bush stole the election

100 hacks

Baddog, it is a Republic but it is ALSO a democracy.

But speaking of "how many times does it have to be said" issues, Michael Moore was NOT the one who said the vote was rigged. The title of this thread is misleading, although I'm sure Moore probably said it to someone somewhere.

"I think the supreme court and the constitution are credible. you keep deciding which foriegn journalist or talk show host you want to believe."

:) So it said somewhere in the Constitution that George W. Bush won Florida? Man, you have to give it up for our forefathers... they had incredible insight! LOL

typical liberal.
when the truth shuts you down just yell "look over there":1orglaugh

as I said in my first point, this type of argument is dismissed by intelligent people.:thumbsup

I am amazed by conservatives who maintain that the Religious Right is not becoming a dominant force in the Republican party. Or who do not see this as a threat to America in general. Let's take a President openly speaking about the 'sanctity of marriage' (calling it, basically, a holy-founded institution) as an example.

In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

In 1992:

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.

The Lemon test, established by the Supreme Court in 1971:
"To be constitutional, a law must: have a secular purpose, and
be neutral towards religion - neither hindering nor advancing it, and not result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion"

Justice O'Connor created this criteria: a law is unconstitutional if it favors one religion over another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel like insiders.

So long as the President makes statements as he did in that article, he gives creedence to the idea that he favors violating the Supreme court's rulings from 1947 forward, in order to further a religious agenda.

But yeah, us 'liberals' really don't have a leg to stand on in our suspicions...

also marketing his religious video as "alternative to fahrenheit"

hahah

http://gallery.bcentral.com/GID49069...ite-House.aspx

and what is the title?

FAITH IN THE WHITE HOUSE

http://imagescommerce.bcentral.com/m...ushFaithLG.jpg

what were we saying about religion? ;)

I went down a side road for a moment... though not entirely disrelated since you are the one who brought up how liberals view of the 'Religious Right's' influence was in essence, misguided.
I was attempting to gently show you that you are living in a fantasy land.

I never said once in this thread that the election was stolen. I said that holding up investigation of alleged voter fraud to ridicule is anti-democracy, and that I factually imagine Bush and Rove would agree.

Typical Republican. When someone makes a valid point, yell "typical liberal", and laugh. :winkwink:

i love the last line of this

Not since the days of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln has a president put so much stock in his Christian faith and prayer life for making decisions and leading the United States in its hour of crisis. According to BBC correspondent Justin Webb: "Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W. Bush. The Bush administration hums to the sound of prayer. Prayer meetings take place day and night. It's not uncommon to see White House functionaries hurrying down corridors carrying Bibles."
This program will examine the extraordinary faith and prayer life of President George W. Bush, and how it impacts his personal life and his decisions as the leader of the free world. See how his faith has been unshakeable in dealing with the 9/11 terrorist attack, fighting al-Qaeda, ridding Iraq of the Saddam Hussein regime, rooting out terrorists in Afghanistan, and how his religious beliefs bring personal peace and clarity in a time of terrorism and chaos across the world.

According to Newsweek magazine, "this presidency is the most resolutely faith-based in modern times - an enterprise founded, supported and guided by trust in the temporal and spiritual power of God."

:1orglaugh

I would contest that. You have to remember that Kerry received more votes than anyone ever elected president. Apparently there were enough new Republican voters to counter that.

i take that back, the next line of that is even better!

"from the barrom to the oval office"

BUAHAHAHAHAHA

This special also explores President Bush's boldness in witnessing and proclaiming his faith to world leaders, and examines his Christian appointees and the Presidential Prayer Team that uplifts him in intercessory prayer. Learn about George W. Bush's faith journey from the barroom to the Oval office. See how the power of faith can change a life, build a family and shape the destiny of a nation. His faith will inspire you! DVD or VHS FORMAT 70 Minutes. Normal retail is $14.95 ... RFC SPECIAL JUST $12.95

Yep, no substance to our conspiracy theory about the Religious Right's parasitic hold on the Republican party. No substance at all.

We're just a bunch of whiney liberals, who just want our pot legalized and couldn't possibly have concern about upholding the constitution this nation was founded on. Oh yeah, and don't forget: we don't carry about National Security, and have no understanding of fiscal responsibility, because you only become a Republican after you mature and grow out of being a Democrat.

http://www.rubberbug.com/temp/BigChart.gif

Thats pretty fucked up right there

ridiculing someone because they have a belief in god is silly.
imagining that 56million people who voted for Bush are religious wingnuts is silly.
not learning from this election just how silly, is silly.


haha, too many "sillys"

yep, thats pretty much the vibe you get listening to liberals talk.

"as I said in my first point, this type of argument is dismissed by intelligent people."

Haha... and you must not think the people here at GFY are very intelligent if you think your attempts at manipulation are working. ;) Your tactics are so third grade, 12clicks. Have a good day. :1orglaugh

Whoa - that's your party's fear tactic, not mine.

I personally believe in God, and don't consider a belief in him to be silly in the slightest.

I vehemently oppose legislation of those beliefs. Something the religious right is demonstrably for.

Additionally, I have never stated that the 59 million people who voted for Bush are religious wignuts. I have too many Republican friends to think that.

Bush, however, is who was being voted for - and he IS a right wing religious wing nut, openly interested in using the power of his office to further the agenda of the Religious Right. He is the man voted into office - not the large majority of Republicans who voted for whatever issue was important to them (which was their right). And this is a focal area for him - per him!

The fact that you would say this is evidence to me of Republican party spin (all democrats look down on religion). The same as Democratic left wingers that call all Republican voters toothless born agains with no brain of their own.

I'll put it this way - if Kerry had said "I will try to make abortion illegal" I would have voted for Nader.

I have no problem with Religion. I have a big problem with it determining policy, or being used as a guide to amend the constitution of the United States.

Is that 'silly'?

Wrong :321GFY

yes and no.
its exactly as I predicted. its easy to get college kids to register to vote and make big talk about voting, quite another to get them to the polls.
same with the underclass making up the other large percentage of the liberal electorate. Its easy to go to their house and register them, quite another to get them off the couch.

please show us the laws proposed or passed by the president in his 4 long years that make you think this.

good quote

George W. Bush on Drugs : Jun 1, 2003

Turned from alcoholism by power of prayer

In September 2002, Bush invited five religious leaders-three Christian, one Jewish, one Muslim-to meet with him in the Oval Office. "You know," he said, "I had a drinking problem. Right now I should be in a bar in Texas, not the Oval Office. There is only one reason that I am in the Oval Office and not in a bar. I found faith. I found God. I am here because of the power of prayer."

http://www.issues2000.org/News_School_Prayer.htm

he did sing the little anti-abortion thing

http://washington.news.designerz.com...ith-women.html

california voted yes for stem cell, the pres is against it, why again?

survey says,... religion.

his "faith-based initiatives" are religious in nature no?

http://pewforum.org/faith-based-initiatives/

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/002983.html

Bush Tries to Exempt Religious Groups From Discrimination Laws
Remember Bush's State of the Union speech in which he promised huge dollars for drug treatment -- provided by religious groups? Or his "faith-based" initiative in 2000 that mercifully died? Well, he's not giving up. But he's delusional if he thinks his new plan will get through Congress.

Bush is trying to get Congress to exempt religious groups from adhering to anti-discrimination laws on hiring policies. In other words, he is seeking to allow religious groups to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and religion when hiring.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/18/bush.faith/

"I welcome faith to help solve the nation's deepest problems," President Bush told a convention of religious broadcasters last week.


i am glad we will all be safe now.

Proposing a constitutional ban on gay marriage would certainly fit the bill, IMO.

Let me amend that a little. IF, let's say... HIV had been found to be 'Gay Only' and was an airborne disease, and was infecting non Gay individuals, and the Pres wanted to pass a law banning Gay Marriage as a health risk to the Nation - I might or might not be for it or against it. That would, at least, be approaching the purview of the government.

He, however, wants this done to preserve the 'sanctity of marriage' - by definition tied to religion, and simply not his job.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030522.html

There is no question that President Bush has placed religion front and center in his Administration. Recent press coverage would seem to indicate that this is a new approach - one that is specific to this Republican Administration, and that is part of a conspiracy of fundamentalists to gain political power. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Virtually all of President Bush's initiatives, when it comes to religion, were presaged by Clinton Administration policies and attitudes. Indeed, a strong case can be made that Clinton set the stage, and Bush is doing no more than following in his footsteps.

That shouldn't surprise anyone. It's very likely that Bush's successor will do the same. There is little in the culture to change this course - except the Constitution and its separation of church and state. But sadly, the Constitution alone is rarely enough to stop any politician from enacting his chosen agenda, religious or not.

not biased

;)

Very true and i can see your theory to a point, but look at those numbers , its like each and every one was the exact opposite, its almost as if the machines got the numbers backwards :)

As rousing as this has been (and it has been) I have to leave.

But in the spirit of keepings things light, I wanted to respond to the above.

:321GFY you vote stealing, gay hating fascist. :winkwink:

For the literal minded, yes, I am joking...

Later, all.

again we have the misguided extreme left grasping at straws.

you're talking about banning partial birth abortions. this is not a religious issue.
its whether you believe that you can pull a baby out of a woman feet first and kill it.

blah blah blah, label me this label me that,.

You ignore all the links and proof and grasp at straws yourself.

out of all the relighious based things he has done you choose that one?

anyway, i bet you voted Barry GOldwater in 1964, your party hasnt changed much.

you people were against civil rights in 64 and you are against gays having rights today.

I know, its shoking but remember.
the people who went out to poor areas and signed up democratic type voters were motivated to register everyone they could. those registered had no motivation to go to the polls and vote.

it does look bad, but if you look at how those counties voted in 2000 it was the same direction Bush over Gore.. So it seems in this example it actually is democrats voting for Bush (unless that computer fucked it up in 2000 also)..

Ashcroft spends 8k on cloth to cover statue

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...oft-breast.htm

surely this is not religious in any way

hahaha

http://christiansagainstbush.bravehost.com/

Christians Against Bush!

haha

I am glad that they aren't letting him back

banning partial birth abortion and faith based initiatives?
this is all you have?

this is exactly what I'm talking about. once you get past the liberal screaming and bore down to the facts, you don't have a case.
Thats why more people voted for Bush this election than for anyone else, ever.

oh, and you should check your civil rights facts before you embarrass yourself.

Bush is never wrong.

he claimed we were not going to have any casualties in Iraq

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, "We're not going to have any casualties."

Pat Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, said he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He described Bush in the meeting as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life."



:1orglaugh

It's also why more people voted against Bush than anyone esle, ever etc. blah, whatever.

My Russian friend said that he and other Russian programmers thank Diebold for providing the opportunity for some many Russians to vote for Bush in this election.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

forgot the link

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1020-05.htm

:glugglug

:) well it does seem awfully freaky coincidence that every registered democrat appeared to vote for a republican and every republican voted for a democrat :)

Nahhhhh nothing fishy about that. Especially since it's only one type of vote scanning system it happened on.

Wheeeeeeeee

Some would say Karl Rove & company perfected "look over there!" this year.:glugglug

hehe

No, those machines were the only ones that got it right, the rest are wrong.:winkwink:

http://www.shop4photos.net/graphics/183/18359.jpg
YOU BUSH BASHING GFY MORONS CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH