Know your enemy: Random notes from Anne Coulter lovers...
Anne Coulter has a new book titled, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. The following are from a couple of raving loonies posting on the Amazon.com discussion group for the book:
"Yes and in the Democratic party one distinguishes oneself by, killing babies, spitting on soldiers, burning American flags and embracing such fine individuals as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. I'm glad that there are people like yourself J.E. Bishop who fell (sic) obligated at a moments notice not only to judge others of different beliefs but to insult them as well. You could really help yourself if you bothered for a second to learn something about the party you so vehemently oppose instead of watching George Clooney movies and jumping on the bandwagon.
The same person rambles on in another post, after complaining how others had taken his comments out of context (although the above paragraph was an entire post):
"I guess I've got a chip on my shoulder, you would too if every time you went to the movies you had to see some dumb conservative redneck beating up a gay guy or yelling racial slurs, while the wise all-knowing liberal comes to the rescue."
Wow. He's hit the nail right on the head, there. Who isn't tired of seeing a goddamned liberal interfering with a redneck asshole's right to commit hate crimes in a movie theater?
Then there's this guy, who in one sentence says, "...I really dont (sic) think that you can argue that "ungodly" people are "godly" people when you put in gay rights. The Bible is black and white clear on gods (sic) views on gay activites (sic)," then goes on to say that "The brillance of our founding fathers is that they did not make it a law that you had to follow a certain religon (sic) to be a citizen or a member of the United States goverment (sic). They left it up to (sic) people's choice similar to what God does (sic) you have a choice to follow and believe or not." What's missing and implied from the end, I think, is "as long as you follow the beliefs of my religion."
Aside from the obvious, which is that each of these morons would fail 7th grade English comp, does anyone else see a problem here?
(EDIT)
Folks, you might start to notice (if that's possible, given my highly irregular posting) that I might start using terms harsher than "raving loony" and "moron" to describe, well--raving loonies and morons. I'm not a math whiz, but through personal discussions and media research I've added 2 and 2 and found this answer: Republican = Conservative = Fundamentalist, when it comes down to a vote. Sure, I believe that there are "fiscal Republicans"; those who think that the current administration will provide legislation that will best keep them (or help them become) wealthy. I also know that there are a large group of people who watch Fox News exclusively, and still believe that our glorious leader led us into Iraq due to her ties to 9/11 and WMD stockpiles. Ballots, however, aren't divided into issues. A vote for the prolonging of tax breaks for the wealthy is a vote to give the "religious" right a stronger foothold into your day-to-day existence. The fundamentalist agenda is the veil that keeps the goals of the RNC shielded from view. The issues are shown to be hard, honest work and the right to die of an undetected cancer, secure in the knowledge that God or George W. hisself is going to make you $$RICH$$ one day vs. free health care. The right to beat up "gays" (for the Bible tells them so) vs. the right of all Americans to be safe from persecution according to their lifestyle or beliefs. The right to use our military for corporate trough-lining vs. the assumption in every service member's mind that the U.S. government would never send them to die for anything less than the safety and security of the people they care about.
A year and a half ago, it was 51-49 THEM. I strongly urge everyone to write their representatives, get involved in local politics--do whatever you can to help take our country back from these backwards, murderous, racist, greedy people.
Anne Coulter has a new book titled, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. The following are from a couple of raving loonies posting on the Amazon.com discussion group for the book:
"Yes and in the Democratic party one distinguishes oneself by, killing babies, spitting on soldiers, burning American flags and embracing such fine individuals as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. I'm glad that there are people like yourself J.E. Bishop who fell (sic) obligated at a moments notice not only to judge others of different beliefs but to insult them as well. You could really help yourself if you bothered for a second to learn something about the party you so vehemently oppose instead of watching George Clooney movies and jumping on the bandwagon.
The same person rambles on in another post, after complaining how others had taken his comments out of context (although the above paragraph was an entire post):
"I guess I've got a chip on my shoulder, you would too if every time you went to the movies you had to see some dumb conservative redneck beating up a gay guy or yelling racial slurs, while the wise all-knowing liberal comes to the rescue."
Wow. He's hit the nail right on the head, there. Who isn't tired of seeing a goddamned liberal interfering with a redneck asshole's right to commit hate crimes in a movie theater?
Then there's this guy, who in one sentence says, "...I really dont (sic) think that you can argue that "ungodly" people are "godly" people when you put in gay rights. The Bible is black and white clear on gods (sic) views on gay activites (sic)," then goes on to say that "The brillance of our founding fathers is that they did not make it a law that you had to follow a certain religon (sic) to be a citizen or a member of the United States goverment (sic). They left it up to (sic) people's choice similar to what God does (sic) you have a choice to follow and believe or not." What's missing and implied from the end, I think, is "as long as you follow the beliefs of my religion."
Aside from the obvious, which is that each of these morons would fail 7th grade English comp, does anyone else see a problem here?
(EDIT)
Folks, you might start to notice (if that's possible, given my highly irregular posting) that I might start using terms harsher than "raving loony" and "moron" to describe, well--raving loonies and morons. I'm not a math whiz, but through personal discussions and media research I've added 2 and 2 and found this answer: Republican = Conservative = Fundamentalist, when it comes down to a vote. Sure, I believe that there are "fiscal Republicans"; those who think that the current administration will provide legislation that will best keep them (or help them become) wealthy. I also know that there are a large group of people who watch Fox News exclusively, and still believe that our glorious leader led us into Iraq due to her ties to 9/11 and WMD stockpiles. Ballots, however, aren't divided into issues. A vote for the prolonging of tax breaks for the wealthy is a vote to give the "religious" right a stronger foothold into your day-to-day existence. The fundamentalist agenda is the veil that keeps the goals of the RNC shielded from view. The issues are shown to be hard, honest work and the right to die of an undetected cancer, secure in the knowledge that God or George W. hisself is going to make you $$RICH$$ one day vs. free health care. The right to beat up "gays" (for the Bible tells them so) vs. the right of all Americans to be safe from persecution according to their lifestyle or beliefs. The right to use our military for corporate trough-lining vs. the assumption in every service member's mind that the U.S. government would never send them to die for anything less than the safety and security of the people they care about.
A year and a half ago, it was 51-49 THEM. I strongly urge everyone to write their representatives, get involved in local politics--do whatever you can to help take our country back from these backwards, murderous, racist, greedy people.
posted by Woof at 7:12 PM
3 Comments:
Mike,
Your evidence for
Conservative = Fundamentalist = Republican is not exactly weak, but just totally lacking :-)
As you know I am am an atheist fiscal conservative and a Bush supporter. Particularly so against the democratic opponents that he had in the last two elections. It is my belief that the majority of people around Bush are of similar views to myself. Except Bush, none of them comes across religious, I am not even talking about "fundamentalist". Neo-cons in particular are a socially liberal group of politicians. Oh, and I don't see anything wrong with religious people like Bush as long as they don't impose their views/practices on others.
Also, it is worth noting that A VERY LARGE number of fundementalists are left-wingers. I was in the car with two socialist gentlemen, one of Irish, the other of Mexican discent. Both of them were telling about "god's views on gays" as if they heard it from the primary source.
Nice to see you here, pal!
But...
One thing that was taught me during my religious upbringing was to respect those in authority. Not, "ensure that the best people are in authority," but more along the lines of, "if someone is in authority, God must have put him there." There are actual paintings for sale here showing Bush on his knees with a ray of light spotlighting his open Bible, presumably on a passage that he's having particular trouble stumbling through. Did God tell him to stall on the facts surrounding WMDs in and 9/11 ties to Iraq? Did God tell him to choose a cabinet full of oilmen and women? One issue that constantly divides this country around election time is abortion. Now, we have the gay marriage issue that further stirs up the section of the country that the Republicans target as people who can keep them in power.
No, I don't literally believe that all Republicans are Fundamentalist Christians. What I do believe is that a vote for any Republican is a vote towards moving this country in the direction of religious and racial persecution, and towards an even bigger division between the haves and the have-nots.
You wrote: "...I don't see anything wrong with religious people like Bush as long as they don't impose their views/practices on others." You don't believe that Bush's padding of the Supreme Court had anything to do with his desire to have Roe v. Wade overturned, or to possibly even turn the same-sex marriage issue into a work of federal legislation?
Admittedly, the Democrats may not have had a great plan of action in 2004. Unlike the Bush team, though, they didn't stuff their rhetoric in a flag-draped Bible and direct it at people who'd been force-fed to believe that hordes of Iraqis would soon be setting off dirty bombs in their neighborhoods.
Lastly, I've honestly heard more grumbling and complaining about Democrats from Republicans than I've heard praise for Bush. If you can come up with any concrete evidence that he's done anything great for all Americans--not just the 51% "mandate," I'd like to hear about it. No, a tax refund that did nothing but slightly stir up the economy while the deficit continued to sharply increase doesn't count.
Nice to hear an opposing viewpoint, Shlemazl--though I'll admit I'm glad you're not allowed to vote here ;). I may not be able to post for a few days...I don't want you to feel that I'm ignoring my Canadian audience (which consists solely of you).
Cheers!
Hi Mike:
Thanks for a detailed reply.
I accept your point about the Supreme Court and about potential risk of votes going the wrong way in the future. Stem cell research issue and funding for contraceptives in Africa are the two examples actual consequences. This has to do more with some of the Bush's constituents than with Republican leadership. Had there been more people like me voting for Bush, he would not have been forced to pander to fundamentalists.
Yet I believe all these problems to be relatively minor when compared against the advantage of having a world leader who means what he says. Saddam miscalculated, carried on messing about and paid the price. Muammar Caddafi suddenly became very responsible. Bush made a point about Lebanon and ... Syria left. I believe Bush is our best chance of avoiding a military action in Iran. When time comes to make a clear statement on Iran, Ahmadenjad better believe Bush.
Oh, and do you like French girls? Have you noticed that they are also fond of bush?
Enjoy your trip.
Post a Comment
<< Home