Vote God/Bush/Cheney '04

[espritch]

I noticed a number of Cheny/Bush billboards in South Carolina while driving down to visit my Mom.

Here are a couple of Billboards I'd like to see:

One nation under God. Bush/Cheny '04. Let the inquisitions begin.

Help stomp out democracy. Bush/Cheny '04.

Bush/Cheny '04. Support tradditional American values: war and defficits.

 

[SlippyToad]

Is that any crazier than being so self hating that you spend your entire life railing against what you yourself are?

I'm not sure where you get the "self-hating" meme from. I just watched Farenheit 911, which is the first piece of actual Michael Moore's work I've ever seen. I at no time during the piece got the idea that he hated himself, or railed against being an American. His main concern during the narrative of the documentary seemed to be about the kind of world he lived in, and he had an idea that it could be a lot better than it is. Angry; yes. Crazy; not at all.

From listening to conservatives rant and rave about Moore, I expected an Oliver Stone-type piece filled with bloody-minded hysteria. But that wasn't the movie I saw, and it tallied pretty closely with the perception that I already have of what's going on today.

 

[valis]

What I was refering to is more evident in his earlier works but comes through a little in Farenheit 911.

He has spent his entire career spewing hatred for wealthy white people who come from privelaged backrounds. He is a wealthy white person from a priveleged backround. He hates employers that exploit their workers. He has a long record of being a lousy cheapskate employer.

And yes his hatred for his country seems pretty clear.

Then again if you found F911 to be a rational documentary I think we must exist in two seperate realities.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Nova, I'm just saying that it's out of place. it makes more sense to say One nation, under God. God is the thing in question, not the preposition in front of it. underlying 'under' implies that one wants to differentiate it from 'beside' God, or 'around' God, or whatever.

Example: Are you going to the park?
No, I'm going to the store.

Doesn't make sense.

No, I'm going to the store.

Makes sense.

 

[Nova Land]

Lets just say Bush rejects both. Is that any crazier than being so self hating that you spend your entire life railing against what you yourself are? Or if you would like a better example of left wing nuttieness how about Al Sharpton. His behavior in the Tawana Brawley affair is about as goofy as it gets.

Like you, I have a low opinion of Sharpton's behavior in the Tawana Brawley matter (although I am inclined to view it more as demagoguery than nuttiness).

However, that was 17 years ago. Do you have more recent examples of severely-irrational behavior on his part? I am not aware of any embarrassing stunts or behaviors on his part in recent years.

I have not followed Sharpton closely, so I had retained my negative impression of him. But from the little I have seen of him recently (such as his performance in the Democratic primary and debates) I saw little to criticize. I have tentatively raised my opinion of him. People can, and do, grow more mature.

That you used an example from 17 years ago, rather than having more current examples at hand to cite, inclines me to suspect that in recent years Sharpton has not behaved in an excessively irrational manner. The examples of disturbing behavior from Bush, in contrast, are recent and numerous.

 

[Nova Land]

I'm just saying that it's out of place. it makes more sense to say One nation, under God. God is the thing in question, not the preposition in front of it. underlying 'under' implies that one wants to differentiate it from 'beside' God, or 'around' God, or whatever.

I think both ways can be sensible, depending on the meaning intended.

If the target of the billboard were atheists, One Nation, Under God would be better. That would emphasize the existence and importance of God, which would be the key point of contention.

But I don't think that's the point they are trying to get across. They take the existence of God as a given. (It's the existence of atheists they have trouble believing in. Many of them genuinely can't conceive that there are people who truly don't believe in god.)

I think the target is more people such as myself, who are religious but don't share their particular concept of God. They are upset by people who believe in (to their eyes) a watered-down, ineffectual, meaningless God.

They do not accept the notion that God is beside us, or within us, or all around us. They believe that God is over us, and that our national failure to recognize this is what has brought America down and led to tragedies such as Columbine and the World Trade Center attacks.

The point they are trying to make is not that God exists but that God rules. Hence, they want to emphasize that this is (or should be) a nation under God -- a nation ruled by God (as represented by divinely appointed leaders, such as George Bush).

 

[SlippyToad]

What I was refering to is more evident in his earlier works but comes through a little in Farenheit 911.

He has spent his entire career spewing hatred for wealthy white people who come from privelaged backrounds. He is a wealthy white person from a priveleged backround. He hates employers that exploit their workers. He has a long record of being a lousy cheapskate employer.

And yes his hatred for his country seems pretty clear.

Then again if you found F911 to be a rational documentary I think we must exist in two seperate realities.

Look, I realize that there is such a thing as subjective analysis but what you're describing is not the movie I saw, so I have to question whether or not you actually saw it, or were you given a synopsis or something. There isn't a whole lot of narrative, and the movie isn't a cartoon or a re-enactment. It's actual footage of what went on before, during, and after the events in question. The stories are stories of actual people. I still don't understand your self-hatred meme: you seem to just be making stuff up. And the "hatred for the country" is also just something you seem to be making up. Or are you confusing hatred for a corrupt political process with hatred for a country? They are clearly two different things. All throughout the movie is a clear theme of being involved and active in one's civic discussion, and if that isn't love of one's country I do not know what is -- this is a democracy, after all. The idea that one cannot express dissent without "hating" one's country is entirely out of place in such an arrangement.

As far as implying that I "exist in a different reality" all I can say is: says you.

 

[valis]

read my post again where I said something along the lines of "it was most obvious in his earlier work" . I can honestly say that I was a fan of Mr. Moore from Roger and Me through TV Nation up unitl Bowling for Columbine. I really found him funny. However his self hating streak is plain in many of his works and while this is funny at times poking fun at your own country in the midst of World War Three strikes me as a triumph of self interest over reality.

Can you imagine if people had acted this way in the midst of WWII? "Well gee whiz we can attack the Japanese but the Germans had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. And they did have buisness ties to FDR and many large US corporations. I guess the Nazis are just a big distraction."

I am a real fringe pacifist, non interventionist type myself but good grief when people start blowing up Manhattan, sorry time to stop being a caring peacfull hippie.

 

[Ladewig]

No, I mean why not underline God? With emphasis on the word 'under' it begs the question 'as opposed to what? Over? Next to?'

I think it refers to their belief that our nation should recognize God as the ultimate sovereign; we are under His rule. They are trying to emphasize that their position is not "God is on our side" so much as it is "we are on God's side."

 

[Art Vandelay]

Actually the sign should read under Canada, that guy should look at a map some time.

Really? Appears to me that Canada is under the US.

Example: Are you going to the park?
No, I'm going to the store.

Doesn't make sense.

No, I'm going to the store.

Makes sense. [/B]

Yes, but:
Are you going past the store?
No, I'm going into the store.

Makes sense.

I think it refers to their belief that our nation should recognize God as the ultimate sovereign; we are under His rule. They are trying to emphasize that their position is not "God is on our side" so much as it is "we are on God's side."

Makes one wonder how the House can declare with a straight face "the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, including the phrase, `one Nation, under God,' is a patriotic act, not an act or statement of religious faith or belief". "God is the ultimate sovereign" is not a religious statement? What, do they think we're idiots?

 

[Ion]

...
Oh, and that underline is meant to mean that Democrats/atheists/humanists/.../fornicators put themselves above God.

'God', what superstition is going on in the US?

Have the religious believers -that Bush is pandering to- tried Loki, Thor or Nike?

Because they have better myths than 'God''s Bible.

As for "...fornicators...", I do my part.

These superstitious primitives are virgins, or -if not- they are developing oneitis without learning lovemaking.

 

[Ladewig]

What, do they think we're idiots?

Um, yeah.

 

[gethane]

I want to be one nation under that foliage. Gorgeous stuff.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Question: Why is the word 'under' underlined?

Let's say that the billboard is real and funded by the Bush / Cheney campaign. I don't wan't to argue whether or not it is.

The implied message of this billboard with the underline on under is that Kerry (and the Democrat Party) is trying to put himself (themselves) above God. This is aimed at a core Christian belief and will probably be percieved as truth in the Bible Belt states.

edited to say: I see someone else beat me to it.

 

[Chickensrevenge]

Are you sure that Kerry doesn't see it as a nation next to god. or what about accross the table from god. Why does god get such a cool position above us. I mean we do all the work. He just gets to sit around and occasionally make an earthquake. or a typhoon.

 

[Dorian Gray]

read my post again where I said something along the lines of "it was most obvious in his earlier work" . I can honestly say that I was a fan of Mr. Moore from Roger and Me through TV Nation up unitl Bowling for Columbine. I really found him funny. However his self hating streak is plain in many of his works and while this is funny at times poking fun at your own country in the midst of World War Three strikes me as a triumph of self interest over reality.

What this says to me is "I thought he was funny until he started attacking my side".

What do you make of the large BUSH and the small Cheney under it?

 

[SlippyToad]

poking fun at your own country in the midst of World War Three strikes me as a triumph of self interest over reality.

Can you imagine if people had acted this way in the midst of WWII? "Well gee whiz we can attack the Japanese but the Germans had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. And they did have buisness ties to FDR and many large US corporations. I guess the Nazis are just a big distraction."

This is not World War III. Talk about delusions of grandeur! And if you are still so misguided as to believe that Iraq had anything to do with attacking the WTC -- or that attacking them is going to prevent a recurrance of same -- then I can't help you. The parallels you are drawing don't exist at all.

 

[Sane]

I wouldn't read too much into it as:

A: Kerry spends a lot of time in church lately and I would say Clinton was probably the most overtly religous president of my lifetime. (I can clearly remember back to Nixon).

...

Doesn't The Prince or The Art of War suggest that leaders should appear religious?

edited to fix words.

 

[pgwenthold]

This is not World War III. Talk about delusions of grandeur! And if you are still so misguided as to believe that Iraq had anything to do with attacking the WTC -- or that attacking them is going to prevent a recurrance of same -- then I can't help you. The parallels you are drawing don't exist at all.

My dad once made the argument that the Iraqi people hated Saddam and were glad to be liberated. Within 5 minutes, he also claimed that if we hadn't attacked he would have been another Hitler.

I just laughed.

 

[valis]

This is not World War III. Talk about delusions of grandeur! And if you are still so misguided as to believe that Iraq had anything to do with attacking the WTC -- or that attacking them is going to prevent a recurrance of same -- then I can't help you. The parallels you are drawing don't exist at all.

No I don't belive they directly did. IMO what you are doing is thinking of this war as being the same as past wars. Which BTW is my big gripe with the Democratic Party. All their ideas seem very dated. Anyhow part of this is my fault for using a WW2 anology.

Here is why we invaded Iraq.

The middle east is rife with the idea that the west in general and the U.S. in particular is evil and should be destroyed.

A lot of middle eastern countries are willling to turn a blind eye to this type of thinking as long as the terror that results from it happens outside their own borders.

The U.S. had become a paper tiger in the eyes of most of the middle east. This is the fault of every president since Carter, and even more so the fauilt of the american people.

Iraq was viewed as the most powerfull military machine in the region plus the fact that Bush senior was seen as backing down by leaving Saddam in power at the end of gulf war one.

We wanted to do several things.
Forcibly inject the concept moderen society in the middle east.

Have a strong show of force that would scare the other dictators in the region.

Establish a stronger military presence in the region.

Iraq was kind enough to ignore all sorts of second chances UN ultimatums etc. giving us cover to make him the poster child for 'Don't F**** with the US.'.

I at no time said that Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in 9/11, however this is a war of ideology and yes it is WW3. The enemy wants nothing more than the death of every non muslim on the face of the earth.

You can face that or not. Bush and Blair have and are acting accordingly.

I hate to go back to WW2 anologies but let me guess we can have "peace in our time".