GOP - God's Official Party...

[Repo]

George W. Bush won the presidency with 59,459,765 votes to John Kerry's 55,949,407 votes and he won the Electoral College on top of it, not because he has proven himself capable of doing anything right but because he was able to get America's religious churchgoers to the polls and vote for him. Regardless of what he and his followers say it was not a mandate, yes he turned Iowa and New Mexico from blue to red states but New Hampshire turned from red to blue. Unlike real mandates from past Republican presidents California, Illinois and New York stayed blue and 55,949,407 people voted for Kerry. What Bush managed to do was appeal to the churchgoers of America on the so-called moral values issues. For Kerry's part I thought he ran a good campaign; he did everything he could possibly do. He threw back the phony swift boat allegations, had the military resume and looked presidential. As much as I like Howard Dean, if he would have been the candidate the Republican smear campaign would have eaten him up and spit him out. Dean only got religion on the campaign trail and had no military experience. John Kerry did everything right he didn't lose because of mistakes he lost because Bush used his religion to appeal to the religious and the Republicans in a brilliant strategy put propositions on important state ballots defining marriage between a man and a woman. This brought out the vote; it gave a reason for people to get to the polls and it put Democrats and John Kerry in the position of having to defend gays. We all know of the Log Cabin Republicans, so how exactly did the Democrats become the party of gays? Homosexuality is frowned upon in the Bible and whenever you start messing with the Bible you are going to lose. The churchgoers don't like abortion and don't like homosexuality so when the Republicans make those the issues it doesn't matter how bad their candidate is, they'll win every time. If the Democrats don't want to be perpetual losers, they have to stop defending gay rights, it is literally a no win proposition in the red states. However the Democrats' problems don't stop with abortion and gay rights on the contrary it is only the beginning of a much larger problem. Many churchgoers see the Republicans as the party of moral values and see the Democrats as the party of Hollywood elites. Those churchgoers that are tired of the sex on both television and in the movies and its influence on society have fought back at the polls. They have elected a devoutly religious president and an equally religious Republican Party to control Congress. The silent majority is no longer silent, they are loud and in control of the country. As my father always says, "Cheer up, the worst is yet to come," and it is...

Things aren't going to change anytime soon; the Republicans see a winning strategy and will use it in the next presidential election in 2008. It's religion, stupid! The only way Republicans can keep winning the White House and Congress is to make religion the issue. That gets their constituency into the voting booth. If you want to know what the issue will be in 2008 all you have to do is look in the news today...

The Grantsburg, Wisconsin school board has revised its science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism. Those against teaching creationism are the so-called elitist intellectuals; those for teaching it are the religious churchgoers that claim moral values. It is the classic religion versus science fight that has been around for as long as there has been science. So come 2008 the Republicans will put propositions on important state ballots mandating the teaching of creationism in public schools. The Democrats will come out against teaching creationism with the Republicans in favor of teaching creationism and smear Democrats as working against God and you guessed it the religious church goers will flock to the polls and elect another Republican president (Jeb Bush) and a Republican Congress in the name of God...

The Bible Belt has expanded from the South all the way to the Dakotas and the Republicans are ready and willing to take advantage of this religious block of voters. The GOP now stands for God's Official Party and the Democrats might as well nominate Satan as their presidential candidate because when you run against God in America you lose every time. The Republican Party is America's Hizballah (Party of God), some might argue that one is an organization that uses terror for political gain and the other a legitimate organization, I'll let you decide which is which, that said, the GOP now have a winning formula, It's religion, Stupid!!!

[malvachat]

Sorry mate,
you might not like it.
It's called democracy.
We were landed with that bitch Thatcher for years.
Now that was "stupid"

[JackSpratts]

actualy it's called theocracy and we're well on our way toward it.

- js.

[RoBoBoy]

NO your wrong

I doubt he's wrong

there is a new orthodoxy built around the exit-poll finding that more voters (22%) cited "moral values" as the reason for their presidential choice than any other factor. Democrats are seizing upon this as evidence that the party needs to find candidates and campaign language that appeal to religiously motivated voters.

[jcmd62]

Originally Posted by RoBoBoy

I doubt he's wrong

REpo is totally WRONG! Religion had little to do with this election. As painful/wrong/whether you just plain choose not to believe it.........TERRORISM decided this election. The American people made a clear statement that they feel Terrorism is a real THREAT to our FREEDOM and values.

[RoBoBoy]

Originally Posted by jcmd62

REpo is totally WRONG! Religion had little to do with this election.

I'm not much for argueing for the sake of argueing, which seems to be you're style but to state he's absolutely wrong suggests you know something the rest of us don't. Perhaps in your grand style of pounding the pulpit you can break it down for us how he's absolutely wrong.

Your brash statement of fact suggest it wasn't a critical contributing factor to GW's re-election.

[RoBoBoy]

When the Personal Shouldn't Be Political
The New York Times
By GARY HART
November 8, 2004

Kittredge, Colo. — If America has entered one of its periodic eras of religious revival and if that revival is having the profound impact on politics that is now presumed, to participate in a discussion of "faith" one must qualify oneself. I was raised in the Church of the Nazarene, an evangelical denomination founded a century ago as an offshoot of American Methodism, which, the church founders believed, had become too liberal. I graduated from Bethany Nazarene College, where I met and
married my wife, who was also brought up in the church. I then
graduated from the Yale Divinity School as preparation for a life of
teaching religion and philosophy.
The Nazarene Church abhorred drinking, smoking, dancing, movies and
female adornment, believed in salvation through being "born again"
and in sanctification as a second act of grace, and resisted most
popular culture as the devil's work. In doctrine and practice, it
was much more evangelical than fundamentalist.
A neglected thread of church doctrine was the social gospel of John
and Charles Wesley, the great reformers of late 18th-century
Methodism. The Wesley brothers preached salvation through grace but
also preached the duty of Christians, based solidly on Jesus'
teachings, to minister to those less fortunate. My political
philosophy springs directly from Jesus' teachings and is the reason
I became active in the Democratic Party. Finally, in the
qualification-to-speak category, I will seek to pre-empt the ad
hominem disqualifiers. I am a sinner. I only ask for the same degree
of forgiveness from my many critics that they were willing to grant
George W. Bush for his transgressions.
As a candidate for public office, I chose not to place my beliefs in
the center of my appeal for support because I am also a
Jeffersonian; that is to say, I believe that one's religious beliefs
- though they will and should affect one's outlook on public policy
and life - are personal and that America is a secular, not a
theocratic, republic. Because of this, it should concern us that
declarations of "faith" are quickly becoming a condition for seeking
public office.
Declarations of "faith" are abstractions that permit both voters and
candidates to fill in the blanks with their own religious beliefs.
There are two dangers here. One is the merging of church and state.
The other is rank hypocrisy. Having claimed moral authority to
achieve political victory, religious conservatives should be very
careful, in their administration of the public trust, to live up to
the standards they have claimed for themselves. They should also be
called upon to address the teachings of Jesus and the prophets
concerning care for the poor, the barriers that wealth presents to
entering heaven, the blessings on the peacemakers, and the belief
that no person should be left behind.
If we are to insert "faith" into the public dialogue more directly
and assertively, let's not be selective. Let's go all the way. Let's
not just define "faith" in terms of the law and judgment; let's
define it also in terms of love, caring, forgiveness. Compassionate
conservatives can believe social ills should be addressed by charity
and the private sector; liberals can believe that the government has
a role to play in correcting social injustice. But both can agree
that human need, poverty, homelessness, illiteracy and sickness must
be addressed. Liberals are not against religion. They are against
hypocrisy, exclusion and judgmentalism. They resist the notion that
one side or the other possesses "the truth" to the exclusion of
others. There is a great difference between Cotton Mather and John
Wesley.
There is also the disturbing tendency to insert theocratic
principles into the vision of America's role in the world. There is
evil in the world. Nowhere in our Constitution or founding documents
is there support for the proposition that the United States was
given a special dispensation to eliminate it. Surely Saddam Hussein
was an evil dictator. But there are quite a few of those still
around and no one is advocating eliminating them. Neither
Washington, Adams, Madison nor Jefferson saw America as the world's
avenging angel. Any notion of going abroad seeking demons to destroy
concerned them above all else. Mr. Bush's venture into crusaderism
frightened not only Muslims, it also frightened a very large number
of Americans with a sense of their own history.
The religions of Abraham all teach a sense of personal and
collective humility. It was a note briefly struck very early by Mr.
Bush and largely abandoned thereafter. It would be well for those in
the second Bush term to ponder that attribute. Whether Bush
supporters care or not, people around the world now see America as
arrogant, self-righteous and superior. These are not qualities of
any traditional faith I am aware of.
If faith now drives our politics, at the very least let's make it a
faith of inclusion, genuine compassion, humility, justice and
accountability. In the words of the prophet Micah: "He hath shown
thee, O man, what is good. What doth the Lord require of thee, but
to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"
And, instead of "O man," let's insert "O America."
Gary Hart, the former Democratic senator from Colorado, is the
author, most recently, of"The Fourth Power: A Grand Strategy for the United States in the 21st Century.''

Sorry for the long C&P but some may not subcsribe to the Times or want to register

[thinker]

JFK said once that if you win by one vote, then you have a mandate. With all the shit flying around on whether GWB got a mandate or not, take that into consideration, as well as the fact that:

he is the first presidential candidate since George H.W. Bush in 1988 to receive over 50% of the popular vote;

he turned over two states to Kerry's one, that being New Hampshire which was still close and was likely on Kerry's side primarily because of his Masshole influence;

and it doesn't matter who you get out there on your side as long as they are legit voters. The last Democratic candidate to receive more than 50% was Jimmy Carter in 1976 (50.1%), and we all know what a prince he was.


Although there is no candidate out there that truly fits my views, I can look at the election itself and say that it was pretty legit. If Kerry won the same way, I would still be able to say that. So there are certain people out there who need to "move on" and accept the fact that even though the candidate of their choice did not win, it was a mandate.

[RoBoBoy]

Originally Posted by thinker

So there are certain people out there who need to "move on" and accept the fact that even though the candidate of their choice did not win, it was a mandate.

No one's question the legitimacy of GW's re-election. The debate, in my opinion, appears to be about him.

[jcmd62]

Originally Posted by RoBoBoy

I'm not much for argueing for the sake of argueing, which seems to be you're style but to state he's absolutely wrong suggests you know something the rest of us don't. Perhaps in your grand style of pounding the pulpit you can break it down for us how he's absolutely wrong.

Your brash statement of fact suggest it wasn't a critical contributing factor to GW's re-election.

Just for the record I explained my position and explained why Repo is WRONG.

Unfortunately someone (with higher powers) wiped out all but the one statement you read above and wasn't able to repair their damage to my post.

So my post is quite out of context with out my explanation on why repos religion idea is a joke. Quit reading/believing exit polls. They are only as accurate as the human beings taking them.

[RoBoBoy]

Originally Posted by jcmd62

Quit reading/believing exit polls. They are only as accurate as the human beings taking them.

This may be off topic but since this is a thread about religion, maybe not. Religious zealots believe in something that may or may not exist. Can you prove God exists or will you only talk about why you think or believe he exsists.

Exit polls, or whatever are something many "might" believe or have faith in. And like God, who can prove or disprove them?

[jcmd62]

Originally Posted by RoBoBoy

This may be off topic but since this is a thread about religion, maybe not. Religious zealots believe in something that may or may not exist. Can you prove God exists or will you only talk about why you think or believe he exsists.

Exit polls, or whatever are something many "might" believe or have faith in. And like God, who can prove or disprove them?

When are you going to figure out that you don't need to prove nor does it matter if God really exists. What matters is what you can make people believe and most importantly how you USE God.

Just ask Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Bennie Hind, Catholic Priests.....

So George W. says he prays to God to give him strength and guidance......Yes he really relied on the religion issue......being the focal point of EVERY discussion.......bullshit!

The whole election was based on two questions...Is Terrorism a real threat to Americas security and Freedom? and which candidate will do a better job protecting us from this threat should the nation decide a threat exists.

Jobs, the economy, religion, stock market, TAXES, all of it was ALWAYS secondary to Terrorism and the war on it. Republicans knew this was the #1 issue in this election and the Democrats never figured it out. They never gave the American people a viable alternative to fight terrorism than the way the war was already progressing. Hell Kerry had so many different spins on how he would or wouldn't fight the war on terrorism that you couldn't be sure whether he would stay the course or pull our troops out and run away with our tails tucked.

George may be a dumbass but he was firm and never waivered from his stand on Terrorism and the war on it. Right or wrong the American people decided that Terrorism exists and presents a clear and present danger to our citizens both at home and abroad, and they elected the Candidate that they felt would better protect us from this threat. Its clear that the American people like that we are taking the fight to the terrorists and not sitting around with our heads buried in the sand waiting for the next attack like we did for 8 years under Clintons pathetic presidency.

[multi]

Originally Posted by jcmd62

When are you going to figure out that you don't need to prove nor does it matter if God really exists. What matters is what you can make people believe and most importantly how you USE God.

Just ask Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Bennie Hind, Catholic Priests.....

So George W. says he prays to God to give him strength and guidance......Yes he really relied on the religion issue......being the focal point of EVERY discussion.......bullshit!

The whole election was based on two questions...Is Terrorism a real threat to Americas security and Freedom? and which candidate will do a better job protecting us from this threat should the nation decide a threat exists.

Jobs, the economy, religion, stock market, TAXES, all of it was ALWAYS secondary to Terrorism and the war on it. Republicans knew this was the #1 issue in this election and the Democrats never figured it out. They never gave the American people a viable alternative to fight terrorism than the way the war was already progressing. Hell Kerry had so many different spins on how he would or wouldn't fight the war on terrorism that you couldn't be sure whether he would stay the course or pull our troops out and run away with our tails tucked.

George may be a dumbass but he was firm and never waivered from his stand on Terrorism and the war on it. Right or wrong the American people decided that Terrorism exists and presents a clear and present danger to our citizens both at home and abroad, and they elected the Candidate that they felt would better protect us from this threat. Its clear that the American people like that we are taking the fight to the terrorists and not sitting around with our heads buried in the sand waiting for the next attack like we did for 8 years under Clintons pathetic presidency.

The devil is in the details

"I think it is sinful of them to encourage pastors and churches to engage in partisan political activity and run the risk of losing their tax-exempt status," said Steve Rosenthal, chief executive officer of America Coming Together, a group working to defeat Bush.

The instruction sheet circulated by the Bush-Cheney campaign to religious volunteers lists 22 "duties" to be performed by specific dates. By July 31, for example, volunteers are to "send your Church Directory to your State Bush-Cheney '04 Headquarters or give [it] to a BC04 Field Rep" and "Talk to your Pastor about holding a Citizenship Sunday and Voter Registration Drive."

By Aug. 15, they are to "talk to your Church's seniors or 20-30 something group about Bush/Cheney '04" and "recruit 5 more people in your church to volunteer for the Bush Cheney campaign."

By Sept. 17, they are to host at least two campaign-related potluck dinners with church members, and in October they are to "finish calling all Pro-Bush members of your church," "finish distributing Voter Guides in your church" and place notices on church bulletin boards or in Sunday programs "about all Christian citizens needing to vote."

The document was provided to The Washington Post by a Democrat. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service (news - web sites), Frank Keith, said, "It would be inappropriate for the IRS, based on a limited set of facts and circumstances, to render a judgment about whether the activities in this document would or would not endanger a church's tax-exempt status."

He pointed out, however, that the IRS on June 10 sent a strongly worded letter to both the Republican and Democratic national committees, reminding them that tax-exempt charitable groups "are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office."

That warning came one week after The Post and other news media reported on a Bush-Cheney campaign e-mail that sought to identify 1,600 "friendly congregations" in Pennsylvania where Bush supporters "might gather on a regular basis."

The IRS letter noted that religious organizations are allowed to sponsor debates, distribute voter guides and conduct voter registration drives. But if those efforts show "a preference for or against a certain candidate or party . . . it becomes a prohibited activity," the letter said.

Milton Cerny, a tax specialist in the Washington office of the law firm Caplin & Drysdale who formerly administered tax-exempt groups for the IRS, said there is nothing in the campaign instructions "that on its face clearly would violate" the law.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...19082_2004jun30

posted this earlier this year..

[RoBoBoy]

What matters is what you can make people believe

Now that you've said it, think about it. Its's not what actually may be, it's the perception you can create in peoples minds.

Just ask Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Bennie Hind, Catholic Priests.....

You forgot Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Qaddafi, Juan Perez and Ayatolla Khomeini. If you're going to talk about people creating and preaching false pretenses, include them all. But as has been established, if you "believe" it, then it must be so.

It seems GW has succeeded in making you believe

[albed]

Kerry didn't show any more loyality to his religion than he did to his first marriage, or to his military comrades. It was just another phony pose that contrasted with Bush's sincerity. Whether you're religious or not you'll pick the sincere person over the phony unless you're brainwashed by your own irrational idealogy.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

unless you're brainwashed by your own irrational idealogy

Such as believing that the particular kind of terrorism America experienced, wrought by radical Islamic fundamentalist cells, which has, according to Jughead, gotten all the brave, astute republicans pissing their pants like little girls, can actually be prevented from happening again by going halfway across the world and interferring with the infrastructure of the entire Islamic world, assured that they will embrace us with open arms as their saviors, just like they're doing in Falluja at this very moment.

[albed]

Wow! I didn't think even you could get something so backward. The military is over there fighting and killing them, not trying to embrace them

[Ramona_A_Stone]

You're so cute when you pretend to be an utter moron, it's so lifelike.


Meanwhile, Al Qaeda cells in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania, Sudan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Chechnya, Somalia, Eritrea, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Uruguay, Ecuador, Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania, the UK, Canada and right here at home are no doubt cheering us on, and waiting their turn.

Too bad that four more years won't give Bush an opportunity to complete more than a fraction of his lonely "global war on terrorism" to keep you misguided armchair warriors entertained.

[RoBoBoy]

"unless you're brainwashed by your own irrational idealogy"

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Such as believing that the particular kind of terrorism America experienced, wrought by radical Islamic fundamentalist cells, which has, according to Jughead, gotten all the brave, astute republicans pissing their pants like little girls, can actually be prevented from happening again by going halfway across the world and interferring with the infrastructure of the entire Islamic world, assured that they will embrace us with open arms as their saviors, just like they're doing in Falluja at this very moment.

First I don't believe the USA is interferring with the entire Islamic World, in fact only a small percent of it. Most if not all terrorist come from Wahhabism belief which is the Saudi brand of Islam. Wahhabism demands world conquest, a mission order from God. Encouraging suicide missions, assuring those who did a wonderful time in the afterlife. Also Wahhabism is a form of Sunni Islam which 20% of Iraq - including Saddam -are followers. I believe most of Iraq welcome the USA into their country.

The other 20% - Well, When you’re on a mission from God, the ends justify the means. So they believe anyways,