|
| Thread: George W. Bush: The right man, at the right time for the tough job! |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV |
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
posted July 03, 2007 04:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
since i think that if it wasent bush it was someone else.not a problam to find war in our times.
And this is where many of us who didn't vote for Bush in 2000 disagree with you. If Gore had been elected in 2000 my country would not have invaded Iraq. In my view the invasion of Iraq was illegal and immoral.
So if you're thinking that heads of state don't matter, then why did your very own Yitzhak Rabin get assassinated?
Consis Consis Consis.
Quote:
My interpretation of the nature of this thread seems quite different.
Oh? Do tell.
Quote:
The title does not simply mention Mr. Bush but also the 'job'. In fact the author chose to describe his job as a 'tough job'. I'm not exactly certain what your interpretation of the title might be, but mine seems clear in my mind: The author does not simply wish to talk about Mr. Bush but also his job as president.
Yes. You did notice the part where I said "president" Bush, right?
And if you are unsure of what Muerte's intention was with the thread maybe you missed the first line.
Quote:
I can't praise George W. Bush enough!
Quote:
I agree with Shadey's argument based on my own research.
Shadey doesn't have an argument. Unless that is to say you feel the founders of this country, who were greatly influenced by the philosophes and who made sure congress didn't make a law respecting the establishment of religion, were more biblical or evangelical than the current administration. All presidents have invoked god. Not all of them have embraced the right wing evangelical agenda the way this administration has. And certainly not the founding fathers because there was no right wing evangelical agenda to speak of back then!
Quote:
It is one of many and quite factual, I can assure you. I also have many such quotes of the same nature from the founding fathers with which I could provide. Dare I share some?
Go ahead and quote away. It still won't change the reactionary nature of this administration. If you're attempting to refute the arguments laid out by Mr. Wills, you would do much better to go after his support of his thesis instead of kneejerk lines from a "Quotes of Our Founding Fathers" calendar.
Quote:
No other president in the history of our country has been as open about his christianity as Dubya Bush.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. No other president has shown such outward support for the agenda of the religious right, not even Reagan.
Quote:
And I don't see how the founding of our nation and its history of human slavery are relevant to Mr. Bush and his job. If you could please elaborate on the connection of this to the thread then I'd be thankful for your time in helping me better understand where it is.
The mention of slavery is a direct response to his quip about this country's judeo-christian roots. His glib response carried no substance and so I decided to show him what it was like through example.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted July 03, 2007 07:50 AM |
|
|
Why Not God?
My interpretation of the nature of this thread seems quite different.
Quote:
Oh? Do tell.
I shall indeed: George W. Bush: The right man, at the right time for the tough job!--quantified subjective reasoning positioned as a thread in the Other Side for healthy spirited debate. That's what I think of the title. In other words people will come off with their own opinions about the man himself, but the 'tough job' can be referenced and taught.
Quote:
And if you are unsure of what Muerte's intention was with the thread maybe you missed the first line.
I'm not certain of his intentions but you certainly seem to be. Please tell me more of Muerte's intentions. I'm sure he'd like to know as well.
Quote:
Shadey doesn't have an argument. Unless that is to say you feel the founders of this country, who were greatly influenced by the philosophes and who made sure congress didn't make a law respecting the establishment of religion, were more biblical or evangelical than the current administration. All presidents have invoked god.
I disagree. I believe Shadey was arguing that our founding fathers were indeed greatly influenced by (not 'philosophies') the christian faith!
Commenting on the first amendment eh? Good! That's a pleasantly wonderful view you have of it. Many other persons would very much agree with you. Unfortunately for you though history would tend to disagree with this assumption. I won't litter this thread with my disagreement. I have already created a thread for such a debate.
Quote:
It still won't change the reactionary nature of this administration. If you're attempting to refute the arguments laid out by Mr. Wills, you would do much better to go after his support of his thesis instead of kneejerk lines from a "Quotes of Our Founding Fathers" calendar.
First of all I agree with your unfettered opinions of this administration. Let me also assure you that it is far more than a tiny pocketbook calendar of quotes that I have at my disposal. And I'm not going to go after Mr. Wills, I'm going after you because you posted it. Thus you are posting it in open support of his 'philosophies' as you like to call them. I am in full disagreement with those philosophies based on a great many details that I find (and many others) divinely relevant. I believe it was not serendipity that brought this nation to the days we see before us. No, I believe it was the good will of men/women under the God of christianity. Chalk it up to luck and fortune if you like. Let's see how many votes it brings in. Or simply chalk it up to a handful of this country's smartest persons who teach at only the best schools. But whatever you do, don't let the common man get in your way with his crass and uneducated ways. Ignore all the things that make us human and by all means vote yourself an elite. It is they who should be running our country. It is they who have the most favorable lineage. It is they who are smart and always know best because of their higher education and atheistic 'philosophies'.
Quote:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. No other president has shown such outward support for the agenda of the religious right, not even Reagan.
No, actually I was right. And to be more precise, it's Carl Rove's strategy more than it is Mr. Bush's. But hey the President went to a great school and his father was an amazing man so he surely is smart enough to handle the likes of him.
Quote:
The mention of slavery is a direct response to his quip about this country's judeo-christian roots.
We could have quite the discussion about American slavery. I have a lot of information concerning this issue. Perhaps it would help you see that I am no race-baiting cracker. I take an active interest in the civil rights of my fellow countrymen. Historically speaking, I have found the story of how our revolution was actually fought to be fascinating. Slaves answered the call of "Give me liberty or death" with their feet as they were running by the thousands to serve the British cause. Thomas jefferson, what a character--also fascinating.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted July 03, 2007 08:23 AM |
|
|
just a sidenote here...
the Founding Fathers were deists and agnostics, not christians
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 03, 2007 08:55 AM |
|
|
Actually I think most of the founders were highly religious. But their distrust was not only of governments, but also of the established church.
IMO deism, agnosticism and christianity are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There are a lot of people who proclaim themselves christians whose beliefs are quite similar to deism. You could look at deism and evangelical christianity as two ends of the spectrum....the chicken and egg question. Does man reflect god or does god reflect man?
____________
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted July 03, 2007 03:09 PM |
|
|
Maybe you aren't clear as to what the word 'homage' means. Let's use the second definition from Merriam-Webster
homage--2 a : expression of high regard.
So what exactly are you trying to puff up with words? If you're disagreeing with my observation that Muerte was expressing his high regard for president Bush, excuse me while I rub my eyes in disbelief.
Quote:
I believe Shadey was arguing that our founding fathers were indeed greatly influenced by (not 'philosophies') the christian faith!
Shadey supplied one line that wasn't an argument. It was a smug holier-than-thou line that had no substance to back it up.
Correcting me on philosophies? Actually, my spelling was correct. I wasn't referring to philosophies. I was referring to the philosophes. Since you were so intent on your triumph of correcting me on word usage you never bothered to look up what I was talking about. Here it is, courtesy of Merriam-Webster.
philosophe--one of the deistic or materialistic writers and thinkers of the 18th century French Enlightenment.
And if you don't know about the philosophes such as Locke and their profound influence on the formation of this country's government, you should never argue early American history with anyone ever again.
Quote:
Unfortunately for you though history would tend to disagree with this assumption.
This isn't an assumption. It's an amendment. Tell me you're talking about states and local municipalities in defiance of the 1st amendment. Show me times where congress obviously broke it. Then show me when the Supreme Court struck down such laws.
Really Consis. Do you have anything constructive to say about the Wills article or are you more interested in trying to engage me in an intellectual debate about the formation of this country?
Quote:
I am in full disagreement with those philosophies based on a great many details that I find (and many others) divinely relevant. I believe it was not serendipity that brought this nation to the days we see before us. No, I believe it was the good will of men/women under the God of christianity.
Divinely relevant? And good men and women under the direction of the God of christianity that formed this country? Uh. I'm at a loss for words here.
Quote:
Chalk it up to luck and fortune if you like. Let's see how many votes it brings in. Or simply chalk it up to a handful of this country's smartest persons who teach at only the best schools. But whatever you do, don't let the common man get in your way with his crass and uneducated ways. Ignore all the things that make us human and by all means vote yourself an elite. It is they who should be running our country. It is they who have the most favorable lineage. It is they who are smart and always know best because of their higher education and atheistic 'philosophies'.
What is this garbage? You've been railing against the intellectual elite for awhile now. You may have had something with the legacy Ivy leaguers but you're really reaching now. What kills me is for all your railing against lineage who are your favorite choices to lead this country? Pick your dynasty Consis. Will it be Hillary or will it be Jeb?
What arguments do you have against the article? Focus please.
Quote:
No, actually I was right. And to be more precise, it's Carl Rove's strategy more than it is Mr. Bush's. But hey the President went to a great school and his father was an amazing man so he surely is smart enough to handle the likes of him.
Rove doesn't freaking sign this bs into law. Rove can't force this country to go to war. Rove cannot enact the agenda of the far right. It's the president who is responsible. Yes Rove is one of his strategists. So what? The president is putting these strategies into action and therefore he bears the responsibility.
Quote:
Perhaps it would help you see that I am no race-baiting cracker.
Nothing is really going to help you at this point. But go ahead and keep trying.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted July 03, 2007 05:37 PM |
|
|
Does Mr. Bush and those who follow him worship God or a book? It certainly seems to me like it's the latter. And doesn't that constitute a graven image?
Of course, I'm not entitled to an opinion. Apparently having a degree makes my views invalid. Ah, well, c'est la vie, say the old folks. But the old folks say a lot of things, so who knows?
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted July 03, 2007 06:19 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 18:20, 03 Jul 2007.
|
Eh....bort???
bort....what extremely little I know of you, I can atleast say that your degree is in regards to a specific skill or field of study. I have no issues with that. I'm talking about those ivy leaguers who seek to be politicians. And then people of similar status seat them in ideal positions to take electoral spots. I'm just guessing here (as always with you) but correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that you are no politician.
I share many of the same feelings Davy Crockett had before going to Texas. In addition to sharing many of Mr. Crockett's feelings I believe I have a novel idea: What if an elected official ran on the idea of going to college? What if a candidate that had no college ran for office by not only his policies and background but also pledged to go to college while in office? What if part of his campaign message was to try and educate himself on matters that were in need of the greatest reform? I think that would be a good idea for what it represents.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted July 03, 2007 06:23 PM |
|
|
Remember The ALAMO!!!
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 03, 2007 07:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I share many of the same feelings Davy Crockett had before going to Texas. In addition to sharing many of Mr. Crockett's feelings I believe I have a novel idea: What if an elected official ran on the idea of going to college? What if a candidate that had no college ran for office by not only his policies and background but also pledged to go to college while in office? What if part of his campaign message was to try and educate himself on matters that were in need of the greatest reform? I think that would be a good idea for what it represents.
Lol, no, Consis. We don't need another candidate who needs on-the-job training.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted July 03, 2007 08:37 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 14:50, 04 Jul 2007.
|
Why Not?
Why shouldn't we? Are we expecting our president (or candidate) to know everything there is to know, to have learned everything there is to learn, when they are elected into office? Why shouldn't we send out a message that education is an ongoing process and that even presidents need to continue to learn and grow in knowledge and wisdom? Why should we wait for our leaders to make a crucial error in judgment and then learn from that mistake? I think we need more persons going to college, not simply the elite or well-financed. College is becoming too expensive! Whom do we expect to go to college these days? Should it only be teenagers? Why can't we send more people to college at a more affordable rate?
And what happens when we lose some of our best and brightest? Like those lost in the space shuttle Columbia? Is our country so full of educated bright-minded persons that we can afford to lose people in a disastrous unpredictable re-entry explosion caused from an almost unforeseeable block of insulating foam that struck it on lift-off? I say we haven't enough! And I also say that college is becoming too expensive. And I also say that people are placing too much emphasis on a person's academic background to qualify them for the office of President of the United States!
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 03, 2007 11:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Are we expecting our president (or candidate) to know everything there is to know, to have learned everything there is to learn, when they are elected into office?
I would at least expect them to have some experience in government and have completed a university. Look: Woodrow Wilson was a Ph.D., he was a great president. And you can't learn everything in college. I wouldn't expect the President to know everything, but I would expect him to know enough to manage the job. Bush still doesn't, and he's been President for 6.5 years.
I agree with your other point, though; college is far too expensive. The only way to solve it is to nationalize all universties and to abolish scholarships for minorites and instead have more scholarships for high achievers.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
