Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Samildanach · Nov 3, 2004, 11:30 am

I was thinking about this in a bit of depth. Bush needs the religious right to vote for him so he espouses the same policies they want to hear etc.
Meanwhile in California Arnold is voting for and pushing through a bill for stem cell research which is very atypical for a republican.
Now I am wondering if Bush is having his cake and eating it too.
He may get away with saying he is against the technology on moral grounds but is he secretly geting Arnold to push it through in a democrat state so he can have access to the technology and its benefits and keep his religious secure vote whilst decrying the democrats for evil baby killers. If thats what he is doing hes a lot smarter than I thought.

PatrickHenry · Nov 3, 2004, 11:46 am

Yes, he fools them. Statistically. They think of W as a godly man when he is certainly Satanic.

How Satan smirks in triumph to see sincere Christians fooled by rhetoric while his minion strips them of their freedom and future wearing a false robe of righteousness.

Though some christians have seen through the lie:
http://www.publicchristian.com/#SpiritB

Young · Nov 3, 2004, 01:34 pm

Amen.......but the Dem's stand with those Non- Christian "Fringe" elements......doomed Kerry

Kerry = Dukakis

Bush = ?Reagan?

I think we all need a few days of Prayer.......constant, nonstop, pleading for Our Nation's Future......Prayer.

macnpat · Nov 3, 2004, 01:49 pm

Oh for heaven's sake.

Stem cell research is very controversial. You surely aren't going to drop the issue on Bush's shoulders.

Bush does not support it right now, but Nancy Reagan does and a few others. It will always come down to votes and vetoes. Politics pure and simple.

You lefties are so full of conspiracy theories, it's a wonder you don't have a heart attack walking past a mirror in a hall.

kharmajunkie · Nov 3, 2004, 01:50 pm

How can you compare Bush to Reagan? Reagan won all but one or two states when he ran for re-election in 84 and coined the phrase "Reagan Democrats". Half the country doesn't like Bush and many of the people that did vote for him just thought of him as the "devil we know".

Technosoul · Nov 3, 2004, 02:10 pm

Well, California voted for medical pot and the Feds still claimed the right to arrest people and even raided clinics that supplied the new "treatment". Not sure if Bush will organized an effort to over ride the California vote. Under the Arnold supported rules for stem cell research they will have a supervisorary panel to control the ethics (morality) of that research - already it is stated that cloning for reproduction purposes is outlawed.

This new California program might remain in effect as long as they can keep it mostly out of the news, but if a lot of church groups start a media protest, then Bush might take advantage of that reaction to spearhead a new Federal law that would make to non-effect our local viewpoint here in California.

And it is unceratain what the ethics panel will allow the researchers to do and so that panel could tie their hands making the research unproductive in results.

Technosoul.

Suburbanite · Nov 3, 2004, 02:36 pm

Thats a reach, Arnold ran as a liberal Republican.

Technosoul · Nov 3, 2004, 03:01 pm

I thought he ran as a middle-of-road Republican, claiming that he knew how to deal with and how to unite both sides.

Plus, religious morality and ethics is not one of this strong points and doubt if it has much influence on his personal thinking.

Calling Anorld a liberal might be pusing the "middle" a little to far over to the right wing territory.

Just my opinion.

Technosoul.

samsara15 · Nov 3, 2004, 03:25 pm

I thnk of Arnie as a moderate Republican - isn't that liberal, for a Republican? Other than his 'girlie men' comment, and addressing their convention, he's kept a low profile.

Technosoul · Nov 3, 2004, 03:50 pm

I guess in the national eye his profile was low, but not here in California, he was in the news a lot here promoting which Props he favored and he had victory for what he supported, I even had a voice message from Arnold left on my phone anserwing machine (I should keep that tape as a collect item and e-bay it?)

He was all over TV agenst Indian Gambling Props - they did not pass.

He supported the Stem Cell grants, that passed.

He ran lots of ads to strike down the re-writing of the famous 3-strikes law - and won on that front.

Meanwhile Babara Boxer won and Californians gave Kerry a win, so guess we got a strange mixture - not sure yet if Anorld is a troll of the Kennedy Clan who has invaded the Republican Party just because Davis was (I love democrats

)ic or not. But oddly he is getting cheered by both parties, (although more of an Independant then anything esle) and it would be interesting to see him if he could become a President in four years.

He is certainly creating a platform to seek higher office.

The "joker" of the deck. Even the Indian gambling people know they cannot trump that card.

However the speaker for the Indian Gambling concerns say they will not sit down with Anorld in a pow wow about taxes until after he says he is sorry for making that statement "the Indians are ripping us off" - they are very hurt and mad at him for saying that. No doubt he will make an aplogy as requested.

Arnold is a political novelty worth keeping an eye on.

Technosoul.

Technosoul · Nov 3, 2004, 03:54 pm

Note: I did not write "(I Love democrats)" into my post - that was added by some unknow person - forum monitors please take notice - we cannot have that going on here. Technosoul.

macnpat · Nov 3, 2004, 05:26 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Technosoul,
Note: I did not write "(I Love democrats)" into my post - that was added by some unknow person - forum monitors please take notice - we cannot have that going on here. Technosoul.

But aren't the Moderators here the only ones who can access your post to edit?

Are you sure someone at your computer didn't do it as a joke?

Scribbler1 · Nov 3, 2004, 08:32 pm

You might be right, Pat. When a Mod moves, deletes or edits something it is in the Moderation Log, and I didn't see where it was posted.

kharmajunkie · Nov 4, 2004, 01:22 am

Arnold is more a true Republican than Bush is. Show me were Bush has done anything for the advancement of states rights and fiscal responsibility.

giuliano · Nov 4, 2004, 07:19 am

Quote:

Does bush fool the religious right?

it depends whether you mean the voting public element or the political movement.

the political movement learnt not to be fooled when reagan bled them of their votes then turned out to be socially moderate.

the voting public probably don't remember and were fooled.

but then bush may just be a genuine candidate for them. time will tell.

Rainbow · Nov 4, 2004, 11:54 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Samildanach,
Does bush fool the religious right?
I was thinking about this in a bit of depth. Bush needs the religious right to vote for him so he espouses the same policies they want to hear etc..

"Religious right" ?
Are you suggesting that Bush used religious aspect, in order to get support (votes) ?

Samildanach · Nov 4, 2004, 11:59 am

Quite possibly IMO

CivicRacingGirl7 · Nov 4, 2004, 12:01 pm

As said during the campaigning, Bush "wore his religion on his sleeve".

There also were reports that the Bush camp was offering money to several churches, whether this is true or not, I could not tell you.

I recall there being such a thing as separation of church and state, but perhaps I'm the only one?

Rainbow · Nov 5, 2004, 10:13 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Samildanach,
Quite possibly IMO

I do not think so.
Bush expressed his view on common average American family's values, while religion is a part of it. That is why many American families found that Bush's view matches their views.

Technosoul · Nov 5, 2004, 11:15 am

According to the Bill of Rights and our Constitution those who hold opinions contrary to the religion of the majority should be protected from being forced by the majority to alter their belief systems. Establishing what appears to be a state chruch, or a national religion with common values and morals, is not constitutional and thus, not the American code of conduct.

Technosoul.

Nov 3, 2004, 11:30 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Samildanach Pragmatist Location: UK London Posts: 1,979	I was thinking about this in a bit of depth. Bush needs the religious right to vote for him so he espouses the same policies they want to hear etc. Meanwhile in California Arnold is voting for and pushing through a bill for stem cell research which is very atypical for a republican. Now I am wondering if Bush is having his cake and eating it too. He may get away with saying he is against the technology on moral grounds but is he secretly geting Arnold to push it through in a democrat state so he can have access to the technology and its benefits and keep his religious secure vote whilst decrying the democrats for evil baby killers. If thats what he is doing hes a lot smarter than I thought. I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs and insanity for everyone, but its always worked for me. Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." (Ernest Hemingway)

Nov 3, 2004, 11:46 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,437	Yes, he fools them. Statistically. They think of W as a godly man when he is certainly Satanic. How Satan smirks in triumph to see sincere Christians fooled by rhetoric while his minion strips them of their freedom and future wearing a false robe of righteousness. Though some christians have seen through the lie: http://www.publicchristian.com/#SpiritB "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Nov 3, 2004, 01:34 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Young Hot Lava Location: western NC Posts: 1,088	Amen.......but the Dem's stand with those Non- Christian "Fringe" elements......doomed Kerry Kerry = Dukakis Bush = ?Reagan? I think we all need a few days of Prayer.......constant, nonstop, pleading for Our Nation's Future......Prayer. Young I guess all we've got Left......are these darned "Internets"

Nov 3, 2004, 01:49 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
macnpat Igneous Magma Location: USA Posts: 453	Oh for heaven's sake. Stem cell research is very controversial. You surely aren't going to drop the issue on Bush's shoulders. Bush does not support it right now, but Nancy Reagan does and a few others. It will always come down to votes and vetoes. Politics pure and simple. You lefties are so full of conspiracy theories, it's a wonder you don't have a heart attack walking past a mirror in a hall. Regards, Patricia of macnpat

Nov 3, 2004, 01:50 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
kharmajunkie year of the monkey Location: Milwaukee, Wi Posts: 663	How can you compare Bush to Reagan? Reagan won all but one or two states when he ran for re-election in 84 and coined the phrase "Reagan Democrats". Half the country doesn't like Bush and many of the people that did vote for him just thought of him as the "devil we know". Sanity is the playground of the unimaginative. anonomous Words we say, never seem to live up to the ones inside our heads. Chris Cornell

Nov 3, 2004, 02:10 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	Well, California voted for medical pot and the Feds still claimed the right to arrest people and even raided clinics that supplied the new "treatment". Not sure if Bush will organized an effort to over ride the California vote. Under the Arnold supported rules for stem cell research they will have a supervisorary panel to control the ethics (morality) of that research - already it is stated that cloning for reproduction purposes is outlawed. This new California program might remain in effect as long as they can keep it mostly out of the news, but if a lot of church groups start a media protest, then Bush might take advantage of that reaction to spearhead a new Federal law that would make to non-effect our local viewpoint here in California. And it is unceratain what the ethics panel will allow the researchers to do and so that panel could tie their hands making the research unproductive in results. Technosoul.

Nov 3, 2004, 02:36 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	Thats a reach, Arnold ran as a liberal Republican.

Nov 3, 2004, 03:01 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	I thought he ran as a middle-of-road Republican, claiming that he knew how to deal with and how to unite both sides. Plus, religious morality and ethics is not one of this strong points and doubt if it has much influence on his personal thinking. Calling Anorld a liberal might be pusing the "middle" a little to far over to the right wing territory. Just my opinion. Technosoul.

Nov 3, 2004, 03:25 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
samsara15 Ch Latour 61 Location: Maryland Posts: 638	I thnk of Arnie as a moderate Republican - isn't that liberal, for a Republican? Other than his 'girlie men' comment, and addressing their convention, he's kept a low profile. Economic Left/Right -8.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian –6.97

Nov 3, 2004, 03:50 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	I guess in the national eye his profile was low, but not here in California, he was in the news a lot here promoting which Props he favored and he had victory for what he supported, I even had a voice message from Arnold left on my phone anserwing machine (I should keep that tape as a collect item and e-bay it?) He was all over TV agenst Indian Gambling Props - they did not pass. He supported the Stem Cell grants, that passed. He ran lots of ads to strike down the re-writing of the famous 3-strikes law - and won on that front. Meanwhile Babara Boxer won and Californians gave Kerry a win, so guess we got a strange mixture - not sure yet if Anorld is a troll of the Kennedy Clan who has invaded the Republican Party just because Davis was (I love democrats )ic or not. But oddly he is getting cheered by both parties, (although more of an Independant then anything esle) and it would be interesting to see him if he could become a President in four years. He is certainly creating a platform to seek higher office. The "joker" of the deck. Even the Indian gambling people know they cannot trump that card. However the speaker for the Indian Gambling concerns say they will not sit down with Anorld in a pow wow about taxes until after he says he is sorry for making that statement "the Indians are ripping us off" - they are very hurt and mad at him for saying that. No doubt he will make an aplogy as requested. Arnold is a political novelty worth keeping an eye on. Technosoul.

Nov 3, 2004, 03:54 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	Note: I did not write "(I Love democrats)" into my post - that was added by some unknow person - forum monitors please take notice - we cannot have that going on here. Technosoul.

Nov 3, 2004, 08:32 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	You might be right, Pat. When a Mod moves, deletes or edits something it is in the Moderation Log, and I didn't see where it was posted. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Nov 4, 2004, 01:22 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
kharmajunkie year of the monkey Location: Milwaukee, Wi Posts: 663	Arnold is more a true Republican than Bush is. Show me were Bush has done anything for the advancement of states rights and fiscal responsibility. Sanity is the playground of the unimaginative. anonomous Words we say, never seem to live up to the ones inside our heads. Chris Cornell

Nov 4, 2004, 11:59 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
Samildanach Pragmatist Location: UK London Posts: 1,979	Quite possibly IMO I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs and insanity for everyone, but its always worked for me. Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." (Ernest Hemingway)

Nov 4, 2004, 12:01 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
CivicRacingGirl7 Sedimentary Rock Posts: 21	As said during the campaigning, Bush "wore his religion on his sleeve". There also were reports that the Bush camp was offering money to several churches, whether this is true or not, I could not tell you. I recall there being such a thing as separation of church and state, but perhaps I'm the only one?

Nov 5, 2004, 11:15 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	According to the Bill of Rights and our Constitution those who hold opinions contrary to the religion of the majority should be protected from being forced by the majority to alter their belief systems. Establishing what appears to be a state chruch, or a national religion with common values and morals, is not constitutional and thus, not the American code of conduct. Technosoul.