McCain Postpones Friday's Debate

[Jeffster]

Originally Posted by heart

If one carefully reads the article, it is about how the good intentions of many common people were used to bring about the agenda of the the few and how people's idealism was used against them. The same thing can happen in any group. It's a good lesson to pay attention to, though few will. And I do foresee that the same thing could happen to the Democrats through the Green (new age religion) agenda. But people won't want to see it.

Also there's this smiley you can use.

Quit editing your posts. It's like a damn rewind button.

And that smiley is vomit, much different than gagging.

[heart]

Why are you so quick to dismiss the idea that idealistic religious people (either conservative Christian or New Age Earth pagans) could be used by those with more nefarious intentions in a Machiavellian fashion?

[Jeffster]

Originally Posted by heart

Why are you so quick to dismiss the idea that idealistic religious people (either conservative Christian or New Age Earth pagans) could be used by those with more nefarious intentions in a Machiavellian fashion?

READ MY FREAKING POSTS. I SAY WHAT I MEAN.

[heart]

Originally Posted by Jeffster

READ MY FREAKING POSTS. I SAY WHAT I MEAN.

I did read your posts and it seemed more like a mental firewall response than anything else. I totally understand it. I used to have the same exact thing whenever anyone questioned the integrity of the motives of the Democrat party.

[Jeffster]

Originally Posted by heart

I did read your posts and it seemed more like a mental firewall response than anything else. I totally understand it. I used to have the same exact thing whenever anyone questioned the integrity of the motives of the Democrat party.

If "mental firewall response" = not swallowing crap because the crap might contain a tiny piece of candy in it somewhere, then I plead guilty.

[heart]

Originally Posted by Jeffster

If "mental firewall response" = not swallowing crap because the crap might contain a tiny piece of candy in it somewhere, then I plead guilty.

But that's the way everything is in the world. Truth is always sandwiched between lies and one has to ferret it out. This article does not reveal the dark manipulative side of the left, but it does expose some of the history of how the Christian conservatives were used to bring in Neo-Con agendas that had little to do with what the average CC person truly wanted and very little of the average, everyday CC's true wants were ever addressed by the Neo-Cons they helped to vote in. It is the same with the average, everyday people voting on the left side, their wants and idealism is used against them to gain their votes too.

[heart]

Originally Posted by Jeffster

Crappy articles like that are why nothing ever gets done in politics. It's all about demonizing people and not understanding anyone or anything.

I disagree strongly.

I think that our plutocracy actually gets a lot done for the corporate interests that feed, sustain and drive it.

The things that people focus on that "don't get done" were never truly intended to be solved or fixed but kept in a permanent state of flux, doing just enough to keep the voters satisfied that a solution hangs in the balance just around the corner, meanwhile the common people on the left and right haggle endlessly over these issues that were never seriously considered in anyway except as distractions.

[Jeffster]

Originally Posted by heart

But that's the way everything is in the world. Truth is always sandwiched between lies and one has to ferret it out.

Nah, I don't buy that. Anyone can write an article making a point without wrapping it in insulting demeaning crap. I was a subscriber to Sojourners magazine for a while. There were plenty of articles making similar points without all the "George Bush is the new Jesus" garbage in there.

[heart]

Originally Posted by Jeffster

Nah, I don't buy that. Anyone can write an article making a point without wrapping it in insulting demeaning crap. I was a subscriber to Sojourners magazine for a while. There were plenty of articles making similar points without all the "George Bush is the new Jesus" garbage in there.

So the point that irritates you is that the article says Bush was compared with Jesus to gain votes, not whether or not it could be backed up with evidence that this was actually the case?

I am not exactly seeing what is "dehumanizing" about this if it were the case.