Quote from: James J SkachUnless you are so unhinged as to only take "he doesn't share our values" as "HE'S GAY!" as opposed to "we don't think it's right for a man in his position of power to take advantage of a young page."

So you are honestly, sincerely, claiming with a totally straight face, that the scandal would have had precisely the same level of impact, all other things being considered, if Foley's chosen "victim" had been a 15 year old girl instead of a 15 year old boy?

QuoteBut this illustrates you Republicans = Evangelicals hyperbole.  There are Evangelicals that are Republicans. This does not make all Evangelicals Republicans, nor does it make all Republicans Evangelicals.

Who the fuck was saying that? I have been, over here, clearly stating that there's at least two opposing power blocs in the republican party, one of which are not religious in the least.
I'm talking about the influence of the Religious Right. I don't think I said, anywhere, that all evangelicals are republicans or vice versa.

QuoteBut being concerned over the bloodshed is only one factor as to whether or not one believes it's right to have gone in and/or stay.

Not if you're a real christian.

QuoteI don't know about evangelical pastors having anything to do with Republicans losing.  If you truly believe that...

Yes, I do believe it was not GAY! that made the scandal.

Haggard was an outspoken supporter of the Bush regime. His fall, as much as Foley's, helped tarnish the voter base's perception of Bush.
In fact, the Haggard scandal was by far the more significant of the two; since it has now cast the leadership of the Religious Right into question among many religious voters, who had previously supported these guys unquestioningly.  There is an increasingly large counter-movement going on among evangelicals that suggests that there's a reason why historically Evangelicals STAYED OUT of politics, and it was because of the kind of corrupting effects politics has on religion. The Haggard Scandal is giving more push to those in the Evangelical movement that favour completely dropping out of mainstream society into their own subculture, and ignoring american politics.

RPGPundit

Thanks, sigmund.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Sigmundhttp://constitution-first.org/

http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/fbci/index.html?src=qc

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/29/bush.faithbased.01/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinenceonly-education.html

Took about 3 minutes with Google.

Hey, thanks Pundit! :rolleyes:

Now, again, what on the huge laundry list that Pundit posted has the Administration ACTUALLY DONE or even TRIED to do? Not one of those links you posted addressed ANYTHING he claimed that BUSH has tried to do, just what his supporters WANT him to do. But hey, at least you tried.

His BACKERS on the far Right might want those things. HE might personally be in favor of those things. But what has HE TRIED TO PASS that is on that list? Just one, that's all I'm looking for here.

Remember the halcyon days, when the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House? Man, those were the days of prayer in schools and no condoms and overturning Roe v. Wade. Woo, boy, I remember all those things being implemented quite clearly, don't you?

I remember a lost of screaming about how it was COMING ANY DAY! OMFG ChRIGHTstians!! Run for the hills! Grab you birkenstocks and vacuum hoses on the way out!

But I don't seem to recall anything actually happening. I guess I slept through the early '00s.

James, that overconfidence could be your undoing. I'm not saying that the Christian coalition will ruin American society tomorrow.

But I am saying that you should consider that the Roman Empire went from its peak period of persecuting Christians to embracing Christianity as official religion in about 30 years.  Things can change very fast, if the right tactics are used.  And you guys aren't exactly throwing the baptists to the lions, regardless of what some fundamentalists like to claim. Religious fundamentalism already has massive influence in America, especially at the grassroots level.

So you need to ask yourself whether or not the people running that movement envision something, for their preferred form of government, that seems anything like what you would call America, and where you would want to feel safe living in.  And if the answer is "no", then you have to consider them your enemy, and be wary of them.

RPGPundit

Faith based charity ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Abstinence-only education ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Insistence on abstinence-only programs for UN aid in africa ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Outlawing stem-cell research ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

There's four, you stupid fucking cunt. Of course, you KNEW these things happened, but you were just playing a stupid rhetorical tactic to try to buy yourself wiggle space. Your next move will be to somehow ask me to "prove" these things happened, as if they didn't.

I mean, fuck you. If you seriously want to stake your bet in this debate on trying to claim that the Religious Right has less power and influence now in the U.S. than it did 8 years ago, you are doomed from the fucking start. Which is why you're nitpicking, because you know that in the bigger sense you don't have a rhetorical leg to stand on.

I'm going on tour in two days, I don't have time for this kiddy-crap bullshit. If you have a real argument, let's fucking hear it, otherwise stop wasting everyone's time.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat isn't the point. Their inability to do so is purely because they are not given the leeway to. But their ultimate goals are the real question.  The point is not "can they do it", it is, "if the insert group here had the power to do so, what society would they create? Would it be anything like America? Is it a place where you would want to live?".  That's what you should be considering.

RPGPundit

This could be said about any group with a strong, rigid agenda. It's also what makes America so great, that we can allow fringe groups to have a seat at the table while keeping them appropriately marginalized.

Quote from: RPGPunditFaith based charity ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Abstinence-only education ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Insistence on abstinence-only programs for UN aid in africa ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Outlawing stem-cell research ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

There's four, you stupid fucking cunt.

Actually only three of those actually happened... the government has not outlawed any form of Stem Cell research.

Quote from: ZalmoxisActually only three of those actually happened... the government has not outlawed any form of Stem Cell research.

And some state governments are moving to actively encourage it.

Federalism is hell of a drug.

Quote from: RPGPunditFaith based charity ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Abstinence-only education ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Insistence on abstinence-only programs for UN aid in africa ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Outlawing stem-cell research ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Nice tries.

Faith-Based initiatives DID happen, but not to the exclusion of all else. This one is the closest thing you have to a win, by the way.
Federally mandated abstinence-only education HAS NOT happened, despite the best efforts of the Religious Right, and Bush has done nothing to try to push it through. There is not one school district in America that teaches abstinence-only sex education.
UN/Africa: Abstinence is being recommended IN ADDITION TO condoms and all the other goodies. Its not the ONLY thing going, so that's a non-starter. And I think the last time I checked, we're still paying our UN dues (but that's another subject).
Stem cell research is NOT outlawed, only Federal Funding for certain types. There is plenty going on in the private sector.

So, that's 4 out of about 10+ you list. Not a good batting average, Pundy. Since you're so busy, I'll address alllll of your other points and you can reply if you like.

Quote from: RPGPunditHow about Faith-based initiatives for welfare; for education, vouchers, faith-based charities being favoured in national programs even if they're not even real charities (or even in the case of Hurricane Katrina, giving millions of dollars to a faith-based "relief" charity who's only "relief" was going to the afflicted areas to evangelize); not to mention abstinence-only education in schools (with public funding depending upon it), raising the legal drinking age, abstinence-only programs in Africa being a condition to the US paying its share of UN dues, theological litmus tests for US Supreme Court Judges (and Judges in general), the emboldening of religious groups to take over school boards and force "intelligent design" (aka young earth creationism) on science classes, forbidding stem-cell research, trying to turn back the clock on Roe Vs. Wade, and generally trying to blur the line in the separation of church and state at every turn?
Ah yes, not to mention invading Iraq because god told him to. Oh yes, and claiming that he won the presidency because god wanted it that way. The Divine Right at work, so much for those suckers who fought way back in 1776 to try to get rid of the very thing.

1) What ABOUT Faith-based initiatives fror welfare? Did all other forms of Welfare become illegal and I missed it? Its IN ADDITION TO, I believe.

2) Faith-based charities are being favored in Hurrican Relief? Really? This is in addition to the umpteen billions of FEMA aid and other disaster relief, or to the exclusion of it?

3) Raising the legal drinking age - as a National item? When did this come up before Congress for a vote?

4) Theological litmus tests for judges? What, you mean like requiring them to be pro-Choice? Oh wait, that's Democrats. I seem to recall lots of Chuck Schumer air-time devoted to soundbites about THAT, but not many about what religious faith a nominee was. In fact, not one judge that I can recall was EVER asked about his faith - since we're not supposed to do that, you see.

5) Religious groups taking over school boards? What, like the ones voted out in Kansas and Pensylvania for trying to have Darwinism declared a"theory" on a book sticker? And again, how is Bush or the Federal Government responsible for that?

6) Blurring the seperation of church and state at every turn? In what way? Do we have a National Religion now?

(Here's the part where I ask you to "prove" these things happened, as if they actually didn't, because since they DID, it must be all over the internet in news articles and such.)

YOU are the one making these claims, so it behooves you to support your arguments. You're an educated man, and a teacher, so you SHOULD be able to defend yourself with sourced facts as opposed to say-so. And I know you CAN - if you wanted to take the time.

Now, onward.

I never once said the Religious Right had LESS influence during the last 8 years, I only asked for an example of a clearly defined victory for their agenda. You can't provide one that is an unambiguous win for the Christo-Facists, apparently.

I'll ignore your ad-hominem attacks because I know its your style and you're under alot stress.

Quote from: WerekoalaHis BACKERS on the far Right might want those things. HE might personally be in favor of those things. But what has HE TRIED TO PASS that is on that list? Just one, that's all I'm looking for here.

I'd go farther and ask what actually passed. What people have tried to pass is pratically immaterial when discussing how America is led by/headed towards/in bed with/somehow related to any particular group. In fact, everything that group wants that tries to pass and fails is a point in favor of the "a religious government ain't gonna happen" crowd.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'd go farther and ask what actually passed. What people have tried to pass is pratically immaterial when discussing how America is led by/headed towards/in bed with/somehow related to any particular group. In fact, everything that group wants that tries to pass and fails is a point in favor of the "a religious government ain't gonna happen" crowd.

You'd thnk that, wouldn't you? Apparently not, at least 'round these parts.

Someone, I think it was Kat Harris, the harridan who helped keep the florida recount from being ran honeslty and gave w the white house, said that she didn;t care what the voters thought because "God picks america's leaders."

Holy Theocracy, Batman!

Seriously, if I had the resources to pull it off, I'd like to do a movie, or maybe a miniseries on cable, called "One nation, under God." about a near future when america is dominated by the ultra far right, with scenes of gays either being murdered, or taken to labs and subjeced to brain surgery to try to cure them.

Also women would be basically disenfranchised and silenced on all issues, under the biblical injunction that women are to be silent and have no authority over men.

I'd do one scene where a gamer refuses to let a 'god squad' confinscate and burn his game collection, and is shot for resisting them, because he'd rather die than live in that kind of world.

The god squads could also be seen confiscating all "unholy' books, art, personal belongings, etc, and forcing pepple to accept jesus or be shipped off to 'salvation camps'....

Sure, it'd piss the right off, that'd be the point. it would also be a way to scare a lot of people into voting against god squad types like bush and other conservatives.

Quote from: fonkaygarryAnd some state governments are moving to actively encourage it.

Federalism is hell of a drug.

QFT baby....god save the Republic...hehehe....

Wow...ummm...nox...yeah...all I ask is you keep agreeing with Pundy.  It really helps bolster the opposite viewpoint.  So thanks!

So let me see if I'm getting your point of view straight here: You're claiming that the Religious Right has managed to have no effect whatsoever on the political scene in the last 8 years, and yet you somehow admit that they do have MORE influence now than they had 8 years ago?

WTF?

RPGPundit