0
   

Bible Party of the USA

 
 
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2008 04:42 pm
@Volunteer,
I'm not sure he had BPUSA in mind.

Reference: FOXNews.com - Sen. Chuck Hagel Calls for Independent Leadership, Suggests New Party in Book - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Sen. Chuck Hagel Calls for Independent Leadership, Suggests New Party in Book
Thursday , March 20, 2008



ADVERTISEMENT
OMAHA, Neb. —

U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel writes in a new book that the United States needs independent leadership and possibly another political party, while suggesting the war in Iraq might be remembered as one of the five biggest blunders in history.

"In the current impasse, an independent candidate for the presidency, or a bipartisan unity ticket ... could be appealing to Americans," Hagel writes.

The Nebraska Republican, who announced last year he wouldn't seek a third term or the GOP presidential nomination, had been widely mentioned as a running mate on an independent ticket with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg said last month he wouldn't run.

"America: Our Next Chapter" is set to hit bookstore shelves March 25. The Associated Press obtained an advance copy from the publisher.

Hagel said despite holding one of the Senate's strongest records of support for President Bush, his standing as a Republican has been called into question because of his opposition to what he deems "a reckless foreign policy ... that is divorced from a strategic context."

Hagel, who's been a harsh critic of the war since 2003, blasts the Bush administration's handling of the war, writing that the invasion was "the triumph of the so-called neoconservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence."

The Vietnam veteran said he had hoped the lessons of Vietnam would give the nation's leaders perspective before troops were sent to Iraq.

"To the astonishment of those of us who lived through the agony of Vietnam, these lessons were ignored in the run-up to the Iraq War," he writes.

Hagel said Vice President Dick Cheney and others "cherry-picked intelligence" and used fear to intensify "war sloganeering."

During visits to the Middle East in December 2002, Hagel said, Israel's top security officials asked, "Do you really understand what you are getting yourselves into?"

Hagel said Bush personally assured him that he would exhaust diplomatic avenues before committing troops to Iraq. The senator said he voted for the war resolution based on those assurances, but said he regrets the vote because it's now clear that lawmakers were presented with lies and wishful thinking.

Last year, Hagel was the only member of his party on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to support a nonbinding measure critical of President Bush's decision to dispatch an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq.

"There is no strategy. This is a pingpong game with American lives," Hagel said at the time.

Hagel lists his Nebraska Democratic counterpart, U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, and the Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, among independent-thinking colleagues.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's name comes up in a chapter about Iran, in which Hagel calls for direct bilateral talks between Iran and the United States. Hagel writes about nuclear nonproliferation legislation he and Obama introduced last summer.

Obama has said he would be willing to negotiate with leaders of Iran and other unfriendly nations in the first year of his presidency.

Hagel warns against ignoring Iran's nuclear threats, calling it dangerously simplistic, and writes that "just labeling Iran as part of the 'axis of evil' and leaving it at that is dangerously short-sighted."
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2008 04:46 pm
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;54819 wrote:
I was thinking Hagge. Nuttier than a fruitcake.


Haggee is a jackass, too. :thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown:
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2008 04:47 pm
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;54818 wrote:
Would Reverend Wright be able to join it? Would he be able to help lead it? After all, he reads the Bible too.:wtf:


Read the Charter.

He'd be able to join. I doubt he'd be able to help lead it. The charter establishes rules to maintain standards of the party. His behavior would not allow him to remain in a leadership position.
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Mar, 2008 04:53 pm
@Volunteer,
Volunteer;54853 wrote:
Read the Charter.

He'd be able to join. I doubt he'd be able to help lead it. The charter establishes rules to maintain standards of the party. His behavior would not allow him to remain in a leadership position.


You are and will remain for a very long time, THE MAN, Volly. Carry on.:thumbup:
0 Replies
 
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:32 am
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;54852 wrote:
Haggee is a jackass, too. :thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown:


McCain is Hagge doesn't have that stylish right-wing smear ring to it that things like "Obama is Wright" and "Death Tax" have. I gotta admit, you all have ways with words... albeit mispronounced often, but hey.
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Mar, 2008 07:28 pm
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;54905 wrote:
McCain is Hagge doesn't have that stylish right-wing smear ring to it that things like "Obama is Wright" and "Death Tax" have. I gotta admit, you all have ways with words... albeit mispronounced often, but hey.


How can you tell if I'm 'mispronouncing' my words?????? Got some new kind of technology we don't know about?????:wtf:
0 Replies
 
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 09:38 am
@Volunteer,
Pinochet,

Something has been bugging me about your issues with Jewish people. What is the difference between a Christian and a Messianic Jew?
0 Replies
 
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 09:15 am
@Volunteer,
I'm back in Virginia, civilization.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 09:41 pm
@Volunteer,
Welcome back.
0 Replies
 
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 11:59 pm
@Volunteer,
Volunteer,
I'm not sure anyone asked this before, so what are your purposes for creating such a party? Do you find something lacking in the present establishment?
marcus cv
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2008 05:21 am
@Volunteer,
Volunteer;59295 wrote:
I'm back in Virginia, civilization.


Welcome back, and nice to meet you.
0 Replies
 
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 07:25 am
@markx15,
markx15;59399 wrote:
Volunteer,
I'm not sure anyone asked this before, so what are your purposes for creating such a party? Do you find something lacking in the present establishment?


Markx15,

That is one of the primary things people have asked as shown by the replies on this thread.

"The purpose of the Bible Party of the United States of America is to return the focus of the behavior, commerce, morality, values, laws, educational institutions, and government of the United States of America to the principles it was founded upon; those that are provided for all humanity by God Almighty, Yahweh; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel in The Bible. We believe these are the only principles upon which true freedom can stand and endure."

The answer to the second question is yes.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 06:46 am
@Volunteer,
Volunteer;59840 wrote:
Markx15,

That is one of the primary things people have asked as shown by the replies on this thread.

"The purpose of the Bible Party of the United States of America is to return the focus of the behavior, commerce, morality, values, laws, educational institutions, and government of the United States of America to the principles it was founded upon; those that are provided for all humanity by God Almighty, Yahweh; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel in The Bible. We believe these are the only principles upon which true freedom can stand and endure."

The answer to the second question is yes.


You realize not all of the founding fathers believed the God of Abraham, right? I don't think it was their intention to escape a theocracy only to make another one.
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 03:27 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;59894 wrote:
You realize not all of the founding fathers believed the God of Abraham, right? I don't think it was their intention to escape a theocracy only to make another one.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 09:47 am
@Volunteer,
Volunteer;61655 wrote:
Surmising whether they believed in God or not or believed His Word or not is not as germane as the fact that they were raised in a society that espoused a respect for God and God’s Word.


And Gandhi was raised in a society that was violent. Lincoln was raised in a society that was racist. Galileo was raised in a society that was unintelligent. I was raised in a society that is religion. The simple fact that someone was raised in a particular society does not mean that person endorse those views.


Quote:
They absorbed important values of that society and incorporated those values into their crafting of the foundational documents and institutions of our nation.What you think is immaterial. What is important is what was written and ratified as our Nation’s Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights/Constituion.


Which is why the word "god", "Jesus" and "christian" never appear in the constitution. Which is why the founders established this nation as a secular one. Which is why "universal" values appear in the bill of rights and not "religion specific" values.

The idea that this nation is based on christian values is laughable, even if it seems like an appealing idea it simply isn't true. Certainly Christianity had a profound affect, i do not deny that.
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 08:51 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;61673 wrote:
And Gandhi was raised in a society that was violent. Lincoln was raised in a society that was racist. Galileo was raised in a society that was unintelligent. I was raised in a society that is religion. The simple fact that someone was raised in a particular society does not mean that person endorse those views.




Which is why the word "god", "Jesus" and "christian" never appear in the constitution. Which is why the founders established this nation as a secular one. Which is why "universal" values appear in the bill of rights and not "religion specific" values.

The idea that this nation is based on christian values is laughable, even if it seems like an appealing idea it simply isn't true. Certainly Christianity had a profound affect, i do not deny that.



Your ignorance is breathtaking. Have you even read the Declaration of Independence??
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 09:07 am
@Volunteer,
Volunteer;61827 wrote:
Your ignorance is breathtaking. Have you even read the Declaration of Independence??


Many times my friend.

Have you no word against what i have stated thus far?
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 09:28 pm
@Volunteer,
Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 08:30 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;61829 wrote:
Many times my friend.

Have you no word against what i have stated thus far?


If you have read the Declaration of Independence then you are either deliberately ignoring the wording or have not attempted to understand those portions that relate directly to the Christian basis of our country's founding.

I believe we've been through this discussion before, but if you'd like, we can walk through it again.
Volunteer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 08:35 am
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;61837 wrote:
Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


That was an expedient document used by expedient men (U.S. politicians) to end a costly war with evil and insane fanatics using Islam as an excuse to accomplish the evil they loved.

In other words, they lied.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 01:57:42