22 votes

Can you believe we actually fell for this?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I never fell for it.

I never fell for it.

Yeah, I never fell for it

Yeah, I never fell for it either..knew better and for too long.

"and the truth shall make you free"
John 8:32

SteveMT's picture

This was a trip down memory lane.

Looking back now at this video, the award for the worst performance by a POTUS during a crisis goes to GWB.

GWB:
"I'm a loving guy."
I love Dick Cheney.
I love the Patriot Act.
I love undeclared wars of aggression.
I love Saudi Arabia.

I did not

was awake long before these clowns.

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

Cyril's picture

Yes. I did, for a while.

Yes. I did, for a while.

Because I can be that naive, too.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I've looked for this video before...

...and couldn't find it. Thank you.

Educate yourself

One simple realization...and

It need never happen to you again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjC2DAabaWc

speak for yourself i never

speak for yourself i never fell for any of this

The Bush family probably plays this video on the holidays...

right along with this video:

He was the last person I voted for because of this.

Until I found out about Ron Paul that is.

Ahhh almost got me!

That Will Ferrell is one funny son of a....

wait a sec...

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Oh, he was "touched" alright.

Oh, he was "touched" alright.

If you walk blindly through life, you will run into a lot of walls.

Watch it with the "we"

No, "Christians" fell for it because of their bloodlust.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

You really are a blind fool aren't you

In no way did I support Bush or his daddy. Nor did most of my relatives or friends, and I'll gladly say that I surround myself with what you would label 'Christians'. Not one of them has a 'bloodlust' of any kind. One of these days you will figure out just how stupid you sound when you talk out of your ass.

Then you are a rare exception, and that is true blindness

I'm using numbers and the overwhelming support for the wars. You are using a fallacy of logic. I'm glad you and a few people close to you disagreed with Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq II, etc... But, they would be in the 10% of Christians, Repub or Demo, that resisted the genocide.

I'm sorry you took it personally. But, the US is the most religious nation on Earth and overwhelmingly Christian. There was no debate before Desert Storm. No one questioned Afghanistan. Most fell for the WMD crap.

I am not the one talking out of my ass. It is your blindness to your fellow Christians (90% of America) that is the real stupidity. It was fundamentalist Christians that were leading the charge against any Muslim leader and George Bush admitted it was done for Christian supremacy.

I didn't support Bush or his daddy either. But, nor do I think it is OK to kill random brown children in Yemen - as an overwhelming majority of American Christians are fine with.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Sorry but you don't get it.

It's about that wide brush that you use to paint everyone the same. If you can't distinguish the difference between an individual and a label, then I honestly feel for you. Kind of hard to understand true freedom and liberty when you can't even master these concepts. Very simple indeed.

Religion is by existence collectivist

I understand perfectly well. You didn't read my reply obviously, but I don't care what your individual opinion is. The truth, as hard as it is for you to admit, is that the killing done in the Middle East was, by silence mostly, accepted and supported by an overwhelming majority of the citizens of the United States because it was against a rival religion. People won't admit it, but if they actually were honest they would agree. Instead, they use the media talking points of "terrorism" and "jihad", which we all know is complete bunk.

Even the good Catholics in my family (very disappointing) fell for it (Iraq), even though the Pope spoke against it. They went against the Pope because the inherent blood-lust associated with religious fear. What about the liberty of the little children carpet-bombed? The citizenry of this most religious nation on Earth don't care about them - because they were Mooslems and they "deserved" it.

That's just reality. You can deny it all you like, but that doesn't change the truth. At least have the decency to admit your fellow Christians were gullible to fear. I know....I know.....they aren't "real" Christians.....

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Despite the fiction of collectivism...

..individuals remain distinct. It only takes a single counter-example to disprove a statement that includes or implies an "everybody". Not even 99% of Christians are "Christians" as in meaning "ALL Christians." Your collectivist reflexes display sloppy thinking. And just because I tend to agree with YOU probably 90 plus % of the time, I would as strongly object to being considered primarily and monolithically considered as "Mohusk and Gene" as most christians (or atheists) are as "you Christians" (or "you Atheists").

A little gentle mid-course correction.
Otherwise, Keep Up the Good Word.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

So,

what is the excuse of those who aren't 'religious'? Where were you guys, and why didn't you put a stop to it? I guess the silence coming from the non religious crowd is somehow different? Blame who you wish, when it comes down to it, it is the people, not their religion or lack there of.

BTW. I personally don't believe that Christ was sent to earth in order to establish a 'religion'. Man did that. I personally don't label myself with a 'religious label', however I am forced to sometimes identify myself as 'Christian' to simply show where I stand. Not everyone understands the difference between 'religion' and my faith in God and my feeble attempts to be as 'Christ like' as humanly possible. I hope you understand that.

Apples to Oranges Fallacy

It is a bit absurd to ask a tiny minority of less than 10% to stop the judgment and actions of an overwhelming majority of about 75% (if you remove the 5% of reasonable Christians like yourself that are awake). You are right, it is the people, but 75% of the people were basing their opinion on religious fervor and fear of another religion - the Neocons just gave them some convenient outs.

Especially in the Jesus Party, the GOP. George Bush Sr. while he was head of the GOP as President said that atheists should not be allowed citizenship and should be kicked out of the country.

As I said before, it is great you have rejected "religion", and that you are awake to the evil of the Fascists. But, you are an even smaller minority. That still doesn't disprove my point.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

The Republican Party at the

The Republican Party at the time and even to this day (though its breaking) is largley "Evangelical Christian." Athiests aren't exactly welcome as before every meeting we have to praise Jesus for 5 minutes in prayer.

Obviously there are no 100%s here. But overwhelmingly, the Republican Party is an evangelical christian movement who drove out the Goldwater republicans in favor of this blood-thristy foriegn policy.

Even our Tea Party members who seem so reasonable and rational on issues of central banking and economics, and even to a degree civil liberties, are BAT SHIT CRAZY on foriegn policy. I asked one of my tea party friends one time what the disconnect was between us Ron Paulers and the Tea Party. He pats his bible and says: "Isreal." Im not kidding you. For a lot of these guys, we are in a holy war with the evil muslims. I guess one cannot serve two masters and when the choice comes down to freedom or the "will of god;" guess which takes a back seat? Yes ladies and gentlemen, the zealots who interpret the Christian religeon like this, and who also make up the greater part of the GOP & Tea Party are largley responsable for our foriegn policy.

Everyone is culpable however. The apathetic athiest/christian is nearly as much to blame as the zealot republican christians who make up the GOP simply because they did nothing to stand in the way of what was happening.

That said: "I" did not fall for this any more than most of the other people who frequent the daily paul who were already awake at the time. If you're on the daily paul (unless you're new to this) you are probably the exception to the rule.

Americans, through their apathy allowed the rats to steer the ship. The Christian Republicans who gave their zealot-support for these misfits helped to spear-head that mutany. Of course, the democrat zealots who worship government instead of god are no better as the Obomba administration has so clearly shown us.

"Everyone is culpable"?

Please, and again:
We cannot defeat collectivist thinking with collectivist thinking.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

One of the most insidious

One of the most insidious trends I notice on the daily paul, besides the "not" jokes, is that people seem to misunderstand what "collectivism" is. Collectivism is not catagorizing things with simliar traits into groups. Collectivism is a form of government where rights come from government who will distribute said rights to "groups" of people. They make laws for certain "groups" of people.

Calling everyone with black hair "those black-haired people" doesn't make you collectivist. It makes you a creature capable of finding paterns in nature to help you deal with the world around you. Saying: "All black haired people need to have the right to be given preferential treatment in the job market by force of law" however DOES make you collectivist.

EVERYONE puts people/things/concepts into groups. Its how we make sense of our world. Please learn the differance between that and collectivism as a political structure. You can't fight collectivism with collectivist thinking, but you can't fight anything without the ability to categorize threats according to their traits. That's why we didn't go the way of the Dodo bird as a species.

When I say we are all culpable, I bloody well mean it. Every human being on earth either does their part for freedom, or takes responsability for tyranny in whatever minial or significant portion they have earned with their apathy/participation/stupidity.

Right on.

I noticed the same thing. I thought about saying something about the strange new definition of collectivist, but now I don't have to.

Very good way to put things, and I agree.

The problem with 'religion', and the 'zealots' as you call them, is that they depend on a figurehead to tell them what to believe. I personally have a Bible, and in absolutely no way does it condone or encourage these wars and savagery. Those who look to the man behind the podium, to tell them what to believe, have no idea that he is a wolf in sheep skin. A man behind the podium doesn't preach by the Bible alone, whether they like to admit it or not personal feelings drive their messages. That is why denominations differ. Same Bible, yet different teachings. How can this be? Baptist don't like drinking and dancing, yet we can find many references to allow and even encourage to take time off to drink and dance. Is it Biblical or simply man speaking? Not hard to figure out. I use Baptist because that is what I am closest to, and the church I was baptized in. Not picking on Baptist, just trying to be fair by using the denomination closest to me as my example.

Whether you are religious, atheist, black, white, blue, green, republican, democrat, independent, or whatever label you might choose, apathy is a cancerous killer.

Nope, try again.

There were such a heap of non-Christian types trumpeting the march to war, including the esteemed Christopher Hitchens, a chief-priest in the atheistkult community.

Seriously, research first, open mouth second.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

A heap?

You have one, not exactly a "heap". I know all about Hitchens, and disagreed with him. See, atheists are like that. We think for ourselves, we don't have "priests".

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Yes, a heap.

The fact that I dropped one name as an example does not mean that I don't have others. I might also drop names like David Frum and Sam Harris, not to mention their throngs of brainless followers who have repeatedly attacked Glenn Greenwald and others for point out their blanket hypocrisy.

And spare me the malarkey about atheists not having priests, every single atheist publication that I encountered, upon Hitchens' death, were lavishing near theological accolades to the guy, despite their alleged disagreements with him on Marxism, war and the like. This is the behavior of cults, not of people who have a clear, rational understanding of right and wrong.

To be clear, you also seem to be oblivious to other pro-war factions apart from the Neo-con Christian contingent (a good helping of the upper echelon of Neo-conservative politics like Krystol, Krauthammer and Pearl are Jews), not to mention the rabid support of interventionism amongst atheistkult. Likewise, I think I need not mention dissent amongst Christians on the Iraq War, though this doesn't necessarily make them right on other issues.

But continue cleaving to your narrow, parochial worldview, I'm sure it will serve you well. lol

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

OK, I guess a "heap" is a "few"

First, Frum is not an atheist. But, I have never seen or heard of any "throngs" of non-religious people attacking Glenn Greenwald? The US is the most religious nation on Earth, I don't think there are "throngs" of atheists, much less throngs of those who are in favor of genocide for religious reasons. And, I've been the one defending Greenwald against Christians here at the Daily Paul. And, even if you have a dozen or so, that comes nowhere close to the hundreds of millions of Christians who are in favor of genocide against brown Muslims.

"And spare me the malarkey about atheists not having priests, every single atheist publication that I encountered"....I am an atheist and I rarely encounter a publication. Are you talking about blogs or websites? They are not "publications". And, while a Hitchens fan in many ways, I disagreed with his position about Iraq, and I know many atheists that did. In truth, I think he might have been a tiny minority in that area. There is a grand difference between reverence and accolades and "cult". When Ron Paul dies and we all gather to honor a great man and all he did, are we treating him as a "priest"? A cult involves supernatural beliefs, not admiration.

"Likewise, I think I need not mention dissent amongst Christians on the Iraq War" --- such as? There was no movement among Christians against the genocide. Quite the opposite actually. Perhaps there were some fringe people, but if a majority of the USA (again, the most religious nation on Earth an almost exclusively Christian) was against the wars, they would not have happened. The Neocon/Fundamentalist/Born-Againer faction was almost solely in favor of killing Muslims for false reasons, both 9/11 and WMD. No, I did not see one Christian leader on TV telling people not to support the killing, short of Ron Paul, not a Christian leader, but you know what I mean.

You can try denial, but the numbers and the facts are against you. Much like GOP politics, if Christians did not want to kill several million brown Muslims, they would have the numbers to make it happen. And yes, I'm including all of those 'not real Christians' copout.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Tsk tsk, off again my atheistkult friend.

"The US is the most religious nation on Earth."

This is by far the most asinine thing you've said on here, and that's a real accomplishment considering the idiotic stuff that preceded this post. If you do a simple Google search for a reputable and widely accepted survey on which countries view religion as important, the U.S. is about middle of the road with 65% people saying it's important, whereas 35% say it isn't according to a world Gallup Poll. Italy, Poland, Greece, Singapore and just about every country in South America has a higher level of people who are not only religious, but think it plays a vital role in society, let alone all the countries found in Africa, the Middle East and East Asia that have almost everybody in the country stating that religion is important. Contrary to what you may think, the rest of the world does not consist solely of Sweden, The Netherlands and Estonia, sorry about that. Wikipedia has the whole survey along with maps that pretty well call into question your ability to do even basic research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country

George W. Bush won with an extremely thin majority both times, and I can guarantee you that the second time he won there were plenty of atheists supporting him because of Hitchens and a few others.

"A cult involves supernatural beliefs, not admiration."

Not according to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary. There are 3 general definitions of "cult" listen on their website (there are 5 full definitions expounding up on the first three, 3 of which pertain to religion, and only one of them dealing with the general concept of supernatural belief alone) and only one of them involves religion, the other 2 involve irrational adoration of a belief system or living person. Belief does not pertain solely to the supernatural, but also to ideology and philosophy. Again, do more research.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

"Are you talking about blogs or websites? They are not "publications"."

I'm talking about Glenn Greenwald's article on The Guardian about this you moron, among some other examples that I don't feel inclined to list at this time since this post is already too long. I have the link below, for someone who claims to defend Greenwald, you don't seem to read him very much.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-har...

"There was no movement among Christians against the genocide. Quite the opposite actually. Perhaps there were some fringe people"

Hmm, so the U.S. Catholic League of Bishops is a fringe group? The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is a fringe player too? You might be able to label Jesse Jackson a fringe player, but apart from him I doubt you'd have a leg to stand on. Likewise, The World Council of Churches (of which dozens of American Protestant Churches are members) and the Vatican hardly qualify as being fringe. Furthermore, Jim Wallis, the founder of Sojourner's Magazine (a prominent Christian publication) has argued that apart from a few groups in America, Christian opposition to the war was quite widespread. On the contrary, the sizable minority of backwater Bible Belt types that handed Bush the Mid-West and the South were only successful primarily because both Gore and Kerry were not exactly attractive alternatives. Likewise, voter turnout in America has not reached 60% in a presidential election since 1968, so Bush being elected hardly reflects on the broad sentiment of even America as a country that you suggest, let alone it's various religious groups contained within.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War (see "Religious Opposition to the War"

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

And just for the record, I tore apart your entire misconceived view of Iraq War history and religion in a span of about 30 minutes of research. You are the textbook definition of the neophyte, and apart from you maybe whining that Wikipedia doesn't count as a real source (which I will laugh at endlessly if you say), you don't really have anything left to say on the matter. My condolences.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton