I'm not so sure about this. There's plenty of time to bomb Iran yet. Never underestimate the combined power of determination, strong will, and incompetence. I won't breathe easy until he's safely out of office.

I too was against the war. Right after 9/11, after the shock wore off, my wife asked me, "So how long do you suppose it'll be before they try to pin this on Iraq?"

In 2002/2003, I got into an argument with a good friend of mine, who is also liberal. He supported going into Iraq, and believed all the evidence. I pointed out that the "evidence" consisted of a debunked forged document, the word of an unspecified Iraqi (I didn't know who Chalabi was then), some aluminum tubes that were not designed for processing uranium, an intelligence document that was mostly cribbed from outdated sources, and some satellite photos that could've been just about anything. As a science-oriented person, he should've been more critical, but he was willing to accept the "evidence" because Hussein was a bad guy, and needed deposed.

That's the worst I suffered, though. I was never called a "traitor" because I opposed the war, and questioned our government. I guess I just lived in a more-enlightened area (Alaska).

Here's my big confession:

Although I knew the evidence was shaky at best, I initially supported the war as well (funnily enough, this actually threw me into the minority on the issue, on this side of the border)

 

Hussein was a despicable monster. I'd always wanted him tossed from his throne, ever since I became interested in politics. In my mind, this was the big chance for it to happen; when people tried to tell me that the Bush administration would fuck things up by staying to suck-up all the oil and 'fix' the country, I just scoffed and told them that they were just being too critical of a president they didn't happen to like.

So the war happened, and the U.S. forces won, and Hussein was captured. And I was pretty happy and smug about that for a while. Then Then, of course, the U.S. did exactly as the detractors said they would, and suddenly, I didn't feel quite so happy or smug anymore.

 

I don't know that I agree with the 'worst' assessment (Reagan was actually insane, and Nixon sustained a worse conflict thn Iraq while starting a second terrible campaign through Cambodia, nearly sweeping the entire U.S. into anarchy), but yeah; I won't shed any tears when Dubya walks out the door.

Sorry for interjecting some sillyness here, but what the hell. This could be like the whole "your mamma is so fat...." gag. The game is to have the best anti-Bush gag. My shot:

 

"I hated Bush before I ever heard of him".

Huh jmm? How is that naivete? When Obama becomes president and if he fucks things up, creates a war with Pakistan, lies under oath, etc. then he will deserve to be impeached and tried for his crimes. Don't let the fact that you probably voted for the guy get in the way of good judgement. I know you are a theist, but can you not see that Bush has been a horrible president, with numerous crimes under his belt?

Electing Obama president probably won't usher in the era of hope and change that young starry-eyed democrats are pushing for.  We're still going to be living in the same world, and electing the most liberal presidential candidate of all time will increase the size of government and decrease freedom. 

Ok.  We'll cross that bridge if/when we get there.

Voted for what guy?  Bush?  Sorry to disappoint you, but I've never voted for Bush.  I've never voted for a republican candidate in any election for that matter. 

You know I'm a theist?  The hell is that supposed to mean?  What a glib, uninformed statement.  You've really convinced yourself that theists are simply incapable of evaluating the world around them, haven't you?  It's a big world out here, bud.  Just because some people don't see the world exactly the way you see it doesn't mean that they're any less intelligent, informed, or aware. 

I was in no way defending Bush when I said that the statement was naive.  I was simply commenting on how this new breed of young, idealistic democrats foolishly think everything is going to be a-ok once Obama takes office (if he indeed takes office).  We're still going to be balls-deep in Iraq come January, and contrary to popular belief, we can't just pull the troops out, slap each other on the ass, and put it behind us.  We're still going to have Iran and North Korea biting at our heels.  We're still going to be in the middle of a recession, and those of us who pray will still be praying to be spared from a full-blown depression.  Oil prices are going to continue to skyrocket.  The dollar will continue to plummet in value. 

The only thing that's going to change in January is that we'll have a new talking head on the TV screen with new words that mean the exact same thing. 

EDIT-Cleared up formatting

Well, considering the original post has nothing to do with Obama, and I never stated here that he would be the best presidential candidate of all time, you just inferred that, and wrongly I might add.

 

I didn't explicitly state you did vote for him, but rather I have seen that mentality and placed you in that category, based on your response. According to new information, that was a straw man of you.

I think I originally meant to put a caveat stating, I know you are a theist, but we don't absolutely have to agree on the existence of God to agree on certain politics. I didn't put this in there, and one could interpret it as a straw man of all theists being "less intelligent, informed, or aware." While that is simply not true, there are definitely a lot of theists that fall into this category. You are not one I would lump in with the hyperbolic group you have described.

Now who is straw manning? Seriously, Obama will be better than the current crop who rules the roost, but everything you just stated as far as the state of the country after the election I would agree with. Change takes time, and while the Democrats and Republicans act like they are worlds apart, their actions don't always reflect their rhetoric.

That unfortunately wasn't the point. The point is that you sidestepped the issue of Bush being a bad leader, and then mischaracterized it as an irrational notion that everything will be fine, Iraq will be history, foreign policy will be easy, and energy will be cheap and accessible immediately.

To quote someone...."What a glib, uninformed statement. " This is a two way street man, just letting you know.

Oh, I know that Bush has been a bad leader.  The worst of my generation, in my opinion.  I didn't mean to downplay that at all. 

And yeah, I did assume that the author of the original post was talking about Obama--for a few reasons, actually.  Firstly, I can't see an atheist voting for McCain.  I know that the political climate of this board generally lies between liberalism and libertarianism, but certainly not conservatism in any form, and Bob Barr is far more conservative than McCain.  At any rate, it would be more of the same Bush B.S. with McCain in office.  Secondly, the "hope is on the way" statement reeks of empty Obama rhetoric.  Maybe I'm wrong, but the original poster not only made a compelling case, but has yet to clear up any potential misconceptions as to who he thinks will usher in this era of hope. 

This is the analogy I like to use:

Imagine you are in a room with two men. Both are locked behind barred cells on opposite sides of the room.

One of those men says, 'Once I get out of here, I'm going to kill you,' with a certain gleam of honesty in his eyes. The other man says, 'Dude... help me get out of here. I'll make it worth your while.'

If you had a key to both cells, and had to choose a man to release, which one would you choose?

 

Likely the latter.

 

No, you don't know he's being genuine, and he may be no better at all than the other guy... but at least he hasn't outright threatened to murder you. You have reason to hope that it'll be a better choice than the former, who offers no positive reasons for your cooperation at all.

The argument that atheism shows a correlation with belief in more progressive political stances I will accept, but would reiterate correlation doesn't imply causation. Like I said before, skepticism, and greater working knowledge of science are corrosive to religion, and the moral stances many religions subscribe to. Atheism is usually a product of materialism as well. It is a bit simplistic to argue that atheism is what extends to progressive political stances and other actions as you suggest, but I would argue that it is merely a byproduct of the other philosophical positions and scientific understandings that point to atheism as the most logical, and supportable default position when it comes to the existence of god/s.

As far as my assessment of political ideologies and conservative ideals, I merely posited a few examples based on ideas that relate to a God that maintains 1. All life is sacred and 2. Homosexuality is a sin. To separate morality from politics and political legislation from religiously influenced morals is quite naive in my opinion, as they are used for the justification for the positions on the above stated examples.

Explaining issues outside of the social realm like smaller government, lower taxes, etc. I believe are linked to authoritarian cognitive framing of reality. In my opinion, George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist and progressive activist, explains the difference between "strict father morality(conservatism) and nurturing parent morality(progressivism)" quite well. His use of the idea for freedom to explain different ideas, and mean vastly different things is complex but fascinating. I would check out this quick vid to see where I am coming from. My whole family is conservative Christians, so I don't feel like I am creating straw men of conservatism when I refute their core beliefs. Rather, I feel I understand them, and have decided that often they are failed values systems that don't address or resolve the problems at hand.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jIv7HwgvjdY

Indeed IAGAY...indeed.