Bush Haters Association - debate,discuss

2004-08-29 [Dil*]: umm..not much happening here..someone should start something off..

2004-08-31 [Mitul]: Well, how about something on a bit of the more obsure stuff concerning Bush? Like mention of the Skull and Bones society, etc?

2004-09-04 [Goldice]: can i also say.were not gangsters or anythin nd sum things really dont suit so proper words plz

2004-09-25 [Zulu]: i wonder if bush ever passed preschool?

2004-09-26 [Goldice]: probably not, which is why he stills throws his toys out his pram when he gets angry

2004-09-27 [Rondel]: Can I suggest that we stick to dealing with the real problems with Bush? There are enough of them, and they carry more weight (as do most comments about people) if we are honest about *both* his good & bad side, including avoiding the kind of exaggerated statement or speculation which might detract from the credibility of the important & valid points that need to be made. In other words, saying that Bush didn't pass preschool & throws his toys out of the pram doesn't help get people to see that (for instance) he is bringing back the Crusades (by making war on the basis of his religious beliefs, and in order to loot the region's wealth), even calling them by the same term.

2004-10-20 [kduncan]: You're absolutely correct in what you say in your comments above, [mnightshade]. I've long thought that the war in Iraq is a diversionary technique, as well as providing a source of oil for oil hungry US citizens. (appointed) President Bush really doesn't really have a platform to stand on - his domestic policies have been a dismal failure. The search for bin Laden is laughable at this point and, if anything, has made terrorists realise that America isn't serious in bringing them to justice. Opium poppy production in Afghanistan has sky-rocketed under American occupation; freedoms in the US have actually taken a few steps backwards, health care (a basic right of all people) is becoming more

2004-10-20 [kduncan]: and more inaccessable to average Americans. Social programs are the bane of conservatives, and we see the President promoting "voluntary", religious-based programs which have never been a success. Education?? Forget it! This administration is clearly better off if the voting population is uneducated - hard for voters to argue your platform if they can't read or write. Bush has been a failure all his life: he hasn't done one thing fully on his own in which he hasn't relied on his family name/connections. It's time we fired his arse.

2004-10-21 [mnightshade]: It's scary that I never thought about his motives for "education" in that way, but it does make alot of sense. I always just thought he was striving to line his own pocket in a simplified form, but an uneducated america does equal uneducated voters, and the youth of today will have a say in the ballot of the future. sadly, I haven't watched Fahrenheit 9/11 as of yet, but it's in my playstation, and I should have alot more to discuss tomorrow. I'm glad to see that someone read my long (but whole-hearted) attempt to put things in perspective.

2004-10-21 [mnightshade]: Anyone who hasn't seen Fahrenheir 9/11 rent it now. Do not let your little children watch it. May the God and Goddess help us all.

2004-10-21 [Rondel]: One of the more cogent assessments of the reality of the situation that I've seen here, [mnightshade]. Thanks for sharing that analysis with us. Frankly, I think that the loss of the right to protest is one of the least-discussed yet most lamentable aspects of the changes of recent years -- because (in conjunction with political changes) it has left the people with no way to speak up in their own right, and have their voice be seen and heard. Personally, I think that's one of the things people like most about Michael Moore -- he's found a way to get an opposing voice heard, despite some amazingly nasty challenges.

2004-10-21 [kduncan]: I find it interesting that Bush's campaign ralleys are closed to non-republicans.. or at least closed to people who don't support Bush. To get into a Bush ralley, one must not be carrying any signage ("they" will provide any signage you need), you cannot be wearing any clothing that has anti-Bush slogans, and you have to sign a pledge promising to support Bush in his bid for re-election. Dissent is definitely not permitted, and I find this absolutely frightening.

2004-10-22 [Rondel]: What is even more disturbing, to me, is that the same people who promote this policy with regard to Bush rallies are the same ones who are out there picketing the Kerry rallies, trying to overshadow, drown out, and otherwise disrupt the ability of the assembled gathering to serve its purpose. So much for "equal treatment under law", not to mention "freedom of speech", "freedom of assembly", and all those other pesky amendments that get in the way of a fascist dictatorship. It's not that I think that they're right to suppress others, but I think that they fear disruption by others simply because it is their own stock in trade.

2004-10-22 [kduncan]: Yeah, sort of ironic, isn't it?

2004-10-23 [Rondel]: Ironic, but not entirely surprising, unfortunately; I've found that people are most afraid of other people doing to them the evils which they are themselves willing to visit upon others.

2004-11-03 [i am gelfling]:

2004-12-22 [kduncan]: Thanks for posting those, Rondel. I find the quote from Lincoln (the first one) particularly haunting, especially since his words have proven to be so accurate.

2004-12-22 [Dil*]: nice quotes.

2004-12-22 [Rondel]: Oh I know, [kduncan], I know. That's the one that got me reading, though there was enough in the others to keep me reading -- and nag at me until I saved the quotes, posted about them, and finally posted them here -- and I had heatstroke today, so I could barely think. I guess that shows how much they hit home with me.

2004-12-24 [Dark Geisha]: Just checking in... Did we ever find some weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? No. Did we destroy a whole country? Yes. Is our country shutting down public libraries while spending billions on restoring a country that was fine in the first place? Yes. Ok. Just checking. Had to rant after Kerry loosing. I cried. Nice quotes by the way...

2004-12-24 [Dil*]: sigh~ it's absolute crap that bush got voted in again.

2004-12-24 [Black_Dragon_123]: Voted in? He didn't get voted in. He bought his way in.

2004-12-24 [Dil*]: last elections...this elections he got majority of the vote...even if he did feed them lies and work the population up into a frenzy of fear. Kerry also stepped down...soo ya.

2004-12-24 [Black_Dragon_123]: well, but do you really think that all the Kerry supporters' votes got counted, or that all of them even got to vote in the first place???????

2004-12-25 [Dil*]: no idea, we can only speculate...unless you have some good links or info prooving otherwise.

2004-12-25 [Black_Dragon_123]: hah... ^^

2004-12-29 [kduncan]: Actually, there is a movement afoot to do a recount -- particularly in Ohio. The recount effort is being pushed by the Green party and is being supported by Jesse Jackson. The Deocratic party has been oddly silent on the prospect of an Ohio recount. I have at least one link on the recount.. I think it's an alternet article, I'll see if I can relocate the direct link to the article.

2004-12-30 [Rondel]: Please do -- I, for one would like to see it. :)

2005-01-04 [kduncan]: Rondel, to get a full picture of what happened, or may have happened (no one's entirely sure due to electronic voting being used in this election) go to www.alternet.org and do a search on ohio recount. There are several articles on the issue. I tlooks like some kind of voter fraud occured, but without any formal sort of paper trail, it's very difficult to be entirely sure one way or the other. Yay Diebold, they did their job like they said they would, and handed the election to Bush.

2005-01-17 [Rondel]: Ohh, the electronic voting scandal! THAT, I'd heard about. I'll look forward to seeing more about it on the site you sent; from the sounds of it, it's one I should be checking out and adding to my indy news bookmarks, anyway. Thanks!

2005-01-18 [kduncan]: No problem, you're welcome.

2005-04-12 [Dil*]: some little shit deleted out page...

2005-04-13 [Warpath]: Restored wiki. Suggest adding a password next time to avoid this problem in the future.

2005-04-13 [Dil*]: k thanks.

2005-05-05 [chasingpeace]: can we add our opinions on things to this debate page, or is it just on every other debate page i've been on?

2005-05-05 [Lord Kügenheim]: yeah sure.

2005-05-05 [chasingpeace]: k then...maybe i will....

2005-08-12 [Yiwerra]: "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." -George Bush (Dubya's daddy) while Vice-President and campaigning for President

2005-08-12 [chasingpeace]: i hate haters

2005-08-12 [Goldice]: so you hate yourself then?

2005-08-12 [Black_Dragon_123]: OMFG, WHAT AN ASSHOLE!!!! I'm atheist!

2005-08-14 [chasingpeace]: maybe...who's asking? actually, no....i was actually being hypocritical on purpose. I don't think any Bush knows that the 'one nation under god' thing was added AFTER...actually, quite a while after the original pledge of allegiance was written...i think it was added after Pearl Harbor, but i could be wrong.

2005-08-18 [kduncan]: I believe the phrase "one nation under god" was added around 1954. So, yes, you're correct, zansola.

2005-08-19 [chasingpeace]: yay!

2005-09-13 [DNAra Broken Goddess]: I'm egnostic, so what would that make me? Anyways, that is totally wrong to call anyone who doesn't believe in YOUR god not to be called a citizen; who the hell do they think they are?!?!?! God didn't give you anything, you egotistical assholes!!!!!

2005-09-17 [Rondel]: Don't forget the following: Jerry Falwell appeared as a guest on Pat Robertson's "700 Club" program on 2001-SEP-13. He said that God became sufficiently angry at America that he engineered the terrorist attack on New York City and Washington-- presumably to send Americans a message. He said: "I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians ...all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' " Pat Robertson responded: "Well, I totally concur..." (source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism.htm -- more detail at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter7.htm )

2005-09-17 [DNAra Broken Goddess]: they can shove that, what bullshit! no, we have a lot of freedom here, especially for women, nd they hate that, they hate what we stand for! That's why they dd the 9-11 attacks!!!!! They don't even believe in the same 'god' as most of America does!

2005-09-17 [Rondel]: 2001-SEP-14: First Christian Broadcasting Network news release: Pat Robertson confirmed Jerry Falwell's theme. He added new sins that Falwell did not include: "pornography on the Internet," "the occult, etc...on television." Finally, he wrote: "We have insulted God at the highest level of our government. Then, we say, 'Why does this happen?' It is happening because God Almighty is lifting His protection from us. Once that protection is gone, we are vulnerable because we are a free society."

2005-09-17 [Rondel]: 2001-DEC-5: USA: On his "700 club" program, Robertson interviewed Caryl Matrisciana of Jeremiah Films. They were discussing her recent video concerning the Harry Potter™ books. She is distressed that the books are being read in public schools. She equates the fantasy witchcraft found in these books with an unrelated established Neopagan religion, Wicca. She concluded that schools are violating the principle of separation of church and state. After the interview, Robertson made a list of the main reasons why a country like the U.S. could invoke divine displeasure. He talked "about God lifting his anointing his mantle from the United States of America."

2005-09-17 [Rondel]: Other reasons on his list is the decriminalization of sodomy; the practices of bestiality and incest; and abortion access. ("Sodomy" is a term that is often used by Fundamentalist Christians to refer to homosexual behavior.) He concluded: "We're doing all the things that God said were so repugnant that the land itself would be repulsed and would vomit its inhabitants out. And, if there was ever a time that we need God's blessing, it's now. We don't need to bring in heathen, pagan practices to the United States of America. We need to call on God and ask him for revival." Some unstable individuals might interpret this as a call to physically attack religious minorities.

2005-09-17 [Rondel]: The Rev. Bryan Owen (Church of the Incarnation, West Point, MS) said: "In my mind, Falwell's statement flies in the face of what we're called to be as Christians. I can understand the anger, but to me it's morally reprehensible to say something like that. I have a hard time believing in a God who would try to wake up American by having thousands of innocent people killed. That is not the kind of God we find revealed in Jesus Christ. If the murder of thousands of men, women, and children happened with either God's active will or God's tacit consent, then the God of Jerry Falwell is a terrorist. The majority of Anglicans regard such a view of God as anathema to the gospel of Jesus Christ."

2005-09-17 [Rondel]: 2001-SEP-17: At about 13 minutes and 40 seconds into his Focus on the Family daily radio program, Dr. James Dobson said: "I also pray that the Lord will bring a national revival that will sweep through our nation and pull us back from the wickedness and the Paganism that's engulfed us in recent years." It is not clear whether Dobson is attacking the 750,000 Neopagans in the U.S. or is using the term "Paganism" in some other way. As noted elsewhere, it is a term that has multiple meanings. On 2001-SEP-18, we faxed Focus, requesting a clarification of Dr. Dobson's statement. Almost four years later, as of 2005-SEP-04, they have not yet replied. We have given up hoping for a response. (ibid)

2005-09-17 [Rondel]: Yet, as Jerry Falwell has said, no one from the Evangelical Christian community pressured him to apologize. We have searched the Internet, TV news programs, and the local, national, and international media in vain for some criticism of their statements by other leaders of the Christian community. A few have criticized Falwell during interviews initiated by reporters. But, to our knowledge, none have made independent statements. Some of the public will interpret this silence by fellow Christian leaders as demonstrating their agreement with Falwell and Robertson's statements of hatred against religions and secular movements.

2005-09-17 [Rondel]: As long as Bush is catering to the Evangelical Christian right as his primary base of political support, statements such as these are going to remain relevant to any American who does not wish to become disenfranchised, or lose their rights on the basis of their religious beliefs, or those of the party in power.

2005-09-18 [DNAra Broken Goddess]: THAT IS F***IN' BS!!!! Bush is relying on RELIGION for support?!!?!?!?! What the hell happened to 'Separation of Church and State'?!

2005-09-19 [Rondel]: Erm... how have you not noticed? That's the primary area in which he acted as a consultant for his FATHER, even! That's how Bush Sr. got the Evangelical vote! But unlike his son, Bush Sr. wasn't a "True Believer". Bush Jr. really does believe that every answer HE needs in life, and that ANYBODY needs in life, can be found in the Bible. It's the addiction he changed to when he gave up his alcoholism.

2005-09-20 [DNAra Broken Goddess]: I HAVE noticed, but i didn't think they had gone this far with it yet... I think I would have prefered the alcohol, the only book in the bible is 1 Corithians 6(forgive me if I mispelt the book, i'm not good w/ the christian bible) and that is because that is because it is all about love... above all things I believe in love. That chapter is the only reason I keep a bible.

2005-09-20 [Rondel]: Reminds me of when my step-father graduated from the School of Theology (before he left his job to enroll in seminary, to study for the priesthood). I congratulated him, then asked him to define "God" in three words or less. My mother got it right away: "God is Love". I have no use for Christians who believe anything else, to be honest. It's not my religion anymore, though I still know a lot about it from my time teaching Sunday School, etc. - but to me, the only worthwhile forms of Christianity (or any religion) are those in which the point is to be motivated by LOVE, not HATE, not CONDEMNATION - & CERTAINLY not DISCRIMINATION. But government & religion should be separate, regardless.

2005-09-20 [DNAra Broken Goddess]: yes they should...

2005-09-21 [Rondel]: I had to deal with a school once, which, after assuring me that they did not teach religion as a part of their curriculum, turned out to include an invocation to the sun god as a part of every meal. Now, I'm a practising pagan, & some would think that I'd respond to this positively, but I was just as horrified by that as I was to discover that every 8th grader was required to paint a "Madonna". I don't care whose religion it is, mine or anyone else's -- it doesn't belong in the schools, and it doesn't belong in the government. (BTW, those same schools are increasingly part of the public school system in the US, which supposedly guarantees freedom from religious bias in the public schools.)

2005-09-21 [DNAra Broken Goddess]: i think that's wrong to include religion in public schools, in private schools where you PAy to go, alright, that's fine with me, but in public school, there should b no religion.

2005-09-22 [Rondel]: It shouldn't be in private schools, either, IMHO, if they have to lie to the parents to convince them to enroll their kids... ...nor if those private schools accept public funding.

2006-06-15 [Evil Intentions]: why dose every one hate the president? seriously no matter who thay pick half of america hates them its hard enuff to be president but then you have every one bitching about how you do your job, so if your not going to try and help in sum way stop bitching about it!

2006-06-16 [chasingpeace]: not all presidents have been hated...clinton was an extremely well liked president until the whole blue dress thing, but he was at the end of his 8th year as president, so it didn't make much difference. Bush is just all over pretty much bad. He doesn't read any of the things he signs for one...or at least it seems that way. he hasn't vetoed a single thing, as an example. And there's not much anyone can do. I for one am not exactly schooledin the process of impeaching presidents, and in the last election, you had a choice between two piles of crap. One just smelled better (Kerry), but...i'm not sure he would have done a whole lot of good, even though bush is pretty horrible...

2006-06-25 [kduncan]: It's a sad fact that the vast majority of politicians in the US (and most other places) are subsidised by corporations.. and that's where the problem lies. You simply can't have corporations dictating public policy because what's good for the corporate bottom line is generally not what's good for you and me. For example: Do you like the idea of Walmart lobbying Congress on minimum wages in the US? Where do you think Walmart's interests lie?

2006-10-14 [Rondel]: I have to agree; that's one of the reasons why I think that the so-called "Business Councils" should NOT be made exclusively of representatives from the businesses themselves. There are other people who have a vested interest in businesses and their operations -- like the people employed by them, and the people who are "served by" the businesses; for instance, there are a lot of marketplace niches of products I know people are seriously wishing were available -- and nobody meeting those needs, not because the marketplace force of demand isn't enough to balance a supply, but because there is a sense of "conflict of interest" -- supply an affordable product that isn't a throwaway technology, in a market dominated by throwaway units, and every sale is a series of sales lost to another manufacturer.

2006-10-24 [kduncan]: There's this consideration also:
With international corporations how can the corporate interest lie with any one particular nation? A corporation will follow th e money, they are legally bound to follow the money. If, by chance, the US went to war with China, where would Walmart's interests lie? With a market that has reached its economic summit? Or with a nation ripe with eager new consumers who are just starting to make enough disposable income to spend on things other than the basic necessities of life?

Corporations are doing more and more to get legislation that relieves them of social, political, and environmental responsibility in the US, and not enough American voters are bothering to ask the question "Why?" What happens after twenty or thirty years of corporations being responsible for the "self monitoring" they have been awarded by a paid for Congress? Does Monsato really have the best interests of the public in mind? How about Con-Agra? Do most people in the US even recognise the names of these corporations?

2006-10-25 [Rondel]: Short answer (I know, not something I'm known for): No, most people in the US *DON'T* recognize the names of those corporations, so how can they possibly assess their actions, and reasonably take action to ensure that they are appropriately regulated.

Some years ago, I learned that I have a health problem which is directly connected to the actions of some of those corporations in their "self-regulation" on environmental issues (which I acknowledge are merely one aspect of their responsibilities), and their failure to take what most of us would consider to be appropriate care regarding the impact of their actions on others. If the average person were to impact another person in the way that these corporations do, every day, as a result of their "self-regulated" behaviour, they would be first in court, and then in prison. But the corporations are not held to the same standards. For every person who is awarded millions of dollars for a spilled cup of coffee (albeit superheated scalding hot coffee, unwisely held between their legs in a car seat), there are many others losing health, life, or family members to the side effects of corporate actions, without seeing the slightest bit of compensation, change in the behaviour, or even acknowledgement that their injury matters in the slightest. Efforts to remedy this, grassroots efforts to educate, initiatives to create legal changes to prevent these kinds of injuries, are all met with apathy on the part of a public who won't take any more responsibility than do the corporations themselves, and it is unsurprising that the corporations can (and do) literally get away with murder in that kind of an environment.

If you're curious as to just what that health problem I mentioned is, check out this article: http://www.emagazine.com/view/?1003

So yes, I'm well aware of Monsanto as a shaping force in the world I live in. If my illness created an obvious outward sign, like a cast on a broken limb, I'd be tempted to ask them to sign their handiwork. Of course, since instead it makes me mostly housebound, nobody'd ever get to see it... *sigh* ...which I think hinders our ability to engage in traditional activism to make change in this situation.

2006-10-25 [kduncan]: I believe that my mate is another such victim of the careless policies adopted by corporations such as Monsato and Con-Agra.

He has an abundance of allergies, includng many food allergies. The most interesting aspect of this is that he thought, all his life, that he has been lactose intolerant. His parents had him on soy products as a child. Whenever he would eat or drink milk products he would get severe abdominal cramping culminating in severe diarrhea. About six years ago I switched to using only organic dairy products at home. My reason for making this switch had nothing to do with my mates supposed lactose problem simnce I thought he wouldn't be able to drink milk, organic or not. I come from dairy country in upstate NY, most of the families in the town I grew up in were farming families. I have noticed a decline in the quality of milk, even whole milk is no longer creamy, and borders on a thin, weird sort of blue-ish colour. I tried organic milk at first just to see if I could get milk like that I'd had while growing up. I was pleased that I was able to, but what surprised me even more was that my mate no longer experienced problems with the lactose intolerance he'd thought he had. I didn't expect this, and he, being a member of the medical profession (phamacist), certainly didn't expect this. I've since come to the conclusion that something was very wrong with the milk we were drinking before.

We've wondered about a few other things as a result, most importantly is the increasing numbers of children with food (and other) allergies. Allergies are becoming epidemic in the US. He now wonders how many other illnesses that are becoming more prevalent in the US are a direct result of the poisoning of the US food supply by corporations. My mate is not a pharmcist who works at a community pharmacy, he is a consultant for resident facilities, which provide a fairly consistent control group. In his work, he has noticed a greater incidence of people with kidney stones in the past ten or so years. He thinks this greater incidence is due to problems with the water supply and with food additives.

I believe that some people are like the canaries miners used to use to determine if it was safe to go into the mine, my mate is one of thsoe "canaries", and it looks like you are too, Rondel. People like you and my mate are telling the rest of us that something is very, very wrong. We heed the warning.

2006-12-26 [Rondel]: Some heed the warning -- others shoot the messenger. I run a mailing list for just such "canaries" -- and the horror stories I could tell you about people having their lives made WORSE when people find out about their Environmental Illness would probably manage to distress even your limited faith in humanity, as I know they did mine. Not only is it common for people to deliberately expose "canaries" to the very toxins which make us sick, "in order to test to see if we really react if we don't know the substance is there" (yeah, right...), I've even known cases where people have gone so far as to spray the organic garden of a person who can't eat any food with pesticide residues (and can't afford to buy organic because they're disabled) with the very pesticides which are known to cause the reaction, thereby rendering not only every plant in the garden inedible, but the soil itself incapable of growing safe food for a period of YEARS. Why do people do this? Because they don't like the fact that THEIR lives are inconvenienced in the tiniest way by others' sensitivities -- and in some cases, that includes simply causing them to know about the toxins already in their lives, by having the bad grace to go into anaphylactic shock in their presence. So I'm always glad when I meet someone who reacts to the warning of the "canaries" by actually listening, and more so when they actually HEED it, as you do.

You might ask your mate if he's noticed any correlation between gall bladder problems and chemical exposure -- many of the "canaries" I've known (a disproportionate number) have had gall bladder problems (often requiring its removal), often at unusually young ages (as in my case -- I was 19), or unusually badly (my husband, whose gall bladder was 10x normal size and filled with literally hundreds of stones). We theorize that this is due to the way that the liver excretes (not necessarily fully) metabolized toxins into the bile, where they then sit in the gall bladder, before being released into the intestinal tract, where they are all too often simply absorbed again, to be cycled through again and again until the liver can fully metabolize and neutralize them -- or the body can stuff them into its fat cells to be stored until they can more easily be processed, later, often gaining fat as needed to make this possible (this being one of the reasons why toxicity causes people to gain weight, if they are physically capable of doing so).