Forums | MacLife

Is this the long-rumored 'Christian' bump?:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

"USA Today/Gallup        7/21-23/06       37       59       4       -22"
(he did lower his 'negative' to under 60%)
That ever-elusive 'positive' over-40% is proving quite problematic.

Last edited by blank kludge (2006-07-25 2:07 pm)

I don't think Bush should be more thoughtful about christian victims as Muslim ones. The sectarian violence in Iraq is sickening across the board. I'd be wary of the notion that a president should be held to a higher standard over the deaths and suffering of one religion over another.

But the politics can't be denied; Syria offering succor to christian victims of American policy is probably not the kind of thing Bush's  right wing christian base would like to go into in any detail.

The refugee stress on Syria may be one of those stories that follows closely Pakistan's experience during the 80s. Those Pakistani refugee camps were the birthplace of the Taliban. Lets hope the players can get together and drain those refugee centres quickly.

Imagine radicalised christian militias from Iraq and Syria linking with the old falangists in Lebanon over Israeli 'crimes'. 

Now imagine the rhetoric when the American paleo-conservatives sense blood and start blaming Israel for American security woes.

It gets ugly very fast.

robco wrote:

They only care about keeping the homersexuals from marrying in this country and getting prayer back in schools.

Which ironically go against the teachings of The Good Book.

George Bush isn't the cause of those christians dying.

Place the blame where it belongs.

-=-

Oh - and if this thread is going to get any participation from me, the absurd comments will stop.
This thread is pretty much just trolls so far.

Last edited by resedit (2006-07-25 3:38 pm)

resedit wrote:

Oh - and if this thread is going to get any participation from me, the absurd comments will stop.

Thank you.

::Throws a troll line into the stream and waits patiently.::

So two kids are pushing each other around in class so the teacher walks over and bashes one of them in the head with a cast iron skillet. When questioned by parents the teacher explains that he had no choice, he HAD to do something and time outs hadnt been working.

Thats an exaggeration, but to me, not much different from when someone says "George Bush isn't the cause of those christians dying, place the blame where it belongs."

But at the same time, he's got a point. Lets go ahead and put the blame where it lies: people who voted for Bush in the first place- especially christians who voted for him.

Lets really put the blame where it belongs. Christendom has been shooting itself in the foot and giving itself a bad reputation for about 1500 years by waging war, dehumanizing non-believers, and scamming middle to low income people while caliming to be selling salvation. And politicking for Bush and other human failures.

Last edited by StaticAge (2006-07-25 4:50 pm)

Ribtorus wrote:

I don't think Bush should be more thoughtful about christian victims as Muslim ones.

As a decent human being, and as a supposed Christian, yes...he should treat all people with love.  Of course, that is not happening.

One would think, though, that he'd take notice of co-religionists with those whom he normally panders for votes in the US.  Which brings us back to your next point:

Ribtorus wrote:

But the politics can't be denied; Syria offering succor to christian victims of American policy is probably not the kind of thing Bush's  right wing christian base would like to go into in any detail.

Which is probably why the mainstream media doesn't talk about this at all.

Ribtorus wrote:

Now imagine the rhetoric when the American paleo-conservatives sense blood...

Paleos have been sensing blood in the water for some time now. My bet is that stories like this  one (if they ever get out), plus the general mayhem in Iraq and the attempts by Israel to draw Syria and Iran into direct confrontation with the US will...unless it causes a thermonuclear holocaust...be the deathknell of the neo-con takeover of the old Right in the US. 

I think that, once this whole Dubya nightmare is over and the US finally pulls out of Iraq, Vietnam-style, we'll see a blessed era of non-intervention...even with Israel...because the American public will be sick and tired of what has been wrought.

We'll all have to suffer through a term, or so, of Hillary first, though, which isn't much better.

resedit wrote:

Bush is not targeting those christians, nor is he encouraging policies in Iraq that do so.

Bush's ENTIRE policy in Iraq, whether by intention or not, pits one ethnic group against the other against the other.  Of course the minorities lose out.

When, by his policy failures, the entire might of the US military machine can't even control the "Green Zone", let alone the rest of Iraq...do you think that he  can't be blamed for causing the problems and then not being able to manage them?

Do you honestly think that Christians there were fleeing the Syria (of all places!!) before March 2003?  And suddenly, after 03-03 it starts to happen AND IT'S NOT A RESULT OF BUSH'S WAR?

Oh, and if it is by intent that he sees fit to engulf the Levant and beyond in ethnic and religious violence, then he's an evil man.

But, of course, if it's not his intent, then he's a stupid puppet of some other evil men.

Take your pick.  It's either evil intent or blind stupidity.  I don't think that there's another option to be had.

I wonder how far lack of responsibility by commanders in chief can be taken.  Someone's in charge of security afterall, and what amounts to incompetence seems to get an easy pass.

Ribtorus wrote:

I wonder how far lack of responsibility by commanders in chief can be taken.  Someone's in charge of security afterall, and what amounts to incompetence seems to get an easy pass.

Its not the NYPDs fault if they fail to prevent you from getting mugged on the city streets.

Last edited by Steyr AUG (2006-07-25 5:17 pm)

Steyr AUG wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

I wonder how far lack of responsibility by commanders in chief can be taken.  Someone's in charge of security afterall, and what amounts to incompetence seems to get an easy pass.

Its not the NYPDs fault if they fail to prevent you from getting mugged on the city streets.

Those responsible for security carry the burden of failure.
Those responsible for mugging me enjoyed a measure of success.