Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths

Subject: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 06:47 PM

Now I know that most of you who have been condemning Ann Coulter must be aware of Rep. Pete Stark (D. CA) has opined that the President sends troops to die for his amusement

Where's your outrage at the honorable gentleman for such a blatant ad hominum and obviously unfair attack. There is none? Of course there isn't; a person of the left can be as outrageous as s/he pleases. Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y, here? Never mind, I spelled it for you.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: SINSULL
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 06:53 PM

My email to Stark:
I am a life long registered Democrat. I have opposed the war in Iraq from Day 1 and am disgusted by the President's lies in getting us into this mess.
That said - your remarks are a disgrace. Retract and apologize. It is just this sort of crap that is going to cost us the election in 2008.
Mary L. Sullivan

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:03 PM

First I've heard of it. However, I will echo SINSULL's e-mail. Ridiculous and disgusting thing for anyone to say.

That said, Ann Coulter is a wretched piece of garbage on one of her good days.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: michaelr
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:09 PM

Ann Coulter has good days?

I think Pete Stark is wrong, wrong, wrong. Our soldiers are dying for Cheney's amusement.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: skipy
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:13 PM

BRING THEM ALL HOME NOW!
Skipy

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:23 PM

As one who knows intimately an over the top remark, Stark was way out of line and I sent his office my own e-mail suggesting that he was out of line. Sins phrased hers better, but the idea was the same.

But John, make no mistake, Ann Coulter IS a piece of crap who deserves no respect by anyone in her own party, let alone the rest of the country. I would always defend her right to free speech but I will exercise mine by suggesting she go piss up a slack rope.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:26 PM

"Amused" shouldn't be taken as implying "being amused", it has other meanings. One definition of "amusement" in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is "diversion to gain or waste time"; another is "a pastime, play or game".

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: kendall
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:28 PM

Stark is dead wrong.
So was Bush when he said "Bring it on" and, "..this CRUSADE" The man is a fool, but not a sadist.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:46 PM

Mistyping by me there:

"Amusement" shouldn't be taken as implying "being amused", as in "how funny", it has other meanings. One definition of "amusement" in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is "diversion to gain or waste time"; another is "a pastime, play or game".

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:53 PM

McGrath, you're correct. The definitions you cite INDICT Stark's comment all the more.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:05 PM

No, it wasn't right for Stark to say it, but it doesn't stick out when it's viewed in context - click here for details and a video. He was talking about children's health care, and I think he got a bit carried away.

The Republican Spinmeisters were quick to jump on Stark's remark, and I imagine they'll milk it for all it's worth for the next week or so. John on the Sunset Coast, it seems you're using Rep. Stark's remarks as a defense of Ann Coulter's tactics. It looks to me like Stark kinda stumbled into his inappropriate remark. I don't think there's any comparison with Ann Coulter. Coulter does her deeds in cold blood. She knows exactly what she's saying, and she shoots to kill.

I suppose that's our culture - in our our legislative bodies, in our media, and even here on Mudcat, we seek to defeat our opponents by spin and character assasination and out-of-context quotes and all sorts of combative tricks that have little to do with resolving the issue at hand.

What? You don't think there's "spin" at Mudcat? - look at this thread title: BS: Shrub begins new war- on sick children. Now, I disagree with Bush's veto of the children's healthcare bill, but I certainly dn't believe for a minute that he wants to wage war on children. That's the strongest example I've seen lately, but there's lots of it here, so much that it's well-nigh impossible to have a reasonable discussion here at times. It's all about propaganda, folks. Isn't that a shame?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:06 PM

Another distraction...

While what Rep. Stark said was certainly ill tought out, in the larger picture, it isn't a single grain of sand on a beach filled with the ill thought out stuff that Bush has pulled on our country and the world...

Bad, Rep. Stark... You ought to apologize...

Bad, Goerge Bush... You should be tried for war crimes and be given the same treatment as your buddy, Saddam, got...

B~

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:20 PM

John, you got a 10-25 in the trou.

Do what many of us have already done and e-mail Stark from this Congessional site.....HERE

Then please take that sanctimonius attitude and make it all brown. Your boy is still an ass and Coulter is still an idiot. Why not write them as well and tell them that many Americans find them at the very least "offensive." They aren't helping your party at all. I've sent them each my comments on several past occasions, all very politely phrased, but alas, I get no response.......***sigh***...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:57 PM

"diversion to gain or waste time" seems not an unreasonable way of summing up the present endgame in Iraq. Better to have used those kind of words rather than the ones he did. Best to be unambiguous in these things.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:57 PM

I also did not hear of Stark's comment until I saw this thread. And then I checked the video. Stark's remark was way off-base, and I indeed condemn it.

But I note that it didn't take the Republican opposition more that a few seconds to set the child health care discussion aside in order to attack Stark for his remark. Not unlike some troll on one of these threads trying to change the subject in order to avoid a serious discussion of the original issue. That, I believe, is called a "red herring." Stark made a double blunder. In addition to his remark being in atrocious taste, it provided the Republicans with the opportunity to rise up in outrage against him, thereby avoiding having to deal with the real issue.

I also note that John on the Sunset Coast loses no time in trying to cram all liberals who did not immediately condemn Stark into a pigeon-hole labeled "hypocrites"—even those who hadn't even heard of the incident yet.

Stark's ill thought out remarks in no way mitigate Ann Coulter's excesses.

Grasping at straws.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:20 PM

First, I do not expect anyone to comment on something they knew nothing about, and I did not indicate that all liberals had heard it. But I would bet the farm that many Coulter critics at Mudcat had heard it before my post, but did not, themselves, post about it. It is not my purpose to criticize Stark (though I actually do), but to point out the double standard here. Don Firth is correct---Stark does not mitigate Coulter (if you believe her wrong), but his remarks are, on their own, odious and should be treated that way.
John OTSC (who wonders if this would have come up at all, had he not posted it)

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:30 PM

.............And Coulter's remarks are, on their own, odious and should be treated that way.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Sorcha
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 10:32 PM

No, it probably would not have. Yes, I saw the remark, and yes, I emailed about it. Yes, I think Ann Coulter is a large piece of slime from an unmentionable orifice.

No, I didn't post anything about it here because I tend to stay the HELL away from politics on Mudcat. Discussing politics on Mudcat is sort of like trying to keep your ass clean when you have the trots. Just can't be done nicely. So I avoid it except in extreme cases such as this.

Go find a new rope.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:11 PM

Sunset John-

Joe spelled it out:    Coulter does her atrocities totally on purpose--and in quantity--after all it's her stock in trade--and it helps sell the offal she calls her books. Stark got carried away--obviously he was wrong to say what he did. But name one other time when he has done so. No problem giving a long list for dear Ann.

If you can't see the difference, it tends to support the idea that you are blinded by your own ideology. Unsurprisingly.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:12 PM

JohnontheSunsetCoast- did you ever, have you ever started a thread about Coulter?

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:19 PM

Good point, ebbie.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:19 PM

John, I am failing to see what your problem is. You imply that people only see what's wrong with the right. Yet you post to a music forum whereon the majority of people are somewhat left leaning. You make shit remarks, snide: "John OTSC (who wonders if this would have come up at all, had he not posted it)." Maybe not, but it wasn't you who started the other thread about Coulter. So don't start with the 'holier than thou' crap.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:20 PM

Sorry. I posted that before I read Ebbie's post.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 12:46 AM

What's so wrong about Stark's comment about Bush sends troops to die for his amusement?
e just vetoed a bill that would provide children with health care because (here's something that'sin line with Stark from Harry Reid

"On Wednesday, President Bush was asked why he vetoed the CHIP legislation that would provide health care to almost ten million children. His response: "to ensure that I am relevant".

It is amazing that he thinks his relevancy is more important than health care for ten million children.

We already have 69 votes in the Senate, more than enough to pass the bill without the President, and the House of Representatives came within 13 votes of overriding his veto yesterday.

This is a tiny margin, and your efforts can help put us over the top.

Sign our petition to members of the House who oppose CHIP -- tell them our child

Now the President is saying "Why don't we sit down and compromise on CHIP?" How in the world does he think we got where we are? How did we get to 69 senators to support this legislation? Compromise.

We started with a cost of $70 billion, then went to $50 billion and finally compromised at $35 billion. For the President to come now and say, "Let's compromise," is completely disingenuous. Saving children should be more important to the President than saving face.

Here is the irony of the President's veto: This program was created by Orrin Hatch, a conservative Republican, and Ted Kennedy 10 years ago. Why? Because Orrin Hatch had two families come to him -- both families were working. They didn't qualify for Medicaid. They couldn't buy insurance. They didn't have the money. So in the finest example of bipartisan cooperation, conservative Orrin Hatch and liberal Ted Kennedy sat down and created one of our nation's most successful health care programs.

Now George Bush vetoed this bill simply to remain relevant. Ten million children are not irrelevant.

Thank you,

Harry Reid

Sign our petition to members of the House who oppose CHIP -- tell them our child

Barrywhothinksthattisadministrationwillnotstopatanyingfortheirownpleasures

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 12:48 AM

Thank You Joe Offer for your input without the spin.

Barry

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 06:44 AM

"to ensure that I am relevant" has very much the same kind of implication as "for his amusement"

In both cases the words invite the listener to see the President as someone who is playing games in matters of life and death, in the one case to do with children's health, in the other case to do with war.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 08:43 AM

Barry,

Yeah, I read the article in the Washington Post where Bush said that he is "relevant"... I thought that was real curious, especially in light of the fact that just the day before he said that if Iran so much as "knowledge" of how to make a nuclear weapon that would amount to the beginning of World War III...

This scares the dickens out of me... Of course, Bush is no longer relevant... His approval ratings are lower than any president in modern times... He has spent whatever political capital he thought he might have had... His own party has distanced itself from him...

This is a scarey man right now because he is a wounded animal and wounded animals don't think clearly...

...and there is nothing that Ann Coulter can do to change this reality...

Bobert

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Amergin
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 08:56 AM

I am sorry, but it this comment was true. It was not off base in any way shape or form. Bush has been enjoying himself, playing dress up on the flight deck and playing war president. It is about bloody time some one in Washington showed some spine.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 10:12 AM

Context always matters. But in this case, though it was not a statement given in the context of a discussion on the war, the context does not alter the harsh meaning of the words.

Bravo, SINSULL! Well done.

MofH, Is there anything that you cannot rationalize by torturing the language? :^)

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 10:16 AM

Bush was too much of a chicken shit when he was in the military to do any killing, so now he has troops killed to make up for it.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 10:57 AM

That, too, observer...

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 12:47 PM

When it comes to hypocites, what can one say about someone who claims he's a "compassionate conservative" and then does the kind of things that Bush does?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:20 PM

Bush recently made some statement that if Iran "had knowledge" of how to make nuclear weapons it would amount to the beginning of World War III. That's a pretty bizarre statement, because ANY government on this planet which can afford to employ a physicist or two or buy a couple of reference books HAS the knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon. Such knowledge is commonly known in the scientific community. Having knowledge of how to do it does not in any way indicate that a nation has the intention to do it...or the technical backup to do it...or feels able to allocate the huge amount of money and resources to do it, not to mention being willing to put up with the attendant risks of doing it.

As such, it appears to me that Mr Bush's statement was one of two things:

1. A very poor use of language by a very careless speaker.

2. A deliberately worded attempt to mislead an ignorant public through innuendo, conditioning them to think that Iran is most definitely building nuclear weapons in a clandestine fashion, and with the most deadly of intentions.

The truth of the matter is, in my opinion, that it is the USA...it is Mr Bush's administration which has those kind of deadly intentions, and it is waging a propaganda campaign, a war of false words, to prepare the American public for another unprovoked pre-emptive war, this time on Iran...or Syria...or both.

If so, the people planning that war have lost their minds, because the US military is already badly overextended as it is.

That's a far more serious matter than some dumb remark made by Mr Stark about George Bush. But, hey, one might as well milk the opportune "Stark remark" for all it's worth, right? It gets people's attention.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:43 PM

Blimey - I think I've probably got "the knowledge" to make nuclear weapons... And that's without knowing too much at all. The same way I've got the knowledge to burn down the Houses of Parliament or assassinate Gordon Brown.

Just give me the resources of a national government, and I'm sure I could run up a basic Atom Bomb in a few years.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:43 PM

As long as you can find someone who is, or has done something worse, anything is okay.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:55 PM

National Lampoon used to advertise a supposed ancient Welsh self-defence technique called "Lapp-Goch". It was based on the principle that you pre-empt possible attacks by anyone else who you think might someday attack you by attacking and killing them first! ;-) It was obviously a joke...

But that is exactly what the Bush administration did to Iraq, and is now threatening to do to Iran and/or Syria. Attack on mere suspicion that the other guy might someday do something!

That's insane. It's criminal. It's ludicrous. And yet it is taken seriously by a large number of Americans and considered to be perfectly okay.

Simply unbelievable. This is the kind of thing the Nazis were doing in 1939-45 when they attacked other nations...this bizarre double-speak of accusing others of what you yourself intend to do, and then doing it. It is no less of a travesty than that.

I hope that Mr Gates and other more sensible people in the administration manage to prevent it from happening one more time, because it is leading slowly and surely to a Third World War...one that will be caused not by Iran, but by the USA...the country that openly subscribes to Lapp-Goch.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 02:39 PM

So our esteemed leader is now warning us that Iran has, or soon will have, Weapons of Mass Destruction?

My goo'ness, where have we heard that before!??

As George W. Bush so wisely and eloquently said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice and—er—um—uh—well, you just can't fool me again. . . ?"

Right, Little Hawk! At the age of 14, I "had knowledge" of how to make nuclear weapons.

If I remember correctly, it was in late August or early September of 1945 that Life Magazine came out with a special issue all about the recently (and explosively) revealed atomic bomb. Along with many photographs as usual, it contained a two-page spread of technical information, complete with diagrams, on how an atomic bomb works. With the physics, known at the time by any high school physics teacher (and their brighter students), combined with a bit of tricky, but doable engineering (among other things, of getting the timing of slapping a couple of non-critical mass pieces of Uranium 235 or Plutonium together to create critical mass, along with the sudden insertion of a beryllium rod—beryllium, when bombarded by Alpha particles from the radioactive Uranium or Plutonium surrounding it, emits a shower of neutrons, which further assures that the said surrounding material will begin to react, and fission takes place; it all happens within a few microseconds). The main problem for a high school physics student would be getting the Uranium or Plutonium.

That was the atomic bomb. Now, I am a little fuzzy about the engineering of a hydrogen bomb, but I know that an H-bomb uses an atomic bomb as a trigger (!) to create sufficient heat to cause hydrogen to fuse, which, in turn, produces helium—and a whole lot of energy.

You could buy the magazine off the newsstands for 10¢. Or, since this was a special issue, it may have been 15¢. We had a subscription.

After posting this, I will quite possibly be arrested for revealing nuclear secrets.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 02:42 PM

So you're saying that SINSULL and catspaw shouldn't have sent their email of displeasure with Stark's comments?

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:17 PM

You'll have to add me to that list. I sent him a strongly worded email expressing my displeasure and disapproval.

Mick

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:25 PM

No, John. (grin) I'm saying that they have much bigger problems to worry about right now than Mr Stark's big mouth. Whaddya think? I am telling everyone I know to email Stark and express extreme displeasure. Chongo has already done so, and he is thinking of mailing him a package with a rotten apple in it just to get the point across in no uncertain terms.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Peace
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:30 PM

But will the apple be rotten to the core?

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:47 PM

Yeah, but see... ALL the other threads are about ALL the other problems. It's REALLY, really hard to stay on topic -- keep your eye on the ball -- I know, but this thread is ABOUT Stark's comment.

So it leaves you with sort of four options regarding this thread:

1. You can agree with the sentiment that there is no good reason for the kind of language Stark used --that it does nothing for a civil solution to ANY problem to be so over-the-top with rhetoric like that(as the initial poster points out -- nobody seems to miss that point when entertainers like Coulter or Limbaugh shoot off, but now you can't "get it" when an actual guy with governmental authority does it). This would be the option that SINSULL, catspaw, and now Big Mick have taken as regards this thread.

2. You can say that Stark's remarks are okay because you think they are the truth. That would be Amergin's take on it.

3. You can say Stark's comments are okay because, as long as you can find someone who is doing something worse, then Stark's rhetoric is okay. Morality on a relative scale. "I'm okay because your guy is worse". That would be yours and Don Firth's take on it.

4. You could stay out of the thread if you don't have a take on Pete Stark's comment.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:55 PM

I should point out that I sent the email prior to this thread being started. I was terrificably bothered by Stark's comment. My guess is that Sins and Spaw probably did the same.

Mick

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:57 PM

3. You can say Stark's comments are okay because, as long as you can find someone who is doing something worse, then Stark's rhetoric is okay. Morality on a relative scale. "I'm okay because your guy is worse". That would be yours and Don Firth's take on it.

Did I say that, John? No, I did not!!

Stark's remark was way off-base, and I indeed condemn it.

That is what I said.

You should either read more carefully (the charitable view), or stop misquoting people in your eagerness to try to discredit what they actually did say.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:57 PM

No, John, my position on Stark's comment is # 1 in your list. There's no good reason for what he said. It was a dumb thing to say.

To that I would add, however, the further observation that the main effect of Stark's dumbass comment, now that it has reached the media, will be to offer comfort and consolation to defenders of the legally and morally indefensible Iraq War and defenders of George Bush...therefore it's quite convenient for them...therefore they should perhaps secretly send Stark some "thank you" notes and maybe contribute quietly to his campaign fund the next time he runs in hopes that he will say further such stupid things to embarrass those who oppose the war.

What is more convenient, after all, than a political opponent who gets caught making idiotic statements?

You follow me?

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: pdq
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:59 PM

...about Fortney "Pete" Stark:


"Stark is the first openly nontheistic member of Congress, as announced by the Secular Coalition for America.[2] Stark acknowledged his nontheism in response to an SCA questionnaire sent to public officials in January 2007. In a statement, Stark said he is a "Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being. I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social service." On September 20, 2007, Stark reaffirmed his atheism by making a public announcement in front of the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard, the Harvard Law School Heathen Society, and various other atheist, agnostic, secular, humanist, and nonreligious groups."

"...Stark is the longest-serving member of Congress from California. He has been a ranking member of the Banking and Currency Committee and powerful Ways and Means Committee. His voting record is generally very liberal, as indicated in the ratings section below, and he has been voted the most liberal member of Congress for two consecutive years. He was a founding member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus."


Pete Stark hates religion and hates religious people. His hate for George W. Bush is personal and vile. He should appologise to George W Bush, Congress and the American people. Then he should think about retiring. The seat is a Democrat-safe one.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 08:48 PM

I know a number of atheists. I also know a number of atheists who despise what Bush has done and is doing to this country. There is not a one of them whose views I would call vile, no matter how intemperate their language may become.


I also don't know an atheist who 'hates' religious people. They may pity them, though. :)

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 09:35 PM

Right on, Stark! You hit it dead-to-nuts, my boy.

Nice to see a democrat actually show some balls.

Keep it up and it's slightly possible I will vote for a democrat or two in '08.

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 09:59 PM

I don't get what being "religious" has to do with supporting George Bush. I really don't. Seriously! ;-) I mean, it's just downright silly to think that the one must naturally follow the other. I know a lot of religious Canadians, and I don't know a single one who thinks very well of George Bush.

But I guess it all depends on your particular variety of religion, right? Aren't the people whom Bush is fighting against in the Middle East mostly pretty religious?

What I'm saying here, folks, is this: to be "liberal" does not mean by definition that you're an atheist. To be "conservative" does not mean by definition that you're a Fundamentalist Christian. And I think it's damn silly to start trying to divide people up in that fashion, standing them on one side or the other of the imaginary line in your own head, and thinking that you are on the righteous side of that line. It's laughable.

I would love to see a very vocal interest group arise called "Atheists for George Bush" and another arise called "Born-Agains Who Hate George Bush and his Godless War". LOL! It would be damn funny, and it might help dissolve some of the dumb stereotypes out there.

Give 'em both equal time on Jerry Springer or some such show, and watch the fur fly...

Subject: RE: Rep. Stark/Pres. Amused by Troop Deaths
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 10:17 PM

The only intelligent conservatives I know are atheists.