Well in practice no big difference.

Remember: /It's not your fault/. Talk to us. We are your friends. We want to help you.

Are you trying to convince me that Bush is not an imbecile?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Honestly, I don't know how conspiracy theories even made its way into this thread..

oh wait.. that's right.. because you can't argue the points about Bushies acting cultish.

By your reasoning, then I guess any topic I bring up you will more an likely bring up conspiracy theories, because that's all you can do good Dr.

So one that likes to have fun in poisoning the well, you sure do like to do your fair share of contributing by mentioning conspiracy theories any way you can in any thread created.

Good show, good Dr.

Of course not. But he nevertheless /could be right about everything/. You just have to keep an open mind about it. Or else you're arrogant. ALL HAIL THE GREAT BUSH!

:::thunderous applause:::

well said.

Your argument was neatly shredded here: Is Bush Worship a Cult.

No mention was made of conspiracies. For all your squawking and whining about people evading things that are on topic, you do a bang up job of it yourself. You bitched and bitched about how no one could refute your 'argument' and then when someone did, you completely ignored it.

Who's playing games here? From what I've seen of your posting, this is pretty typical, and is also a perfect example of why I've long since stopped taking you seriously. Anytime someone does address or refute a part of your cyclone of hysterics, you utterly ignore it. So, why should anyone be bothered to offer serious commentary to you rather than considering your posts fodder for amusement?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

In all fairness - you can use the specifics in your argument to "refute" how any cult can't necessarily be strictly defined as a cult as well. But what we wanted to examine is whether Bush- support can be said to be similar to what is going on in a cult. The most important traits being unquestioning support for the "group", distancing from those not living up to the central "tenets" of that group, idolizing of the leader - as well as the kind of internal narrative that rests not on facts, but on belief in some higher order.

And as you suggest when saying you can make the same argument CF makes on Catholics, etc: the Bush- chapter does look very much like a cult. And I could add, not really that much like a political party. I.e, it does not appear to exist to further a specific goal, but rather exists simply for the sake of existing , and thereby providing for the general good - I really do have a serious problem seeing whether many Bush- supporters truly take their rhetoric seriously, for instance. And that is the problem when dealing with a cult and their followers, and is the same problem, unfortunately, as dealing with many Bush- supporters.

Frankly, it's difficult to deny this - I would simply say I don't think all people supporting Bush are insane. Of course, you could make the argument that not everyone in a cult is necessarily insane either, and simply brainwashed .

Seriously, though. I think the appearance of cultish behaviour is probably offered so neatly because Bush speaks very much like a spiritual leader, rather than a politician. And it's not possible to disregard that the support some give Bush is very much in line with that - I.e, worship - rather than some sort of support for a case, a return of tax- money for their state, influence over how grants are given, etc.

And.. it's really difficult to find anything to compare with, really - because the leaders really appear to be genuine belivers - they are not puppet- masters exploiting useful idiots as such - if they did, they would be extremely much more successful, and certainly not sqrew up so much.. so again, I return to the comparison with a cult..

I think the real issue is that these "most important traits" are not found amongst all people who support the Bush administration. We're talking about tens of millions of people across a massive area. Some of them, no doubt, have a cultish devotion to the Bush Whitehouse, but I suspect they're in the minority.
My experience has been that even those who generally vote in support of the administration often question some of its positions.
Big example: Immigration. Bigger Example: Harriot Meyers
The stong opposition in both these areas (particular in the SCOTUS nomination) by those who in other respects supported the administration does not match a "cultish" mentality at all.
Similarly, I haven't seen any particularly seperationalist attitudes among those who support the administration. A positional divide clearly exists politically, but it is enforced just as strongly by those who strongly reject the president as by those who support him.

Over all, even if we accepted that these qualifications define a "cult", then we do not find them universally among supporters of the president (and his policy).
That they exist in a sub-set of "cultish" supports is certainly possible (and even likely), but also almost inevitable in any group involving such a large number of individuals.

Even the Meyers- nomination was excused away as a honest and good attempt, and never, never, touted as the proof it is of how the Whitehouse only operates on the side of acceptable sanity when guided by the ears. Did conservatives pick up on how Bush wanted to award his personal clerk with a position in the Supreme Court? Hardly. It was a bad choice for the Supreme Court, yes, but hardly much more. Did anyone note how this is simply how the Bush- administration does everything, and how the cameraderie doesn't merely stop at innocent gifts. That real, factual decisions impacting loads of people are done by unqualified people the Repugs "like". How positions in committees are chosen for how people favour the Bush- administration, rather than whether they're actually qualified?

I don't think so. In fact, I know it's not the case. And if you're referring to the weak, close to nonexistent republican criticism of Bush when it comes to this practice, I can easily provide you with ten counter- examples of how even voicing these concerns have been badmouthed as politically motivated partisanship, implying it's groundless tripe by disenfranchised "former" employees.

Again, the similarities with cults, and how their silent enablers excuse their conduct at the cost of their own integrity outside "the group" is striking.

As far as immigration, you should know that for many, this is the "non- political" and acceptable option for criticising Bush, since it is not tied to any of the fear- mongering and furthering of the American Cause for Justice and Freedom. So you'll have to come up with something better to achieve anything with this approach to disprove how Bush- support is "cultish", if we accept that as a premise for the discussion.
Yes, and you do indeed not find a single cult that operates flawlessly inside the definition. Every cult needs their fallguys, people to be shunned and frozen out to prove the group's rightness, against the rotten apples. Some degree of this exist in every organisation, of course, but what you have exclusively in what we call "cults" is the idea of not simply peer- pressure, but idolizing. Refer to how those caught up in the worst scandals are reacting to the question of their "guilt", for instance. They simply cannot see how what they did was wrong. Cunningham, for instance, broke down in tears because he "betrayed" his family and colleagues' "trust". And what you have with this administration, through their utter rightness, even when covering up such egregious corruption and cameraderie, is nothing short of divinely justified fraud.

..Again, we return to how excellently the entire operation fits with a cult.

I'm afraid this is simply incorrect, though your misperception may simply result from the fact that you weren't (i assume) in the US during the nomination process.
The Meyers' nomination was blasted by conservatives (the more conservative, the stronger the blast) as a betrayal of their values. Meyers was shut down by the president's own party, not the democrats. The president was roundly criticized by the pundits and even some congressmen for the choice.
You can say whatever you want about the whitehouse cronnyism (and you may well be right), but that isn't the point. The point is that the Meyers nomination showed that the president's supporters were more than willing to criticize him and decry his decisions. They criticized his personal choice in who should hold an office and went on to resist and negate it.
This is hardly the "unquestioning", "unthinking" devotion we typically think of as "cultish".


As amusing as it is for a resident of Norway to be instructing Americans as to what American citizens do and do not consider "politcal"...

I'm afraid that once again I must inform you that you're incorrect.
Immigration is a very political issue over here. Check out this thread and see how often it makes one of the top three issues. Discounting immigration as "non-political" is a mistake.
Once again, massive, public opposition to one of the administration's major policy goals. Once again the people who support the president openly declared that he wasn't always right.

Because it's real. As much as you try to diffuse the subject. You know and know that there was a documentary out with kids worshipping a cardboard cutout of GWB.

I didn't make this shit up. People really do it. So yes, THEIR ACTIONS allow people to view it as such because it's so creepy and scary to be honest.

And yes, most of these groups are localized in the Bible belt. It's real.

There were some that supported Bush for practical reasons, but now those that support him dont' have a leg to stand on as far as offering reasons why. So all you have left is the fanatic group and Bush has purposely catered to that base for a vote and proclaiming himself as a crusader for god.

It does go beyond the scope of just supporting a president. You just won't admit it, but it's right there.

Another thing - As you may have noticed, the Republicans got outed for just pandering to the religious base by creating faith-based initiatives to win votes. They proclaimed to be saviors of the bible and uphold religious law in our secular nation. So yeah... it does exist no matter how much you deny it. If it didn't, pandering to faith-based initiatives wouldn't be possible.

Richard Dawkins thinks it's serious. Why should I accept you state of denial bullshit when more serious people have serious concerns about this weird crap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkUi6...elated&search=

And that who Bush played to. That the audience that Bush said was going to bring in a glorious victory for them.

Rant on. You almost got me beat on the flame fest.

By the way, everything you said was bullshit and it took you a long time to come up with a way to argue the point, to bad I saw right through that crap.

This thread contains some of the silliest shit I have ever read in the web.

__________________

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!

You want to talk about silly shit and proof about how crazy they are to focus on an enemy and try to destroy it?

Take the thread on Kerry for example. In a matter of 2 days - just 2 days - it blew up into a 40 page thread... over a botched joke.

Meanwhile other threads get a wink and a nod, but when it comes to Kerry - Oh boy, ITS ON!

Was it going to change the course of America like Bush signing away the Great Writ. Eh, they joked and laughed about it and told everyone to get over it.

But when it came to Kerry over a couple words - well all hell broke loose. How else would you explain a thread about Kerry's botched joke blowing up into a 40 page thread?

It's the us vs. them mentality alive and well with the conservatives right here in this forum and you still try to deny it? It the attack on Bush's 'nemesis'. I mean, you think I'm weird? How about the Bushies that couldn't stop posting about Kerry?

Kerry IS a botched joke!

__________________

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!