This is turning into another talking points thread for the radical dems...
Englishmajor,
You talk of America as if it is an enemy to the world? Who has been filling your head full of this? America has the right to go out into the world and see who are our friends and who, well... talk of our country... like you do.
George Bush was "elected" twice...
Bin Laden does not respond to please and thank-you...
Saddam was attacking the US in the no fly zone... how many years should Kuwait and the US have had to tolerate that?
I am not a conservative or a liberal, I am a moderate... But as a moderate I can see you are far out in the left wing...
I would suggest you take a few deep breaths and come to the realizations that people on the extreme of both sides are "THE PROBLEM"...
I also do not consider George Bush to be as extreme as you and your politically motivated friends portray him...
How about if George Bush take it all back...
Leave the Taliban in power, leave Saddam terrorizing and raping the Iraqi people. Saddam was not fighting for their liberty but for his tyranny... Leave Libya with nuclear weapons and Pakistan selling them to anyone who wants them? Heck, why don't we get the boy scouts to take donations to support terrorist training camps?
You could at least try to be factual half of the time...
Sorry to disappoint you, Rex. I am Canadian; therefore I have more than two parties to choose from. We actually have 4 in Canada. I am neither Dem or Rep, neither left or right.
Who has been filling my head with thoughts that the world does not like America!!??? Where have you been? That IS the world opinion. I see you do not read or watch anything out of the realm of CNN, etc. America has the right to 'go out and see who our friends are'? What an innocent, naive statement! That is not what America is doing. Have you heard of globalization? It's another word for imperialism, and that is what America is up to. I suggest you go to PNAC website (Project for a New American Century). You'll be surprised to see who the members are. Jeb is one... Please don't try and tell me America is out and about handing out candy to the world and making friends. They are, in fact, trying to push free trade down everyone's throat. Maybe you didn't know, but NAFTA does not work here in Canada (if you happened to hear on your US news, which I doubt - NAFTA has ruled in Canada's favour about the softwoods tariff illegally placed on our lumber, but the US will not honour that agreement) that is just another example of how America deals with other countries. I am glad we have a PM (Prime Minister) who sees through the BS that people like Cond. Rice (who worked for Chevron before she became George's little friend) spew out.
Did you know, Rex, that the Taliban were financed by the US? Look it up online, it's no secret for those who look for answers in places other than CNN, Fox, etc. The US is simply in Iraq for oil. Bush admitted that. Why aren't they in other places in the world where tyranny exists? Why aren't they helping the Palestinians? Why do they allow Israel to have WMD's, and kill Palestinians? Can you answer those questions? Oh, and don't worry about Pakistan. America has their little puppet in charge there; not likely he will use his WMD's....but you never know. The point is, the US used the Taliban until they did not need them any longer, then they became terrorists.
And you're right, this thread is not the correct one for such discussions. I'll be happy to talk with you on the "is george bush a christian' or 'why did america attack iraq'.
Please look up some sites on the net, or read or watch BBC ---something! and get back to me. I think you'll have a different opinion when you learn what PNAC plans. I know when I lived in the States I did not hear half of what I hear on our news here in Canada, which is more globally oriented.......
Sorry to disappoint you, Rex. I am Canadian; therefore I have more than two parties to choose from. We actually have 4 in Canada. I am neither Dem or Rep, neither left or right.
Who has been filling my head with thoughts that the world does not like America!!??? Where have you been? That IS the world opinion. I see you do not read or watch anything out of the realm of CNN, etc. America has the right to 'go out and see who our friends are'? What an innocent, naive statement! That is not what America is doing. Have you heard of globalization? It's another word for imperialism, and that is what America is up to. I suggest you go to PNAC website (Project for a New American Century). You'll be surprised to see who the members are. Jeb is one... Please don't try and tell me America is out and about handing out candy to the world and making friends. They are, in fact, trying to push free trade down everyone's throat. Maybe you didn't know, but NAFTA does not work here in Canada (if you happened to hear on your US news, which I doubt - NAFTA has ruled in Canada's favour about the softwoods tariff illegally placed on our lumber, but the US will not honour that agreement) that is just another example of how America deals with other countries. I am glad we have a PM (Prime Minister) who sees through the BS that people like Cond. Rice (who worked for Chevron before she became George's little friend) spew out.
Did you know, Rex, that the Taliban were financed by the US? Look it up online, it's no secret for those who look for answers in places other than CNN, Fox, etc. The US is simply in Iraq for oil. Bush admitted that. Why aren't they in other places in the world where tyranny exists? Why aren't they helping the Palestinians? Why do they allow Israel to have WMD's, and kill Palestinians? Can you answer those questions? Oh, and don't worry about Pakistan. America has their little puppet in charge there; not likely he will use his WMD's....but you never know. The point is, the US used the Taliban until they did not need them any longer, then they became terrorists.
And you're right, this thread is not the correct one for such discussions. I'll be happy to talk with you on the "is george bush a christian' or 'why did america attack iraq'.
Please look up some sites on the net, or read or watch BBC ---something! and get back to me. I think you'll have a different opinion when you learn what PNAC plans. I know when I lived in the States I did not hear half of what I hear on our news here in Canada, which is more globally oriented.......
Sorry to disappoint you, Rex. I am Canadian; therefore I have more than two parties to choose from. We actually have 4 in Canada. I am neither Dem or Rep, neither left or right.
Who has been filling my head with thoughts that the world does not like America!!??? Where have you been? That IS the world opinion. I see you do not read or watch anything out of the realm of CNN, etc. America has the right to 'go out and see who our friends are'? What an innocent, naive statement! That is not what America is doing. Have you heard of globalization? It's another word for imperialism, and that is what America is up to. I suggest you go to PNAC website (Project for a New American Century). You'll be surprised to see who the members are. Jeb is one... Please don't try and tell me America is out and about handing out candy to the world and making friends. They are, in fact, trying to push free trade down everyone's throat. Maybe you didn't know, but NAFTA does not work here in Canada (if you happened to hear on your US news, which I doubt - NAFTA has ruled in Canada's favour about the softwoods tariff illegally placed on our lumber, but the US will not honour that agreement) that is just another example of how America deals with other countries. I am glad we have a PM (Prime Minister) who sees through the BS that people like Cond. Rice (who worked for Chevron before she became George's little friend) spew out.
Did you know, Rex, that the Taliban were financed by the US? Look it up online, it's no secret for those who look for answers in places other than CNN, Fox, etc. The US is simply in Iraq for oil. Bush admitted that. Why aren't they in other places in the world where tyranny exists? Why aren't they helping the Palestinians? Why do they allow Israel to have WMD's, and kill Palestinians? Can you answer those questions? Oh, and don't worry about Pakistan. America has their little puppet in charge there; not likely he will use his WMD's....but you never know. The point is, the US used the Taliban until they did not need them any longer, then they became terrorists.
And you're right, this thread is not the correct one for such discussions. I'll be happy to talk with you on the "is george bush a christian' or 'why did america attack iraq'.
Please look up some sites on the net, or read or watch BBC ---something! and get back to me. I think you'll have a different opinion when you learn what PNAC plans. I know when I lived in the States I did not hear half of what I hear on our news here in Canada, which is more globally oriented.......
Rex; You say you did well in geometry. What are your theorems vis a vis the bible?
EM; It might interest you to know that Woodrow Wilson also believed he had a mandate from God. It led him to propose the League of Nations. Did you know the demise of the League and its rebirth as the UN is foretold in the bible?
Questioner wrote:It could be argued that the presence of multiple "brushes" might be an indicator of a failed religion.
While I believe that the world's religions have failed, I don't understand your statement.
BTW, EM. You must resist the temptation to re-hit the Submit button when your post doesn't go through right away.
Looks as though Blair does not like Bush much either......sorry for the multiple posts. Here's another article for you to digest, Rex. Factual, what, coming from the Guardian, a respected newspaper in the UK.
Published on Monday, November 7, 2005 by the Guardian / UK
Blair's Litany of Failures on Iraq - Ambassador's Damning Verdict
Meyer says PM failed to exert any leverage on Bush and was seduced by US power
by Julian Glover and Ewen MacAskill
Tony Blair repeatedly passed up opportunities to put a brake on the rush to war in Iraq, a failure that may have contributed to the country's present anarchy, according to Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador to Washington at the time, in his book DC Confidential, serialised in the Guardian from today.
President Bush with Tony Blair in the Blue Room at the White House a few hours before addressing Congress and the nation on September 20 2001. Photograph: Eric Draper / AP
Sir Christopher, highly critical of Mr Blair's performance in the run-up to the war, argues the prime minister and his team were "seduced" by the proximity and glamour of US power and reluctant to negotiate conditions with George Bush for Britain's support for the war.
He says Mr Blair failed to exploit his enormous leverage with Mr Bush not only to secure a precious delay but to plan for postwar Iraq. "We may have been the junior partner in the enterprise but the ace up our sleeve was that America did not want to go it alone. Had Britain so insisted, Iraq after Saddam might have avoided the violence that may yet prove fatal to the entire enterprise."
But Mr Blair did not have any appetite for bargaining with Mr Bush, according to Sir Christopher: "Tony Blair chose to take his stand against Saddam and alongside President Bush from the highest of high moral ground. It is the definitive riposte to Blair the Poodle, seduced though he and his team always appeared to be by the proximity and glamour of American power.
"But the high moral ground, and the pure white flame of unconditional support to an ally in service of an idea, have their disadvantages. They place your destiny in the hands of an ally. They fly above the tangled history of Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Turkomen and Assyrian. They discourage descent into the dull detail of tough and necessary bargaining: meat and drink to Margaret Thatcher but, so it seemed, uncongenial to Tony Blair."
The former diplomat accuses Mr Blair of weakness in failing to engage Mr Bush in the "plain-speaking conversation" that needed to take place. "Had Blair told Bush in clear and explicit terms that he would be unable to support a war unless British wishes were met? I doubted it."
The Washington embassy repeatedly advised Downing Street to use its leverage, but was ignored.
Delaying the invasion from March to the autumn would have allowed the United Nations weapons inspectors extra months to establish whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, enabled the US and Britain to reach an understanding with France and Russia, two of the biggest sceptics about war, and increased international support, instead of going to war "in the company of a motley ad hoc coalition of allies".
The former diplomat, who enjoyed unparalleled access to all the key members of Mr Bush's administration and supported the war, provides the most detailed account yet of the thinking inside the White House and Downing Street in the 18 months running up to the invasion in March 2003. He says of the war now: "History's verdict looks likely to be that it was terminally flawed both in conception and execution."
Publication comes at a time when Mr Blair is vulnerable domestically, and the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the chief of staff of Vice-President Dick Cheney, has reopened the debate in the US about why the country went to war.
Sir Christopher records a conversation with Mr Libby who told him "we were the only ally that mattered. That was a powerful lever". But the former ambassador says London "was not fertile ground for the notion of leverage or the tough negotiating position that must sometimes be taken even with the closest allies - as Churchill did with Roosevelt and Thatcher did with Reagan".
He regrets that at precisely the moment that Mr Blair should have been bargaining, in the early autumn of 2002, "political energy in London had become consumed by a titanic struggle to keep public opinion, parliament and the Labour party onside for war. There was little energy left in No 10 to think about the aftermath. Since Downing Street drove Iraq policy, efforts made by the Foreign Office to engage with the Americans on the subject came to nothing."
He questions whether No 10 relied too heavily on British military and intelligence advisers fatalistic about the inevitability of war and "as a consequence underestimated its political leverage and ability to affect the course of events".
He takes a swipe at John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee, which was responsible for assessing intelligence, and one of the main authors of the controversial British dossier making a case against Saddam. Sir Christopher, who at one time was lined up to be head of the JIC, said he understood why Alastair Campbell, Mr Blair's press secretary, wanted as categorical a public depiction of Saddam's threat as possible. "Equally, I would have expected the JIC to be rigorous in telling me how far I could go."
One of Sir Christopher's main charges is that Mr Blair failed to puncture the US administration's belief that it would be "sweetness and light in Iraq" after the war, and the descent of Iraq into chaos today is, in part, a result of this.
Sir Christopher recounts how Mr Bush told the inner circle at a US-British summit at Camp David in 2002 that the prime minister had "cojones" (balls). The former ambassador says Britain should have taken advantage of such praise, making its participation in the war dependent on a fully worked-out plan for postwar Iraq, which he describes as "defective" and "rudimentary".
"This would have been the appropriate quid pro quo for Blair's display of cojones at this Camp David meeting with Bush." He is adamant Mr Bush was amenable to pressure almost to the end. "Indeed, if it all went wrong at the UN, and the US was faced with going to war alone, it seemed to me that Bush might blink. Or, to put it another way: what Britain decided to do could be the decisive factor in the White House."
The former ambassador says a delay from March to autumn 2003 could have made a significant difference: "Even if the most optimistic predictions are finally realised for Iraq, the question will still be asked: why did the Americans and British make it so hard for themselves and even harder for Iraqis? The US and the UK would have stood a better chance of going to war in good order, and of doing the aftermath right, had they planned on an autumn, not a spring, campaign."
He reveals that Karl Rove, the political adviser to the president, told him there would have been no problem for Mr Bush in waiting until the end of 2003 or even early 2004 and this would not have risked entanglement in the US presidential campaign.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*Thank goodness our Prime Minister, Paul Martin, here in Canada - has 'cojones' and kept Canada out of an illegal war.
neologist wrote:
Questioner wrote:It could be argued that the presence of multiple "brushes" might be an indicator of a failed religion.
While I believe that the world's religions have failed, I don't understand your statement.
It was a reply to a previous statement about painting with a broad brush. I was essentially saying that the fact that there are so many different demonimations, flavors if you will, of Christianity that it's validity and structural integrity must be put in question.
neologist wrote:Rex; You say you did well in geometry. What are your theorems vis a vis the bible?
EM; It might interest you to know that Woodrow Wilson also believed he had a mandate from God. It led him to propose the League of Nations. Did you know the demise of the League and its rebirth as the UN is foretold in the bible?
Questioner wrote:It could be argued that the presence of multiple "brushes" might be an indicator of a failed religion.
While I believe that the world's religions have failed, I don't understand your statement.
BTW, EM. You must resist the temptation to re-hit the Submit button when your post doesn't go through right away.
I think able2know is having a problem. It was working fine, then freaked out and I got a cannot connect to server, so I tried again. Thus the multiple posts, eh?
And yes, I have heard many things are foretold in the Bible. It does not actually say "league of nations" or "UN", though, so it is subject to debate. I know, for example, that the JW's think it is the antichrist. Maybe they are right.
Questioner wrote:neologist wrote:
Questioner wrote:It could be argued that the presence of multiple "brushes" might be an indicator of a failed religion.
While I believe that the world's religions have failed, I don't understand your statement.
It was a reply to a previous statement about painting with a broad brush. I was essentially saying that the fact that there are so many different demonimations, flavors if you will, of Christianity that it's validity and structural integrity must be put in question.
Bertrand Russell, in explaining his disbelief, remarked that with all the competing religions in the world and their diverse beliefs, only one can be right. Good reasoning, I say.
BTW, did you mean to say demonimations? Very clever.
Questioner wrote: neologist wrote:BTW, did you mean to say demonimations? Very clever.
Freudian slip. Honestly.
'S OK, really.
EM; You will find a reference to the UN in Revelation 13:3 as the beast whose death stroke got healed.
There will be those who disagree, of course.
Yes, and about 666, too. And if you read on down to 13:15,16, it says that all will be killed who do not worship this beast (the US?). Who knows for sure. Revelations must have been written by someone on acid.
Actually the Book of Revelation is what God showed in a vision. Now, if someone from that time saw the things of what is to happen at the end times, do you think they would have been able to explain it in words we would understand today?
And the beast is the Anti-christ.
Yes, the Jehovah Witnesses say the same thing. However, I think GWB is the antichrist.......
But, about Revelations.....if we can't understand it, then why show it to a prophet in a vision? My uncle, a Catholic priest, said he never understood it and some things 'were just a mystery'. He could not explain the Trinity either (because, as I later found out, it is not in the Bible anywhere).
I'm sure we'll all find out some day, soon perhaps, what it all means. Stay tuned.
Englishmajor,
There are plenty of theologians who have interpreted the Book of Revelation. I have read quite a few of these books and while they may not be the exact thing that is going to happen, they give strong indication of what is to come. You might try gotquestions.org. They explain a lot. They have a good explanation of the concept of the trinity also.
But, I sincerely doubt President Bush is the anti-Christ.
If President Bush was the anti-Christ, his poll numbers would certainly be much better.
That's for sure, Foxfyre! When the anti-Christ appears he will be much loved by many (and of course, they will all be deceived).
Probably should remember that the so called Battle of Armageddon is not a war between the nations. It is a war between the nations (no exceptions) and God.
Read Daniel 2:44
Intrepid wrote:I keep reading George Bush and Christian together in many, many posts. I assume that you are referring to American Christians when you put the two together.
George Bush does not represent Christians outside of the United States. To generalize Christians with what you think, or do not think of George Bush is unfair to Christians, Non-Americans and indeed, GWB himself. I realize that most of you are American, but those of us outsiders are being painted with the same brush.
Intrepid,
If you are really interested in the George Bush Christian connection, PBS did an excellent program last year that covered the issue. It was well balanced IMO showing all sides. The entire program can be viewed and or read online. The program received good reviews from fans and foes. I think you might enjoy it.
PBS Frontline The Jesus Factor, a President and His Faith.[/quote]
Here is a summary.
Quote:Midland's Community Bible Study
In the fall of 1985, 39-year-old George W. Bush joined the Midland, Texas chapter of Community Bible Study and became one of 120 Midland men who began a rigorous study of the Bible. This evangelical Christian class was a turning point in Bush's personal religious journey. Two class members, Mark Leaverton and Don Poage, talk about the day Bush arrived, what they observed over the months that followed, and the class's impact on George Bush years after he left Midland.
The Spirituality of George W. Bush
He is, by most accounts, the most openly religious president in generations. What are the core elements of his faith? How has it affected his personal life and political career? And how has faith shaped the president's views on God and government and America's role in the world? Here are the thoughts of some people who have closely observed or interviewed Bush: Doug Wead, a Bush family friend; Wayne Slater, reporter for The Dallas Morning News; John C. Green, author of Religion and the Culture Wars; Steve Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet; and Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners Magazine.
Religion in the White House: Then and Now
Compared to recent presidents, how different is George W. Bush's spirituality? Here are the views of E.J. Dionne, Jr., co-chair of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life; Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals; Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention; Wayne Slater of The Dallas Morning News; and Steve Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet.
Invoking God and Faith
While every U.S. president has used religious language in speeches, the kind of Scriptual references and their frequency in President Bush's speeches -- especially after 9/11 -- has drawn attention. Here are the views of E.J. Dionne, Jr., co-chair of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life; Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention; Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners Magazine; Steve Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet; Doug Wead, Bush family friend; and Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals.
The Faith-Based Initiative Controversy
George W. Bush's first executive order as president created the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in the White House. This action expanded on the "Charitable Choice" provision, passed as part of President Clinton's 1996 welfare reform bill, that allowed smaller and more overtly religious groups to receive government funding for providing social services. Critics of Bush's action -- including some evangelical Christians -- warned that it will lead to the entanglement of the church and the state, hurting both. Supporters said that the president is reversing years of discrimination against religious groups. Offering their views here are: Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals; Amy Black, professor at Wheaton College; Stanley Carlson-Thies of the White House Office for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives; Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention; Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners Magazine; Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, Interfaith Alliance; and E.J. Dionne, Jr., co-chair of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
Bush and Evangelicals
What has been George W. Bush's impact on America's conservative evangelical Christians? Here are the views of John C. Green, author of Religion and the Culture Wars; Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals; Doug Wead, Bush family friend; Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Steve Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet.
englishmajor wrote:Sorry to disappoint you, Rex. I am Canadian; therefore I have more than two parties to choose from. We actually have 4 in Canada. I am neither Dem or Rep, neither left or right.
Who has been filling my head with thoughts that the world does not like America!!??? Where have you been? That IS the world opinion. I see you do not read or watch anything out of the realm of CNN, etc. America has the right to 'go out and see who our friends are'? What an innocent, naive statement! That is not what America is doing. Have you heard of globalization? It's another word for imperialism, and that is what America is up to. I suggest you go to PNAC website (Project for a New American Century). You'll be surprised to see who the members are. Jeb is one... Please don't try and tell me America is out and about handing out candy to the world and making friends. They are, in fact, trying to push free trade down everyone's throat. Maybe you didn't know, but NAFTA does not work here in Canada (if you happened to hear on your US news, which I doubt - NAFTA has ruled in Canada's favour about the softwoods tariff illegally placed on our lumber, but the US will not honour that agreement) that is just another example of how America deals with other countries. I am glad we have a PM (Prime Minister) who sees through the BS that people like Cond. Rice (who worked for Chevron before she became George's little friend) spew out.
Did you know, Rex, that the Taliban were financed by the US? Look it up online, it's no secret for those who look for answers in places other than CNN, Fox, etc. The US is simply in Iraq for oil. Bush admitted that. Why aren't they in other places in the world where tyranny exists? Why aren't they helping the Palestinians? Why do they allow Israel to have WMD's, and kill Palestinians? Can you answer those questions? Oh, and don't worry about Pakistan. America has their little puppet in charge there; not likely he will use his WMD's....but you never know. The point is, the US used the Taliban until they did not need them any longer, then they became terrorists.
And you're right, this thread is not the correct one for such discussions. I'll be happy to talk with you on the "is george bush a christian' or 'why did america attack iraq'.
Please look up some sites on the net, or read or watch BBC ---something! and get back to me. I think you'll have a different opinion when you learn what PNAC plans. I know when I lived in the States I did not hear half of what I hear on our news here in Canada, which is more globally oriented.......
Like I said, less than half of what you are saying is actually based on solid facts. The US did not become the worlds only super power by being "unpopular"...
You are simply politically slanted and for an "english major" I think you could learn to have an original thought. You are just spouting out leftist propaganda talking points that have no real "truth". You have an agenda. You have been programed with your slander and you simply spout it off like some kind of mindless robot.
I don't have this issue that you have... I voted for Al Gore! not Bush. Then I voted for Bush.
I am a republican (moderate) but I ALSO believe in choice. I also do not think abortion should be used as a form of "contraception"... When it gets to mistake number six and seven then I think that people who have had that many abortions should be listed with pedophiles on the internet...
But I don't get this kind of attack the issues with logic approach from you. I feel it is more attack the issues with partisanship in your case.
I think you or at least your friends are even delusional.
You want to believe anything that pushes your hate agenda further.
Do you even have one original solution other than the generic hate Bush hate America rant?
I am not against free trade... I am for fair trade too.... I believe we should trade with people who are providing their people with hospitals and schools. Do you have a problem with that? Or should we only trade with dictators and people who strap bombs to babies?