my view they are the reason that your bias and the bias of others out there looks more hateful than the liberal bias against Reagan or Bush was. Maybe it's also about the sources. The liberal bias against Reagan and against "w" came form where ? Universities ? The very well educated. Maybe in a way it was elitist. The anti Obama propaganda may come from intelligent sources, but look at the idiots that it is being directed to. The real goals have to do with what big business wants. They are afraid of Obama for reasons that have nothing to do with whether he was born here, or whether he's really a muslim.

It can't be easy Ray, being on the same team with so many idiots. IF you don't agree with that, well then....

RayAmerica says

Troy says

These bigotries become hate when they are over-generalized and over-applied.

Troy says

It is very ugly out there now as you haters have successfully been seizing the narrative.

You condemn generalizations on the one hand, and then utilize the same when it fits your position. Very interesting tactic.
I find it interesting that 7 + million registered voters in California voted not once, but twice to successfully overturn gay “marriage.”

Interesting demonstration of the power of assorted conservative religious groups to coalesce their power at the ballot box, as it was something that Madison had hoped a pluralistic democracy would not experience, a coalition of special interests able to assemble a majoritarian position to effect a tyranny of a majority to deny equal rights to others.

Granted 52% is no dominant majority but it was enough by law.

According to you, all of these voters must have been “haters” because they collectively had only one thing in mind (again, according to you) and that was to “deny a lawful contract.”

This is argumentation via strawman. My actual position is that various groups in California have problems with homosexual lifestyle and the homosexual agenda. Conservative Catholics, Mormons, Evangelical Fundamentalists, and Pentacostalists were the bulk of the pro-8 vote. There were also votes swung by the propagandistic pro-8 ads that equated legalization of homosexual partnerships with pushing it onto our kids.

The CA Constitution helps define “lawful contracts” and Prop. 8 was in fact a constitutional amendment to define marriage contracts.

It was no such thing. It was an ugly addition to California's so-called "Declaration of Rights" to exclude the right of legal marriage to homosexual partnerships. The text had no place in the Declaration of Rights or law, as the court recently held.

Discrimination on a rational basis is not bigotry or its wider form of hate. Social conservatives -- the domestic analogue of our Taliban enemy -- just want homosexuals to go away and attempted to legislate this desire into state law, without any demonstrable rational basis. Very ugly and a textbook example of "hate" -- irrational discrimination.

It seems pretty apparent that you are under the delusion that anyone that disagrees with you, or Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et all, must be “haters.”

Pelosi and Obama are not opposed to gay marriage. Pelosi has stated it is a state issue, and the politics of the issue make Obama and Reid keep their powder dry on this issue.

Is the left so lacking in the ability and substance to debate that they are left with only applying generalized labels (haters, homophobes, racists, etc.) in order to defend their positions? It sure looks that way to me.

This is because you are either an ideologue or an idiot, but I repeat myself since clearly your ideology has made you stupid and detached from reality as it is.

There is no rational basis to oppose gay marriage or the Islamic center in Manhattan, The few rational Republicans left (like Bloomberg) recognize this. The rest, like you, are lost in their blind fog of hate.

marcus says

the liberal bias against Reagan and against “w” came form where ? Universities ?

I know, there was also a bias against Reagan among minorities and the poor.

But where was the huge media machine drumming up anger in these groups against Reagan ? People talk about the liberal media, and sure the New York times followed stories such as Ollie North, and the whole Contra thing, but where was the equivalent of the sleazy swift boat or birther movement or all the little decisions the right wing and FOX "news" makes in to "here's the socialist muslim again."?

marcus says

The liberal bias against Reagan and against “w” came form where ?

I was very apolitical until Bush came onto the scene. I had his number pegged going in -- when driving home on election day in 2000 I thumped the wheel in disgust when they announced he had taken FL -- and his administration was 10X a disaster than I was expecting.

His administration made every mistake they possibly could. I never hated the man, I just hate his stupidity and the stupidity of the people he put in power, and the stupid things they did that we now have to live with and mitigate if we can.

Troy says

My actual position is that various groups in California have problems with homosexual lifestyle and the homosexual agenda.

What exactly is the "homosexual agenda?" For years, I've heard that this so called "agenda" is pure fiction. Apparently you are saying there really is an agenda. Please explain in detail what that agenda is.

Troy says

There is no rational basis to oppose gay marriage

According to you, the 7 + million voters that voted against it must all be irrational. I have heard very rational, reasonable arguments against homosexual marriage. Apparently, according to you, the only "rational" thought that exists is that which agrees with yours. This is the same type of mentality that fueled the burning of the books in Nazi Germany.

marcus says

It can’t be easy Ray, being on the same team with so many idiots.

When it comes to idiots, neither political party is in short supply.

marcus says

I said you were going to hate what he does no matter what. And it’s probably not about race with you, it’s probably just political bias. (but the racism is there and even played to on the conservative side).

I take exception with part of your statement in which you imply that conservatives are racists. Here's an example that in my mind proves your assumption wrong: Ken Blackwell ran for Governor on the GOP side in Ohio and lost the election back in 2008. The reason? It wasn't because of the conservatives .... they (including me) loved the guy. It was because he was actually too conservative to appeal to the moderate GOPers in the state that ended up crossing over and voted for the Democrat. The conservatives I knew were very excited about Blackwell because we believed he was a possible future Presidential candidate. The moderates didn't like him because as a GOP Sec. of State, he sued a sitting GOP moderate Governor (Bob Taft) in order to repeal a hike in the state income tax. Now I ask you: if conservatives are so racially biased, as you imply, why did we admire and support Ken Blackwell (who happens to be black)?

marcus says

I said you were going to hate what he does no matter what. And it’s probably not about race with you, it’s probably just political bias.

That's probably true for a lot of people. On the flip side, there are a lot of people that were going to love and defend Obama no matter what. Seems to me that this forum has many more of the latter than the former.

RayAmerica says
Troy says

My actual position is that various groups in California have problems with homosexual lifestyle and the homosexual agenda.

What exactly is the “homosexual agenda?” For years, I’ve heard that this so called “agenda” is pure fiction. Apparently you are saying there really is an agenda. Please explain in detail what that agenda is.

Whatever it is, social conservatives are against it, obviously.

Troy says

There is no rational basis to oppose gay marriage

According to you, the 7 + million voters that voted against it must all be irrational. I have heard very rational, reasonable arguments against homosexual marriage. Apparently, according to you, the only “rational” thought that exists is that which agrees with yours.

Well I now have an official Findings of Fact that says there was no rational argument presented to the Judge in the Prop 8 case.

You may have heard a lot of stuff, but I note you failed to present any rational argument here to deny homosexual couples the right to married in the eyes of the Law.

The religious proponents of Prop 8 had no rational case so they didn't try to present one in Court. Nobody else wanted to defend this abortion of a law, not even Schwarzenegger, so that was that.

Evangelicals, Mormons, and conservative Catholics simply have no right to try to legislate their morality. They banded together and succeeded, but I think the Federal judge's decision on the matter was entirely correct, needed, and will stand.

This is the same type of mentality that fueled the burning of the books in Nazi Germany.

No, this is the type of mentality that created the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and 20th century advances like going to the moon.

Religion has no place in public policy. Keep your sloppy thinking in your church and in your home kthx.

RayAmerica says

According to you, the 7 + million voters that voted against it must all be irrational.

Who cares if they are rational or not? No US government entity should be able to pass laws regarding a citizen's personal life, assuming his/her actions don't infringe upon another's private property or personal safety.

Social issues are not justification to pass laws limiting any person's civil liberties.

RayAmerica says

Now I ask you: if conservatives are so racially biased, as you imply,

I never implied conservatives are racist. It's just that there are fair amount of racists in the party. And the propaganda machine seems to have no problem trying to appeal to their issues and fears (see birther movement). Of course they have a shotgun approach, it's not like the racist angle is the only way they go after Obama. There is also a more subtle sort of racism going on more broadly, and thats among the folks who have problems with Obama based on policy(not race), but it gets under their skin that his race may have some how helped him be elected, because of the youth vote, the black vote, and because of progressives getting extra energized by the fact that not only is this guy a gifted leader/politician, but he's African American which ads a whole other dimension to his progressive appeal.

Maybe many conservatives are even somehow envious of that whole aspect of it.

I often thought that the hate that I heard from conservatives toward Bill Clinton back in the 90s was in large part because he stole their thunder. He basically was an extremely effective conservative. Very fiscally conscious. A true fiscal conservative. It was his success that really pissed off conservatives.

Let's face it, you guys are sore losers and you exhibit terrible sportsmanship.

marcus says

Let’s face it, you guys are sore losers and you exhibit terrible sportsmanship.

that's the thing -- politics is not a game. It is as serious as a heart attack.

Obama's win in 2008 saved the court from becoming a 7-2 or 6-3 court for the foreseeable future.

When there's trillions of dollars on the line there's no such thing as sportsmanship. Just the winners and the losers.

tatupu70 says

Para–
OK– Here’s my take. The final days of the Bush presidency did see him change somewhat. It appears that Dick Cheney’s influence had waned and other advisors had gained more traction. So, I’ll agree that he probably did come up with a plan at the end of his 2nd term.
I won’t, however, give him much credit for it. He basically had to be led kicking and screaming to that decision…
I think it’s fair to say that the Bush administration failed in the Iraq war planning. And I also think it’s fair to say that the vast majority of the credit for the withdrawl goes to the current administration. If you want to give some small sliver to Bush, so be it.

I'm more interested in acknowledging facts and disputing blatant factual errors/ stereotypical propaganda than distributing credit for creation of the plan in the first place. Yes, it is fair to say that properly executing the plan (which would of course imply corrections if necessary) should go to Obama. Yes, it is fair to say that the Bush Admin developing a workable plan that Obama is largely following does not excuse earlier poor planning for the war or the war itself.

We may have some difference of opinion on some of the psychological analysis/opinion that you provide up front, but we largely agree your latter points. I take it at this point that we also agree that any claim that Bush had "no plan" and that Obama developed the plan to withdraw troops from Iraq is simply false?

marcus says

Let’s face it, you guys are sore losers and you exhibit terrible sportsmanship.

I was a big critic of Bush from early in his 2nd. term on and remain so. IMO, he was a fraudulent "conservative" that duped a lot of people (including me). Having said that, your above statement is comical. The left constantly attacked him as "Monkey Boy," the "Chimp," referred to him as "stupid," "deer in the headlights," etc. What was that? Good "sportsmanship?"

Troy says

No, this is the type of mentality that created the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment,

The "Enlightenment?" LOL ! Are you referring to the French Revolution? Everyone that refused to wear the Red Bonnet ended up getting their head lopped off. The "moral leader" and the "Voice of Virtue" Robespierre` railed against all "religion" i.e. Christianity. What few people refuse to recognize is that this wonderful leader of the French Revolution ultimately declared himself to be THE "Superior Being" which effectually began, in his mind, a new "religion." Robespierre` viewed himself to be a "god." Too bad his followers didn't bow at the altar he created for himself. He too lost his head to the glorious revolution. You can remove all Christian law and morality from society. The French proved this is possible as did the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, Maoists, etc. Don't be surprised when utter chaos and mass murder follows for all those that refuse to conform and bow to the beast that the state has created.

RayAmerica says

You can remove all Christian law and morality from society.

Seems to me that especially with religion, "morality" is determined arbitrarily. Nazis thought they were moral, and they killed homosexuals, along with jews and other groups, or sent them to concentration camps. Certainly we have done things that are morally questionable. DO we even talk about how many Iraqus died in this war, or "desert storm" before it ? Do we often consider the genocide of native americans ? Why didn't we let them stay, tolerate them, eventually mix with them, would that have been less moral ?

I'm not advocating Naziism or Maoism, and in fact I truly love America, but I don't have a blind eye to atrocities we have committed, even if we considered them justified.

So okay Ray, you think that giving in to Gay marriage is going to destroy our moral fabric ? Give me a break, the integrity of our moral fabric goes hand in hand with our staying as secular as possible. People like Mao and Hitler were like religious zealots they just took the "holier than thou" mentality to a higher level. And that is the mentality that always leads to the worst kinds of immorality.

RayAmerica says

he left constantly attacked him as “Monkey Boy,” the “Chimp,” referred to him as “stupid,” “deer in the headlights,”

Those were just observations, that anyone could see. A much older conservative friend of mine, was always bothered by the way he carried himself, you know the arms slightly bent like he was ready to "draw." G.W. was a guy who was not comfortable up on the stage, and it was painful to watch. He seemed to even intentionally play up the "they misunderestimated me" kind of things he would say. It worked for him somehow. Some people like feeling "hey this guy is a regular joe, I'd like to hang out with him, or go fishing with him."

In my view, Clinton and Obama both seem more like guys that would be easy and fun to hang out with for me, in spite of the fact that I don't see myself nearly their intellectual equal.

marcus says

Seems to me that especially with religion, “morality” is determined arbitrarily. Nazis thought they were moral,

marcus says

People like Mao and Hitler were like religious zealots they just took the “holier than thou” mentality to a higher level.

Can you clarify? You argue that religion determines morality arbitrarily but then use examples of extreme secular/anti-religious regimes as examples of immorality. And then it seems that you are arguing that there is no difference between an anti-religious and a religious tyrant because the anti-religious one is like a "religious zealot... to a higher level."

marcus says

And that is the mentality that always leads to the worst kinds of immorality.

We must remain as secular as possible, or secular tyrants will lead us to the worst type of immorality? Immorality based on what standard?

marcus says

Those were just observations, that anyone could see.

Translation: Right-wing attacks against Democratic Presidents are hateful and are false. Left-wing attacks against Republican Presidents are not hateful because they are just observations and are true.

More evidence that "Last US combat brigade exits Iraq" .... repeat after me: War is Peace, Ignorance is Freedom ....

http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/Statewide/Troops-still-deploying-to-Mideast-from-BIA,152133

Paralithodes says

Translation: Right-wing attacks against Democratic Presidents are hateful and are false. Left-wing attacks against Republican Presidents are not hateful because they are just observations and are true.

No.

I meant that they were surface physical observations, that I heard from conservatives too. We're talking superficial stuff here. If you say that Obama has big ears, or draw cartoon with him that way, that's what I would call simply an observation.

If you have a poster of him, with a hitler mustache, that's getting more weird and hateful.

By the way, there was more hateful lampooning kind of stuff Bush (such as the poster of him with a halo) but it was not nearly as mainstream. For example there was a false whitehouse website that was pretty nasty ( and very funny) towards Bush.

Paralithodes says

Translation: Right-wing attacks against Democratic Presidents are hateful and are false. Left-wing attacks against Republican Presidents are not hateful because they are just observations and are true.

Well, you have to admit that Bush looks like a monkey though. Right?

Paralithodes says

Can you clarify? You argue that religion determines morality arbitrarily but then use examples of extreme secular/anti-religious regimes as examples of immorality.

I guess it's still controversial whether Hitler was religious or not. I was thinking more about the genesis of immoral actions, rather than the secular government that tolerated implementation of the decisions. Likewise here, we were a secular government that was willing to kill native Americans, but the people who made the decisions would go to church on Sunday and pray, and then be able to feel good about themselves.

My point was maybe not so clear, but I believe that it is a sort of spiritual craziness (as I said taking "holier than thou" to a whole other level), that enables a Hitler or a Mao to do the things they did. They believed it was for a "higher good" which is a little different, than following religious law. But then we are allowed to break our moral code, when it fits our purposes. We are all sinners after all. Repent, be saved.

marcus says

I guess it’s still controversial whether Hitler was religious or not.

The only “controversy” I’m aware of is that many Jews erroneously believe Hitler was a "Christian." That misunderstanding arises from the fact that many Jews have a misconception that all gentiles are "Christian." In reality, Hitler was an occultist (the antithesis of Christianity) as revealed by his membership in the occultist Thule Society. He was also a devoted follower of the secular philosophers Fredrich Nietzsche and Charles Darwin. Darwin's "Descent of Man" was the basis of Hitler's belief in eugenics along with Darwin's teaching that the stronger race should, through the evolutionary process, eliminate the weaker races, etc. Aside from the use of his occasional, disheveled references to religion in general, Hitler was by no means "religious" by even the remotest definition of anything that would be considered orthodox.