Bush "Documentary:"

[Guest CronoT]

http://www.grizzlyadams.tv/results.tpl?acc...110853161517040

(Bottom of the page.)

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-...e=ATVPDKIKX0DER

 

I was both disgusted and not-surprised to see this DVD in my parents' house this week. My opinion on President Bush is well known, and I personally think he uses his public Chrsitianity as a smoke screen to try to fool or placate people.

 

Just from reading some of the descriptions from both the supporters (that I could stomach) and the detractors, this piece of propagandic fluff seems to be even more "full of it" than The Clinton Chronicles, that piece of garbage produced by Jerry Falwell's group of nuts.

 

Here's some reviews posted for the amazon.com listing of this movie:

 

This film is unabashed propaganda. Like "Fahrenheit 911," it provides an extraordinarily one-sided presentation with one objective -- to get you to agree with its message. Like "Fahrenheit 911," it is "selling" you a "pitch." Unlike "Fahrenheit 911," it is driven by traditional film marketing ideas rather than the more unique, creative energy of a Michael Moore.

 

If you like watching the shopping channel, you'll probably enjoy this film. If you like George W., you'll find this film inspiring. If George W., is not your cup of tea, you'll be hitting the eject button within 10-15 minutes.

 

I watched this film in order to gain some insight into the world and mind of George W. from the point of view of those who support his vision and policies. The film is informative to that extent, but no more informative than an infomercial attempting to sell you a particular product. So, if you're looking for a stab at educational objectivity, stay away.

 

 

"Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W. Bush."

 

True that! LOL!!!

The line in quotations in that review is taken straight from the description of the movie from the site that created/produced it. Check it out for yourself. The link is the top one. Also, are you seriously going to buy anything from a production company calling itself "Grizzly Adams Productions"?

 

Now for some of the idiotic reviews:

 

George W. Bush is a great man, and a wonderful leader. As I read some of the hateful reviews on this DVD, I find myself feeling pity towards the liberals/anti-God (synonomous) on Amazon. I am so fortunate, and thankful, that I am not one of them. They are fueled entirely by hate, and employ no logic. It's hilarious in that they claim to be the "accepting" and "tolerant" party--LOL! What a joke!

 

FOUR MORE YEARS! The MAJORITY has spoken!

 

 

This film shows where the president gets his strenghth from. Unlike the lies of Michael "unamerican" Moore this film deals with truths and facts. It shows that believing in god and faith can help guide and inspire you. Liberals will hate this film because it deals with god, facts and truths. All of which liberals hate and do not understand.

 

The REALLY stupid ones are a little too long to copy/paste, so I'll just let you read them yourselves; but most of them say there is no such thing as "Seperation of Church and State" in the US Constitution.

 

Decide for yourselves; is this pure fluff, the kind of stuff that conservatives accused Michael Moore about, or is it something you actually want to take seriously?

[Vyce 0]

Please, I don't waste time with liberal propaganda pieces (i.e. F 9/11), and I don't waste time with conservative propaganda pieces.

 

I have better things to do with my time. Like torrent episodes of 24.

[Guest CronoT]

Well, it seems no one here wants to pick up this hot potato, huh? I'm not surprised. That movie is a giant piece of shit, after all.

[NoCalMike 0]

The funny thing about the evangelicals supporting Bush is that they make no qualms about the fact that if Bush didn't make stupid mentions of the gay marriage shit, culture of life, prayer, abstinence, then the evangelical base would run away.

 

I don't think they honestly care if Bush is a christian and/or prays or not, they just want him to repeat their rhetoric.

[Guest CronoT]

The funny thing about the evangelicals supporting Bush is that they make no qualms about the fact that if Bush didn't make stupid mentions of the gay marriage shit, culture of life, prayer, abstinence, then the evangelical base would run away.

 

I don't think they honestly care if Bush is a christian and/or prays or not, they just want him to repeat their rhetoric.

Bush also knows he can't win any elections without BJ'ing the Christian Right-Wing nuts.

 

[EDIT]-I just realized I put "with" when I meant to put "without." Note to self: don't write long winded or snappy-comebacks to politics discussion after being awake for 18+ hours straight.

Edited February 16, 2005 by CronoT

[NoCalMike 0]

The funny thing about the evangelicals supporting Bush is that they make no qualms about the fact that if Bush didn't make stupid mentions of the gay marriage shit, culture of life, prayer, abstinence, then the evangelical base would run away.

 

I don't think they honestly care if Bush is a christian and/or prays or not, they just want him to repeat their rhetoric.

Bush also knows he can't win any elections with BJ'ing the Christian Right-Wing nuts.

Well yeah that is my point hehehe. I mean the evangelicals will play it up like they think Bush is the greatest thing ever for the mere fact that he will throw in phrases like "culture of life" and "Absintence-Only" but these same evangelicals would and probably will turn on him in a second when he doesn't actually do anything about those issues in the coming months.

[Vyce 0]

The funny thing about the evangelicals supporting Bush is that they make no qualms about the fact that if Bush didn't make stupid mentions of the gay marriage shit, culture of life, prayer, abstinence, then the evangelical base would run away.

 

I don't think they honestly care if Bush is a christian and/or prays or not, they just want him to repeat their rhetoric.

Point, but can't the same be said for.....pretty much every candidate, when it comes to......pretty much every special interest group?

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

The funny thing about the evangelicals supporting Bush is that they make no qualms about the fact that if Bush didn't make stupid mentions of the gay marriage shit, culture of life, prayer, abstinence, then the evangelical base would run away.

 

I don't think they honestly care if Bush is a christian and/or prays or not, they just want him to repeat their rhetoric.

Point, but can't the same be said for.....pretty much every candidate, when it comes to......pretty much every special interest group?

Of course. It's more an indictment of the special interest groups (and the political process in general) than the candidates themselves though.\

 

I really think we need more ridiculous fringe candidates in the presidential elections to draw votes from the special interest lunatics and hence marginalize them: Pat Buchanan, Al Sharpton, and so on.

[NoCalMike 0]

The funny thing about the evangelicals supporting Bush is that they make no qualms about the fact that if Bush didn't make stupid mentions of the gay marriage shit, culture of life, prayer, abstinence, then the evangelical base would run away.

 

I don't think they honestly care if Bush is a christian and/or prays or not, they just want him to repeat their rhetoric.

Point, but can't the same be said for.....pretty much every candidate, when it comes to......pretty much every special interest group?

To a certain extent yes, but the evangelicals have been known to abandon the republican party before, where as say, the NAACP might bitch and whine, yet always end up voting for the democrat rather then a 3rd party.

[Vern Gagne 0]

The REALLY stupid ones are a little too long to copy/paste, so I'll just let you read them yourselves; but most of them say there is no such thing as "Seperation of Church and State" in the US Constitution.

 

There isn't. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase Seperation of Church and State in 1802 letter. Freedom of Religion, isn't about Seperation of Church and State. It's allowing people to worship how they deem fit, and says the federal gov't cannot tell people who to worship.

[Guest CronoT]

The REALLY stupid ones are a little too long to copy/paste, so I'll just let you read them yourselves; but most of them say there is no such thing as "Seperation of Church and State" in the US Constitution.

 

There isn't. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase Seperation of Church and State in 1802 letter. Freedom of Religion, isn't about Seperation of Church and State. It's allowing people to worship how they deem fit, and says the federal gov't cannot tell people who to worship.

"Seperation of Church and State" and "the federal gov't cannot tell people who to worship" are just two sides of the same coin.

[Precious Roy 0]

The REALLY stupid ones are a little too long to copy/paste, so I'll just let you read them yourselves; but most of them say there is no such thing as "Seperation of Church and State" in the US Constitution.

 

There isn't. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase Seperation of Church and State in 1802 letter. Freedom of Religion, isn't about Seperation of Church and State. It's allowing people to worship how they deem fit, and says the federal gov't cannot tell people who to worship.

"Seperation of Church and State" and "the federal gov't cannot tell people who to worship" are just two sides of the same coin.

Now, yes, but the climate was different when the constitution was drafted. The logical application in modern times is a complete seperation of specific religion from state, nothing wrong with broad generalities in that regard, "god" can mean anything to anyone, and that's fine, but christians use the fact that we were basically founded as a christian state to hijak the issue and spin interpretation of the language. Rather than broaden the scope of the language they wish to narrow it and make it exclusive rather than inclusive.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Here is Jefferson's letter.

 

Gentlemen:

 

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

 

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

 

Thomas Jefferson

[SuperJerk 0]

The REALLY stupid ones are a little too long to copy/paste, so I'll just let you read them yourselves; but most of them say there is no such thing as "Seperation of Church and State" in the US Constitution.

 

There isn't. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase Seperation of Church and State in 1802 letter.

The term "DNA" wasn't used until the 1950s, but that doesn't mean DNA didn't exist before that. Think about it.

 

Jefferson used the term to describe something that already existed, therefore the concept he described using that phrase existed before he coined the phrase.

[Guest BDC]

Seperation of Church and State comes from this:

 

"Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion"

 

So that's where it comes from, not freedom of religion.

[2GOLD 0]

Wasn't this a discussion asking if a really crappy documentary was more realistic than another crappy documentary made by Chubby McCheese to stroke his own ego or did I miss something?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

It's CE, hippie...

[SuperJerk 0]

Seperation of Church and State comes from this:

 

"Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion"

Exactly.

 

I find it ironic that he posted the letter from Jefferson in an attempt to prove that the separation does not exist, but the words of the letter so clearly show that the separation does (and should) exist.

[Guest CronoT]

Seperation of Church and State comes from this:

 

"Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion"

Exactly.

 

I find it ironic that he posted the letter from Jefferson in an attempt to prove that the separation does not exist, but the words of the letter so clearly show that the separation does (and should) exist.

CE amatuers, RJ. Maybe he can go join MikeSC in the Bush/Evironment thread.

[Damaramu 0]

This film shows where the president gets his strenghth from. Unlike the lies of Michael "unamerican" Moore this film deals with truths and facts. It shows that believing in god and faith can help guide and inspire you. Liberals will hate this film because it deals with god, facts and truths. All of which liberals hate and do not understand.

This is what I really don't understand.

All liberals hate god?

I'm more middle than liberal but I don't hate god. I don't believe in god but I feel that if you do the more power to you.

He seems to be acting like anyone that isn't conservative wants churchs destroyed.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Seperation of Church and State comes from this:

 

"Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion"

Exactly.

 

I find it ironic that he posted the letter from Jefferson in an attempt to prove that the separation does not exist, but the words of the letter so clearly show that the separation does (and should) exist.

That's not the seperation of church and state, Jefferson was taking about. He's only reimplying Freedom of Religion, because of rumors of some congressmen wanting to establish a central relgion. Jefferson doesn't make mention of keeping religion, out of gov't. More so gov't, out of religion.

[AndrewTS 0]

Seperation of Church and State comes from this:

 

"Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion"

Exactly.

 

I find it ironic that he posted the letter from Jefferson in an attempt to prove that the separation does not exist, but the words of the letter so clearly show that the separation does (and should) exist.

CE amatuers, RJ. Maybe he can go join MikeSC in the Bush/Evironment thread.

No, he wasn't saying it "doesn't exist," he was merely pointing out that it wasn't explicitly defined in the Constitution itself (it was intended to prevent a National Church of the United States), but Jefferson and the Supreme Court interprets it as "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and State."

 

The principle itself doesn't come directly from the Constitution. It's a case where "interpretation" was since defined to such a degree that, for example, federal funding is prevented from supporting organizations rooted in a religion.

 

Note to self: don't write...snappy-comebacks to politics discussion after being awake for 18+ hours straight.

 

Don't worry, avoidance of writing "snappy comebacks" comes quite naturally to you, CronoT.

[Guest CronoT]

Seperation of Church and State comes from this:

 

"Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion"

Exactly.

 

I find it ironic that he posted the letter from Jefferson in an attempt to prove that the separation does not exist, but the words of the letter so clearly show that the separation does (and should) exist.

CE amatuers, RJ. Maybe he can go join MikeSC in the Bush/Evironment thread.

No, he wasn't saying it "doesn't exist," he was merely pointing out that it wasn't explicitly defined in the Constitution itself (it was intended to prevent a National Church of the United States), but Jefferson and the Supreme Court interprets it as "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and State."

 

The principle itself doesn't come directly from the Constitution. It's a case where "interpretation" was since defined to such a degree that, for example, federal funding is prevented from supporting organizations rooted in a religion.

 

Note to self: don't write...snappy-comebacks to politics discussion after being awake for 18+ hours straight.

 

Don't worry, avoidance of writing "snappy comebacks" comes quite naturally to you, CronoT.

Unlike you, Prince of Persia boy?

[Ted the Poster 0]

My, that was viciously snappy!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

And IN ANGER -- I'm so behind the times.

 

I'm more middle than liberal but I don't hate god.

 

Well God hates joo...

[SuperJerk 0]

Seperation of Church and State comes from this:

 

"Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion"

Exactly.

 

I find it ironic that he posted the letter from Jefferson in an attempt to prove that the separation does not exist, but the words of the letter so clearly show that the separation does (and should) exist.

CE amatuers, RJ. Maybe he can go join MikeSC in the Bush/Evironment thread.

No, he wasn't saying it "doesn't exist,"

Yes he was.

 

The REALLY stupid ones are a little too long to copy/paste, so I'll just let you read them yourselves; but most of them say there is no such thing as "Seperation of Church and State" in the US Constitution.

 

There isn't.

 

 

SEE??????

 

The principle itself doesn't come directly from the Constitution.

 

The principle does, but the terminology doesn't.

[Justice 0]

The only real argument that can be made is that technically the concept is there, but the writing isn't. The non-establishment of a national religion is seperation of church and state, but how far you go with it is up to you. I like to think that while church and state are seperate, this isn't an abolition of any sort of involvment between religion and state (As long as it can be argued that the seperation is maintained).

 

And Rob E: Your original comparison is very flawed: DNA isn't a concept or a philosophical idea. It's a physical entity, which obviously be there even if you don't know it. An idea isn't something that can be proven to be there until it is expressed. That's like people saying "Well, I thought of that first!": There is no proof that they actually did, nor can there be proof. It's a faulty comparison.

[SuperJerk 0]

Rob E: Your original comparison is very flawed: DNA isn't a concept or a philosophical idea. It's a physical entity, which obviously be there even if you don't know it. An idea isn't something that can be proven to be there until it is expressed. That's like people saying "Well, I thought of that first!": There is no proof that they actually did, nor can there be proof. It's a faulty comparison.

Okay, how about THIS example:

 

Divine Right of Kings, the belief that monarchs were put into power by supernatural forces/gods/God, is a principle which predates Western Civilization. We didn't have a term for it until much later, though.

[Justice 0]

Rob E: Your original comparison is very flawed: DNA isn't a concept or a philosophical idea. It's a physical entity, which obviously be there even if you don't know it. An idea isn't something that can be proven to be there until it is expressed. That's like people saying "Well, I thought of that first!": There is no proof that they actually did, nor can there be proof. It's a faulty comparison.

Okay, how about THIS example:

 

Divine Right of Kings, the belief that monarchs were put into power by supernatural forces/gods/God, is a principle which predates Western Civilization. We didn't have a term for it until much later, though.

Eh... Again, the problem is that the concept is so damn open. "Seperation of Church and State" is something that can be taken with a dozen different ways. Jefferson's own interpretation is taken with so much credence because, well, he wrote the damn thing. It's arguable, though, how far we take that.

 

It's essentially a better comparison, but a better one is saying "The Concept of Communism as Marx put is has always been there, Marx just defined it and put it into words".

 

Essentially, I agree with you. I just don't believe the comparison is quite correct. No Exitus Acta Probata for me.

[SuperJerk 0]

Jefferson's own interpretation is taken with so much credence because, well, he wrote the damn thing.

 

Jefferson wrote the letter, but the 1st Amendment was not written by him.