Bush - "Without a Doubt" NY Times Mag.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by calculoso+Oct 21 2004, 06:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calculoso @ Oct 21 2004, 06:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 21 2004, 10:36 AM
Talking TO God is taken as praying.

(snip)

In the first statement, "I talked to ownership", it obviously means that he has had a dialogue with ownership in regards to the negotiations. He is checking in with ownership looking for guidance.

Did you not just say above: "No sane person admits that they coverse with the Almighty."

Seems that you changed your mind.

I agree that if you want to interpret "God speaks through me" as "when I talk, it's actually God talking", then it is insane. If you want to interpret it as "my decisions and views are based on my faith, and I believe that I am acting how God would want me to act" then it's not much different than all the other religious people out there.

Either way, though, I don't think religion has any place in politics. I wish that the US would just stay away from it. [/b][/quote]
How did I change my mind? You can TALK to God, but that is not having a conversation with the Almighty. Conversation requires a two way interaction. Without acknowledgement you are not concersing with anyone or anything.

Main Entry: 2con·verse
Pronunciation: k&n-'v&rs
Function: intransitive verb

2 a : to exchange thoughts and opinions in speech : TALK b : to carry on an exchange similar to a conversation (as with a computer)

which leads us to...

Main Entry: con·ver·sa·tion
Pronunciation: "kän-v&r-'sA-sh&n
Function: noun

2 a (1) : oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas (2) : an instance of such exchange : TALK b : an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups c : an exchange similar to conversation

To converse, there must be an exchange. Unless Georgie-boy has heard the voice of God, then he has not conversed with the Almighty. And if he has, I think he should be put under observation for a while. He is unfit to command the government of the country. If he is proven to have communicated with God, then he can lead the church and be cannonized as a saint. One way or the other, anyone who says "God speaks through me" is not playing with the same cards the rest of us are and should not be representing the country.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 21 2004, 12:56 PM
Unfortunately, I think it's the first one. If it is the second one, then the book must have been upside down when he read it, because he is not acting in a Christian manner at all.

Maybe I should just let this stuff be, but why do those on the left on this site insist in talking in absolutes?

Not acting in a Christian manner?

So I guess I can deduce that I too would not be thinking in a christian manner if I felt going to Iraq was a good idea?

First I'm stupid, then insane, and now I'm no longer even a Christian.

YOU ... you think the Iraq war was a bad idea. I respect you for your opinion and don't really feel the need to convince you otherwise. But someone that does think it was a good idea, isn't wrong. Nor are they stupid or insane.

Can't you guys see that?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bingo+Oct 21 2004, 01:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Oct 21 2004, 01:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 21 2004, 12:56 PM
Unfortunately, I think it's the first one. If it is the second one, then the book must have been upside down when he read it, because he is not acting in a Christian manner at all.

Maybe I should just let this stuff be, but why do those on the left on this site insist in talking in absolutes?

Not acting in a Christian manner?

So I guess I can deduce that I too would not be thinking in a christian manner if I felt going to Iraq was a good idea?

First I'm stupid, then insane, and now I'm no longer even a Christian.

YOU ... you think the Iraq war was a bad idea. I respect you for your opinion and don't really feel the need to convince you otherwise. But someone that does think it was a good idea, isn't wrong. Nor are they stupid or insane.

Can't you guys see that? [/b][/quote]
Like I said above, I'm certainly no theologian and it's been a while since I read the good book, but I'm sure pre-emptive war is not a strategy Jesus himself would have been into, and collateral damage, well... It seems to me to be unChristian, but a hell of a lot of Christians agree with it, so what do I know.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 21 2004, 01:34 PM

Like I said above, I'm certainly no theologian and it's been a while since I read the good book, but I'm sure pre-emptive war is not a strategy Jesus himself would have been into, and collateral damage, well... It seems to me to be unChristian, but a hell of a lot of Christians agree with it, so what do I know.

Nor am I an expert ...

But I think a rational Christian person could see gonig into Iraq as a good idea if you know ..

a) a ruthless dictator is harming his own people
B) has a track record of attacking other countries

and you fear ..

a) he may have the means to inflict mass casualties on innocent citizens outside of his borders (WMD).

The last point turned out to not be true, but the rationale at the time (something that was backed by both parties and something like 80% of Americans) certainly wasn't anti-Christian.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bingo+Oct 21 2004, 01:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Oct 21 2004, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 21 2004, 01:34 PM

Like I said above, I'm certainly no theologian and it's been a while since I read the good book, but I'm sure pre-emptive war is not a strategy Jesus himself would have been into, and collateral damage, well... It seems to me to be unChristian, but a hell of a lot of Christians agree with it, so what do I know.

Nor am I an expert ...

But I think a rational Christian person could see gonig into Iraq as a good idea if you know ..

a) a ruthless dictator is harming his own people
B) has a track record of attacking other countries

and you fear ..

a) he may have the means to inflict mass casualties on innocent citizens outside of his borders (WMD).

The last point turned out to not be true, but the rationale at the time (something that was backed by both parties and something like 80% of Americans) certainly wasn't anti-Christian. [/b][/quote]
Well, I gotta admit you got me there.

But in reference to George, it's everything, not just Iraq. The executions in Texas, the macho bravado, the dirty tricks, insults, the backdoor chicanery. I'm sorry if it comes across that I'm insulting all Christians and/or all believers, I really am not. I'm just insulting George. Well, maybe I'm insulting all "Christians" who use religion to gain power and/or wealth, but there are very few of those (I'm thinking Jimmy Swaggart types).

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 21 2004, 01:23 PM
How did I change my mind? You can TALK to God, but that is not having a conversation with the Almighty. Conversation requires a two way interaction. Without acknowledgement you are not concersing with anyone or anything.

When "talking to God", you take that to mean praying. When "talking to ownership", you take that to mean "having a conversation". Same words, different meaning to you, I guess.

If praying is only one-way, what's the point in praying then? When a person prays, they want an answer - something that they feel is an answer. If that answer comes in some action (person gets better), in a dream, etc, they view it as a response from God. It might not be oral, but they feel that there is an exchange.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo+Oct 21 2004, 07:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Oct 21 2004, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 21 2004, 12:56 PM
Unfortunately, I think it's the first one. If it is the second one, then the book must have been upside down when he read it, because he is not acting in a Christian manner at all.

Maybe I should just let this stuff be, but why do those on the left on this site insist in talking in absolutes?

Not acting in a Christian manner?

So I guess I can deduce that I too would not be thinking in a christian manner if I felt going to Iraq was a good idea?

First I'm stupid, then insane, and now I'm no longer even a Christian.

YOU ... you think the Iraq war was a bad idea. I respect you for your opinion and don't really feel the need to convince you otherwise. But someone that does think it was a good idea, isn't wrong. Nor are they stupid or insane.

Can't you guys see that? [/b][/quote]
Because those on the right speak in absolutes as well. Its the way things have evolved in politics. And if you think we're bad, you just wait until FoxNews is available up there in Canada. You will see some absolutes. Of course they will be absolutes that you agree with, and likely won't find offensive at all, but they will be absolutes that you can live with.

Bingo, I'm not sure why you let it bother you? I put up with being labelled a wacko, a conspiracy theorist, etc. and you don't say a word about it. Again, its okay because its a label YOU are comfortable with, because it comes from the "right" and those who share YOUR views. The generalizations that go on there are okay. But the minute a generalization strikes close home to you the gloves come off. Frankly, if you are offended by it it likely does mean it has struck close to home and there is some truth to it. If someone's comment makes YOU feel stupid, insane or non-Christian, then maybe you are in some way? I could careless whether someone thinks me a conspiracy theorist because I tend to be on the side of the correct (note, not the right) more often than not. I'm confident in my ability to distinguish right from wrong and choose accordingly. Some people think I'm crazy or a conspiracy theorist or what ever they wish to think, but I stick by what I think is right and ride it out and don't worry about the labels. I can't be labelled because I know I am unique and can't be labelled. Plus, what's that adage about sticks and stones?

On to right and wrong, well that's what the world has boiled down to politically, especially in the United States. It is a black and white culture with very few shades of grey. And when you are talking about decisions that put lives on the line and cost billions of dollars, there are right and wrong decisions. I'm sure your boss thinks there are right and wrong decisions when money is on the line. If you make a bad decision do you not feel repercussions? That's what this is all about. People want some accountability for the past four years and are trying to figue out who wears the goat horns. During this process there are people that are going to choose sides and are going to end up being right or wrong as the chips fall. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by calculoso@Oct 21 2004, 07:45 PM
When "talking to God", you take that to mean praying. When "talking to ownership", you take that to mean "having a conversation". Same words, different meaning to you, I guess.

If praying is only one-way, what's the point in praying then? When a person prays, they want an answer - something that they feel is an answer. If that answer comes in some action (person gets better), in a dream, etc, they view it as a response from God. It might not be oral, but they feel that there is an exchange.

Well, when you are "talking to God" you are not conversing because no one is answering. If you are, and someone answers, you better check yourself into a rubber room some place or having your fillings checked for picking up random radio stations. When "talking to ownership" you actually are conversing with a live person and do have an actual conversation. Talking is not the key word. Conversing is. God does not speak through people. God speaks through seraphim. If you believe what theologists say, the power and beauty of God's voice would destroy a human being, hence him using a messenger to deliver his word. Its an entirely different discussion, but I think you get my jest.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 21 2004, 01:49 PM
Because those on the right speak in absolutes as well. Its the way things have evolved in politics. And if you think we're bad, you just wait until FoxNews is available up there in Canada. You will see some absolutes. Of course they will be absolutes that you agree with, and likely won't find offensive at all, but they will be absolutes that you can live with.

Bingo, I'm not sure why you let it bother you? I put up with being labelled a wacko, a conspiracy theorist, etc. and you don't say a word about it. Again, its okay because its a label YOU are comfortable with, because it comes from the "right" and those who share YOUR views. The generalizations that go on there are okay. But the minute a generalization strikes close home to you the gloves come off. Frankly, if you are offended by it it likely does mean it has struck close to home and there is some truth to it. If someone's comment makes YOU feel stupid, insane or non-Christian, then maybe you are in some way? I could careless whether someone thinks me a conspiracy theorist because I tend to be on the side of the correct (note, not the right) more often than not. I'm confident in my ability to distinguish right from wrong and choose accordingly. Some people think I'm crazy or a conspiracy theorist or what ever they wish to think, but I stick by what I think is right and ride it out and don't worry about the labels. I can't be labelled because I know I am unique and can't be labelled. Plus, what's that adage about sticks and stones?

On to right and wrong, well that's what the world has boiled down to politically, especially in the United States. It is a black and white culture with very few shades of grey. And when you are talking about decisions that put lives on the line and cost billions of dollars, there are right and wrong decisions. I'm sure your boss thinks there are right and wrong decisions when money is on the line. If you make a bad decision do you not feel repercussions? That's what this is all about. People want some accountability for the past four years and are trying to figue out who wears the goat horns. During this process there are people that are going to choose sides and are going to end up being right or wrong as the chips fall. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

Thanks for the lecture Dad, but no I don't see your point.

There is no comparison between you being called a conspiracy theorist and you calling others idiots, or insane. One, you do seem to back a lot of conspiracies so to point that out isn't name calling it's calling a spade a spade.

Read what I've said on these topics ... I don't call people wrong for thinking left of me, or for disagreeing with my points. I think it's very possible to not see things the same way as someone, but not also think they are outright wrong.

that's the difference. The plurality of people on these topics tell me that nobody is really wrong when you come off the lunatic fringe of both sides. It's just too close to call.

Sticks and stones aren't an issue in this, my skin is extremely thick, and I couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks about me. But I do think that a debate stays much more healthy when both sides keep their minds open a smidge and don't assume the other side is wrong because they feel so strongly that they are right.

I've seen you suggest conservatives are less intelligent, that deeply religious people could be called insane and then recently that going to Iraq wasn't a Christian thought process (not your comment).

Those aren't personal insults ... they are statements showing a real closemindedness to differing opinions. It all boils down to "I am right, therefore you would have to be wrong"

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 21 2004, 08:17 PM
There is no comparison between you being called a conspiracy theorist and you calling others idiots, or insane. One, you do seem to back a lot of conspiracies so to point that out isn't name calling it's calling a spade a spade.

Everyone is a "conspiracy theorist" by definition though. George Bush jr. is probably the world's biggest. The only difference is that when the corporate suits and politicians put forth the conspiracies, we are supposed to just believe it with no questions.

I agree with Lanny. "Conspiracy theorist" is a label given by people as a lazy way to discredit them without proof - just like calling someone "stupid" or an "idiot". It implies intellectual inferiority, does it not?

And if we are going to "call a spade a spade", I should start calling out the thinly veiled fascists around here - there are many and most probably don't even realize they are one. Would it be considered an personal insult?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 21 2004, 08:17 PM
Thanks for the lecture Dad, but no I don't see your point.

There is no comparison between you being called a conspiracy theorist and you calling others idiots, or insane. One, you do seem to back a lot of conspiracies so to point that out isn't name calling it's calling a spade a spade.

Read what I've said on these topics ... I don't call people wrong for thinking left of me, or for disagreeing with my points. I think it's very possible to not see things the same way as someone, but not also think they are outright wrong.

that's the difference. The plurality of people on these topics tell me that nobody is really wrong when you come off the lunatic fringe of both sides. It's just too close to call.

Sticks and stones aren't an issue in this, my skin is extremely thick, and I couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks about me. But I do think that a debate stays much more healthy when both sides keep their minds open a smidge and don't assume the other side is wrong because they feel so strongly that they are right.

I've seen you suggest conservatives are less intelligent, that deeply religious people could be called insane and then recently that going to Iraq wasn't a Christian thought process (not your comment).

Those aren't personal insults ... they are statements showing a real closemindedness to differing opinions. It all boils down to "I am right, therefore you would have to be wrong"

What a load of crap. You're confusing threads. I never said that in this one. In the other one I said that FEAR was the factor and EDUCATION (not intelligence) played a factor in the Republican ability to use FEAR as a tool to sway voters. I also said that FEAR was very effective on those who are RELIGIOUS because of that aspect associated with dogma. I said that it's FEAR. YOU said that people are unintelligent and turned it into a religious battle by twisting a quote out of context. That was YOUR decision to make that call and place it upon everyone, not mine.

You're so open minded yourself. Again, if it doesn't align with your politics so its okay to twist and belittle. Nice double standard. Insult anyone on the left that you want, but stay away from Bingo's buddies on the right! Its okay. Five Hole (I think it was Five Hole) called you out perfectly the other day. You let your pals who agree with politics get away with all the subtle insults and generalizations they like, but the minute someone from the other side calls it the other way the whining starts. You're going to like FoxNews. You both use the exact same tactics.

:baby:

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 21 2004, 02:48 PM
You're so open minded yourself. Again, if it doesn't align with your politics so its okay to twist and belittle. Nice double standard. Insult anyone on the left that you want, but stay away from Bingo's buddies on the right! Its okay. Five Hole (I think it was Five Hole) called you out perfectly the other day. You let your pals who agree with politics get away with all the subtle insults and generalizations they like, but the minute someone from the other side calls it the other way the whining starts. You're going to like FoxNews. You both use the exact same tactics.

:baby:

Wow ... you made it personal, you can imagine my surprise.

Where did I insult anyone? Where? I called you out for getting very personal with Cowperson, and for consistently cursing in threads (you'll notice I don't feel the need to run expletives into lines to add effect). How you could have a problem with that after you even admitted you were wrong and said sorry is beyond me. I give everyone a lot of rope but reluctantly clamp down on those that just do it over and over again. You're just sore because you've always been the guy with the least self control.

You'll have to point out this Five Hole post, I've obviously missed it. I'll tell him the same thing.

The fact that you ended your post by effectively calling me a baby pretty much shows everyone reading this that you are exactly as I've described. Thanks for your help.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 21 2004, 02:38 PM

Everyone is a "conspiracy theorist" by definition though. George Bush jr. is probably the world's biggest. The only difference is that when the corporate suits and politicians put forth the conspiracies, we are supposed to just believe it with no questions.

I agree with Lanny. "Conspiracy theorist" is a label given by people as a lazy way to discredit them without proof - just like calling someone "stupid" or an "idiot". It implies intellectual inferiority, does it not?

And if we are going to "call a spade a spade", I should start calling out the thinly veiled fascists around here - there are many and most probably don't even realize they are one. Would it be considered an personal insult?

I think a person that is a conspiracy theorist is someone that consistently believes in conspiracies.

is that wrong?

Lanny has floated many of these such conspiracies on this off topic board in the past few months.

That's all I'm saying.

Am I wrong to this point? I'm not being lazy at all ...

Are you suggesting I'm a fascist now? If not ... good. If so I don't think you know enough about me or anyone on this site to make such a claim. And are you suggesting that calling someone that has openly stated they believe in consipiracies a conspiracy theorist is akin to calling someone a communist, the farthest reaches of the left wing ideology?

I don't for a second believe that those on this board that see things differently than me are automatically Stalin. Lanny and I couldn't agree on gravity, but most of the people in this string I've known for years and have no problem with.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 21 2004, 02:17 PM
Those aren't personal insults ... they are statements showing a real closemindedness to differing opinions. It all boils down to "I am right, therefore you would have to be wrong"

Hey now come on, isn't that the same thing? You disagree with my opinion so that means I'm closeminded?

A pre-emptive war resulting in the deaths of thousands of people is, I believe, unChristian. War in itself is unChristian. You can give me all the realistic reasons you want, but at the end of the day, the idea is to live your life according to Christ's teachings. IMO, this isn't the way to do it. Millions of Christians believe it was the wrong thing to do. Are they the ones being unChristian?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 21 2004, 09:11 PM
I think a person that is a conspiracy theorist is someone that consistently believes in conspiracies.

is that wrong?

Lanny has floated many of these such conspiracies on this off topic board in the past few months.

That's all I'm saying.

Am I wrong to this point? I'm not being lazy at all ...

I just think the label communicates something pretty negative. It's insinuating that what someone says doesn't have value because they are just a "conspiracy theorist".

Are you suggesting I'm a fascist now? If not ... good. If so I don't think you know enough about me or anyone on this site to make such a claim. And are you suggesting that calling someone that has openly stated they believe in consipiracies a conspiracy theorist is akin to calling someone a communist, the farthest reaches of the left wing ideology?

No, I don't think YOU are a fascist. You are probably one of the last real classical conservatives around here. If I were you though, I would be insulted by those in North America who have hijacked moderate right wing ideology.

I have however seen many comments on here that are very close to being fascist. Beligerent nationalism, "might makes right", even the notion that some cultures/races are superior to others. There is also a lot of demagogy often associtated with facsism, such as; "You are either with us or against us", "anti-war people help the terrorists". I also see a lot people decrying pacifists as cowards, or as communist supporters. That is classic fascism. No way around it.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 21 2004, 03:18 PM

Hey now come on, isn't that the same thing? You disagree with my opinion so that means I'm closeminded?

Not at all ...

I disagree with the line of thinking that I am right therefore you are wrong. Or that all people think differently than me are less educated, or too religious.

There are plenty of valid reasons to suggest the war in Iraq is wrong, we'd agree on many, but that's a far cry from saying going to war in Iraq wasn't following the Christian way.

I don't think you or I are qualified to say such a thing.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Oct 21 2004, 08:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Oct 21 2004, 08:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Oct 21 2004, 08:17 PM
There is no comparison between you being called a conspiracy theorist and you calling others idiots, or insane. One, you do seem to back a lot of conspiracies so to point that out isn't name calling it's calling a spade a spade.

Everyone is a "conspiracy theorist" by definition though. George Bush jr. is probably the world's biggest. The only difference is that when the corporate suits and politicians put forth the conspiracies, we are supposed to just believe it with no questions.

I agree with Lanny. "Conspiracy theorist" is a label given by people as a lazy way to discredit them without proof - just like calling someone "stupid" or an "idiot". It implies intellectual inferiority, does it not?

[/b][/quote]
So you have to believe in conspiracies to be considered smart?

The more elaborate, multi-layered and improbable . . . . the smarter that makes you?

Not likely.

"Conspiracy theories are one way to make sense of what happened and regain a sense of control. Of course, they're usually wrong, but they're psychologically reassuring. Because what they say is that everything is connected, nothing happens by accident, and that there is some kind of order in the world, even if it's produced by evil forces. I think psychologically, it's in a way consoling to a lot of people."- Michael Barkun, political scientist, Syracuse University and author of book on the culture of conspiracies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...9-2004Oct6.html

On another note, I'm not much of a Christian and I am certainly in favour of the conflict in Iraq, although certainly not in favour of the re-election of George Bush because, oddly, he's far to Christian for me.

Which makes me an odd duck in this thread. I'm in disagreement with Bingo as I don't particularly want people in office who are exhorted into action by God.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bingo+Oct 21 2004, 03:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Oct 21 2004, 03:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 21 2004, 03:18 PM

Hey now come on, isn't that the same thing? You disagree with my opinion so that means I'm closeminded?

Not at all ...

I disagree with the line of thinking that I am right therefore you are wrong. Or that all people think differently than me are less educated, or too religious.

There are plenty of valid reasons to suggest the war in Iraq is wrong, we'd agree on many, but that's a far cry from saying going to war in Iraq wasn't following the Christian way.

I don't think you or I are qualified to say such a thing. [/b][/quote]
Okay let me clarify a little...

I agreed with the Afghanistan war, but I still think it was unChristian. Why? Because it's war.

You are right, neither of us are qualified to make these statements and make them stick. I haven't been to church in about 25 years (it was Christmas eve, I fell asleep, the pastor woke me up angrily in front of the whole congregation, I was 4,hmm). But! having read the Bible, having discussed Christian doctrine endlessly in University literature classes, having read a "biography" of Jesus, I've come to the conclusion that war, any war, all war, just doesn't mesh with the message.

I could certainly be wrong and you could certainly be right, but that's just how I see it. It's just my interpretation.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 21 2004, 03:20 PM
I just think the label communicates something pretty negative. It's insinuating that what someone says doesn't have value because they are just a "conspiracy theorist".

No, I don't think YOU are a fascist. You are probably one of the last real classical conservatives around here. If I were you though, I would be insulted by those in North America who have hijacked moderate right wing ideology.

Fair enough ...

I can see what you are saying. Yes, the term conspiracy theorist can be taken with a negative connotation, for sure. But then what do you call someone that consistently brings up conspiracies? Tough call.

Thanks for clearing up the fascist thing.

I honestly don't care if you agree with me, but labeling someone a fascist that leans a little right of center is an insult in my book. I'm bothered by nutbars on both sides to be honest.

Moore is a moron. Coulter is a witch. I don't particularly like Rush Limbaugh, and I really dislike Bill Moyers. I do enjoy Bill Maher, and I like Bill O'Reilly. I find Jon Stewart to be hilarious.

Bottom line? If you were to put all of these people and everyone on this site on a political graph, we sit much more closely than we realize.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Sorry Bingo, but to be defined a conspiracy theorist because I do not agree with those on the right here is insulting. You don't think so because it agrees with your politics. That is every bit as insulting, and to those that agree with me as wellWhatever. Again, that's your calland we all live with it.

BTW... George Will was just on Sean Hannity's syndicated radio show talking about the election and how close it was. Guess what they evoked? You guessed it, fear! They ended their analysis saying that its too close to call and that its time America was afraid. Fear would get them through this election and the right candidate elected. How did you put that? "Wow, you can imagine my surprise!" The mindless right preying upon mindless fear? Say it isn't so.