Username: Password: lost p/w?
home | help | subscribe | search | register
Without A Doubt
Posted by FolkTom Barger in on October 18, 2004 at 4:45 PM



This entire piece courtesy of a writer DemFromCT on the Daily Koz.
Tomorrow's Sunday NY Times has an unforgettable and rather chilling personality piece on one George W. Bush, written by Ron Suskind (author of  "The Price of Loyalty"). If you wish, you can think of it as a companion piece to Matt Bai's John Kerry article last weekend. But the two stories are as different as the candidates themselves. Only one is the Faith-Based President.


It's quite a piece, and also quite long. Start with this:

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.


''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .


''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''


You think Bush has little respect for science and rational thought?  Put yourself in the shoes of a reporter as it dawns on you that the logical, rational way of approaching the world just got thrown out the window:


In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.


The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''


And what re the consequences (for us) of disagreement?


And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,'' of course, meant the entire reality-based community.





User Comments

DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 12:21 AM

The truth: Bush truly believes he's on a mission to use the powerful name of God in helping him sustain his support from "the big, wide middle America"!

Regarding the observation that Dubya's political base doesn't like the entire reality-based community...there's an element of truth to that, uh-huh.
Onward through the fog! Onward, ye bull, right on through the china shop, with a yee-hah for good measure.
Onward, Christian soldiers, destined for more slaughter.
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 12:25 AM

Would I deny being cynical?
Nope.
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 12:36 AM

Regarding those who empower Bush by voting for him:
I have to admire the strength of their misplaced loyalty, and the RNC really knows how to push all the right buttons with those ribbons:
Support the troops.
Pray for the troops.
Etc.
We can see through that, because it also strongly implies:
Support your War President.
Pray for him.
Etc.

(It's pathetic.)
RockgdZiemann
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 12:53 AM
Kind of makes you want to run down the street screaming like a monkey.
JazzJazzmary2U
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 11:04 AM
.. as I was flipping through TV Channels I saw one of these "evangelist preachers" using heavily-coded language to encourage their "flock" to vote, and to base their vote strictly on the bible that he was fevervently shaking at the TV audience.. so, I think that reading things like lengthly articles in the NY Times, at this point, won't be a priority for these "faith-based" folk.. so I say forgetaboutit.. demographically, thinking and caring Americans are in the great majority.. it is the mobilization of THESE folks that is important now.

VOTE. VOTE. VOTE. VOTE.. That means take four registered friends to the polls with you.
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 11:14 AM
Bush has tried to introduce new terms into the American language and make them as if they ARE standard American terms. Terms like "homeland", "faith based programs", but one he keeps using over and over is "Culture of Life".

I started hunting this down.
"Culture of Life" is a webpage on www.christianity.com .
Christianity.com is registered to "Renewal Enterprises, LLC" of Alexandria Virginia. If you want, you can get more info on this through googling it.

CULTURE OF LIFE, is also found in a sentence from this website.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/abortion/culture.htm
"Building a culture of life in our society will also require efforts reaching beyond legal reform."
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 11:18 AM
I believe Bush is only using his perceived fundamentalist beliefs as a means of power gathering from right wing fundamentalist groups and others who consider themselves Christians...
read my thoughts on my blogs....

BUSH'S JIHAD ("Armies of Compassion")
http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com

http://codewarriorz.blogdrive.com/

http://codewarrior.blog-city.com

http://codewarriorz.tblog.com/

http://22blog.com/CodeWarrior/

http://codewarrior.tblog.com/
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 11:20 AM
I do not admire misplaced loyalty. Plenty of Nazis had that, and look what happened to millions of Jews for that type of thing!
Advancedgoldenpi
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 11:29 AM
Bush has perfected the art or denial to the point where he is able to ignore problems to such an extent that they cease to be problems, at least for a few years.
JazzJazzmary2U
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 11:39 AM
.. worse that that, Code and goldenpi.. there is an emergence of "codewords" (not by our own CodeWarrior) such as... Dred Scott Decision, life starts at conception, to criticize the government is unpatriotic.. etc. that is NOT intended for discussion by ALL AMERICANS!! Such divisive tactics in the political discoure is clearly divisive.. and discusting.. and dangerous!!

VOTE!
JazzJazzmary2U
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 11:40 AM
.. discourse Typing At Computer sorry.
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 11:59 AM
Actually, this is an interesting contest...
Bush represents emotions and instinct
Kerry is more intellectual and reasoned

In terms of Freudian psychology, Bush represents the ID
and Kerry is the EGO or "SuperEgo"

In terms of brain development, Bush is the archeocortex...
he is the reptilian brain...
Kerry is the neo-cortex...the thinking brain....
DMemberTheTap
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 12:33 PM
I'm looking forward to voting for Bush. I know where he stands, as a Christian, and I like his stand.

Funny thing is Code, there are standard terms in America, written by our forefathers. And they are filled with references of God, from the bible. Check out the halls of the supreme court and you'll know what I mean. Our country is trying so hard ot move away from that and people like Kerry are the reason. GWB is just trying to get us back to where we started.

Our forefathers were far from perfect but they knew enough to understand that success would come from God, not owr own efforts.

Comparing Bush to Nazi's is a cheap shot. Bush has a respect for life that Hitler (et al) did not have.

Dennis Miller recently said it well when he said 'I abhor war, but I love freedom. Given the choice of peace or freedom, I choose feedom everytime. Unfortunalely, freedom is not free and often comes at the price of peace".
DMemberJLBRMECHANIC
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 1:17 PM
hey TheTap,
Before you vote for Bush. watch Farenheight 911. I don;t like Micheal Moore either, BUT what Mr Moore has shown in this movie really made me think. I also have respect for life (eg. the Abortion issue) but for him to invade a country that clearly had NO WMD and does NOT and NEVEr had the means to produce them and to then make a public statement saying he was not worried of Bin Laden really bothered me.
I do not like his economic policies, I don't like the fact that he has overhauled the overtime rules to screw people like me who depend on it. I have friends who have lost jobs becuase many companies have moved overseas and he is trying to privatize social security & medicare, and further undermine the American people. We a a huge trillion dollar deficit becuase of him. Who is going to pay for IRAQ? He has given the top 1% huge taxe cuts.
I support anyone's right to have faith. But it's another thing to force his relgious beleifs onto me or those who do not agree with him. He talks about the Right To Life. Let me ask you something, do you have children? a daughter? what if (heaven forbid) she was raped? Do we have a right to force her to bring an unwanted offspring of an animal? The kind will come intot he world hated and knowing he's the seed of a bastard. Is that right? I mean don;t get me wrong, i beleive abortion is murder. But I've worked with criminals and i can tell you off the bat, these guys are not the kind of people you want anything to do with.
Sure there are references to God in the Supreme Court and within the Constitution. But there are NO preferences to one religion or faith or another. The Constitution also says "Seperation Of Church And State" in other words, keep religion out of politics.
I have faith too, but I don;t like nor want to force my beleifs onto somebody else. It is not right.
You also gotta remember that our country is very diverse with many beleifs and many groups of people. We should be moving forward, not going back. If Kerry gets elected, the first thing that will happen is that he will withdraw troops out of IRAQ. If Bush gets re-elected, I have a gut feeling the draft will be re-enstated. Comparing Bush to Hitler is a cheap shot. Hitler was a psychotic meglomaniac. Bush is an idiot.
Advancedcarla60626
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 1:19 PM
The Nazis outlawed abortion. They wanted as many aryan babies as possible.

Spreading "freedom" does not mean starting senseless wars with unarmed countries.
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 1:20 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6267559/
"Campaigning in an area heavily dependent on the military, Bush said, "We will not have an all-volunteer army" before correcting himself. "

Bush's Freudian slips are where his real intentions reveal themselves.

Anyone who thinks Bush is a Christian...read my article which I have posted to several of my blogs and websites...
"BUSH'S JIHAD" (Armies of Compassion)
http://freespeech.mvhosted.com
http://codewarrrioz.blogspot.com
http://codewarriorz.blogdrive.com
http://patriotic.mvhosted.com
http://codewarriorz.tblog.com
http://codewarrior.blog-city.com
http://codewarrior.tblog.com
http://health.mvhosted.com
and many many more!
:) (Smile)
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 1:22 PM
"Bush has a respect for life "
That's why as governor of my state, he was responsible for the taking of so many convict's lives....and why over 1000 brave soldiers are dead now...because of Bush's respect for life...

just read the blog...
DMemberBrandonH
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 1:26 PM
Tap, while I won't be voting either Bush or Kerry, between the two I would take Bush over Kerry any day. But a majority of the people here see things the other way. (I live in a safe state so it doesn't matter how I vote.)

I've actually had a discussion with someone at work over Christianity and the founding of the country. http://www.lawandliberty.org/founders.htm is a good read.

Kerry only uses his faith when it is convienent. I think Bush has been more consistant in matters of faith.

I wouldn't trust anything from the NY Times in regards to the election until Nov. 3.
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 1:31 PM
keywords...Bohemian Grove Club, George W. Bush, Molech,
rituals...

Let's Go Googling!

:) (Smile)
DMemberTheTap
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 1:45 PM
I won't debate capital punishment, War, or Bush's faults. This is a music forum. We could argue those topics all day and when it's done I'll still be on this side, and you'll still be on that side.

And please don't think I am "head in the sand" pro Bush. I know he's made mistakes, but I believe he's trying to lead this country in the right way and I believe he is a Christian. The Christian part is very important to me. That may not be important to you and that's you're right as an American, but I won't come on here and ridicule you. Inspite of our political differences I have a great respect for you (Code).

My concern is that this is a music forum to unite people against the RIAA and their unlawful tactics. Bashing Christians and mocking those who suport Bush is counter-productive to the goal of this board. It creates splits and anamosity.

There are places to stand against Bush, this isn't one of them. If it makes some people feel unwelcome, then does it really belong here.

Tap
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 1:50 PM
The Bush Administration/DOJ backed the RIAA in its suit trying to force Verizon to reveal the names of filesharers...so, yes.
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Apr/gee20030421019668.htm
"Justice Department backs RIAA
The DOJ filed a brief in support of the RIAA's case against Verizon to reveal the identity of a subscriber.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted 9:55am EST Mon Apr 21 2003 - submitted by Brian Osborne
NEWS
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) received a strong ally on Friday in its case against Verizon to reveal the identity of an Internet subscriber. The subscriber is suspected by the RIAA of making available around 600 songs for download through the KaZaA file-sharing service. The RIAA issued a subpoena to Verizon to identify the name of subscriber under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The court upheld the subpoena in January, but the case was appealed by Verizon (see our previous coverage).

The U.S. Justice Department filed a brief in support of the RIAA's position on Friday. The Justice Department supports the position that the subpoena does not infringe on the First Amendment, a position taken by Verizon."
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 1:51 PM
Thank you the Tap. I appeciate the kind comment, seriously.
:) (Smile)
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 1:55 PM
I do occasionally rant too much...so, will let everyone else voice opinions on this...but, The Tap...please read my blog on Bush's Jihad with an open mind, considering the facts, that's all I ask.

Best wishes...now, will TRY to force myself to go clean the house and get off the computer :) (Smile)

ROCK ON!
:) (Smile)
DMemberJLBRMECHANIC
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 1:56 PM
So do i Tap.
DMemberJLBRMECHANIC
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 2:08 PM
and BTW, Verizon won against the RIAA.
DMemberTheTap
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 2:13 PM
Thanks for the civility.

Now back to the barbaric sport of Football where my Eagles are whopping it up on Carolina.

Tap
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 2:21 PM
Bush hasn't forced his religous beliefs on anyone. Tap is right. when christains say God speaks to them everyone automaticly ASSUMES the person is wacho, preachy etc. there's visions of angelic beins hovering and wispering in their ear. That's not how God usually speaks to christains (or anyone for that matter).

God speaks through the heart, our feelings and desires. Events around us and people that affect our lives. The Holy Spirt helps us understand Gods will in our lives through our own heart. That's not forcing a belief of anyone. I'm sorry so many find it offensive having to observe a Christain going through their lives. others may not believe that way and that's cool. but I admire anyone who speaks and acts from their convictions but not anyone who's convictions allows them to slander and ridicule others. Bush is Sincere, weither you vote for him or not. but I wouldn't except anyone who already has so much hate in their hearts to see that. Hatred has a strange way of seeing and disorting facts to support the hate. I've seen it so much here the past few weeks.
DMemberTheTap
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 2:52 PM
Could you email me Compmore?
Here is a very temporary account that will be deleted as soon as it has served it's purpose.

thetap001

Yahoo mail
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 3:04 PM
If anyone wants more insight on Bush's little secret club (not Skull and Bones...the Bohemian Grove)...one which Poppy Bush belonged to as well...
if you dare...check out this page...
http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/bohemian-grove/
(notice Bush' Sr.'s name at the bottom of the page...top name)
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 3:07 PM
sounds like a frat party. so?
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 3:07 PM
God spoke to Moses through a BURNING "BUSH"...Hmmmmm...Do Tell
:) (Smile)
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 3:09 PM
a frat party worshipping that good Christian God MOLECH
http://www.ancientroute.com/religion/Godsname/molech.htm
"MOLECH
mo' lek



THE GOD

Molech was an ancient fire deity, of a common type worshipped throughout Canaan generally, and Phoenicia particularly. Under various names, depending upon the city or country, Molech is essentially identical with Chemosh of Moab, and probably Melqart of Tyre. The general name for this type of fire god used throughout Palestine was Baal, meaning ‘lord.’ Molech was the national deity of the country of Ammon, east of the Jordan, or the Ammonites. Molech was also worshipped by the Israelites on many occasions, much to the distress of the prophets.

According to Jewish tradition, the cult idol of Molech was made of brass, hollow, and with hands so positioned that something laid therein would fall to the fire below. The practice of laying a child across the hands, and thus committing them to the fire, was termed ‘pass through the fire to Molech.’ The priests of Molech, called Chemarim, were held in high esteem, much like priests were in other cults throughout the ancient world. The position of priest was held by men of high rank and noble birth, and they surely wielded much influence over their flock.

While there have been several attempts to associate Molech with the god of the Israelites, Yahweh, this is most improbable. Whenever the ancient texts speak of Molech, he is always termed as a foreign deity relative to the Israelites. The conclusion that they were two different deities is inescapable. That the Israelites occasionally became enamored with the cult of Molech is also inescapable. There are many passages in the Bible where the prophets do verbal battle against the influence of these foreign gods.

During the early days of the Israelite’s, when they were first taking possession of Palestine, the worship of various sun- or fire-gods was common throughout Canaan. Offerings were often made by fire [called holocaust by the Jews], and there were many similarities between deities from different neighboring countries. As time passed, these deities were assimilated into Israel, with various traditions retained, and others discontinued.

RITES

As mentioned before, Molech was a fire-god and many things were sacrificed to him by burning. Ancient sources mention food and drink, birds and animals, and of course, humans occasionally. However, the practice most spoken of was the sacrifice of young children to the fires of Molech. This practice was especially abhorred by the ancients, and not just the Jews. The Greeks and Romans also mention this inhuman rite in derogatory terms.

From the position of those who worshipped Molech, the sacrifice of one’s first born child, or any child, was the ultimate sacrifice. It was done only at times of extreme hardship, and not necessarily willingly. And the practice was not unusual to the deity of Molech. We see the sacrifice of children in other cults also; Chemosh of Moab, Melqart of Tyre, and Yahweh of the Israelites. However, what seemed to be so abhorred was the practice of sacrificial burning. While the Israelites occasionally slit the throat of their first-born, they never committed them to the flames of the holocaust. Early in the history of the Israelites, after seeing the rites of Molech, they passed laws among themselves that if any man made or permitted his children to "pass through the fire" he was to be put to death.

Diodorus gives an account of the rite, concerning the bronze statue of Molech. He mentions that the relatives caressed the infants to prevent them from crying. This would imply that they were sent through the flames while still alive. If this be true, then one can readily see why others would detest the practice.

THE TOPHETH

The sacred precinct of Molech is called the topheth in the Bible. The area is a graveyard of sorts, where the ashes of victims are placed in an urn. Examination of the remains of bones indicate that most of the victims are young children, although occasionally as much as twelve years old. There are also instances of adults. It is know that the immolation of an adult each year in the fall was a normal practice in the fire-god cults.

There are also many animals and birds represented as substitute, but apparently human victims under two predominate. They were the ones afforded special burial in the sacred precinct of the god Molech. Some of these graveyards run into the thousands of victims. Finally, the site would be indicated by a stele in many cases, and some were inscribed. This practice went on for a very long time; many centuries, judging from the size of the topheth.

The original appearance of the topeth is unknown, and the word is interpreted as ‘place of fire’ or ‘hearth.’ We know of several of these sanctuaries, some from the literature and a few from archeological work. The most famous would be that mentioned in the Bible, said to be in the valley of Hinnom, just outside of Jerusalem. The valley of Hinnom runs out into the Kidron valley in the south of Jerusalem. Hinnom became Gehenna to the Greeks, which is the Greek word for Hell. This is the sanctuary destroyed by Josiah.

Other topheth sanctuaries have been found at Nora, Motya, and several sites in north Africa. A topheth at Hadrumetum near Carthage in north Africa is very large, proving the practice went on for an extended time. This sanctuary lasted throughout the life of the Punic city. Urns, thousands of them, were buried under stone cairns, and contain the burned bones of young children. Many burials are marked with little stele, a few inscribed. This site lasted throughout the life of Carthage, remaining in use from c.812 till 145 BCE, when Carthage fell to the Romans.

Etymology
Hebrew Molech, king (mo' lek); The name Molech presents many problems to the interpreters of the original texts. The word means king, and there several variations, using the familiar terminations om and am. Hence, the word is also rendered as Milcom, or Malcam, and are then proper names. It is possible that Melqart is another such variation. In short, it is difficult to decide if Molech is a simple appellative meaning king, and therefore a variation of lord, or is in fact a proper name.

HISTORY

Solomon (King of Palestine, 973 – 933 BCE )
Solomon is well known for the building of the great Jewish Temple. But he apparently got carried away with his building projects, because in his old age he also built a temple for several other deities, notably Chemosh and Molech, in the valley of Hinnom. This he did to console several of is many wives, who were from these foreign countries. While it is occasionally said that Solomon introduced these cults to Israel, in reality, he simply gave an existing cult an official stamp. The cults had existed in the land of Canaan for many centuries before the Israelites came to Palestine.

Ahaz (King of Judah, 736 - 720 BCE)
After the disruption, the worship of the fire-gods became common in both Israel and Judah. Israel drifted the farthest from the Jewish Yahweh, but Judah also strayed often. Ahaz was the first king of Judah to sacrifice children to Molech, at the altar in the Valley of Hinnom. With the example set by royalty, the cult of Molech became the bane of Judah.

Manasseh (King of Judah, 693 - 639 BCE)
The king Manasseh has the distinction of being the first king to cause his own son to ‘pass through the fire to Molech’ and was forever condemned by the prophets. He was later carried to Assyria, and when he returned, he was reformed. He condemned the foreign deities, and worshipped only Yahweh. This, however, gave little comfort to the son who was previously sacrificed… Meanwhile, the northern tribes in Israel were also performing this hideous rite, but little was written about it.

Josiah (King of Judah, 639 - 608 BCE )
Finally, the Bible tells us, Josiah destroyed these foreign cults and idols. He defiled the sanctuary in the valley of Hinnom, and the many other high places. He destroyed the altar made by Solomon and the prophet Jeremiah predicted that the valley would e called the ‘valley of slaughter.’ The name Hinnom became the general term for Hell.

While the cult of Molech was suppressed under the early reign of King Josiah, what is also important here is that Josiah became king at the age of eight. Thus it was Jeremiah who led the purge throughout Judah. One can only imagine the slaughter during the religious reformation, when anyone connected with the foreign cults was declared in violation of the laws of Yahweh and condemned.

Jehoiakim (King of Judah, 608-597 BCE)
King Jehoiakim reinstated the foreign cults, and Molech was probably among them although it is not specifically mentioned. The prophet Jeremiah, now an old man, wrote a letter condemning the changes, and Jehoiakim had the letter burnt before being read in full. The rift between royalty and the prophetic party was now deep and permanent. The kingdom of Judah remained idolatrous until the captivity in Babylon."

But, worshipping Molech in the Cremation of Care ceremony is OK...cuz Bush is a good Christian.... < wink >
:) (Smile)
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 3:10 PM
note I said "usually speaks" there are exceptions. Bushs response in the third debate when asked how his faith affeted his decisions, his answer was right on the mark. but it's hard for non christains to understand that
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 3:12 PM
more facts about the Christian nature of George W. Bush
"We know that Bush has been a substance abuser, both alcohol, and , it has been widely alleged, cocaine. We also know that Bush uses very coarse profanity in his little fits of rage, and that he has not stopped this.


http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles5/Hamilton_Bush-7Sins.htm


(please read this article...below is one example)



"Problem: In 1987, one year after he had given up drinking he ran into Al Hunt, a Wall Street Journal editor who was minding his own business sitting at a restaurant with his wife and 4-year-old daughter.

Bush lit into him, saying, among other things, "You no-good fucking son of a bitch, I will never fucking forget what you wrote." (8) (Cool) (Hunt had predicted that the 1988 Republican ticket would be Jack Kemp and Richard Lugar, instead of George Bush Sr and Dan Quayle.) What's interesting is that the Wall St Journal editor later commented that Bush was well "lubricated." (9) "



And, we know that he apparently again used very coarse language of a similar nature
far more recently when a question was asked about his relationship with Ken Lay of Enron...

http://www.betterworld.com/getreallist/article.php?story=20040804174956161



"Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.

“Keep those motherfuckers away from me,” he screamed at an aide backstage. “If you can’t, I’ll find someone who can.”

-from, Bush's Jihad ~by CodeWarrior http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 3:14 PM
it'd a wonder anything positive gets done with so much hate.
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 3:17 PM
and if he grew up an alterboy and lived the STERYOTYPICAL Christain life you're currently mocking him for not living, guess who would be the first in line critizing him. hmmmmm
DMembermmnuc3
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 3:34 PM
just one thing...faith is what will doom humankind. screw faith. screw christians. remember the dark ages? that's what happens when christians or any other religion for that matter are allowed to have any semblence of power. yes i'm anti-christian. yes i'm anti-religion. i fell i should be able to do what i want because i want to as long as i'm not hurting anyone else. that is against most religions. screw bush. screw kerry. i'm pro-Badnarik!!!
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 3:38 PM
that's your view. are you saying we don't have the right to practice what our faith dictates? if that's the case you don't believe in freedom or this country.
DMemberrocknrollwoman
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 3:52 PM
I will be glad when the elections are over and we can return to fighting the RIAA.

I hated the debates...I hate the political ads...I hate the waste of money on elections. I hate both sides moronic ceasless litanies of crimes against each other. And I have not read here for a very long time, cause it is the same old crap.

Although Code, you are still one sharp cookie. I would rather you were pushing your name as a write in candidate.
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 3:59 PM
yes I hate having to defend someone I won't vote for. can't wait till we can all fight the RIAA again
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 4:05 PM
WRITE ME IN FOR PREZ...FILESHARING RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE!
:) (Smile)
DMembergilbd
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 4:10 PM
TheTap

What bush is saying is to hate. That is not Christian. He is also saying he is a Christian he is not. My dad was a preacher and he always said you should love your neighbor like you love yourself. My Dad would say Bush is a demon of the devil.
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 4:21 PM
Both my parents were ministers.
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 4:21 PM
I agree with gibd!
DMemberTheTap
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 4:26 PM
That's what I said in my 2nd post in this thread... all of this divides those who are in here who originally were united for a common cause.

The country is roughly divided 50-50 on the Presidential candidates. If you follow that through, then 1/2 (or slightly more, depending on which survey you read) of the readers in here will support Bush.

Posting anti Bush or anti Kerry threads will instantly alienate 1/2 of the members here.

That is not wise management of our community.

On a personal side-note, I take offense to someone saying "screw Christians", in response of me saying I'm a Christian. It's wrong and others here should be just as upset as I am. If I said here that I hate Jews.... you all know I'd be blasted by everyone of you - as I should be for such a horrid statement. But when it is leveled against Christians, it falls under the free speech, I can say what I want banner, and that is dead wrong.

I'll be nice to a point, but apologies are in order on this one.

Tap
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 4:26 PM
as opposed to what I've been reading here? what hyprocracy. Bush may be a lot of things but he's not a hate monger. wanna see hate mongering? Click on nearly every political thread on this site and there you'll see it
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 4:28 PM
That is not wise management of our community

great point. us independents have been saying that for a couple months. but emotional ranting tends to be more popular.

tap I sent you that email
DMembergilbd
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 4:35 PM
What I don't like that bush is doing is using the Christian thing. As for me that is a sin. If he was a Christian he would not be using it. I will not vote for someone that is doing that. And he has use it in all the wrong ways. My view is anybody that lets this be a reason for voting for him is wrong. Just mt 2 cents.
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 4:35 PM
I'm a Christian/Taoist/Huna follower with Jewish/German/Native American ancestry who's a non-violent anarchist leaning toward libertarianism...

so...there's a bit for everyone to dislike in me :) (Smile)
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 4:38 PM
LOL that's like saying I'm a democratic comunist who believes in one person one vote, populary elected president with a parlimentary form of government with a dictator who's rule must be law.
DMembergilbd
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 4:39 PM
sorry Just my 2 cents
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 4:40 PM

Code wrote: "I do not admire misplaced loyalty."

But I don't either.
I had written: (See post of 12:36 a.m.): "I have to admire the strength of their misplaced loyalty."

I thought perhaps it was okay to admire the essence of strength or tenacity per se, without necessarily approving how it's used. Sort of like, wow, it's misplaced -- too bad such vigor couldn't be channeled more appropriately! Or, too bad they can't put those ergs of energy to good use; just think what positive things could be accomplished if they did!
But, in retrospect, I can understand your opinion may be: why mention strength in any sort of "what if" way if it's only being used for ill-conceived purposes?

I can respect that perspective; no problem.
But, at least you have a better idea now where I was coming from.
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 4:46 PM
Let's listen to Jesus...
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy...that's Saturday, not Sunday...to be Christ-like would be to observe the shabbat...or sabbath..meaning the 7th day of the week...Today is the FIRST day of the week...

Does Bush pray in public?
Read Matthew 6 : 6
"When you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly
—Matthew 6:6"

Professions of faith are not enough..one must actually do the will of the Father...
"Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. - Matthew 7:21"

Is a preemptive strike killed countless men and women something that a President should do, or God?

“Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good”, and “Therefore if your enemy hungers, feed him”. (Romans 12:21/20)

“but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord”. (Leviticus 19:18) (Cool)

Was Bush seeking Vengeance for them plotting to kill his Poppy?

"On Saddam Hussein]
George W. Bush : After all, this is a guy who tried to kill my dad at one time."

For it is written, "Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, says the Lord." -Romans 12: 19

DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 4:54 PM

Comp wrote: "Bush's response in the third debate when asked how his faith affected his decisions, his answer was right on the mark."

Uh, oh, comp, I'm going to have to pull out part of one of the databases I've collected to reveal some real hypocrisy now.

"Bush conducts his presidency by 'secular', worldly values." (Quoting Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary)
How about them apples?
It all goes back to what 'Code has said several times: The man presses the buttons that appeal to his base of support, and he doesn't mind pretending to be oh-so-religious when it suits his advantage.
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 4:56 PM
a great example of misplaced loyalty was G. Gordon Liddy.

His book "WILL" is a testament to what misplaced loyalty gets you. I too respect loyalty, in and of itself, but misplaced loyalty is a dangerous thing.

To quote Stevie Wonder...
"When you believe in things that you don't understand
Then you suffer, superstition ain't the way" - Superstitions
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:01 PM
The man presses the buttons that appeal to his base of support, and he doesn't mind pretending to be oh-so-religious when it suits his advantage.

you just described every politician in this country. including those in power, corporate ceo's, managers, police, and even website admins
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:05 PM

Bottom line for me: No candidate is to be evaluated by what he says.
But, we know a number of things Bush has already DONE.
And, we know a number of things Ashcroft is in the actual process of DOING.
Can we in good conscience be in favor of them having four more (this time unaccountable) years of their kind of crap?
No, Kerry ain't no saint, and he ain't untarnished by any means. I've already said how bitter I am about both major parties giving us such lousy choices as they do even starting all the way back to the primaries. But how can anyone live with themselves voting another term for Dubya, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz? Seriously, now.
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:13 PM

"The man presses the buttons that appeal to his base of support, and he doesn't mind pretending to be oh-so-religious when it suits his advantage."

"You just described every politician in this country. including those in power, corporate ceo's, managers, police, and even website admins."

That first part of my statement IS a truism, I grant you, but how many are willing to be RELIGIOUSLY hypocritical when it comes to furthering their self-interests? THAT'S one of the places the line should be drawn to separate the grossly unethical from the mildly unethical. With integrity, there is (or should be) a sense of degree here. To what degree does Dubya belong? -- ah, that is the question to be begged.
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:14 PM
ALL presidents do good and bad things. it's the effectivness that gets the general public to support or oppose them. I'm not voting for him but I refuse to take the bias attitude so many here have that he has done absolutly nothing good and worthwhile in his job.
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:18 PM
I think I press the buttons of those who oppose me rather than appeal to my base..but hey, what do I know...
:P (Razz)
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:18 PM
humans are all hyprocritical by nature in their actions and beliefs. I once had a minister ask the congragation "who here is a hypocryte." he went on to say that everyone better have their hands up. You can find hyprocricy in Mother Theresa if you look hard enough (and you would have to look pretty hard) But when there's so much hatred for the president, hate has a mind of it's own and the natural hyprocracy will be blown out of proportion. I think it's a very big non issue. right up there with the bulge in his suit
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:18 PM

". . . but I refuse to take the biased attitude so many here have that he has done absolutly nothing good and worthwhile in his job."

A valid point of agreement for us to relish.

He HAS done some good.
But, at this point, faced with the ominous prospect of four more years of his bruisers like Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, we who cherish our liberties have got to take serious stock of the situation.
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:19 PM
I'm still waiting for him to do something good...hopefully,
a polite aceptance of defeat call to Kerry the night after the election will be his one good act :) (Smile)
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:20 PM
acceptance..sorry for typo
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:21 PM

And also consider, given some of the really bad decisions he has already made, can we afford the prospect of him and his henchmen poised to screw things up (perhaps even worse) for another four years?
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:21 PM
Demandrelevance we have agreement.

codes statement is exactly what I'm talking about. I can't see how anyone can be objective with that kind of anomosity
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:23 PM

In the interest of this website (which touts individual liberties), it all comes down to this:
A vote for Dubya is a vote for Ashcroft.
('nuff said.)
DMembermmnuc3
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:24 PM
practice your faith...in your house, in your church, but not in Our gov't!
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:25 PM

Nothwithstanding, I will defend to the death your RIGHT to vote for Dubya.
(Did I really say that?)
DMemberTheTap
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:25 PM
From the well versed (pun intended) Code:

Does Bush pray in public?
Read Matthew 6 : 6
"When you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly
—Matthew 6:6"

*** Christ prayed openly when he healed people, when he fed 5000, in the garden, and in the upper room. This verse was a warning to those who pray openly for the sole purpose of being seen.

Professions of faith are not enough..one must actually do the will of the Father...
"Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. - Matthew 7:21"

*** and what is the will of the Father? To accept Christ's death as your sin payment (Rom 3:22-24

Is a preemptive strike killed countless men and women something that a President should do, or God?

** I really don't want to get into this one but after 9-11, nothing is preemtive.

“Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good”, and “Therefore if your enemy hungers, feed him”. (Romans 12:21/20)

*** America has been feeding it's enemies since as long as I can remember. Even in the 80's we fed Russia while they threatened to stomp us.

“but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord”. (Leviticus 19:18) (Cool)

*** for every verse like this, you can give me 10 more that have God instructing Israel to kill it's godless enemies - men, women and children. You know the OT. God is love but God is also Holy and Righteous and he will only tolerate so much before his judgment comes. God often uses other nations to punish nations. It's His plan not mine.

The same way you asked me to read your Blogs with an unbiased eye and to try to be honest, I ask the same of you with the bible that you know so well.

I'm sorry to drag this out but you are a very interesting person.

Tap
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:26 PM

mmnuc3: Right on!
DMembermmnuc3
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:28 PM
apologize to those burnt in salam, mass, apologize for the "witch" trials. i believe that even though i did point out christians, i said faith in general also. so, take it as you want. if i'm racist, anti-religionist, etc i can be. if it offends you, maybe you should move to a country where christianity is the law. freedom of speech means even that which is offensive thetap
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:34 PM
And, should the question come up...my vote is that ONLY ONE ANGEL can dance on the head of a pin...that's my vote and I'm sticking to it!
:) (Smile)
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:38 PM
When Bush prays for God to forgive those who are crucifying him "for they know not what they do"...instead of promising to
chase 'em, hunt 'em, and kill all the terrorists (and yes, Kerry said that nonsense too)...I'll listen closer...

If Bush really is a Christian...maybe he SHOULD go that crucifixion route...he'll "git" to heaven quicker....

But...I do respect your response TheTap...that's the kind of dialogue we NEED to have...

Volley well met :) (Smile)
DMemberTheTap
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:38 PM
Sorry, mmnuc3, you have it wrong.

Yes, you can say what you want, as can I.

I can sit here and type anti-simetic comments, I can say I hate Muslims, I can curse out my wife and tomorrow I can curse out my boss.

But just because you CAN say something, does not mean you should.

With freedom of speech, like any freedom, comes the responsibility to use good judgment.

Go to a ballpark and make racial slurs - the freedom of speech defense will not help you.

Try standing on a Plane, shouting that you have a bomb and then use the freedom of speech defense... I'll be visiting you in jail.

All I'm asking is that we show more respect to one another. No, I can't make you, but I won't do it back... I respect YOU too much for that and it's proper, civil behavior.

Tap
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:38 PM
christains practice their faith in the way they live their everyday life. by your suggestion no christain can ever be in government. You seem to forget our government, and country were founded on christain principles and intergrated with British law and the structure of the Iriquois nation. you can't remove faith from people by cussing or calling names. you'll never remove it from government. If you choose not to have faith then so be it. I'll live where I want.

Freedom of speech wasn't intended by our fourfathers to be used by hateful people to offend others. did you become personally tramitized by the salem which hunts (the victims were christains too by the way) or the middle age trails? did you have relitives that were persecuted by those so called christains? if so I can understand your hatered. if not sounds like an excuse to justify the hate that already exists. Secular non christain people and orginazations cause much more pain and suffering among people than the so called christains back centuries ago.
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:41 PM
my favorite part of the bible is the place where they talk about "so and so begat so and so"...I used to kick butt with the adults who claimed to know the Bible and could quote ad nauseum...I would ask them, if you know it so well...who was the father of Bukki and Uzzi?

See...that's a trick question and would get them....
Answer...
Abishua begat Bukki, and Bukki begat Uzzi,
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:41 PM
Code you'll never listen with an unbiased ear if God himself came down and gave you a revelation. that's how deep your hatred goes
DMemberTheTap
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:49 PM
Code,

It's all I can do to keep from adam to Noah straight in my head (the main heads of the families). I can also get the 12 sons of Israel, but if you know all of those geanologies you got me beat!

Sadly, I think I have a better working knowledge of the Godfather lineage!
The Dom, Sonny, Fredo, Michael...

Tap
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:51 PM
don't forget Anthony, Michaels son and Vincent, Sonnys boy
DMemberTheTap
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:55 PM
Michael wouldn't let Kate take his boy away and Sonny's inability to control his tongue and temper (note to entire group) cost him his life.

Dom Corleone had it right - watch what you say and who you say it to. Never express anger.


Tap
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:57 PM
Never let anyone outside the family know what you're thinking again.
Intermediateautodidact
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:57 PM
A scripture for you Code: In the multitude of words, there wanteth not transgression; But he that refraineth his lips is wise. (Proverbs 10:19 Jewish Publication Society translation)

Just kidding. ;-) (Wink)

However, in answer to your piece about Molech, and Bush worshipping this false God, didn't that occur long before Bush was actually born again? Many idol-worshippers have forsaken their religion and committed themselves to Christ. You can't dredge up their past sins after that. That's the whole point of redemption.

Why does Mr. Bush not keep the Sabbath day? I would say it is because he has been miseducated by his spiritual teachers. Why don't you write him a letter, Code, and try to help him out. Christ said that not the tiniest part of the law would pass away, as long as heaven and earth still exist.

To JBLRMECHANIC, ummmm maybe you could cite the section of the Constitution that says "separation of church and state," because I think you've made a blunder claiming it is in the US Constitution. There is a clause that forbids the establishment of a state religion, but there is some difference between that and total separation. To my knowledge, both Houses of Congress still open their sessions with prayer!

As for Bartlett, the author of the NYTimes piece, he says, "The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence." I agree with this only to a point. Too many people believe that faith is a decision to commit to something without evidence and consideration. But the Bible says, "Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good." God in other places invites people to test Him. Even to reason with Him. Faith does not mean to just turn off your brain and believe. I don't think Bush operates that way. Nor do I think Mr. Bartlett understands much about Christian faith.

As for reasoning with terrorists, I'd like to see anybody try to reason with some kid that has been programmed in a Pakistani madrass with a bomb strapped to their chest, thinking they are on their way to 72 virgins. For all of Bush's faults, I'm afraid that Kery really does think you can negotiate with Muslim extremists. One look at the aftermath of the Oslo accords ought to disabuse us of that fantasy.

Liberals often see faith like Mr. Bush's as a weakness, perhaps even an illness. There are many in this country who know it as a source of strength. There is a vast gulf between, and that's one reason why the country is so divided politically.
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:57 PM
One thing that I believe most Biblical scholars would agree with me about is Jesus tried to stress that his kingdom was NOT of this world, and he did NOT want to get mixed up with the politics of the day. There are those who disagree with this view, but for the most part, the orthodox view is that the Jewish zealots, (some believe Judas belonged to the zealots) were mad at Jesus because he didn't use his influence with his followers to advocate overthrow of the Romans, and reinstatement of the Jewish king....but he kept telling everyone that his kingdom was NOT of this world...render under Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.

Jesus , in general, eschewed the mixing of religion and politics.
http://www.bibleteacher.org/Dm_os072.htm
"This is because the Priesthood was, to a large part, corrupted, and was too involved in the day's politics."

The Sanhedrin was one such mixing of politics and religion that Jesus would disapprove of (and who disapproved of him)
http://www.billpetro.com/HolidayHistory/hol/easter/san.hp.html
"SANHEDRIN

The Greek word 'sunedrion', translated council is referred to in the
New Testament as "the Great Law-Court", "the Court of Seventy-One", and
"the rulers and elders and scribes". It was the supreme theocratic
court of the Jews and reflected the local autonomy which the Greek and
Roman powers granted the Jewish nation. Its origin can be traced back
as far as 200 B.C. The council had 70 members plus the ruling high
priest. Three professional groups composed the council: high priests
(the acting high priest and former high priests) and members of the
chief-priestly families; elders (tribal and family heads of the people
and the priesthood); and scribes (legal professionals). At the time of
Jesus two religio-political parties within Judaism were represented in
this membership: the Sadducees of the majority and the Pharisees of
the minority. Caiaphas the high priest was a Sadducee. Most of the
scribes were Pharisees. The presiding officer of the council was
usually the high priest.

The council was connected with the minor courts, being the highest
court of appeal from these. The Sanhedrin's authority was broad and
far-reaching, involving legislation, administration, and justice.
There was religious, civil, and criminal jurisdiction. However, during
the time of Jesus, the council had lost to the Roman governor the power
of capital punishment. The council met daily, except on Sabbath and
feast days, in a session room adjoining the temple. In extraordinary
cases, the council met at the house of the high priest. One of the
responsibilities of the Sanhedrin was the identification, and
confirmation of the Messiah. The gospel writers identify a delegation
from the council going out to question John the Baptist as to whether
he was the Messiah. There were about a dozen false Messiahs running
around during the first part of this century deceiving the people, and
it was the responsibility of the council to identify and denounce
them. This is why Jesus had to eventually come into conflict with them."
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 5:59 PM
God did give me a revelation...in Revelations...as he did John on the Isle of Patmos. He also told me personally, through the Bible..to beware of false prophets...thus I am warning everyone about King George the Cowardly.
:) (Smile)
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 6:01 PM
Bush "preys" all right...He preys on the public who seek security from a false bogeyman under the spreading batwings of a tyrant.
Intermediateautodidact
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 6:09 PM
A few more thoughts about faith:

Let's say I ask my friend to do an errand for me. I have faith he will carry it out. Why? If he has been reliable and honest in the past, why wouldn't I have faith, in the absence of any evidence or guarantee, that he will do what he has agreed to do? And if a person I know to be honest and trustworthy tells me that X happened to him, then I will have faith that X actually happened. Without any evidence. The difference lies in actually knowing the person who is talking to me. I learn to trust that person, learn to have faith in his word, over time. Just anyone off the street, I would not believe, unless they had proof.

Those who do not know God, or do not even believe that God exists (therefore, how could anyone know Him?), have trouble understanding that a person's faith in God or in the Bible can be similarly built up by a record of reliability, a record of experience and interaction with God.

Once in a debate -- it might have been during the primaries -- one of the moderaters asked Bush to elaborate on a particular aspect of his faith. I can't remember the specifics at the moment. Bush's answer was to the effect that if you know Christ, you already know what he (Bush) was talking about. And if you didn't know Christ, there was no way to explain it in a way that others could understand.

Bush has a large base of support from millions of people in this country who believe they have had a similar experience, have touched Christ, in the way that Bush has described. Bush does not have to explain to us. And he cannot explain to the others. I am looking forward to reading this article, but I suspect that a lot of the incredulity of the "media elite" (for lack of a better term) toward Bush's professed faith has to do with this fundamental disconnect.
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 6:11 PM
To be fair, if anyone can list ten "good" things Bush did...I will list them on my blog tonight or in the morning....

and don't give me that tax cut nonsense that proved to do more harm than good...I will take deposing Saddam as maybe a good thing, though I think the world is more dangerous now than before we "liberated" the place...and I will give credit to whoever comes up with the list...how fair can I be?

:) (Smile)
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 6:25 PM

An internet Christian minister of note had reported only five "good fruits" that can be ascribed to Dubya during his four years of tenure, whereas 37 "bad fruits" were documented.
I thought that was fascinating. "Fruits" are the Biblical term for deeds; and, as he correctly pointed out, words don't count nearly so much as actions. That's what Jesus had said, too, by the way. ("By their fruits ye shall know them.")

Anyone interested in the five good fruits?
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 6:28 PM
I listed ten, because remember God would have spared Sodom if they could have found just ten righteous men in the whole place...
< wink >

I want to hear the five good fruits harvested from this "bush"
AdminCodeWarrior
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 6:29 PM
I've heard Bush is a fruit...there were those rumors about a young ambassador he fancied...
:) (Smile)
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 6:36 PM
it's not up to anyone here to judge. Jesus led his life as an example for us to lead. if that's the case He didn't constantly ridicule and slander those who had strayed like you do with Bush and I won't even consider giving you examples because you have already shown your bias and hatred and will knock down, ridicule, satarize anything anyone tries to say on his behalf. Your mastery of the language and your power as an admisistrator of the web sites guarentee you'll always be right. kinda like Bill Oriley.
DMemberTheTap
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 6:37 PM
Code,

God initially asked for 50. The Abraham got him down to 40, then Abraham got him down to 30....and so on until Abraham got God to let him find 10!!

Now we all know that Jewish people are excellent financial negotiators, and that is in no way an insult...it is a compliment in the highest order.

Abraham bargained God down from 50 to 10. How good was he???

I want him to negotiate my next employment contract !!!! If he can whittle God from 50 to 10, he can talk to my boss!!!!


Tap
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 6:41 PM

You're right; five good is inadequate, e