timing: I can't believe that you would compare bin Laden to Presdent Bush. One is a terrorist while the other is the leader of the free world. Bin Laden perturbs the Koran to serve his purposes. President Bush adheres to the scriptures in search of wisdom and peace. Bush's faith has made him a man of vision and restraint while bin Laden's makes him a mass murderer and a taunter of the West. Bush's faith makes him the guardian of freedom while bin Laden's makes him a terrorist even among those of his own faith. What lies and misrepresentations are you talking about? I don't know whether you are so anti-Bush or anti-religion to have been propelled to write this criticism but I hope you wake in a couple of days to regret it.
Timing -- huh?? this piece honors Bush for having humility and a humble spirit...a faith in God in the midst of all this crap. Most of the Christian world can appreciate that, whether or not they agree with him at every turn or not. Through this he has built an international coalition that has condemned the acts of terror on 9/11. Bin Laden has perverted Islam, according to most in the Islamic world. Bin Laden stands in condemnation by the world, including those who claim Islam as their own. The comparison is quite weak.
You really make it too easy...maybe you should try not to be so fancy. Perhaps would have been a better emoticon.
LOL Now I am anti-Bush? That's great. I'm sure my liberal persecuters will be glad to hear that. There are Muslims, apparently tens of millions of them, who believe bin Laden adheres to the scriptures in search of wisdom and peace. There are Muslims who consider bin Laden's faith to have made him a man of vision, a guardian of Islam. There are Muslims who consider Bush a Christian terrorist, a mass murderer, a taunter of Islam, and so on. What makes you right and them wrong? Is their faith any more or less "right"? This was the same man who came within a hair's breath of losing an election in November, who withstood the political chicanery of the Florida Democratic machine to fix the vote count. This is a lie. What about the political chicanery of the US Supreme Court? Whereas Al Gore almost frantically huffed and puffed, trying to gin up something out of nothing, Bush quietly but confidently waited at his ranch. This is another lie. Bush sure didn't gin up lawsuit after lawsuit in every jurisdiction possible. You see, it is this faith business that confounded everyone. We have had such actors and liars in public office that we have looked skeptically whenever anyone used the term faith. I guess he wasn't lying or acting when he lied about his DUI arrest and he lied about his environmental campaign promises. God has a way of honoring those who honor Him. This is actually very insulting. Whoever doesn't honor "Him" is somehow less than those who do? Great... Yet there he was, again and again, thanking the Democrats. Appointing his enemies to high places in his government. This is actually pretty funny and a misrepresentation. In fact I recall how surprised people were that Bush campaigned on bringing people together but quickly got amnesia about his platform when it came to creating his cabinet. It was as if God's hand, which had guided him through that sliver-thin election, now rested fully on him. His quiet confidence let our enemies know . . . and believe me, they know . . .that they made a grave miscalculation. This reeks of propaganda. God's hand guided him through the election? LOL I think his lawyers did more guiding than God. Maybe Al Gore just didn't pray enough?
are there really tens of millions of muslims who revere bin laden?? the relativism here is ridiculous!
Well, there are 1.4 billion Muslims so even if only 10% revere him, which is certainly possible and likely probable, that would go way past my terribly conservative estimate.
geez, that' s disturbing...so much for the "it's just a small group of muslims who hate you and want you dead simply because you're an american" line. Actually, the more I hear from even those who label themselves as moderates in islamic nations, the more I'm concerned.
<b>timing</b>: I asked if you were anti-Bush or anti-church? I didn't assert either one but those are the logical choices I can take from your remarks. <b>"This is a lie. What about the political chicanery of the US Supreme Court? "</b> RR: Are you saying that Bush controlled the US Supreme Court? <b>"This is another lie. Bush sure didn't gin up lawsuit after lawsuit in every jurisdiction possible."</b> RR: You are mistaking GWB for the Republican political machine. From all accounts that I've seen or read (and I saw one just this morning), GWB retired to his ranch and said to call him when it was over. Yes, he probably had to sign some papers or something, but his LOW profile in all this compared to Gore's HIGH profile is indisuptable. <b>"I guess he wasn't lying or acting when he lied about his DUI arrest and he lied about his environmental campaign promises."</b> RR: I'm not sure what event of lying you are talking about, but no doubt he wanted it to remain buried in the past. Everyone breaks campaign promises. This section is somewhat exagerated but it is, I think, meant to be a start contrast to Clinton's continual lying and you have to admit that Bush shines in that comparison. <b>"This is actually very insulting. Whoever doesn't honor "Him" is somehow less than those who do? Great..."</b> RR: How could it be any other way? God especially honors those who honor him. That's why it's important to honor Him. <b>"This is actually pretty funny and a misrepresentation. In fact I recall how surprised people were that Bush campaigned on bringing people together but quickly got amnesia about his platform when it came to creating his cabinet."</b> RR: At least one of his cabinet persons is a Democrat. When was the last time that happened? <b>"This reeks of propaganda. God's hand guided him through the election? LOL I think his lawyers did more guiding than God. Maybe Al Gore just didn't pray enough?"</b> RR: It's an opinion. Every opinion is propoganda I dare say. It's not widely diseminated. It does not formally represent the President or the Republican Part or the Church. You don't like it, so you slander it by calling it propoganda. <b>rimbaud</b>: I make it easy for YOUR sake. If you're going to say something, just say it. You play around with all these ellipses and innuendos. But let us not forget to thank you for bringing your eduation to the masses! <b>shanna</b>: You crack me up. You've never dented my thick skull; I've never dented your thick skull (or RM95's, or haven's, or achebe's, or rimbaud's) but <b>only you guys</b> throw up your hands and sing a chorus of "It's no use!" or "You're too stupid!" I'm here to further the argument. You guys seem to be here to make notches on your guns. If you can't win, you quit. Oh, and you blame too!!! Giggle.
<B>"This is a lie. What about the political chicanery of the US Supreme Court? " RR: Are you saying that Bush controlled the US Supreme Court? </B> Are you saying Gore controlled the Florida Supreme Court? Or are you saying Democrats controlled it, just as Republicans controlled the US Supreme Court? <B>From all accounts that I've seen or read (and I saw one just this morning), GWB retired to his ranch and said to call him when it was over. </B> You're kidding, right? You do know that the campaign CAN'T and WON'T do anything without the candidate's approval? And it was the campaign that filed the lawsuits? You can't seriously be that naive. <B>You've never dented my thick skull</B> RR, that's why I deleted my post. There's no point to arguing with you, so I changed my mind and decided not to waste my time. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind, so why bother? <B>but only you guys throw up your hands and sing a chorus of "It's no use!" </B> And only you rely on phrases such as "when you get older, you'll learn". That's why we say "it's no use", because you ignore reality and have decided that you know things about me and others that you clearly don't.
<B>Yes, in my world view every human being is a repressed Christian until they accept Christ the Savior. </B> RR, this quote (from another thread) is an example why many of us don't bother arguing with you. There's no way to argue with you because you create "facts" based on things that other people don't believe. You can't prove the above statement, and I can't disprove it. Yet, you're going to use it to make your argument. To me, since the argument is based on a falsity, the argument is worthless. To you, since the argument is based on a trust, the argument stands. There's nothing either of us can do to change that.
Bush *bleah* He was unflappable during the elections because his former head of the CIA father and his Governor of Florida Brother put the fix in. He is a laize' faire president the 'war effort' is all colin powell and the joint cheifs He has made a good speech or two since 9-11 but domestically we still suc . . economy is down unemployment is rising. but hey . . . he doings such a great ****ing job Pul-Lease Rocket River
shanna: "Are you saying Gore controlled the Florida Supreme Court? Or are you saying Democrats controlled it, just as Republicans controlled the US Supreme Court?" <b>RR: I said nothing about it. That was timing's topic.</b> shanna: You're kidding, right? You do know that the campaign CAN'T and WON'T do anything without the candidate's approval? And it was the campaign that filed the lawsuits? You can't seriously be that naive." <b>RR: You let it slip right there: the candidate's "approval." You probably didn't mean it that way. You "approve" someone else's work, plan or idea. I'm not saying that lawsuits were filed over Bush's protest. Are you saying that Bush was at the forefront of these events more than Gore? I'm not naive at all. Bush had a pronouncedly more laissez-faire attitude and activity than did Gore. Would you deny that? I saw the story on MSNBC just this morning.</b> shanna: RR, that's why I deleted my post. There's no point to arguing with you, so I changed my mind and decided not to waste my time. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind, so why bother?" <b>RR: I think you are wrong there. You never know what kind of impact your ideas might have and you never know when they will sink in. This is true for me as well as you. You and your side seem to expect me (and others of my political persuasion) to cave in-- on demand practically. I was kidding about the hard head stuff. We get our backs up here, but I read every word several times before I respond. (By the way, you wasted more time by deleting your post.) The point is to add to the discussion. It is not for you to gain my concession or me to gain your concession. I never expect that but it distresses me that "your side" seems to. And when you don't, Game Over.</b> shanna: And only you rely on phrases such as "when you get older, you'll learn". That's why we say "it's no use", because you ignore reality and have decided that you know things about me and others that you clearly don't. <b>RR: Come on; how long are you going to beat that dead horse. I said that "when you get older" line one time in one thread that I can recall ABOUT A YEAR AGO. It was specifically addressed to RM95 and, as I recall, THAT MOMENT was the first time you jumped all over my case. It was probably an abortion debate, but honestly I don't even recall what the debate was. On one other occasion I asked somebody if they more typically mined their wisdom from a generation older or younger than they-- I got no response to that rhetorical question.</B> shanna: RR, this quote (from another thread) is an example why many of us don't bother arguing with you. There's no way to argue with you because you create "facts" based on things that other people don't believe. You can't prove the above statement, and I can't disprove it. Yet, you're going to use it to make your argument. To me, since the argument is based on a falsity, the argument is worthless. To you, since the argument is based on a trust, the argument stands." <b>RR: I was directly asked a question. That was my answer. No pussyfooting there! I never represented it as a fact. I stated that it was my belief or my worldview. It was not used to make an argument; it was a direct answer to a question posed by CriscoKidd if I remember correctly. You are misrepresenting me here.</b>
Rich, I neither hate Bush nor do I like him. However, as an impartial observer of this thread, I could tell that the article is very self-serving and insulting to anyone except the author and his family and of course, Dubya and his family. Just let it go...or recruit some reinforcements to back you up. I think Kagy is back, maybe he'll pop in on this thread.
Manny: you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to my choice. I will press on. I'm not motivated by whether or not someone approves of my position. I post if the issue is of interest and deserves attention.
