0
   

Democrats Are Risking Political Damnation

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 09:33 am
It is hard to state with certainty just what the heck this fellow believes, thus which version of american christian faith he might say he belongs within.

In great part, that is because he is playing to an audience. All politicos do this, some more than others, even voicing beliefs they do not share but understand they must voice to be elected. Lots of very extreme american christian groups actively support Bush (eg endtimes ministries, etc), but that tells us nothing about Bush himself. One doesn't think it very likely that Bush had delved even the teeniest bit into the science underlying evolutionary theory. Whatever is in his head, we can assume with some great certainty, that it isn't sophisticated.

A better question might be to ask which version of american christian faith is most shaping Bush policies.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 09:40 am
Quote:
'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'


Anyone know any other president who has voiced this species of notion?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 09:44 am
Israeli paper Haaretz writes that PA Prime Minister Mazen was told by Bush...

Quote:
" God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

That's somewhat unusual.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 09:46 am
Remember, Blatam, she doesn't believe Bush said those things. He is a man of god, full of honesty and integrity! He's not a fancy-pants intellectual like Clinton! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 09:47 am
Yes Blatham, that quote has been posted here and there on A2K. But how is it that only quotes by other people 'putting words in Bush's mouth' can be found? Quotes by people who despise and oppose Bush at that? And to date, no credible verifiable quote direct from a speech or press conference can even come close to duplicating it? Could it be that some people would lie about or grossly misrepresent what GWB said? Perish the thought.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 09:49 am
Like I said. Some people wander around here with their eyes squeezed shut, their fingers in their ears, screaming "lalalalalaIcan'thearyou!!!"
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 09:59 am
hobitbob wrote:
Like I said. Some people wander around here with their eyes squeezed shut, their fingers in their ears, screaming "lalalalalaIcan'thearyou!!!"


Case in point... (see quoted message above)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 10:05 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Quotes by people who despise and oppose Bush at that?


There is absolutely no reason to state that either the Israeli reporter Region despises or opposes Bush; nor that Abbas--the Palestinian Prime Minister who made the remarks to Region--despises or opposes Bush. You have a real one-track mind when it comes to characterizing anything critical or questioning about the Shrub as hatred.

Quote:
And to date, no credible verifiable quote direct from a speech or press conference can even come close to duplicating it? Could it be that some people would lie about or grossly misrepresent what GWB said? Perish the thought.


Your attempt a pathetic sarcasm notwithstanding, the report from Ha'aretz has been widely quoted in American and European media sources and there has never been a denial by the Shrub or his handlers--at least none of which i have read. Perhaps you can supply one. Until such time, your denials are as feeble as you claim the evidence to be.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 10:21 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Yes Blatham, that quote has been posted here and there on A2K. But how is it that only quotes by other people 'putting words in Bush's mouth' can be found? Quotes by people who despise and oppose Bush at that? And to date, no credible verifiable quote direct from a speech or press conference can even come close to duplicating it? Could it be that some people would lie about or grossly misrepresent what GWB said? Perish the thought.


For gods sake...Haaretz hates Bush????

Your posts and responses are ceaselessly tautological. If there is something critical of Bush, it is from a hater, so it ain't so. I'm afraid that after this post, I will have given up on you.

Quote:
Bush says God chose him to lead his nation

Book reveals how President's religious and political beliefs are entwined - and claims he did pray with Blair

Paul Harris in New York
Sunday November 2, 2003
The Observer

President George W. Bush stood before a cheering crowd at a Dallas Christian youth centre last week, and told them about being 'born again' as a Christian.
'If you change their heart, then they change their behaviour. I know,' he said, referring to his own conversion, which led to him giving up drinking.

Behind Bush were two banners. 'King of Kings', proclaimed one. 'Lord of Lords', said the other. The symbolism of how fervent Christianity has become deeply entwined with the most powerful man on the planet could not have been stronger.

Few US Presidents have been as openly religious as Bush. Now a new book has lifted the lid on how deep those Christian convictions run. It will stir up controversy at a time when the administration is keen to portray its 'war on terror' as non-religious.

The book, which depicts a President who prays each day and believes he is on a direct mission from God, will give ammunition to critics who claim Bush's administration is heavily influenced by extremist Christians.

Bush is already under fire for allowing the appointment of General William Boykin to head the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Boykin, who speaks at evangelical Christian meetings, once said the war on terror was a fight against Satan, and also told a Somali warlord that, 'My God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.'

Bush has also been accused of a 'creeping Christianisation' of federal government programmes. In September, the government made more than $60 billion available for religious charitable groups. Critics say the groups will be able to use the cash to promote their religion. One group that benefited from previous grants was an Iowa prison project that entitled inmates to televisions, private bathrooms and computers - in return for Christian counselling.

Now Bush is likely to face intense scrutiny. The book, The Faith of George W. Bush, was written by Christian author Stephen Mansfield. It details numerous incidents where Bush's faith has been shown to be at the centre of his political thinking.

Among Mansfield's revelations is his insistence that Bush and Tony Blair have prayed together at a private meeting at Camp David. Blair has previously denied this.

Mansfield, however, says that, while there were no witnesses, aides were left in little doubt as to what had happened. He told The Observer: 'There is no question they have shared scripture and prayed together.'

The book also shows that in the lead-up to announcing his candidacy for the presidency, Bush told a Texan evangelist that he had had a premonition of some form of national disaster happening.

Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'

In another incident, Mansfield recounts how, on Palm Sunday last year, Bush was flying back from El Salvador aboard the presidential jet Air Force One and seemed to be destined to miss church.


However, knowing that Bush hated to miss a service, some officials suggested they worship in the air. Bush agreed, and soon 40 officials were crammed into the plane's conference room. The service was led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, while the lesson was read by close Bush aide Karen Hughes.

The author also proves anecdotes about Bush that had previously been dismissed as false. Rumours that he had prayed with a young soldier who had lost a hand in Iraq were thought to be myth, but Mansfield tracked down witnesses and a hospital chaplain who said that Bush had prayed with the man, ending by kissing him on the forehead and telling him he loved him. 'For me, that sums up Bush's beliefs. He really believes Jesus is taken up in his heart and soul,' Mansfield said.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 10:28 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
I'm sure that the leader of North Korea doesn't fit that description.

The leader of North Korea does fit that description. Unfortunately, we signed a treaty with him in which he agreed not to develop nuclear weapons, but he lied, and so now he has them, or, at least, claims to. Therefore, invasion now could result in the instantaneous deaths of millions. We allowed that particular dictator to make himself invulnerable. We didn't want to let Hussein achieve that.

cicerone imposter wrote:
Tell that to the Iraqi people. They seem very angry with the occupation just now, or haven't you heard? Rummie told us the Iraqi's would welcome us with open arms and flowers in the streets. What happened? The UN did not have the will to act? They were in Iraq inspecting to find Saddams WMDS, and they couldn't find any.
Unfortunately, the second difficult thing was ill planned and not justified by anybody's standard of war - except the Bushies administration.

In some cases, one WMD can kill up to a million people, and most WMD can be smuggled into western countries with relative ease. This makes them something that a person like Hussein cannot be allowed to possess. The inspections had been going on for 12 years, and Hussein had been playing cat and mouse games with the inspectors, and had been caught in lies more than once. After long denying that he had a bioweapons program, Hussein finally admitted that he did and that it had produced more than 2100 gallons of anthrax, but he did so only after his son-in-law, who had partcicipated in the program, defected and provided evidence. Hussein had had WMD, he had lied about them, and he had used them. The only question was how recently. And, I shall remind you, just in passing, that he was a brutal tyrant who murdered a million of his own people, and tortured them routinely. The war was completely justified.

cicerone imposter wrote:
It's turned into a quagmire with no end in sight; costing almost 700 American lives and billions of tax dollars.

It's only a quagmire to someone who expects all wars to last a few months, be inexpensive, and never run into difficulties, but not by comparison with significant past wars. While every death in war is tragic, the casualty number you quote is extremely low compared to all but the smallest wars of recent history. You seem to believe that we should never fight wars that are difficult, but only ones that are quick, surgical, perfectly planned, and in which we have a strategy for immediate exit.

cicerone imposter wrote:
What has WWII have anything to do with Iraq? Since you can't remember, Japan attacked American soil. That was a declaration of war.

You said that Bush was evil for starting a war that resulted in 10,000 deaths. Most wars, including WW2, result in thousands or millions of deaths.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 10:28 am
Setanta, if I have a one track mind characterizing the criticism of Bush as hatred, it is only because the criticism of his religious views do not sound like thoughtful concern or curiosity or objective observations. They sound angry. They sound like contempt and hate and are mostly presented as such.

I repeat my challenge again. Give me a direct quote from any of Bush's speeches or press conferences in which he actually says the things that it is said that he said. There are volumes and volumes of transcripts out there to choose from.

And Blatham, you are giving up on me? Oh good. I was getting tired of repeating myself. Smile
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 10:36 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Setanta, if I have a one track mind characterizing the criticism of Bush as hatred, it is only because the criticism of his religious views do not sound like thoughtful concern or curiosity or objective observations. They sound angry. They sound like contempt and hate and are mostly presented as such.


I see you cannot resist characterizing the criticisms as hatred, and only advance your interpretation of them as such--how they "sound" to you--as evidence that this is the case. Once again, people are not criticizing his religious views, they are justifiably criticizing the use of religious dogma to formulate policy, which directly violates the no establishment clause of the first amendment.

Quote:
I repeat my challenge again. Give me a direct quote from any of Bush's speeches or press conferences in which he actually says the things that it is said that he said. There are volumes and volumes of transcripts out there to choose from.


Despite the awkward nature of this statement, it is clear that you are retrenching, and are now saying that you will only accept as evidence of the possibility of the Shrub making policy decisions based on religious dogma a direct statement by him to that effect. More or less a case of . . .

Judge: "You were found with a smoking gun in your hand. Did you shoot that man?"

Accused: "No, your honor, i didn't."

Defense: "Your honor, no one can show that my client ever said: 'I shot that man.'--therefore, the case cannot be proven."

Judge Foxfyer: "Case dismissed."

You crack me up, Boss . . .
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 11:02 am
And yet I, the bigot, insist on more than testimony of one witness. Setanta, whom I presume does not consider himself a bigot and I have not chosen to characterize him that way despite his propensity to exaggerate and mischaracterize what I say, will accept the word of one witness in face of overwhelming evidence via verifiable transcripts. Shall we elect Setanta to be the judge?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 11:11 am
It is neither a mischaracterization nor an exaggeration to point out that you have made a distinction between what is "fair" and what you allege to be "socialist." As you include yourself in the former group, you are implying that you are a member of a uniquely superior group. That is the definition of bigotry. The language is your judge, Fox, not me.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 11:15 am
Well I'll give you credit for fast footwork to change the subject, Setanta. Good job Smile
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 02:17 pm
I didn't change the subject at all. You attempted to fling acid contempt on me for referring to the bigotry of your remark contrasting "fair" and "socialist." You missed by a mile. I pointed that out. That's not changing the subject, it's reinforcing the point. When you describe yourself, even inferentially, as the member of a superior group, you indulge in bigotry. If you describe yourself personally as possessed of superior knowledge or skills, as you so often do when "refuting" others here--that is simply conceit.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 02:28 pm
Okay add 'conceited' to 'bigotry'. I must be guilty of it all as Setanta is a really bright guy and couldn't possibly be intentionally seeing things that aren't there.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 02:40 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Okay add 'conceited' to 'bigotry'.

Self anaysis, though not one of Bush's traits, might serve you well.

Quote:
I must be guilty of it all as Setanta is a really bright guy and couldn't possibly be intentionally seeing things that aren't there.

I have no doubt that Set is quite intelligent, though I have clashed with him before (so he can't be that[ bright! Wink ), one major stylistic difference between the two of you is his willingness to accept valid sources instead of ignoiring such sources on the basis of such a nebulous factor as "belief." Basically, he appears to be far better read than you are, which makes me place more value on his opinion than yours. Take that for whatever you may.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 04:23 pm
I realize that what I am about to say may be a bit odd, but even though some of what you all have been saying is right concerning foxfrye of her unwillingness to accept valid sources and the like is correct, still this is getting a little vicious, don't you think?

blatham, that plane ride was wild huh? Imagine it, condi and karen huges holding a church service for bush. The whole thing reminds me of one of those cult following things like that guy in waco texas or jim jones. However, I have hard time seeing what kind of an appeal he could inspire.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 06:52 pm
revel

Alterman's book "What Liberal Media" gives a nice understanding of the charm that Bush has at his disposal in a small group, specifically Alterman quotes a number of the press corps who travelled with Bush during the election. That's an important component in comprehending the fellow and how others can respond to him.

And he is, in one sense, a rather simple man. Some folks respond to this as well. Some folks like things simple, regardless of whether they are or not. Good/evil, them/us, etc. It's comforting.

There's a similarity between fundamentalist-leaning people, regardless of what faith community they arise from (or even if they are outside of such a faith community, eg NRA or various extremist militias) and that is a discomfort with complexity and with modernity (or change). It's not that difficult to spot certain general points of concurrence between them...they prefer narrow to broad education (ideas are dangerous), they tend towards literalism (scriptures, constitutions), they are most at ease with simple coherent narratives, and they commonly hold with some version of historical 'analysis' that posits a simple earlier period before things went all bad (Genesis story, feminist notions of a previous peaceful matriarchy).

Such folks, I think, see perhaps some aspect of old-time simple America in Bush - akin to the George Washington "I cannot tell a lie" myth, or like those lazy after-church Sunday afternoons of a Rockwell painting. It's a warm and fuzzy take on things. Of course, such folks have rather more than a little trouble with complexities like Harken Energy and the cocaine snorting and the thick path of lies that trails Bush like he was the star in some bizarre up-side-down Grimm's tale.

But these things catch up eventually, even if some portion of his supporters never will. He's wounded now, and that's only a good thing because his policies are so harmful to everyone but for a few.
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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.09 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 08:44:07