Does the phrase Your either with us or your against us" describe both the Bush Admin/Christian right And?

Question

The Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq?

Answer 1

I think it describes extremists of all views, not just one group.

After all, it is the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that recently ruled "natural family" and "marriage" hate speech. The Gay Rights groups had been flooding employees of Oakland city with their paraphanalia, but when a conservative Christian group tried to voice their opinion, their speech was ruled as hate speech. But nothing was said to the Gay Rights group. It's the same exact thing.

All political parties in the United States are guilty of having members with the outlook "You're either with us, or you're against us." No group is innocent in this case.

But just because some members of a group feel such a way does not mean they speak for the group as a whole. Not all conservative Christians feel this way, otherwise they wouldn't do so much relief efforts for areas and peoples that obviously don't feel the same way they do.

I can't speak for President Bush's administration. I voted for him, I still think he's done a better job than the alternative would have (Kerry or Gore), but that sure doesn't mean I'm happy with him.

Answer 2

Whose factor am I on? nicely i'm no longer a Republican and that i'm unquestionably no longer a Democrat. i'm a Libertarian. Now that we've political affiliations out of ways... I frequently have self assurance that the government has no authority in telling people a thank you to run a business organisation. yet on an analogous time, there needs to be some regulation. working example, devoid of OSHA, we could probably have a plenty greater fee of place of work injuries. With BP, they could desire to have been advised they mandatory to have safeguards in place so as that in the time of the form of a leak like this, they could give up it. They have been rumored to have been reducing corners with secure practices and there have been no safeguards to give up a leak if there advance into one. i'm no longer an authority on it, I in basic terms hear issues floating around accessible. there's a distinction in regulation to create secure practices as antagonistic to regulation to make money for somebody else. Many Republicans weren't chuffed with George W. Bush the two if i could upload. i advance right into a sort of who did no longer like america of a Patriot Act or his conflict in Iraq. we could desire to continuously on no account have surpassed the Patriot Act via fact this is needless to say been ineffective. there's a reason the Founding Fathers wanted seek warrants and specific reason, to no longer point out that the Patriot Act is prohibited. With the conflict in Iraq, i think our purpose advance into to discover Bin encumbered and disable the Taliban in Afghanistan - who have been harboring Bin encumbered. They on no account got here upon the WMD's Iraq had. Then Saddam advance into captured. I mean what's the purpose in the long term? would not look like there ever advance into one. At it regarded as though it basically profited companies who those politicians had a substantial stake in. Now I won't say the Democrats are from now on proper, however the Republicans are not any beacon of sunshine. One reason i p.c. to be a Libertarian and not a Republican. ======================= As for who i'm rooting for, i'm no longer chuffed with BP or Obama administration, yet BP seems to be like the only ones working to freshen up the spill at contemporary time. Obama is in basic terms doing particularly some speaking, yet no longer particularly some stick to by way of. I additionally think of BP ought to pay for each little thing out of their very own wallet and not take a bailout whilst this is throughout. Their spill - they may be held in charge for it.

Answer 3

SO called christians have lost touch with the values of that religion .
You where suppose to labor by the sweat of your brow and receive your reward in heaven .
Now it teaches make people sweat on earth and receive the rewards God wants for his faithful to have a vacation home investment income and gas guzzling SUVS . This is the place to display your Bush bumper sticker and yellow ribbon supporting the war .

Answer 4

I don't believe there is a Bush Admin/Christian Right group. You can say Bush Administration or Christian Right but they are not synonomous with each other, whether you care to believe it or not.

Answer 5

I've noticed in my life all "extreme" behavior has that concept (your w/ us or against us)

yes its one openly used by Bush and one that is usually seen in the extreme or radical islam religion.

Thinking like this is what causes problems! one day we'll realize that we're multi cultural and we need to respect and cherish each others beliefs

Answer 6

Aw, look, Charles has embraced the latest talking point of the nonAmericans, comparing the Christain right to Islamofacists. How original.

Answer 7

Actually, it's "you're either fer us or agin us"

The usual reduction to simplistic terms from simple minds

Answer 8

No. Christians don't act that way. Christians are civilized people. If anything, Christians will have their friends close and their enemies closer. The Bush Administration....well I don't know about them.

Answer 9

It's pretty self explanatory, really.

You either support our fight against terrorism or you support terrorism, either directly or by your pacifism.

Answer 10

So what is this third position that your childish logic is trying to arrive at?