The dissent just has to get a lot louder, that’s all. Oh where are the young hotheads like I was in the sixties? “Hey, hey L.B.J, how many kids did you kill today?” “Hell, no we won’t go!” “Dick Nixon before he dicks you!”

Is everybody between the ages of 17 and 30 just watching American Idol?

Hey, I’m 19 as of last Thursday, and I hate Bush (and American Idol)!

Seriously, though….I wish people who thought like that lived around here….people in my neighborhood/town/city are a bunch of rednecks and pro-Bushies, or people who don’t give a shit.

What really pisses me off is when some jerk like Dennis Miller goes on Jay Leno and says that Bush is a good president simply because we haven’t had any widely-publicized terror attacks since 9/11. And to that I say, “Does 9/11 not count? You know, that was during Bush’s administration, too, but we always seem to skip that one over when we’re debating his competence.”

It seems to me that the only people who defend him do so on the grounds that he “learned from that mistake.” Which is a sick joke, really, because we pay him not to make mistakes like that.

Stephan:
“it was Vincent that suggested churches should not be eligible for government programs to help the needy. I never said there was a religious test, but Vincent suggested that there should be.”

Did not. I defy you to point to any place in my comments where I suggested there should be a religious test or that churches should not be eligible for government programs.

I object to religious groups getting preference. In fact, I object to the question of the group’s religious position even being mentioned or inquired into.
I do think it is impossible to ensure that the money is all directed to public good if it’s filtered through an organization that does non-charitable work in addition to its charitable work. Thus track record to me seems to be the best way of differentiating between organizations, and in that I would include the percentage of donations that actually get to the served community.

valhar2000 said,

June 27, 2007 at 6:47 am

Mriana said,

So, Valhar, are you saying you want everyone to believe in a myth, even when they know it’s a myth? That makes even less sense.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

I hope it’s sarcasm.

Can we impeach or disbar the five fascists on the Supreme Court?

Now that we can’t do, but we could change the number of judges on the Supreme Court. That’s just controlled by Act of Congress, not by the Constitution, so if one party ever manages to get a 60 vote majority to vote for cloture in the Senate and the presidency at the same time, they could technically say “You know, nine judges isn’t enough to decide such important issues. Why don’t we increase it to fifteen? We’ll just appoint another six judges now.” Not going to happen, of course.

So, Valhar, are you saying you want everyone to believe in a myth, even when they know it’s a myth? That makes even less sense.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Valhar, your paranoia is frightening. Get help.

Oh, boy, I’m an atheist who does not submit docilely to christian opression: I must be crazy!

He and his cronies refuse to acknowledge dissent in any way, shape or form, and this new ruling is just another example of that.

The dissent just has to get a lot louder, that’s all. Oh where are the young hotheads like I was in the sixties? “Hey, hey L.B.J, how many kids did you kill today?” “Hell, no we won’t go!” “Dick Nixon before he dicks you!”

Is everybody between the ages of 17 and 30 just watching American Idol?

Here’s the double-edged sword – if the government makes money available for non-profit organizations to help the needy, they shouldn’t say only Christian groups, or secular groups, or Muslim groups can have access to the money. Vincent seems to be suggesting that they should.

I think he was trying to say that all organizations should be allowed to receive funding based on the same premises, and not just on whether or not they are a religious group, as opposed to “religious groups shouldn’t receive funding at all.” Am I correct, Vincent?

You know the more I read about this, the more I get ticked off because so many times it states, “No one can challenge the President’s Faith-based inititive programs.” If we can’t challenge him on that, what is next? We can’t challenge him on Women’s reproductive rights, stem cell research, the war, etc?

It’s the same tactic Bush has used since the beginning: He can’t stand the fact that people disagree with him. It’s not enough that we can’t legally do anything about it—he seeks a society in which we are all forced to publicly acknowledge him as a positive force. Just last Thursday I was at a protest in Mobile when Bush came for a Jeff Sessions fundraiser, and when his car drove by, he wouldn’t even look at us–his head was turned towards the other side of the road the whole time. He and his cronies refuse to acknowledge dissent in any way, shape or form, and this new ruling is just another example of that.