Atheists do you still support your outspoken Atheist Representative Pete Starks after his outlandish remarks?

Question

On the House floor on Thursday, Mr. Stark attacked Mr. Bush in statements that at some points were more angry than coherent.
“I’m just amazed that the Republicans are worried that we can’t pay for insuring an additional 10 million children,” he said. “They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? You are going to tell us lies like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war? You don’t have money to fund the war or children, but you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”

Direct quote from: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/starks-remarks-set-off-gop-lawmakers/

Please realize all the details above are a quote from the link. I personally did not say the introduction to Mr. Starks quote those are the words of the writer that is connected to the link.

Well I mention he is Atheist because many Atheists show great support for him because he is outspoken about his Atheism. He is a Representative, I don't mean a Rep of Atheists, he represents California in the House.

This is the particular part that was outlandish and disrespectful...."f we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”

Like the President does it for his amusement? Give me a break. And like anyone wants our soldiers to be killed.

Answer 1

I'm sorry, friend, but I agree with the man. I may not agree with his wording, but I do absolutely agree with the sentiment.

Answer 2

What exactly do you find "outlandish" about that statement?

I hope to heck you were kidding. If you find patriotism "outlandish", you might want to shop around for a different country to live in.
====================
"This is the particular part that was outlandish and disrespectful...."f we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.""

You think we might stop supporting him because he's disrespectful to _Bush_? Really?

Respect is earned, and Bush hasn't earned any. Each and every day Bush says something far more inappropriately disrespectful than what Stark said here, and he's not the only one.

I'm just as amazed that one of the respondents below me managed to see disrespect for American soldiers in Stark's comments. You'd have to really squint hard to see that - there's nothing at all in that quote that's disrespectful to soldiers, and playing the political correctness card like this doesn't help soldiers at all.

Answer 3

To be completely elementary with you, I wasn't even conscious that there exchange right into a Congressman Pete Starks, so his place on the existence or non-existence of divine beings is a controversy of no particular result to me.

Answer 4

The guy make more sense and is more coherent than Bush.
Why does everyone give Bush a pass when he's incomprehensible but a liberal does the same and people want to hang him. The man is passionate and pissed about Bush's veto and I don't blame him.
By the way, what's this got to do with the man's being an atheist? The man is against war and wants to help children. Sounds more like someone Jesus would have something in common with than Bush.

Answer 5

As if he's the only member of congress who's ever used a hyperbole!

And under the explosive rhetoric, he makes a valid point about our nation's values. Whether the Iraq war is illegal or not may not be cut and dried but it was an unneeded war. Much more unnecessary than keeping our children healthy.

Answer 6

What was incoherent about it? I'd say that it was accurate.

If anyone had put up a program or set of programs to help people that would have a price tag of 200 billion, the Republicans would have lost their minds. But they don't blink at the price tag for their idiotic war.

BTW: Mr. Stark represents only his constituents--the ones who elected him--not atheists in general.

Answer 7

He could have put that a little more diplomatically. By the way, who is he? I guess it doesn't matter, since I'm not an Atheist. I'm something even scarier. I believe in God without belonging to a religion!

Answer 8

It is a brilliant statement, and Bush is indeed recruiting children to be his own personal Army for Oil.

If Bush had half the brains he is told he has, we would be living in a totalitarian state. We still may.

Answer 9

I say "Good Show!" to Rep. Starks. It's nice to know someone gives a damn about America's children. I like the way he phrased it. If he phrased his statement more politely would anyone pay attention to it? It's his phrasing that interested you enough to quote him on a worldwide forum. That's what gets attention and, hopefully, funding for children's insurance.

Answer 10

You should watch the house of commons in Britain. If you think that's outlandish you ain't seen nothing. If a leader can't be challenged on a subject like war then what is the point in democracy.

You've basically just proved that religious people like yourself are intolerant of people having views that differ from your own. It's called fascism my fanatical friend.

Oh, and I don't see what your question has to do with R&S anyway.

Answer 11

This is a political question, not a religion question.
But, other than what appears to be a point when he stepped on his toungue so to speak (as if Bush never does this), the comments were not that outlandish.
War,... insurance for kids,... which is more important to you?