NationStates Jolt Archive

I have posted this in order to get a better understanding of people who are generaly sympathetic to US president Bush, not in order to do some Bush-Bashing. Bush is generally regarded by suporters as a good Christian, a fact that I cannot understand. What I mean is this:

George Bush is a third-generation millionaire. Yet Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven". Why doesn't Bush spend his personal to help the impoverished? Why does he follow a generally pro-business policy? The wealthy were some of Jesus' worst enemies.

George Bush is a supporter of the death penalty. And he was the governor of Texas, the American state that executes most people every year. And the procedures of leading to death penalties are quite often deeply flawed. This is a fact admitted by other US governors. It is almost unthinkable that the state of Texas has not executed any innocent people under the Bush governorship. And he had the power of pardon. Considering the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" makes no exceptions at all, and that execution of criminals is not even self-defence (they could be sentenced to life in prison, after all), how does that fit?

The administration that Bush heads is generally very moralistic, when it comes to social mores. And yet Jesus attacked no-one more severely than moralistic people. The worst in Jesus' eyes were the wealthy moralists. How does that fit?

I would appreciate if any Bush sympathizers would answer the above arguments. I repeat that this thread is not posted polemically, but rather in order for me to understand.

*applauds Free Denmark*

Considering the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" makes no exceptions at all, and that execution of criminals is not even self-defence (they could be sentenced to life in prison, after all), how does that fit?


I agree with most of what you have written, and agree that it seems unlikely that president Bush can be considered a Christian, certainly not a 'good' Christian.

On the point regarding the death penalty and the commandment, my translation (new international version) of the bible says 'thou shalt not murder', not 'thou shalt not kill'. I expect my translation is correct, as the bible condones the death penalty for a wide range of crimes, not just for murder. If no-one can kill, then how can you have a death penalty? The bible (Old Testament at least) advocates the death penalty, and bush supporting it is not unchristian.

oooh... I know a good argument.

Bush is HUMAN. Humans make mistakes (as pointed out countless times in the Bible). The only thing Bush has to do to be a sincere christian is go to church every sunday and believe in God. That's it...

Wow. I'm really hoping this thread stays as a one-sided arguement. What _has_ Bush done in the name of Christanity?

The only thing Bush has to do to be a sincere christian is go to church every sunday and believe in God. That's it...

Hmm... but if that's all it takes to be a good Christian, there's really not much point in listening to anything Jesus said, is there?

I'd like to think there was a tad more to Christianity than that. Most of my Christian friends do.

Wow. I'm really hoping this thread stays as a one-sided arguement. What _has_ Bush done in the name of Christanity?
gone to church?

Well: the bible also says: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, blood for blood."
It doesn´t demand to forgive everything - especially not to people who don´t see that their action were wrong and who continue their evil deeds.
And there is another thing about President Bush: He is honest: He says what he does and he does what he says. Whether it is right what he does is another question - a question for political dispute. But it can´t be said that he is not honest about it.

gone to church?

That makes him Christian, yes. But that doesn't make him a "good" Christian. There are countless Christians who go to church and bible study and all that, but I would not consider them good Christians if they're overbearing about their faith. If they oppress others or force their will on others, then they're being poor Christians, regardless of their church attendance. Personally, I believe about 10% of Catholics are true Catholics because 90% of the Catholics I've met don't understand very crucial aspects of the faith. It doesn't mean they're bad people, it just means they aren't as Catholic as they could be. Bush is not as Christian as he could be. By a long shot.

I read a book from a priest about the Bible. He though it was nonsense to take every sentence in the Book and put that to life. The Book is a story and stories are to be read in whole. He thinks the though behind the Bible is: "No matter how bad you start out, it'll all be well in the end"

Xikuang: the point of listening to Jesus is getting new perspectives on life. Of everything you hear, you'll probably agree on some points and other points you'll consider a bit further (having heard new arguments). To listen to Jesus does not mean to act like Jesus.

Is being a "sincere" Christian following the exact word of the bible? Nope, that is being a sincere Yehova's witness. Is the Christian moral the monopoly of Christianity? Nope, atheists and other religions most of the time have a good ethos that resembles the "christian" moral very close. Why does Christianity have to be involved when judging a person? Why do people have to consult a mistranslated, over a 100 times changed and censored book, when judging a person. You should have seen from day one that Bush is an incompetent person to lead one of the world's leading nations. Why are so many of the American presidents as dumb as a mules behind? I think the masters of puppets need an easy to control dumb ass with no own ideas, because it is much easier to make him dance to their music. Just pull the right strings. The so called democracy isn't a democracy anymore. The real conductors of the USA are still the same puppetmasters as before Bush and before Clinton and before before before... If the USA realy was a democracy("deimos~people" "cratein~to rule"), then about half of the Americans wouldn't live in almost poverty. You would have social security and health care. But no, the government spends millions on making war in countries most of the American people don't know where these countries lay. "The american interests" (government interests not the people's interest) = oil and infest foreign nations with coca cola and mac donalds.

If the USA would just for one time have a president (with an IQ higher than his age) who can stand up to his puppetmasters, clip the strings, and do something that a "sincere Christian, Budhist, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Protestant, Anglican, Jew, atheist, agnost, president..." would do: stop making war and counting nipples, but start investing in the people (and not just say it, but realy work on those social rights) then in one legislation America could cease to be a third world nation.

Stop discussing wether someone is a christian, just discuss wether someone is a good person. Faith has got nothing to do with being good or bad. If that were true, in American's eyes every muslim would be evil (like your dear Bush says).

Thank you and damn I feel like the moral of a Walt Disney movie.

Just for the record, I'm not muslim.

I said before Bush got into power that if he did he would enter into a was with Iraq, everyone laughed at me at the time but I was right. If you look at the evidence that is availiable then a lot of the reasons for the war were incorrect. Surely then this isn't a good witness to others as you make information fit in with what you want it to regardless of whether it does.

Patience is one of the fruits of the spirit, but he showed none of that by not waiting for the UN report!!

Yes the bible does say an eye for and eye, tooth for tooth. However that does not give anyone the right to have a go at someone years after the intinal event.

How can you say that a person is honest even when they make a decision that they know to be wrong. Surely integrity is part of honesty, because if you have little or no integrity then how can you be honest??

Is being a "sincere" Christian following the exact word of the bible? Nope, that is being a sincere Yehova's witness. Is the Christian moral the monopoly of Christianity? Nope, atheists and other religions most of the time have a good ethos that resembles the "christian" moral very close. Why does Christianity have to be involved when judging a person? Why do people have to consult a mistranslated, over a 100 times changed and censored book, when judging a person. You should have seen from day one that Bush is an incompetent person to lead one of the world's leading nations. Why are so many of the American presidents as dumb as a mules behind? I think the masters of puppets need an easy to control dumb ass with no own ideas, because it is much easier to make him dance to their music. Just pull the right strings. The so called democracy isn't a democracy anymore. The real conductors of the USA are still the same puppetmasters as before Bush and before Clinton and before before before... If the USA realy was a democracy("deimos~people" "cratein~to rule"), then about half of the Americans wouldn't live in almost poverty. You would have social security and health care. But no, the government spends millions on making war in countries most of the American people don't know where these countries lay. "The american interests" (government interests not the people's interest) = oil and infest foreign nations with coca cola and mac donalds.

If the USA would just for one time have a president (with an IQ higher than his age) who can stand up to his puppetmasters, clip the strings, and do something that a "sincere Christian, Budhist, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Protestant, Anglican, Jew, atheist, agnost, president..." would do: stop making war and counting nipples, but start investing in the people (and not just say it, but realy work on those social rights) then in one legislation America could cease to be a third world nation.

Stop discussing wether someone is a christian, just discuss wether someone is a good person. Faith has got nothing to do with being good or bad. If that were true, in American's eyes every muslim would be evil (like your dear Bush says).

Thank you and damn I feel like the moral of a Walt Disney movie.

Just for the record, I'm not muslim.

Well, that's not entirely fair. I think it is more important to question whether someone is a good or bad person rather than a good or bad *insert your religion here*. The thing is, Bush constantly points out to the public that he's Christian. What this post (and others like it) are talking about is that he's not even being that. He's being a downright poor Christian. If he was a Jew, he'd be a poor Jew.

As a completely seperate point, a good person in the eyes of a Christian does NOT make them a bad person in the eyes of a Muslim. That's just shallow.

Stop discussing wether someone is a christian, just discuss wether someone is a good person. Faith has got nothing to do with being good or bad. If that were true, in American's eyes every muslim would be evil (like your dear Bush says).

While I personally agreed with much of what you wrote, I do think it is a relevant thing to understand other people's arguments and opinions. That is why I created this thread.

When did Bush say that every muslim is evil?

With all the trouble and goings on in Sudan at the moment I don't see America rushing in there to help. Even though this has been on going for a year or so but only makes the news now, where are his intelligence services now - lookin at Iran???

Oh yeah forgot they don't have oil, minerals or much else that they want so that why they not there.

How can you say that a person is honest even when they make a decision that they know to be wrong. Surely integrity is part of honesty, because if you have little or no integrity then how can you be honest??
You can accuse Blair for that. But Bush and Cheney said: We want regime change. The WMD issue was not the central issue. It was like Wolfowitz said the issue all could agree on. But that is more an argument against Blair (who only used the WMD argument) than Bush.
Aside of the fact that he based his statements on intelligence the intelligence community believed to be correct. He can´t be blamed for that.

Bush's reason for going to war was not his alleged hatred for muslims but the threat of WMD. Intelligence reports had suggested that Iraq could deploy nuclear arms within 45 minutes of the order being given. Bush believed this and sent the troops in. He was not doing this for oil, or for fun, or because his daddy did, or whatever: he did this because he felt America was under threat, and any head of state that does not take action when his nation is threatened is a poor leader.

However, the intelligence claims turned out to be false and suddenly Bush was all evil for ever going to war in the first place. I'm not a fan of his, but I felt that there were too many 'anti Bush' messages on this thread and someone needed to play devil's (not literally!) advocate in order for there to be a level playing field.

Just to prove that I'm not a pro-Bush guy, here's what I really think of him: he is a stupid, bumbling, poor president. He believed intelligence which he knew only came from Iraqi defectors and POW's - there were no CIA agents in Iraq. When he met former president Clinton, a man with exactly twice his IQ, he ignored the advice Clinton gave him about Iraq being far down on his list of priorities. In conclusion, Bush is not a bad guy, he just shouldn't be president.

You can accuse Blair for that. But Bush and Cheney said: We want regime change. The WMD issue was not the central issue. It was like Wolfowitz said the issue all could agree on. But that is more an argument against Blair (who only used the WMD argument) than Bush.
Aside of the fact that he based his statements on intelligence the intelligence community believed to be correct. He can´t be blamed for that.

Agree with you on the fact that Blair used the WMD for his justification for the war, however in the very early days Bush said it as well which was quickly changed to regime change. Surely that can't be a justified reason for starting a war? That's like saying "don't like the way that country is run, it should be better, lets go to war to change it!"

Regards intelligence, the fallout from both the Hutton & Butler reports is that a lot more of these documents that can be read by the public. It's interesting that the Hutton Report was first to see if Blair was gulity of wrong based on the intelligence reports. Which is all well and good, but the reports were doctored between leaving the agencies concern and the cabinet - this is what the Butler report established. So how come it wasn't done the other way round? To protect blair, mind you he used his friends to do the reports in order to protect him to - jobs worth.

Anyone one that dares speak up against downing street, ie visa scandal etc the whisleblower gets sacked even though there is protection in place to protect these people from action.

Either way both of them have selfish motives for doing something. It say in the New Testament "do nothing out of selfish ambition" and also "Each of you should look not only to your own interests but also the interest of others."

Hence why I mentioned about Sudan, and the lack of action that is being taken, sanctions will only end up effecting the people that are already suffering, from what I have witnessed previously this seams to be the case.

Agree with you on the fact that Blair used the WMD for his justification for the war, however in the very early days Bush said it as well which was quickly changed to regime change. Surely that can't be a justified reason for starting a war? That's like saying "don't like the way that country is run, it should be better, lets go to war to change it!"

It is not that easy. It was also designed as a warning shot against Iran and North Korea to stop their nuclear programs and against Iran and Syria to stop supporting terrorism. Iraq is geostrategically a very important country. And the regime always made problems. Unfinished business. President Bush wants to solve it.

Anticlimax: quite so. My point was that it takes more than going to church and believing in some kind of god for one to be considered a good pracitioner of the Christian faith.

Roccan: I agree with what you say regarding judging a person on their individual merits rather than on whether they fit a stereotypical mold we refer to as a religion. Many people think that religious affiliation and morality are inextricably interwoven, which is simply not the case, as you say. But still, for many, religious teaching is the primary cognitive environment through which they interpret themselves and their society, which isn't necessarily a bad thing-- though it can be, taken to dogmatic extremes, as we see every day in the forms of intolerance, violence and abuse perpetrated in the name of relgion... but anyway, Dalradia's question had to do with whether or not George Bush is a good Christian.

It's just a fact that if any long-standing religion is to be practised in the modern age, it must be practised in the modern social context. It's no longer viable to stone women to death for adultery, or any number of dogmatic prescriptions handed down from various ancient legal texts and diatribes against the heathens. Religion should serve people as a way of helping people to live as God would have them live, and if I'm not very much mistaken, one of the precepts of most religious faiths is one or another statement of the Christian love thy neighbor. Shock and horror-- in an international community such as we have today, this necessarily entails a certain degree of toleration and respect for other people's faiths and beliefs.

This is kind of hard when so many people take dogma to be so integral to religious practise. I think, in order to be a good christian, as in order to be a good anything, one must first and foremost be thoughtful when it comes to interpreting one's religion and what its texts say, and how those teachings apply to the conditions in which we find ourselves.

This is where I think George Bush falls down. I don't think he is a very thoughtful Christian. He is dogmatic and intolerant, two of the chiefest signs, in my book, of an insincere religious practitioner.

Sorry to rant and run-- I have to go take wallpaper off and I'm already stupidly late! In all hope that this thread doesn't become a bashfest--

me

(oh, for the record: I am not religious at all. (http://the-brights.net/)

You're right Denmark, he never said it. I was wrong, but it IS TRUE that many American muslims were harrassed shortly after september 11. A bloody witchhunt. I hope you will forgive my hastly comment.


But ... Come on! The intelligence that Bush got (possible threath for weapons of mass destruction...). America has never been in a real war with bombings and such, now has it? Iraq was still recovering from Bush senior strikes. Do you realy think that bombing America was Saddams number one priority?

Keep in mind that the president just does what the real masters tell him. He is too stupid to do anything that even closely looks like politics. He probably did not now that the info was false, but the intelligence and his advisors sure as hell did. And it is for oil interests they did it!!! The UN had conducted numerous investigations to find out wether iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They didn't find jack shit and the US didn't after the war either. Then they start accusing Syria. Luckely Syria doesn't have oil wells...

The USA put millions and millions of dollars in the destruction of a nation and afterwards comes crawling on his knees and asks the UN and Europe for financial support to build everything up. It wasn't our war, and eventually we have to pay without getting any interests in the conquered land.

The USA wanted only american corporations to settle in Iraq and around the oil wells. They were suddenly the monopoly of America, no other country was authorised to invest in the exploitation of the oil. Bare in minde that the first thing the americans did when they invaded Iraq was conquering every oil well, that is how concerned your government was about the american people...

Just for your intelligence: i didn't go see the movies of that guy Fahrenheit something something and that other movie. I just read some good news papers (the ones that aren't censored ~ almost every non-american paper I guess).

I"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven".

I agree with that on some level. But I would expand it to:

I"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a person to enter the kingdom of Heaven".

Its pretty damn hard to enter something that doesn't exist. :D

Aside of the fact that he based his statements on intelligence the intelligence community believed to be correct. He can´t be blamed for that.

He can when it has been shown that he purposely appoints incompetent advisors just so that they will tell him what he wants to hear. If he'll do that in science, I don't see why he wouldn't in intelligence. And if you purposely surround yourself with incompetence, you can't really complain when someone messes up, now can you?

I agree with that on some level. But I would expand it to:



Its pretty damn hard to enter something that doesn't exist. :D
Actually its easy to enter something that doesn't exist, you can say you are already there. So your joke is moot.

You can be places that don't exist? Thats quite a feat :P

You can be places that don't exist? Thats quite a feat :P
I've been to places that don't exist, Heaven too, so it can't be that amzzing...unless I'm amazing lol

Actually, I take that back. A friend of mine once said Teriyaki (sp?) Beef Jerky is like bits of heaven. I'm pretty sure if I made a house out such, I could get inside it. :P

[/sarcasm]

Can George Bush be regarded as a sincere Christian?

No. Because he is the anti-Christ (http://mirrors.meepzorp.com/geocities.com/george-bush-antichrist/).

Yes hi is a sincere christian. I am not going to give reasons why because what i would say would be falling on deaf ears so to speak.

What arguments here actually acomplish anything? We're all to sure of our own beliefs (sp?) to ever change our minds.

Bush's reason for going to war was not his alleged hatred for muslims but the threat of WMD. Intelligence reports had suggested that Iraq could deploy nuclear arms within 45 minutes of the order being given. Bush believed this and sent the troops in. He was not doing this for oil, or for fun, or because his daddy did, or whatever: he did this because he felt America was under threat, and any head of state that does not take action when his nation is threatened is a poor leader.

However, the intelligence claims turned out to be false and suddenly Bush was all evil for ever going to war in the first place. I'm not a fan of his, but I felt that there were too many 'anti Bush' messages on this thread and someone needed to play devil's (not literally!) advocate in order for there to be a level playing field.

Just to prove that I'm not a pro-Bush guy, here's what I really think of him: he is a stupid, bumbling, poor president. He believed intelligence which he knew only came from Iraqi defectors and POW's - there were no CIA agents in Iraq. When he met former president Clinton, a man with exactly twice his IQ, he ignored the advice Clinton gave him about Iraq being far down on his list of priorities. In conclusion, Bush is not a bad guy, he just shouldn't be president.

Just because a country is capable of launching WMD isnt a excuse for a war by saying that Bush should of attacked Iraq because they might attack US is like saying Iraq should attack US because US might(and did) attack Iraq. To run further along this vein which country has the most WMD in the world stored away? US then shouldnt the UN invade them to stop the threat and destory the WMD? a head of state should only resort to war when there is abolsute proof that the goverment of a country attacked them is some way not just proof of links or training camps

Yes he is a sincere christian. I am not going to give reasons why because what i would say would be falling on deaf ears so to speak.

Exactly... they're waiting for you to try to say something good so they can bash him and you. That was very wise.

Now to turn this thing around on you jerks trying to use religion to make someone a bad person: your own Bible says that even Hitler would be accepted into Heaven if he confessed his sins and accepted Jesus as his saviour. And don't bring up the death penalty until you can justify the crusades, the reformations and the Thirty Years War! I'd like to know what a "good" Christian is, and if even you meet that definition.

Before you attept to remove the speck of dust from someone else's eye, remove the plank from your own.

but bush is a BORN AGAIN christian, you have to ignore and forget everything he has ever done bad and everything he will ever do bad because he was BORN AGAIN and is unquestionable because he came baack to jesus, and if you question him you are satan. SATAN

Bush is honest?

Speaking of his tax cuts:
"By far the vast majority of the help goes to those at the bottom end of the economic ladder." - 2000 Presidential debate with Al Gore

"By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom end of the spectrum." - 2000 primary debate with John McCain

The bottom 60 % of Americans got only 14.7 % of that tax cut. (Which means the top 40 % got the other 85.3% !!!) Those are outright lies.


"If you're a family of four making $35,000, you'll receive a one hundred percent tax cut. It's an average tax relief for families of $1600" - 2001 "Tax Family Event"

This is a lie by obfuscation. They receive a one hundred percent income tax cut, but 74% of Americans pay more payroll tax than income tax. That $35,000 family is still paying $5,355 in payroll taxes.

The second part of it is lying by misrepresenting the mathematics. Yes, the average tax cut is $1600 per family. But the averages are way skewed by the rich. Less than 25 million americans received a tax cut of $1,100 or more. 62 million received tax cuts less than a thousand dollars, averaging about $302 per family. And 50 million (on the bottom end) recieved no tax cut at all. The richest americans, of course, received tax cuts will over $10,000.


'I said that I would only defecit spend only in times of war, in times of economic insecturity as a result of a recession, or in times of national emergency. Never did I dream we'd have a trifecta." - 2002 speech in Iowa; Georgia while campaigning for Chambliss, Texas while campagining for Perry, and at least 10 other times

Bush tells this story over and over, but HE NEVER SAID IT! IT WAS GORE'S POSITION!!!!!! It was Gore who said he'd deficit spend only in those three occasions.

I don't have time to go into how many times Bush has lied through omisson, or through ignoring information he knew to be false, or when he dealt dishonestly with issues. How 'bout this whole Swift Boat Veterans BS? It is now clear that these people are supported by massive economic interests in the Republican Party, and were quietly hired simply to attempt to smear Kerry (with a lie!). This is Karl Rove's modus operandi: lie, lie, lie about your opponent, but do it very, very skillfully. And if you think Bush does not know about Rove and the way he operates, you're sadly mistaken. And, heck, if he doesn't understand what's going on in his own staff, then he probably shouldn't be president anyway.

credit: Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" for much of this information. If you're an honest person who even thinks for a minute about voting for Bush, you owe it to yourself and your country to read this book.

I think he is more sincere than Kerry is. Kerry pays lip service to any and everything that will get him elected....

right. because bush isn't in bed with the religious right.

how's the weather looking, btw? i heard the hurricane is supposed to hit central florida sometime in the next few days.

If the USA realy was a democracy("deimos~people" "cratein~to rule"), then about half of the Americans wouldn't live in almost poverty. You would have social security and health care.

So, half of us live in "almost" poverty? Really, I'd have swore it was considerably lower than that. Any financial strain that the average working American deals with involves spending too much of their income and too little saving (this is also why we have record trade deficits, cause we do nothing but BUY BUY BUY). As for social security and health care, our programs aren't as extensive as Europe's because our taxes are lower. It's a trade off of higher taxes & welfare vs. lower taxes & lower unemployment, and right now the USA prefers lower unemployment. What works for Europe may not work for the US.


If the USA would just for one time have a president (with an IQ higher than his age) who can stand up to his puppetmasters, clip the strings, and do something that a "sincere Christian, Budhist, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Protestant, Anglican, Jew, atheist, agnost, president..." would do: stop making war and counting nipples, but start investing in the people (and not just say it, but realy work on those social rights) then in one legislation America could cease to be a third world nation.

Even with our problems, there is no way we are a third world nation. Even if you're refering to social rights (gay rights, etc), we're not executing them like a dictator would and we'll eventually get there anyway. As for the "puppetmasters", I can only assume you're refering to corporations and political action groups; perhaps unfair, but they do have a large hold over the American political machine.


If that were true, in American's eyes every muslim would be evil (like your dear Bush says).

I think this one has already been responded to, but again, Bush was having to tell the nation that Islam isn't our enemy.

Bush is honest?
I don't have time to go into how many times Bush has lied through omisson, or through ignoring information he knew to be false, or when he dealt dishonestly with issues. How 'bout this whole Swift Boat Veterans BS? It is now clear that these people are supported by massive economic interests in the Republican Party, and were quietly hired simply to attempt to smear Kerry (with a lie!). This is Karl Rove's modus operandi: lie, lie, lie about your opponent, but do it very, very skillfully. And if you think Bush does not know about Rove and the way he operates, you're sadly mistaken. And, heck, if he doesn't understand what's going on in his own staff, then he probably shouldn't be president anyway.

If you're going to blame Bush and the RNC for the Swift Boat Veterans ads (which I don't support), then you might as well link MoveOn.org's add about Bush as Hitler directly at Kerry's and the DNC's lap. Pro-Democrat groups have spent at least three times more money in 527s (or what ever the number is) than Republican supporters, anyway.


credit: Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" for much of this information. If you're an honest person who even thinks for a minute about voting for Bush, you owe it to yourself and your country to read this book.
The day that I use Al Franken as a credible source of info, I'll start believing Rush Limbaugh & Ann Coulter too. Translation: I take anything any of these three say with a grain of salt.

"Any financial strain that the average working American deals with involves spending too much of their income and too little saving"

edit: Sorry trying to figure out this quote thing.


First of all, it's true that not 50% of Americans are in "near-poverty". But in 2003, 12.7% of Americans were living below the poverty line, which comes out to 35.9 million (for the record, both these numbers went down in every year of Clinton's mandate, and both have gone up every year in Bush's). 35.9 million poor people in the richest country in the world?

And you must not live near poor people if you think their financial strain is from spending too much. Financial strain comes from not being able to afford health insurance and getting sick. Not being able to afford prescriptions that are priced way above what they need to be. Going into massive debt in order to afford to send your kid away to college, or going into massive debt trying to pay your own way through college. Millions and millions of people in this country live on the razor's edge, where one accident or problem could send them and their families spinning into poverty. They can't save money because they have none to save. We're not talking about the middle-class and their out-of-control spending habits. We're talking about the millions of poor people who have almost no hope of getting out of their poverty, which leads to poorer education, poorer general health, and much higher crime rates.

You don't have to take anything Franken says as truth. But he always quotes his sources (as waaaaaaaay opposed to Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, et al.)

I referenced all the quotes I gave, you can look them up.

The statistics come from Citizens for Tax Justice: http://www.ctj.org/html/gwbfinal.htm

and Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center (UIBITP): http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/commentary/admin_stimulus/section2/table2_1.pdf

The Tax Family Event is posted at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010220-5.html

Payroll Tax info comes from UIBITP: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/1000456_payroll_income.pdf

According to Salon.com on June 18, 2002, Bush told his "trifecta" joke in Iowa on June 7, 2002. And the White House recorded him saying it a dozen other times in the previous four months. In the Washington Post article "Karl Rove, Adding to His To-Do LIst", published June 25, 2002, it was reportd that Bush continued to use the line after its lie was exposed on Meet the Press. And the Washington Post, in an article entitled "A Sound Bite So Good, the President Wishes He Had Said It", on July 2, 2002, revealed that Gore had actually made the statement, not Bush.


I don't have references right now for the Swift Boat thing, but I'll look em up.

But you can read about Karl Rove's history of smear campaigns based on lies and half-truths in "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential" by James Moore and "Boy Genius: Karl Rove, the Brains Behind the Remarkable Political Triumph of George W. Bush" by Lou Dubose et al.


You will never find the right-wing pundits we were referring to referencing their quotes so carefully. Mostly because they're full of lies and half-truths.

right. because bush isn't in bed with the religious right.

how's the weather looking, btw? i heard the hurricane is supposed to hit central florida sometime in the next few days.

Nice and sunny right now....about 90 degrees without a cloud in the sky...but that is going to change soon. :(

Considering the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" makes no exceptions at all...

This is absolutely false. The Hebrew word is better translated as "murder", and the Bible commands that murderers be put to death at the hands of men.

Speaking of his tax cuts:

The bottom 60 % of Americans got only 14.7 % of that tax cut. (Which means the top 40 % got the other 85.3% !!!) Those are outright lies.

Well, when you consider the bottom 50% only pay about 4% of the total tax in America, that sort of makes sense. How do you give a tax refund to someone who doesn't pay taxes?

Exactly... they're waiting for you to try to say something good so they can bash him and you. That was very wise.

Now to turn this thing around on you jerks trying to use religion to make someone a bad person: your own Bible says that even Hitler would be accepted into Heaven if he confessed his sins and accepted Jesus as his saviour. And don't bring up the death penalty until you can justify the crusades, the reformations and the Thirty Years War! I'd like to know what a "good" Christian is, and if even you meet that definition.

Before you attept to remove the speck of dust from someone else's eye, remove the plank from your own.


Well, I was not really counting on answering any Pro-Bush postings on this thread, except maybe requesting a clarification or two.

And I'm certainly not a good or sincere christian. I'm an atheist. But what strikes me is that many people who regards themselves as christians are actually the very kind of people Jesus attacked mercilessy. People who thought they were good people, and who were very strict with people they did not regard as having the same moral fibre as themselves. To me it appears no less than obvious that Jesus would regard a prostitute or a petty theif who prays for forgiveness from God as being better and having more true faith, than a powerful millionaire posing himself as a good christian.

I think he is more sincere than Kerry is. Kerry pays lip service to any and everything that will get him elected....

On the one hand, that's true. On the other hand... doesn't that mean he's listening to what people want?
Kerry's got a reputation as a flip-flopper. At least it's not the reputation of a religious hardliner who ignores what his countrymen ask him to do.

For BustOutTheCalculator: I'm glad you recognize that eventually we'll achieve things like gay rights. If you know it's inevitable, why wait? Why wait to give someone rights they deserve and will eventually get anyway?

We are all imperfect. We all have too much pride, which is can be called the root of all sin.

This is just my point of view so take it for what it is worth. Belief is cheap. I can say I believe this or that, go to church every week, smile, go home and think of it no more during the rest of the week. Religion should be part of your life. Every thing you do should be reflected in you faith (faith in my book is belief coupled with action, if anyone want clarification on that concept see James 2 ). :)

One of the things I admire most about some of my Muslim friends is that they take what they believe seriously and try to live it every moment.

I don't claim to know about Bush's private life. I tend to personally view him as a "once a week Christian." But who knows (well Lara might). But I would find it wrong for a person not to incorporate his or her values into their lives. If a canidate said he believed one thing and acted in his public office another way I would be upset. If you don't agree with what someone believes, maybe he should not be the canidate that gets your vote.

I have a question can Kerry be considered a good democrat when he does not give money to the poor?

Well, I was not really counting on answering any Pro-Bush postings on this thread, except maybe requesting a clarification or two.

And I'm certainly not a good or sincere christian. I'm an atheist. But what strikes me is that many people who regards themselves as christians are actually the very kind of people Jesus attacked mercilessy. People who thought they were good people, and who were very strict with people they did not regard as having the same moral fibre as themselves. To me it appears no less than obvious that Jesus would regard a prostitute or a petty theif who prays for forgiveness from God as being better and having more true faith, than a powerful millionaire posing himself as a good christian.

Wow, I'm impressed. That's a great answer. My apologies to you for the sharp response, but some people may have meant it that way. I suppose its true that someone who claims to be a good Christian is likely to be less of one than some who doesn't make the claim. Humility, perhaps.

Bush's reason for going to war was not his alleged hatred for muslims but the threat of WMD. Intelligence reports had suggested that Iraq could deploy nuclear arms within 45 minutes of the order being given. Bush believed this and sent the troops in. He was not doing this for oil, or for fun, or because his daddy did, or whatever: he did this because he felt America was under threat, and any head of state that does not take action when his nation is threatened is a poor leader.

However, the intelligence claims turned out to be false and suddenly Bush was all evil for ever going to war in the first place. I'm not a fan of his, but I felt that there were too many 'anti Bush' messages on this thread and someone needed to play devil's (not literally!) advocate in order for there to be a level playing field.

Just to prove that I'm not a pro-Bush guy, here's what I really think of him: he is a stupid, bumbling, poor president. He believed intelligence which he knew only came from Iraqi defectors and POW's - there were no CIA agents in Iraq. When he met former president Clinton, a man with exactly twice his IQ, he ignored the advice Clinton gave him about Iraq being far down on his list of priorities. In conclusion, Bush is not a bad guy, he just shouldn't be president.

Bush received intelligence that told him that Iraq was not a threat, so he told them to go back and do it again. His "intelligence" was a matter of listening only to what he wanted to hear. He then used this to invade a sovereign state. This makes him a very bad person.

Bush received intelligence that told him that Iraq was not a threat, so he told them to go back and do it again. His "intelligence" was a matter of listening only to what he wanted to hear. He then used this to invade a sovereign state. This makes him a very bad person.
The intelligence was consistent with what they had knwon for over ten years since his father's presidency. We gave them the weapons and technology to be a threat in the war with Iran. We knew they had it. Clinton knew it, too, but didn't act on it. After 9-11, anyone who was president would have had no choice but to act on whatever intelligence he had... the whole country was crying for war. That doesn't have any effect on Bush's Christianity, which this thread is about.

The intelligence was consistent with what they had knwon for over ten years since his father's presidency. We gave them the weapons and technology to be a threat in the war with Iran. We knew they had it. Clinton knew it, too, but didn't act on it. After 9-11, anyone who was president would have had no choice but to act on whatever intelligence he had... the whole country was crying for war. That doesn't have any effect on Bush's Christianity, which this thread is about.

The whole country was calling for war against Iraq? Even before Bush started calling for it? Funny, I don't recall that.

The second intelligence, after he called for it to be revised to meet with his preconceived conclusions, may have been consistent with the receipts that his daddy and Rumsfeld kept. The initial unbiased intelligence did not conclude that Iraq was a threat or had W.M.D.s

The whole country was calling for war against Iraq? Even before Bush started calling for it? Funny, I don't recall that.

The second intelligence, after he called for it to be revised to meet with his preconceived conclusions, may have been consistent with the receipts that his daddy and Rumsfeld kept. The initial unbiased intelligence did not conclude that Iraq was a threat or had W.M.D.s

*sigh* He knew they had it because we gave it to them! Now please stay on topic, or start a new topic.

*sigh* He knew they had it because we gave it to them! Now please stay on topic, or start a new topic.

The topic is Bush's sincerity as a Christian.

We sold it to them, and then we invaded them and blew it up. (B.T.W. a lot of our servicemen still suffer health problems from those demolitions and the half-assed way that safety concerns were addressed.) We had flights over Iraq between the wars, and all three U.S. Presidents had no qualms about bombing targets inside of Iraq. If they had known about W.M.D.s there, they would certainly have bombed them. Clinton had no problem bombing that "asprin" factory in Sudan.

Bush received unbiased intelligence that at the present time Iraq had no W.M.D. capabilities. He sent it back until it said what he wanted to hear.

A sincere Christian, in my humble opinion, does not tell his information gatherers to lie to him in order to invade a sovereign state. This is on topic.

I think you are being a little too fast on your "off topic" alert button. But maybe it is simply a matter of what meets your preconceived conclusion.

*sigh*

So, half of us live in "almost" poverty? Really, I'd have swore it was considerably lower than that.

I may have exagurated, but check this link: http://www.nccbuscc.org/cchd/povertyusa/povfacts.htm

Even with our problems, there is no way we are a third world nation. Even if you're refering to social rights (gay rights, etc), we're not executing them like a dictator would and we'll eventually get there anyway.

With "executing them like a dictator" you hopefully didn't refer to Hitler? I'm not German, and even Germans don't agree with what Hitler did. By the way, guess where all the Nazi scientists went after WOII, you didn't invent your rockets and nukes on your own. The torture tactics the CIA learned the contra rebels in Nicaragua to perform on their own citizens. They didn't come falling from the sky neither (you should look up what these people had to go through). So don't point fingers about who's executing who. We don't have capital punishment.

With social rights, I meant the right to get a minimum wage, even when unemployed. A social safety net or how ever you call it. To prevent the further rise of poverty. I don't have a strong opinion on gays or gay rights, they are just people like anyone else and deserve equal rights.

oooh... I know a good argument.

Bush is HUMAN. Humans make mistakes (as pointed out countless times in the Bible). The only thing Bush has to do to be a sincere christian is go to church every sunday and believe in God. That's it...

Not true, the entire essence of religion is to practise what you preach isn't it? All the monotheisic religions preach that fact,

Ex. The prophet Jesus always acted upon his teachings e.g-overturning the table outside the temple

Ex. The prophet Muhammad said 'If you see an injustice, fix it with your hands, if this is not possible, fix it with your speech, if this is not possible, object to it in your heart.

Ex. I would have a jewish source here, but unfortunately I have no access to the Torah

This is absolutely false. The Hebrew word is better translated as "murder", and the Bible commands that murderers be put to death at the hands of men.

good point, Islam also goes for the death penalty of unjust murderers, with the exception that the family of the victim wishes him/her to live.

With all the trouble and goings on in Sudan at the moment I don't see America rushing in there to help. Even though this has been on going for a year or so but only makes the news now, where are his intelligence services now - lookin at Iran???

Oh yeah forgot they don't have oil, minerals or much else that they want so that why they not there.
Actually, Sudan has an appreciable amount of oil, it just isn't heavily tapped.

I have posted this in order to get a better understanding of people who are generaly sympathetic to US president Bush, not in order to do some Bush-Bashing. Bush is generally regarded by suporters as a good Christian, a fact that I cannot understand. What I mean is this:

George Bush is a third-generation millionaire. Yet Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven". Why doesn't Bush spend his personal to help the impoverished? Why does he follow a generally pro-business policy? The wealthy were some of Jesus' worst enemies.

George Bush is a supporter of the death penalty. And he was the governor of Texas, the American state that executes most people every year. And the procedures of leading to death penalties are quite often deeply flawed. This is a fact admitted by other US governors. It is almost unthinkable that the state of Texas has not executed any innocent people under the Bush governorship. And he had the power of pardon. Considering the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" makes no exceptions at all, and that execution of criminals is not even self-defence (they could be sentenced to life in prison, after all), how does that fit?

The administration that Bush heads is generally very moralistic, when it comes to social mores. And yet Jesus attacked no-one more severely than moralistic people. The worst in Jesus' eyes were the wealthy moralists. How does that fit?

I would appreciate if any Bush sympathizers would answer the above arguments. I repeat that this thread is not posted polemically, but rather in order for me to understand.

You're overlooking something important: the Bible staunchly approves capital punishment.

I have my doubts about Bush's Christianity as well, but for other reasons. He's a member of Skull and Bones. They do very nasty things, such as...wrestling naked in the mud, lying naked in a coffin and telling the others everything about their sex life, etc. Would Jesus approve of any of that?

oh come on how can you question bush's sincerity

that's like asking was john gotti* a sincere catholic?








*dead mafia don

I believe what the poster is wondering is Bush really doing What Jesus would do because he is claiming it at every turn in order to appeal to the religous right.

1. No one is really answering his original questions.

Yes, Jesus would ask him to sell off all his stuff and spend his life supporting the poor (even if they ended up poor on their own mistakes) and helping the sick or tired, the "meak"

Yes, though shall not murder is a big part of the new testament. The majority of christians I know do not consider the old testament as law but as important information on Judeo-christian history as testament translate as agreement.. So, old agreement, new agreement. All though, most christians will invoke it in order to denounce gay people.

Another point I would like to bring up is the fact that the poor, the different, the "immoral" are place in a category of freaks and destroying the very moral fabric of our society. Remember, Jesus welcomed the prostitute and chastised the priests because of their moral judgement.

Last of all, you aren't supposed to lie either.......Bush has admitted to an exaggeration. However, it is still a form of dishonesty. Alot of people have died, 1000 American soldiers. So, no I don't believe he has been a very good christian

Jesus would abandon financial interests for every poor person whether they were self destructive or not. The republican party says in many cases help no one it is bout self determination.

btw, I find fault with the democrats also in this area.

You're overlooking something important: the Bible staunchly approves capital punishment.

I have my doubts about Bush's Christianity as well, but for other reasons. He's a member of Skull and Bones. They do very nasty things, such as...wrestling naked in the mud, lying naked in a coffin and telling the others everything about their sex life, etc. Would Jesus approve of any of that?


IT approves it in the old testament mostly, there is a giant philosophy change after Jesus shows up. Mainly because the old testament says such nice things as if a women is raped she is unclean so she must be stoned. Also, don't touch pigskin ( no more football for us)

Wow. I'm really hoping this thread stays as a one-sided arguement. What _has_ Bush done in the name of Christanity?

Oh now that's funny. Wonder what the reaction from the secular left would be if Bush actually did something in the "name of Christianity".

And it's also funny how people who have "bad attitudes" vs christians and Christianity as a whole, are judging whether Bush is a "good" christian or a "bad" christian.

Originally Posted by Arcadian Mists
Wow. I'm really hoping this thread stays as a one-sided arguement. What _has_ Bush done in the name of Christanity?
He started a crusade.

oooh... I know a good argument.

Bush is HUMAN. Humans make mistakes (as pointed out countless times in the Bible). The only thing Bush has to do to be a sincere christian is go to church every sunday and believe in God. That's it...

So the biblical commandments and Jesus' teaching and such are merely suggestions? Must be, since 99% of Christians are a bunch of hypocrites who don't even follow their own crap, even though they're keen on forcing it down other people's throats.

Originally Posted by Anticlimax
oooh... I know a good argument.

Bush is HUMAN.

Your sure about that?

So the biblical commandments and Jesus' teaching and such are merely suggestions? Must be, since 99% of Christians are a bunch of hypocrites who don't even follow their own crap, even though they're keen on forcing it down other people's throats.

Couldn't have made my point for me any better :rolleyes: