Well gools if bush appoint fawell or Pat Roberson to be the next secretary of justice we pretty much can said he got his chritian agenda ahead.

Put then 4 new christian fundamentalist judges in the bench and there you got a cleric rule with a reconstrution on the "constitution"

so in a nutshell they are all as arogent and self serving as the radical muslims we wish to destroy.

i take all religion with a grain of salt. everyone should express their own interpretaion of the universe, and we can then respect one another.

Diluted here to the most important point.

Originally posted by Gools
These religious movements now have a firm handle on political influence in the United States.

Yes. They've got the bomb.

Expanding from that, one additional point. These aren't xenophobic thinkers. The vision is global, without apology in the case of Rev. Moon at least. His "birthday gift" of $3 million to Kim Jong Il for "defense" came at the same time Moon was actively supporting former President George HW Bush and then Governor Bush (and vice versa).

All the governments of the world (and people) are bit players toward this theocratic goal. The clash of civilizations is intent to be one of Christian versus Islam, not secular versus anything. The current diversion is the pretense of a war on Islam/Terror. That means is merely to the greater immediate end of eliminating secularism by the taking (or giving up) of those rights. Moon and the Christian Reconstructionalists are especially intenet on reforming our sexual lives, criminalizing abortion and homosexuality. It's a baptism of our country for war. You don't go into battle with sin.

Once Providence has shown to be on "our" side (meaning we are a less sinful nation) then we'll take on Osama and his kind. But only after rallying others to his cause. To use a "secular" analogy, we're in the opening chapters of Stephen King's "The Stand." Choose your side: Denver or Vegas. (In their thinking mind you, as I'm not crazy.)

The conflict is merely being charged at this point. There is no incentive to crush an enemy integral to the final conflict. Who did we take out in the Middle East? The only secular power there was, further empowering the fundamentalism of our "enemy" to take hold. These aren't stupid or even "faith-based" people. They are logical thinkers working toward an end. The final conflict.

Frankly, why anyone would want to be led by people that seek to bring about Revelations is beyond me. This started with Reagen. Taking out the "Evil Empire" via a cold war was more about stamping out a secular influence than anything. At that point Islam was our ally. The enemy of my enemy... Just getting the seculars out of the way in a joint effort for the "hot" war of ideologues to come.

Some may rightfully dismiss Bush as a charlatan on values. Rove (in particular) may be accurately described as merely using the Evangelical movement for selfish gain. But really, who's using who here? Who did the RNC just hand the keys of government to? I think alot of liberals are missing the big picture when they cite greed or profit as the goal of neo-cons. That may be true in the short term, but they're losing control as we speak. We are knee deep in a conflagration that has no end but the end. Our "values" can be thanked for that.

We could have changed course. Millions tried. More people voted for the number one liberal in America than Reagen or Bush 41, but the wedging of fiscal conservatives with evanglicals overcame the course correction. Now it's on. The fiscal conservatives lost control when Bush came to power anyway. Economics based politics is dead, they just don't know it yet. The road is now paved for the fundamental overthrow of secularism on the march to armageddon. Spare another $70 billion for a vet friend?

Value voters. Genius.

Liberals got beat, but fiscal conservatives just got punked. I'll take beat anyday. They should have voted Libertarian.

Interesting use of the word reconstructionists, I can remember my great grandfather still using the word carpet baggers and scallowwags when he would talk about those 'damn yankees'. I used to think 'wow, what a bitter old man' but the more I studied the american civil war and the more I learned about the reconstruction era, the more I understood his anger. Though the civil war was before even his time, the resentment was still there. I wonder now in retrospect if the american civil war wasn't to fight the comming industrial revolution...

Originally posted by RANT
Diluted here to the most important point.

More people voted for the number one liberal in America than Reagen or Bush 41, but the wedging of fiscal conservatives with evanglicals overcame the course correction.

What proof do you have of this quote?

Originally posted by dcgolf

Originally posted by RANT
Diluted here to the most important point.

More people voted for the number one liberal in America than Reagen or Bush 41, but the wedging of fiscal conservatives with evanglicals overcame the course correction.

What proof do you have of this quote?

Tuesday's vote. They've been talking about it all week. Highest turnout in history. More people voted for BOTH candidates than anyone every before.

So it can also be said more voted for Bush than Reagen or Clinton, but the point I was making is that more voted for "the #1 liberal Senator in America" than either too.

Or are you asking about the wedge issue? That's on the news too and a dozen threads on ATS. The ban on gay marriage put to 11 states made the difference for Bush. 100 million evangelicals are celebrating a win today that has nothing to do with economics. The exit polls showed the most important "issue" to voters this election was values. "Taxes" were meaningless (at 5%).

What proof do you want? What are you disagreeing with?

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by dcgolf

Originally posted by RANT
Diluted here to the most important point.

More people voted for the number one liberal in America than Reagen or Bush 41, but the wedging of fiscal conservatives with evanglicals overcame the course correction.

What proof do you have of this quote?

Tuesday's vote. They've been talking about it all week. Highest turnout in history. More people voted for BOTH candidates than anyone every before.

So it can also be said more voted for Bush than Reagen or Clinton, but the point I was making is that more voted for "the #1 liberal Senator in America" than either too.

Or are you asking about the wedge issue? That's on the news too and a dozen threads on ATS. The ban on gay marriage put to 11 states made the difference for Bush. 100 million evangelicals are celebrating a win today that has nothing to do with economics. The exit polls showed the most important "issue" to voters this election was values. "Taxes" were meaningless (at 5%).

What proof do you want? What are you disagreeing with?

Upon further review, you are right. More people voted for Bush than any other president in history. Thank goodness 100 million evangelicals are rejoicing in the election of our President during an election in which 125 million people cast their votes. I guess the people have spoken.

Look, more Americans voted for a free America. Unfortunately over 50 million voted for the terrorist. Bush is too liberal for me, but maybe he will come around now and crush all those who oppose freedom. Liberal freedom is "think our way" or you are an idiot, moron, "mouthbreather". Being "PC" is no freedom at all.

You are right Rant I understand now the corporal agenda and the secular agenda, now we just have to sit and what how American become Armageddon and how the rest of the world will try to stop the spread of US and his republican (fundamentalist) agenda.

I still think bush is a poppet and he is being used from both sides. And yes the republican party does belong to the fundamentalist.

I can way to see the group between that voted for bush screaming foul play when things start to go to "cleric to handle"

If people think that these elections were a record braking you wait to the ones in 2008.

By then the damage will be already done and irreversible.

This country policies will change into “god versus the evil” in the world.

People tend to forget that for every law and constitutional amendment is consequence to follow

Religion is not mean to be evil is the people behind religion the ones that are evil.

God is not mean to be a politician or involved in politics, but people behind god hides to pursue in his name and to commit crimes against humanity.

Religion and fundamentalist can not be allowed to be in power, but most people does not realized that is how most wars in this world are started and fought for.

Barry Goldwater saw this exact problem happening in 64.

If it wasn't for the christian movement in the republican party, goldwater conservatives would of never started the libertarian party.

Tell you what true lies I got the feelign that if the democrats does not fix their act, the libertarians are going to become the second best choice in the future.

I will be more than glad to give a chance in the next elections if nothing good comes from the other two parties.

RANT - I agree with you analysis, especially…

The current diversion is the pretense of a war on Islam/Terror.

I also agree that this is not some sort of historical fluke. It's too damn obvious. The boldness, hubris and force with which policies are being implemented and objectives are being reached are breathtaking.

So is the willful blindness.

The fear generated on September 11, 2001 has taken root on fertile ground.

Liberals got beat, but fiscal conservatives just got punked.

And the whole world is going to pay the price.

Edit: brain fart

[edit on 11/8/2004 by Gools]

Shameless bump

I think the research in my original post is relevent to the new forum.
.