Becky Burgwin
March 16, 2004 2:12 AM   Subscribe

Becky Burgwin exposes the extreme right wing agenda. A bit shrill, but harsh rhetoric for harsh times.
posted by skallas (30 comments total)
 
Ashcroft, Delay and Santorum are the reasons I'm not voting for Bush next election. I'm assuming those asswipes will leave if he gets kicked out.

Oh, yeah, Bush is the evil incarnate, rah rah rah.

It's dark times when you have to vote for a candidate you could write a picture book about called "The very lousy congressman" because the alternative is worse.
posted by Veritron at 2:56 AM on March 16, 2004


Although when you cite the DaVinci Code as evidence in an argument on politics, you kind of undermine yourself.
posted by Bryant at 4:20 AM on March 16, 2004


What a delightful rant. You can almost smell the rabies from here.
posted by Dagobert at 4:39 AM on March 16, 2004


Summary: Help eliminate the extreme right wing by giving money to the extreme left wing.
posted by TacoConsumer at 4:41 AM on March 16, 2004


When times are harsh, it's fine to use rhetoric instead of argument. And times are harsh, as I will now show with this piece of rhetoric.
posted by ed\26h at 4:53 AM on March 16, 2004


I guess we have to ask ourselves: Do we want to be poor amoral hippies or rich American Taliban?

Do you feel lucky punk? Do ya?
posted by ewkpates at 4:54 AM on March 16, 2004


One of the worst aspects of the web is that it gives a platform to terrible writers who lack the talent to otherwise be published.
posted by Holden at 5:24 AM on March 16, 2004


One of the worst aspects of the web is that it gives a platform to terrible writers who lack the talent to otherwise be published.

One of the best aspects of the web is it gives a platform to average joes like us to criticize terrible writers who lack the talent to otherwise be published.
posted by jpoulos at 5:53 AM on March 16, 2004


I'm wondering what people of differing ideological persuasions did to let off steam before we had online flaming...
posted by GrahamVM at 6:32 AM on March 16, 2004


Well, if those damned right wingers would keep their damned morals out of my pants, I could get on with the business of being a blissfully poor and blissfully amoral hippy much sooner.

Richness is never measured in integers, much less with decimal points.
posted by loquacious at 6:44 AM on March 16, 2004


Oh my god that "article" is damn awful. If you're progressive/liberal, please don't post stuff like that. I mean, yeah, most of the stuff there is true, but do we really need the violent semantics and the huge paragraph of name dropping at the end?

Is opednews.com yet another front for a conservative think-tank that seeks to undermine the validity of the left or what?
posted by loquacious at 7:07 AM on March 16, 2004


It's as if Wavy Gravy is still alive...
posted by GrahamVM at 7:11 AM on March 16, 2004


Wavy Gravy is still alive . . . everywhere someone is providing a meal to a stranger.
posted by ahimsakid at 8:06 AM on March 16, 2004


I liked it. The right wing tossed around innane gems like "Bill Clinton is the Anti-Christ" for years while managing to control the cultural paradigm via the media. Namby-pamby progressivism did nothing but hand Bush Florida (and subsequently the White House) on a silver platter engraved SCOTUS.

George Bush is the Anti-Christ! He has begun the Apocalypse in ancient Babylon, spreading terror towards Jerusalem! The Whore and the Dragon spurt forth from Diebold! See, it's fun. You try.
posted by junkbox at 8:42 AM on March 16, 2004


"George Bush is the Anti-Christ! He has begun the Apocalypse in ancient Babylon" - Given the premises of the religious right, this is the only logical conclusion for the fact that Iraq is not going to be a threat to any of it's neighbors for many years. It has rather more basic things to deal with now, like sanitation problems, electrical shortages, crime, terrorism, factionalism...Saddam Hussein is clearly not the AntiChrist. Now, he's just a pitiful old man of a mass murderer.

So who would be the Antichrist if not George W. Bush ? And doesn't the Bible warn, at length, about those false prophets of the end times who would lay claim to the truth?
posted by troutfishing at 9:08 AM on March 16, 2004


File in same bin as "Pat Robertson exposes the extreme left wing agenda."
posted by jfuller at 9:27 AM on March 16, 2004


As long as we're into it, how about this?

Chuck Balwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida.? He has a daily syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called ?Chuck Balwin Live??
?
??During the eight years of Clinton's presidency, I was repeatedly asked, "Chuck, do you think Bill Clinton is the antichrist?" (Of course, I answered no.) Therefore, it is more than interesting to me that since G.W. Bush became president no one has asked if I thought he was the antichrist. Not one single person! Instead, many people attribute to Bush god-like qualities, which actually makes him a better candidate than Clinton was.
You see, one of the chief characteristics of the coming antichrist is that he appears "as an angel of light." Therefore, an obvious reprobate such as Bill Clinton is immediately disqualified. The antichrist, by very definition, is a master deceiver. He must be someone who appears as good and benevolent. The bite is in his tail not in his tongue.?
posted by donfactor at 9:48 AM on March 16, 2004


Send money to Robin Williams and Tom Robbins?

Man, the terrorists have won....

So who would be the Antichrist if not George W. Bush ?

Don't Switch Horses Mid-Apocalypse!
posted by y2karl at 10:07 AM on March 16, 2004


hey karl
what does that mean. you like horses, gold frames, hogging bandwidth. Is this your revenge for Robbins good writing?
what do you mean karl?
posted by clavdivs at 10:31 AM on March 16, 2004


And doesn't the Bible warn, at length, about those false prophets of the end times who would lay claim to the truth?

That was before Millenial Dispensationalism became the dominant face of Christian fundamentalism. Now they're not "warnings," but instructions. For a really informative, and funny, rundown of the shift in views on the endtimes that developed in the mid-90's (following the publication of the Left Behind books and the rise of the Likkud to power in Israel) watch these movies from Cloud 10 (Millenialist filmmakers):

Tribulation (pre-millenial, in which the armegeddon is bad news to be feared) and Left Behind 1 and 2 (in which armeggedon is good, to be sheparded/stewarded).
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:22 AM on March 16, 2004


Yep, this was harsh but still relevant.

My fear is that people will get bored with all the outrage they should be feeling against ShrubCo. That they'll parade out Saddam, all docile and pleasant, maybe catch Osama just in time for election day and they'll steal another 4 years of this bad, bad dream.
posted by fenriq at 11:27 AM on March 16, 2004


a few bucks to put the apocalypse off for another couple years seems like a wise investment to me.
posted by specialk420 at 11:48 AM on March 16, 2004


Why should you feel outrage, fenriq? Why don't you just get on with your life. As Samuel Johnson, said, "No man was ever vexed by public affairs," meaning that however much you get worked up over this stuff, it's really sucker-bait, and doesn't affect you life in the long run any more than the outcome of the Stanley Cup playoffs. Get involved in the world around you, and stop reading or watching the news.
On another topic: I believe that what y2karl is giving is with his picture above, is a first terrifying glimpse of the Four "My Little Horsies" of the Apocalypse.
posted by Faze at 12:05 PM on March 16, 2004


troutfishing: I'm surprised more evangelical christians haven't realized the same thing.
posted by bshort at 1:20 PM on March 16, 2004


Faze, not being outraged means that they've won and that I've given up. Regardless of what Samuel Johnson said, national politics do affect my life personally. Your quote seems to be saying, "Hey, just go with it and everything will be just fine," and that's really about the stupidest thing I think I could do.

Ignoring the corruption in the government won't make it go away. Speaking out and rallying support to get the buggers out of office will.

There's another saying that I like much better, "If you're not outraged then you're not paying attention."
posted by fenriq at 2:03 PM on March 16, 2004


"That was before Millenial Dispensationalism became the dominant face of Christian fundamentalism. Now they're not "warnings," but instructions." - Ignatious Reilly, you're right of course. But that, in turn, leads me to ask: How did it happen that certain Christians became convinced of receiving instructions from God? Revelations is clear on this, at least - many will be deceived.

So how do these Christians know they are themselves immune to those deceptions? After all, the divine transcends human understanding and so the humble are best inoculated to the lies of Satan. Right?
posted by troutfishing at 7:11 PM on March 16, 2004


So how do these Christians know they are themselves immune to those deceptions?

Why, they'll get sucked up into the air, sillly trout. But to answer your second question, and to further recommend them crazy movies, it is interesting to note that the one common thread through the way in which all of these stories are put together--aside from their bizarre contempt for the UN--is that fractiousness and division seem to be important. From the millenialist perspective, they just have to not follow anybody whose cause is unity or anything international. I think that they don't have to worry about their particular preacher being the false Messiah as long as there is still an "other" that figures into their cosmology.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 7:35 PM on March 16, 2004


I think that they don't have to worry about their particular preacher being the false Messiah as long as there is still an "other" that figures into their cosmology.

you may be thinking of the Ontological aspect, not cosmological.

silly Ignatius.
posted by clavdivs at 8:20 PM on March 16, 2004


No, I meant "cosmology." Their universe is not arranged according to spacetime or physics or whatever, but according to a particular reading of a particular book.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:37 AM on March 17, 2004


then should it be 'one book-ology' or several book-ology.

ya, know, you have a good point and this could turn into a good....
posted by clavdivs at 9:45 AM on March 17, 2004


« Older Mao must be spinning...   |   Trains Of Thought Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments