Thanks Hollywood 4 getting Bush elected.

Former Member

I think there's some truth to this. I think Hollywood made the Dem's seem too left wing. (Human Events seems to be a right wing news site.)

HUMAN EVENTS has learned that a billboard blitz "thanking" Hollywood for the reelection of President Bush will be unveiled early next week.

The advertisements feature the faces of liberal Hollywood icons Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, Ben Affleck, Martin Sheen, Chevy Chase, Barbara Streisand, and Sean Penn, and offer thanks to Hollywood their help getting President Bush reelected.

Two versions of the billboard were created, both "thanking" Hollywood -- the first for "4 more years" and the second for "W. Still President."

Billboard creator Citizens United, a group that advocates a return to traditional American values, has purchased the use of three billboards near the Kodak Theatre (home of the Academy Awards) for the month of February, which includes Oscar Night, Sunday, February 27.

Asked about the campaign, Citizens United President David Bossie said, "We're taking on Hollywood. We've done it in the past." Of the organization's many actions, one of its most famous challenges to Hollywood was Celsius 41.11, a documentary exposing "the truth behind the lies of Fahrenheit 9/11," the Michael Moore anti-Bush mock-umentary

Former Member

Extra Extra "who Gives A Fuck" Front Page Extra Extra!!!!!!!!!!!

Former Member

Thanks Hollywood :thumb:

Former Member

You should be thanking Christian fundamentalists Matadore, for it was them who got Bush elected.

Former Member

Just like to point out that's you're misguided on your christian fundamentalist stance Aladdin. While people you like to call that will have voted for Bush, the people who actually voted for him are hardline conservative, diehard republicans, or misguided fools.

You have decided that I am a christian fundamentalist because I believe the intrinsic truth of the bible, but can you see me voting for Bush? Your reasoning doesn't follow through, I think you just like taking swipes at christians, by all means call me wrong, but I have little doubt in my mind that there are an equal and opposite number of serious christians who voted for Kerry.

Former Member

No no no Fiend... The Republicans and the Democrats both have a base of supporters who always vote for them. What decides elections are swinging voters and those who only vote on special occasions.

It is a well documented fact that the Christian fundamentalists came out in force and voted for a President they see as a champion of "true" Christian values.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/editor/story/0,,1347174,00.html

And by Christian fundamentalists, I am talking about people who would like to see abortion banned and who continue to promote oppression and inequality towards homosexuals.

I hope you will agree that anyone with such views qualifies as a fundamentalist...

Former Member

Once again, it's a balance of behaviour against belief. There are people who hate homosexuality and abortion who I would never consider christians. You're tarring us all with the same brush with your broad sweeping statements. Got to say I don't like it very much Aladdin, and while normally someone making a statement of that effect would normally result in uber flaming, I hope that I've earned enough of your respect for you to at least think about the way it looks rather than just how you think you mean it.

Former Member

Anyone who quotes passages from the Bible to prove homosexuals are "sinners" and homosexuality should be oppresed is not only a fundie but a cunt in my book. Same for those who hang around abortion clinics throwing blood at doctors and patients and try to get abortion banned for others. Sorry. That's the way I see it.

Those are the people I'm referring to. And those people had a lot to do with Bush getting elected.

Former Member

Those people who act in a manner of hate are serving their own purposes, not one of a christian perspective.

Former Member

Those Muslims who think the same way are also fundies and cunts in my book Luke. It goes without saying.

You're seem to be a bit fucking obsessed with Muslims, aren't you? Do they bother you in any way?

Former Member

What part of the word 'THOSE' don't you understand.

As I've told to Fiend twice on the thread already, I'm running down THOSE who adopt fundamentalist positions. I haven't suggested anywhere that all Christians are the same.

Get a grip for a change will you.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

What part of the word 'THOSE' don't you understand.

As I've told to Fiend twice on the thread already, I'm running down THOSE who adopt fundamentalist positions. I haven't suggested anywhere that all Christians are the same.

Get a grip for a change will you.

I made my objection clear aladdin, you have an objection to their behaviour, not their supposed religion, so why bring their religion into it, seeing as other than twisting it to serve their own purposes of hate, they're not following it.

Former Member

Er... because that's what they are?

You could call them 'fundamentalists' only, or even 'religious fundamentalists' but people might (rightly) be left in the dark about what kind of fundamentalists they are. It is only right to specify their denomination.

You're seeing offence where no offence exists

Former Member

Fiend_85 wrote:

Just like to point out that's you're misguided on your christian fundamentalist stance Aladdin. While people you like to call that will have voted for Bush, the people who actually voted for him are hardline conservative, diehard republicans, or misguided fools.

You have decided that I am a christian fundamentalist because I believe the intrinsic truth of the bible, but can you see me voting for Bush? Your reasoning doesn't follow through, I think you just like taking swipes at christians, by all means call me wrong, but I have little doubt in my mind that there are an equal and opposite number of serious christians who voted for Kerry.

are you trying to say that christain fundamentalist america didn't get behind bush in the elections, i saw on TV where those rednecks sit in church, yes church and talk about how bush is good and how he should win and asking the congregation to vote for him, maybe not all of the fundamentlaists voted for him but officially they supported him and i reckon most voted for him

Former Member

There aren't enough of them, and as I said, there are probably a similar number of serious christians who voted for Kerry.

Former Member

If anyone is interested in the control wielded by 'Christian' Fundamentalists in the US and their control of the Republican Party, the following article (quite lengthy) should be a must read. It's a rather scary take on what's going down in the most powerful (for now) and dangerous rogue nation the world has ever known.

The Despoiling of America.

How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State

The First Prince of the Theocratic States of America

It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it.[1] And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty.[2] On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.

Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.

Robertson's act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration was a government under God that was led by an anointed President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents awaiting the return of Jesus to earth. The President would now be the minister through whom God would execute His will in the nation. George W. Bush accepted his scepter and his sword with humility, grace and a sense of exultation.

As Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court explained a few months later, the Bible teaches and Christians believe " that government derives its moral authority from God. Government is the 'minister of God' with powers to 'revenge,' to 'execute wrath,' including even wrath by the sword"[3]



George W. Bush began to wield the sword of God's revenge with relish from the beginning of his administration, but most of us missed the sword play. I have taken the liberty to paraphrase an illustration from Leo Strauss, the father of the neo-conservative movement, which gives us a clue of how the hiding is done:

'One ought not to say to those whom one wants to kill, 'Give me your votes, because your votes will enable me to kill you and I want to kill you,' but merely, 'Give me your votes,' for once you have the power of the votes in your hand, you can satisfy your desire.'[4]

Notwithstanding the advice, the President's foreign policy revealed a flair for saber rattling. He warned the world that 'nations are either with us or they're against us!' His speeches, often containing allusions to biblical passages, were spoken with the certainty of a man who holds the authority of God's wrath on earth, for he not only challenged the evil nations of the world, singling out Iraq, Syria, Iran, and North Korea as the 'axis of evil,' but he wielded the sword of punishment and the sword of revenge against his own people: the American poor and the middle class who according to the religious right have earned God's wrath by their licentiousness and undisciplined lives.

<snip>

This article is the documented story of how a political religious movement called Dominionism gained control of the Republican Party, then took over Congress, then took over the White House, and now is sealing the conversion of America to a theocracy by taking over the American Judiciary. It's the story of why and how 'the wrath of God Almighty' will be unleashed against the middle class, against the poor, and against the elderly and sick of this nation by George W. Bush and his army of Republican Dominionist 'rulers.'

<snip>


At the time, most Americans were completely unaware of the militant agenda being preached on a daily basis across the breadth and width of America. Although it was called 'Christianity' it can barely be recognized as Christian. It in fact was and is a wolf parading in sheep's clothing: It was and is a political scheme to take over the government of the United States and then turn that government into an aggressor nation that will forcibly establish the United States as the ruling empire of the twenty-first century. It is subversive, seditious, secretive, and dangerous.[9]

<snip>

'Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment [to] blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.'

Today, Dominionists hide their agenda and have resorted to stealth; one investigator who has engaged in internet exchanges with people who identify themselves as religious conservatives said, ''They cut and run if I mention the word 'Dominionism.'''[11] Joan Bokaer, the Director of Theocracy Watch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University wrote, ''In March 1986, I was on a speaking tour in Iowa and received a copy of the following memo [Pat] Robertson had distributed to the Iowa Republican County Caucus titled, 'How to Participate in a Political Party.' It read:

''Rule the world for God.

Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.

Hide your strength.

Don't flaunt your Christianity.

Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing.''[12]

Dominionists have gained extensive control of the Republican Party and the apparatus of government throughout the United States; they continue to operate secretly. Their agenda to undermine all government social programs that assist the poor, the sick, and the elderly is ingeniously disguised under false labels that confuse voters. Nevertheless, as we shall see, Dominionism maintains the necessity of laissez-faire economics, requiring that people ?look to God and not to government for help.'[13]



It is estimated that thirty-five million Americans who call themselves Christian, adhere to Dominionism in the United States, but most of these people appear to be ignorant of the heretical nature of their beliefs and the seditious nature of their political goals. So successfully have the televangelists and churches inculcated the idea of the existence of an outside 'enemy,' which is attacking Christianity, that millions of people have perceived themselves rightfully overthrowing an imaginary evil anti-Christian conspiratorial secular society.

When one examines the progress of its agenda, one sees that Dominionism has met its time table: the complete takeover of the American government was predicted to occur by 2004.[14] Unless the American people reject the GOP's control of the government, Americans may find themselves living in a theocracy that has already spelled out its intentions to change every aspect of American life including its cultural life, its Constitution and its laws....

The First Prince of the Theocratic States of America

Sorry for the lengthy C & P but the article is well worth a read.

Also check out Is George Bush a Moonie for more info on the loons who have hijacked America.

Former Member

Fiend_85 wrote:

There aren't enough of them, and as I said, there are probably a similar number of serious christians who voted for Kerry.

it's estimated that 3 million christain fundamentalists got behgind bush on grounds of religion and christian morals, i'm sure there were serious christains that voted for kerry but i'm sure there were serious muslims aswell, it doesn't retract the fact that a serious amount of christain fundamentalists organised themselves together for the sole purpose of re electing bush, purely on the grounds of religious purposes.

Former Member

Hollywood's "left-wingers" DID get Bush elected

The "Hollywood" types DID get President Bush elected (both times). In my opinion, these people are on the extreme left and actually scared the American public to vote for Bush. The vast majority of the American people do believe in God (it doesn't matter which one). The far left (Hollywood and ACLU-types) don't believe in God and actually laugh at people who do. If given the chance, they would force gay marriage, redistribution of wealth (except for them of course), open our boarders to anyone and everyone who wants to come in, and would not encourage democracy in this world.

The Hollywood-types do not represent the "true" Democratic party in the United States. They should listen long and hard to retired Senator Zell Miller (D-Georgia), and review writings and speeches of FDR and President Kennedy, etc. Senator Miller, and Presidents FDR and Kennedy reflect the "real" Democratic party. Michael Moore and his friends do not and would have a hard time agreeing with Presidents Kennedy and Roosevelt. For example:

President Kennedy said:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge and more."

President F. D. Roosevelt said in 1941:

"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human factors.

"The first is freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in the world.

"The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way - everywhere in the world.

"The third is freedom from want . . . - everywhere in the world.

"The fourth is freedom from fear . . . - anywhere in the world."

"This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women, and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God."

Voter turnout in Iraq was more than 70% in late January 2005, higher than any U.S. election. I haven't heard Michael Moore and his friends celebrating the new democracy in Iraq. Republicans and "real" Democrats in the United States do.

Think about it. If you voted (or would have voted) for Senator Kerry, or more accurately, against Bush, does it give you a warm feeling in your heart that there is a new democracy in the world? If not, then you're a Hollywood-type and probably prefer Socialism or Communism. Right?

My opinion. I'm free to give it. Many people in the world are not. Think about it.

Thanks for reading.

Former Member

well, even when I question all of the motives of the "limo liberals" who have so much money but say they care about the poor etc. At least they know enough to say they care. Sometimes, if you listen to the people on Fox, and these people have so much money...from waving the flag..etc., these people are so arrogant...they don't even act like they should care. So at least the limo liberals care on some level.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

I haven't suggested anywhere that all Christians are the same.

That old chestnut. Christianity is based on the bible, specifically the New Testament. If so-called Christians are doing things that are not christian beliefs, then you cannot justifiably label them "christian fundamentalists". Throwing blood at abortionists and so on.

What you posted is misleading and unhelpful.

Former Member

to be honest when you see clowns like Micheal Moore and John Kerry leading the democrats public face in America its not hard to see why Bush got the biggest vote ever.

Former Member

Hey Bluemanstate, I didn't hear you "cheer" for the democracy in Iraq. I do, "3 cheers!!!" Need I say more?

Former Member

Hey red, I posted a thing about the Iraqis' election. I hope something good comes out of it. Also, my tag: better dead than red state...was on before you came on here...so don't take it personally. I'm just gooofing and having fun. (although I am liberal.) I'm against hate from any group whether it's extremist Muslims or born-again-to-hate Christians.

Former Member

It sounds like Blue-guy is a Michael Moore liberal and not a Miller/FDR/Kennedy Democrat. Will acknowledge the difference? The GOP reflects Miller/FDR/Kennedy Democratic "values" (I know you probably hate that word.) more than Michael Moore's crowd.

If Senator Kerry hadn't said about the Hollywood -types, (paraphrasing here), they are "the heart and soul of our country", he might be president today.

"Thank you Hollywood!"

You know, this red-state/blue-state should be reversed. The liberal are more closely tied to the Communists. The phrase "better dead than red" came out of President Kennedy's inaugural address. He didn't say it, but it is a direct by-product.

Former Member

Tommo100 wrote:

to be honest when you see clowns like Micheal Moore and John Kerry leading the democrats public face in America its not hard to see why Bush got the biggest vote ever.

throwing Kerry and Moore in the same boat is a very large mistake. Kerry is a representative of the classic "republicrat" he is about as for to the right as you can get while still running on a democratic ticket. Moore on the other hand is the true voice of the liberals in this country of ours. Its important to not get the two confused, the latter is a man trying to make life better for people, the former is a cheap sellout who supported the PATRIOT act.

Former Member

:banghead:

Former Member

Redstateman wrote:

You know, this red-state/blue-state should be reversed. The liberal are more closely tied to the Communists. The phrase "better dead than red" came out of President Kennedy's inaugural address. He didn't say it, but it is a direct by-product.

actually most communist governments that have existed (excluding Chile) were some of the most brutally oppressive dictatorships the world has ever seen. Oppression is somthing that your president (I say yours because he sure as hell isn't mine) and his lackeys would know a little something about

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

That old chestnut. Christianity is based on the bible, specifically the New Testament. If so-called Christians are doing things that are not christian beliefs, then you cannot justifiably label them "christian fundamentalists". Throwing blood at abortionists and so on.

What you posted is misleading and unhelpful.

I understand your concern. I wouldn't want extremists like that associating themselves with a cause of mine.

That's the language used these days I'm afraid. I guess it might feel unfair on mainstream Christians- just as I'm sure the name "Muslim extremists" sounds unfair to mainstream Muslims.