Praise God for G.W.Bush!

Yes I understand, and I think Bush has grossly failed in many areas. If you have read my posts, then you understand that.

Many of those are not really tied directly to a Judeo-Christian ethic. They are political issues, and I agree with most of them. I don't defend Bush, as you should well know. He has been, for the most part, a great disappointment and a failure. I could respond to each one individually, but will not take the time. I agree with most of them.

The difference between me and others is that I am not willing to lie to attack Bush.

Where did I defend him? He has no defense on many issues. But saying he lied to get us into war has no basis in provable fact. Sorry. Bush deserves great criticism on spending and many other things. He has not done nearly enough on abortion, or many other things. But those were not the things that I was responding to.

I don't know. Ask someone who thinks he does.

Or maybe you just didn't read my posts closely enough, since you are attacking me for somethign I don't believe and didn't do. I wouldn't even put up with the likes of you in my government if I were president. Truth is too important, even about those whom we disagree with.

Nonsense.

This can only indicate that you don't read my posts. I think Bush has wasted his office. I think he has been a failure in many areas. He has not done what he said he would do, aside from (apparently) his Supreme Court nominees.

But again, I was responding to a specific charge: that he lied to get us into war. There is no evidence that he knowingly gave false information. What he said was based on the intelligence that every one agreed on.

Please be more careful. For all your talk about Bush, you are demonstrating some of the same values, in that you will say whatever you want about your opponents (me in this case). I reject that from Bush and I reject it from you. Do not make my words into something they are not.

 

No you wouldnt, because the likes of me would not serve under a wishy washy moderate like you or Bush. And before you worry about serving as President, how about serving in the military or some other capacity.

 

I don't know enough about you to know whether or not you would even be able to be considered. I don't recall much of your posting here. However, no one has ever accused me of being wishy-washy and with good reason. I'm not. To call me a moderate is crazy. I am a bout as far from a moderate as you can get. The fact that you accuse me of it simply shows that you do not read my posts closely (or even not closely for that matter) and that you do not know me. I do understand the realities of life however, and realize that progress is often incremental.

As far as serving, I am serving. I have been involved in politics before, but gave that up for ministry. I serve a higher cause than the kingdom of this world.

From those who would serve with me, were I ever in that position, I would require the utmost of integrity and honesty, a willingness to put principles and people ahead of self-interest, the good of the country ahead of the self. I would also surround myself with people who disagree, who can offer input from others sides of the issue. Most of what I see here is manifestly incompatible with that. There is a lack of serious interaction with real solutions. There is a lack of serious interaction with problems and a lot of "pie in the sky" solutions which work greatly in theory but not in reality.

Good leadership has to have integrity (principled character and a willingness to tell the truth even when it does not support a personally held position), vision (an ability to see real problems and address them with a viable plan), creativity (an ability to solicit and create solutions that might not be easily seen), and productivity (an ability to work with people who do not see eye to eye in order to reach a legitimate, workable solution).

I see little of that here.

 

Since you describe yourself as a very strong conservative, and do not like a lot of what Bush has done (your characterization), who would you vote for in 2008 of those announced as of today?

Take your defintion of vision above and tell me, what is the present administrations vision for Iraq?

And finally, if you were in the position of President like you describe above, would you ask for opinions from people who disagree with you about aboriton, as you say above?

You see, that is the difference. Your idea of leadership is compromise and consensus. That is not leadership. Leadership is following what you think is right.

 

First you have to open your eyes to all the evidence even if you don't like it before you can get an accurate picture of what's going on. Closing them and ridiculing everything that doesn't fit a preconceived notion of what the truth is only serves to steer others away from it.

 

Not sure. I am not satisfied with any of them. But given the distance between now and the election, I have not studied it in depth. I think this is way too early for presidential politics.

The present administrations vision for Iraq is not entirely clear to me at present. I think I understand a broad outline of getting more troops to train the Iraqis and quell violence. I think their desire is a functioning democracy that values freedoms with disagreement handled in a civil manner. I am not sure that anyone knows the best way to go about it. There is debate and difference among people at all levels. In the news media, it seems to me that we generally hear those against the president's plan, and rarely those in favor of it.

If I were in that case, I would be listening to all sides and asking a lot of questions from those who job it is to know these things.

No obviously not because abortion is a settled moral issue. What opinions do we need? I would seek advice from people on issues that are not settled moral issues, such as tax and economic policy, foreign affairs, etc. The key of leadership is surrounding yourself with competent people who know more than you do about their respective fields. And it is also key to admit you don't know it all. I think some here do not do that.

What is the difference?

On some matters, yes. Never on matters of basic biblical morality. However, accomplishing nothing is not leadership. If you cannot convince people to follow you, then you can't call yourself a leader, even if you are dead right. At the same time, sometimes, accomplishing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. But in the real world of politics, the "right thing" is not always clear.

Not sure what "that" is.

Compromise and consensus is the demonstration of leadership, provided the issue is not a moral issue on which we cannot compromise. Take tax policy for instance. Getting people who think the tax rate should be 50% to agree to a tax rate of 25%, even though you think it should be 15% is leadership. It is a step in the right direction. That's not a moral issue, per se. Taxes are a part of life, from OT Israel to every civilized society since then. The disagreement is over exactly how the tax rate should be constructed. So leaders listen to others, choose what they think is the best policy and work from there to get others to agree.

A good leader has to know which hills to die on. He has to be willing to sink the ship over principle. But he is foolish to sink the ship over a non-essential matter.

No, it's not. Character is following what you think is right. Leadership is influencing others to go with you where you think it is right to go.

Perhaps a key problem here is that some do not even know what leadership is. As the old proverb says, "A man without followers is merely taking a walk." He isn't leading unless someone is following.

I think part of the problem is that you seem to think you know it all. I am not fooled by you, nor am I arrogant enough to think that I know it all. I seek advice and instruction on matters. And then I try to make the best possible choice given all the information at hand. Good leaders make decisions with 90% of the information, or less. It is impossible to get all the info, and by the time you do, it is often too late.

So basically what we seem to have from you is a bad understanding of leadership and false accusations against me. I am not sure why. Why do you feel compelled to attack me? Can we not talk about what leadership is without that?

 

First, didn't you say a few days ago you were going to ignore me? Ah yes, I thought I saw that somewhere: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=996356#post996356

So here's the question: Does that mean you lied like Bush did? After all, you both said something that turned out not to be true. At least he was mislead. You apparently just decided that your words don't mean much to you--that you can say one thing and do another. Here's an idea for leadership: Do what you say you are going to do.

Secondly, to the point, I have opened my eyes to all the evidence. I simply do not yet find your evidence convincing. I read some of the documents you recommended, trying to understand your side. And I do not see what you see in them.

I haven't ridiculed these documents. I have had a little fun with you here, but that's all good-natured from my end.

Seriously, Poncho, I have grave reservations about your theories. I think they are so far-fetched, and would take such a massive conspiracy that in this time of "hate Bush" someone in the conspiracy would have broken ranks by now because if you are right, it would be very easy to turn public opinion against Bush even more, and possibly to impeach him. Doesn't it seem strange to you that so few people agree with you? It does to me.

I think you would be better off admitting that you simply do not know for sure. I don't know for sure, and none of us do. We ought to admit that. Haggling about stuff in an internet forum is fun, interesting, and a good way to pass time. We are not changing the world here at the BB for the most part. The hundred or so people who read this are not world-changers. So let's accept that, move on, and have a good time. Let's disagree without being disagreeable. And let's quit with the farfetched stuff presented as if it is biblical truth.

 

==I did not say I would not give God glory I said I would not give Bush any glory, or credit, for his half hearted efforts. Of course we are greatful for any and all babies that are saved. However this administration has not done all it could EASILY do to help end abortion. If you are happy with half hearted efforts then fine, but I am not.

==Yes it is opinion and so is your view. You keep ignoring the FACT that just because God allows a person into a position of leadership does not mean that He approves of that person's policies (Dan 2:37-38, Rom 9:17). Until you acknowledge that fact nothing you say will move this discussion forward one inch.

==Right, but if I were a betting man I would be very comfortable with my opinion. Bush's policies have brought nothing but war and division. It would be a miracle indeed if history views his presidency as anything other than a failed presidency.

==I don't see how Bush has done anything beyond throwing his conservative base a bone. If getting a bone thrown at you makes you happy, ok. However I want more, I want a policy against all forms of abortion. I want to see abortion doctors put on trial for first degree murder, I want to see mothers who willfully get abortions charged with first degree man slaughter, I want tough laws that will end the holocaust against the unborn in this country. Just like we don't approve of those leaders who did little to nothing to stop the Holocaust against the European Jews in WWII, I don't approve of a leader who does little to nothing to stop the holocaust against the unborn. Half hearted efforts in such a serious struggle are not to be applauded because any applause only encourages more half hearted efforts. Want an example? Look at the field of leading candidates on the Republican ticket for '08. Their position on abortion is just as half hearted and watered down as Bush's policy.

==I have not judged Bush's position in Christ. I said that I can't know that he is a brother in Christ or not. Why? Because I don't know him and I can't see past his politicians mask. I refuse to believe everything a politician, who wants my vote, says to me. Bush's personal relationship with God is something that he must deal with personally.

==In the Old Testament what happened to Israel when they disobeyed God? They lost on the battlefield. Do you need examples?

==Of course God can bring a nation/people to war as a form of judgment against that nation/people (Ez 38:14-16, Zech 14:2-3). Again you are assuming that just because we are in Iraq God has a blessing for us in that. It seems not to have crossed your mind that God maybe, just maybe, punishing us. At the very least it does not seem that our nation, as a whole, is getting aide from God in Iraq. Sadly it almost looks like He has removed His protection from us. In '91 I heard story after story of the Hand of God moving to aide the effort (as a whole). In this war I see everything (as a whole) going badly. Sure God will help those who belong to Him (no matter where they are) but I am talking about the nation as a whole (not individual soldiers, etc).

==So, using that form of logic, would you also say that Hitler's final solution against the European Jews was just?

Using God's Word I come to the conclusion that this administration has lead us into a war that is unjust and thousands of people are dead because of this administration's careless actions. God did allow Bush to take us to war, and to remove Saddam, but that does not mean that God approves of the action or that God will bless this country because of that action. Simply because an event occurs history, like the Holocaust (etc), does not mean that God approves of the event. Of course God condemned the evils of the Holocaust and other forms of human evil. So I ask you to consider the idea that God may also disapprove of what this administration is doing in Iraq.

 

Bush Knew that Chalabi was prone to lieing. Now Bush was either lacking common sense or he used the lie to promote his war in Iraq. If Bush had given a full profile of who we were dealing with, the situation might have been different but info was taken in faith that our President wouldn't milead us.That is why 70% of America does not trust him today. Chalabi is called the "George Bush of Iraq" for obvious reasons.

 

I firmly believe that Bush used deliberate deception to get us into this war. His words in the State of the Union address stating that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear materials from Niger, which the administration knew not to be true, is evidence enough that he lied. However, even if it were true that the problem was with the intelligence and that there was in fact no attempt to deceive, it still wouldn't mean that the only alternative was war. For instance, the weapons inspections could have continued and the Bush administration could have continued to work with the international community to put pressure on the Iraqi regime until all questions were answered to our satisfaction.

 

But you forget that everyone in the world agreed with Bush. Even Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and others did.

Or perhaps the evidence was that strong. That seems reasonable, given that everyone believed it. Hussein had a long track record of giving fits to the weapons inspectors, kicking them out, hindering them, etc.

I have never heard him called that, and wonder how that is possibly relevant.

 

Don't blame God for Bush!!

 

posted in error.

 

Biblical "Hope"


H986

בּטּחון
biṭṭâchôn
bit-taw-khone'
From H982; trust: - confidence, hope.

H982
בּטח
bâṭach
baw-takh'
A primitive root; properly to hide for refuge (but not so precipitately as H2620); figuratively to trust, be confident or sure: - be bold (confident, secure, sure), careless (one, woman), put confidence, (make to) hope, (put, make to) trust.

H2620
חסה
châsâh
khaw-saw'
A primitive root; to flee for protection (compare H982); figuratively to confide in: - have hope, make refuge, (put) trust.

 

So, I guess you'd agree that God controlled Clinton's liason with Monica? I don't believe that nor do I believe that he is in control of the war in Iraq.

 

Okay, I was just going on what you previously said. I guess I shouldnd’t have believed it.

So going back on your word is okay if you are not a leader?

I think it is self-evident. His most avowed political enemies agreed with him.

I don’t believe a government conspiracy. That is your ball of wax.

No. I find what you have said farfetched and without merit. You have spent six years on this and have come up with nothing better than what you have shown here? I would quit, if I were you.

No I haven’t. I could ridicule you on every post you make, if I wanted. I am simply not interested in ridiculing you.

Actually, I usually do address the evidence. I don’t address the far fetched theories much. I think you confuse the two.

No I don’t.

No I don’t. I uphold truth and integrity, and I point out the lack of it. Should I just sit by and pretend like you are right? Why are you opposed to discussion and viewpoints that don’t agree with you? You sit around and mock me. And then complain that I do it to you (when I don’t).

You better spell it out because I have no idea how your mind works or what you are thinking.

My unproven theories? I don’t even have any. I agree with you to some extent. I question the neocons motives and understand that the mass media is not telling the whole story.

That’s true, but that’s because I believe in integrity and honesty.

I am not in the majority. Being a committed Christian, who believes in truth and integrity at all levels including in things that disagree with me, I am in a vast minority even on this board.

I never started.

Unless you are God, then I know you don’t know everything. And you aren’t God I don’t think. Are you??? Then you don’t know everything.

Most of those 16,900 posts were written years ago. I write very little anymore. I write only on things I can write quickly about. Most of my posts were not long winded. Some are because of who I am responding to.

Great. You really want to be known for making a difference to convince people about conspiracy theories? Why not make a difference by preaching Jesus as much as you do your conspiracy theories. Tomorrow morning I will stand up and preach the glorious gospel of salvation in Christ and the faithfulness of God. That is life changing. That is world changing. And you should see the lives being changed.

Who cares?

And more people questioning the gospel. Which is more important to you?

I don’t have a brand of half truth and coverup.

No, not at all. People who are world changers aren’t spending their time on the internet Baptist Board. This is a fun place with a lot of great people, even those who disagree with me. I have greatly enjoyed being here and have gotten a great education. But it isn’t changing the world that much. You ask most people on the street, even in the 70%, about your theories, and they will give you a blank look because 70% disagree with Bush. That doesn’t mean 70% agree with you.

Probably not as much as I get out of yours. You are one that keeps me coming back and laughing and reminding me not to take myself so seriously. So I owe you for that. I am sorry that you take it so seriously.

I think the funniest thing is that you seem to take yourself seriously. I would encourage you not to. This is politics and it changes. Theology … Jesus … that is serious. Politics really isn’t.

 

I do not find your theories of leadership amusing in the least. They are, to put it nicely, like a ship without a rudder tossed about by the wind, to quote a famous Book.

Your "Im ok, youre ok, lets get along and come to a consensus" leadership is quite damaging in any setting, whether it be in ministry, the work place, or in the heat of battle, or for that matter, in a simple setting like a family.

You claim to have some great insight into leadership, and demean those on this board who differ with you, yet, no doubt, there are those on this board who were leading in situations you cannot even imagine while you sat in your air conditioned office or home.

I can just see it now. A battle is raging around you. You are the leader responsible for the lives of your men. No doubt you would say, "Squad, lets take a vote on what we should do next."

I wonder what would have happened to the work of Jesus on this earth if he had taken a vote of disciples or gotten a consensus every time a challenge that took faith came up.

You sir, have no right to question anyones leadership ideas, because yours are as flawed as they get.

 

Yes and they believed the lie because it was convienant and besides Bush would eventually take the fall for this one.
I am so sorry that you can't get the connection of why Chalabi is refered to as the George Bush of Iraq, I find it ironic that it has taken on a differant meaning of it's original intent.
It is obvious Paster Larry that you will always worship at he feet of George Bush but feel free to continue being misguided . There are a lot of tell all books just waiting to be printed on this President when his reign is through.