Rosie O'donnel tells the President what to do with himself..

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-02-27 12:02am

Rosie O'Donnel has changed. She used to be hilarious, her stand-up routine was fucking gut bustingly funny and irreverant. That's what happens when people take themselves too seriously, I suppose.

Post by **haas mark** » 2004-02-27 12:10am

Durandal wrote:
Dubya wrote:"Americans practice different faiths in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. And many good people practice no faith at all."
The problem is that he tells all those good people who practice no faith at all to pray anyway.

And further, this doesn't say that he accepts them; just that he ackowledges them as being there.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-27 12:25am

Joe wrote:Dubya, fortunately, doesn't have the same views, at least not publically:
Dubya wrote:"Americans practice different faiths in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. And many good people practice no faith at all."

Actions speak louder than bullshit. Do the words "constitutional amendment" sound familiar?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-27 12:26am

What the hell does that have to do with atheism?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-27 12:28am

Joe wrote:What the hell does that have to do with atheism?

It has to do with shoving his religion down peoples' throats, which is pro-theocracy and anti-secularism. And that is anti-atheism.

Post by **haas mark** » 2004-02-27 12:28am

Joe wrote:What the hell does that have to do with atheism?

He's trying to fuck with the first amendment because of gay marriage; he thinks that if he can ban atheism then somehow the gay marriage movement will calm down (but fails to realize that not all gay people are "godless heathens" as he and the religious right would like to presume).

Post by **haas mark** » 2004-02-27 12:29am

verilon wrote:
Joe wrote:What the hell does that have to do with atheism?
He's trying to fuck with the first amendment because of gay marriage; he thinks that if he can ban atheism then somehow the gay marriage movement will calm down (but fails to realize that not all gay people are "godless heathens" as he and the religious right would like to presume).

Edit that, not all people that support the gay marriage movement.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-27 12:31am

verilon wrote:
Joe wrote:What the hell does that have to do with atheism?
He's trying to fuck with the first amendment because of gay marriage; he thinks that if he can ban atheism then somehow the gay marriage movement will calm down (but fails to realize that not all gay people are "godless heathens" as he and the religious right would like to presume).

Trying to ban atheism? That's a totally unsupported assertion.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-27 12:37am

Joe wrote:Trying to ban atheism? That's a totally unsupported assertion.

Movement toward theocracy is inherently anti-atheist. What about this do you not understand?

Post by **haas mark** » 2004-02-27 12:38am

Joe wrote:
verilon wrote:
Joe wrote:What the hell does that have to do with atheism?
He's trying to fuck with the first amendment because of gay marriage; he thinks that if he can ban atheism then somehow the gay marriage movement will calm down (but fails to realize that not all gay people are "godless heathens" as he and the religious right would like to presume).
Trying to ban atheism? That's a totally unsupported assertion.

My fault again. I really need to think before hitting the submit button. >_> Today + my brain = not happening.

What I mean is that he's wanting to fuck with the first amendment because he's so religiously delusioned to think that the Constitution should have something from the Bible (thus eliminating atheism, and any non-Judeo-Christian religion from the freedom of religion part of law). It's supposed that gay marriage is supported by godless (atheist) heathens (non-Christians), so if he can "fix" the First Amendment, then he can effectively control religions in the US. First of all, this is unconstitutional, and second, promotes a theocracy (which again eliminates atheism from the picture).

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-27 12:40am

Darth Wong wrote:
Joe wrote:Trying to ban atheism? That's a totally unsupported assertion.
Movement toward theocracy is inherently anti-atheist. What about this do you not understand?

Yes, I understand that, but it verilon specifically said banning it.

Post by **haas mark** » 2004-02-27 12:46am

Joe wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Joe wrote:Trying to ban atheism? That's a totally unsupported assertion.
Movement toward theocracy is inherently anti-atheist. What about this do you not understand?
Yes, I understand that, but it verilon specifically said banning it.

Theocracy would be a government where there is no lack of religion, thus, no atheism.. How many other ways do you need it spelled out?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-27 12:52am

And it's not a black or white thing. We're more theocratic now than we were a couple years ago, and we'll probably be that way for a while. But that doesn't mean we're a full-blown theocracy!

Post by **haas mark** » 2004-02-27 01:20am

Joe wrote:And it's not a black or white thing. We're more theocratic now than we were a couple years ago, and we'll probably be that way for a while. But that doesn't mean we're a full-blown theocracy!

Did I say we were? No. I said Bush is pushing for it.