The Next Four Years

Personally I think Jeb will be given the seat in 2008. But maybe Guiliani will be VP.

It's academic from a political point of view, I think. It has been pointed out that just as the black churches have been the property of the Democrats for decades, the GOP now owns the Evangelical vote. Policy dosen't have much to do with it. </font>[/QUOTE]I continue to chuckle at your tinfoil-hat assumption that the Bush family somehow "owns" the Presidency. Tell ya what, Jim, provide some proof, or take another of your well-worn conspiracy theory tracks, mmmk?

 

"American Christians have a biblical duty to pray for, love, and honor the chief magistrate in our nation. We also have a duty to help our President by holding him accountable to his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and his non-optional, biblical duties to uphold and enforce the moral law of God."

--Doug Phillips

We must learn from history and experience. Republicans are significantly more conservative when they are out of office. With Republican control over the Senate, House and Executive Branch, key checks and balances are absent. Christians must rise above partisan loyalties, must remain informed on the issues, and must hold our friends accountable to an objective and transcendent standard. If we love the President, we can do nothing less.

Paralyzed by the fear of a Kerry victory, Christians have largely failed to speak truth to our President and to one another. We have made the issue John Kerry, rather than the objective standards of God to which all leaders are held to account. The present Administration has embraced civil unions and legal rights for sodomites, sending women into combat, the highest tax payer subsidies for Planned Parenthood in American history, and massive federal involvement in education, and he has denied the essence of the Christianity on national television by claiming that Islam can lead people to Heaven. By and large, Christians have refused to believe the truth, have refused to act on the truth, or have actively covered the truth because they have made their goal partisan outcomes rather than the righteousness of God which exalteth a nation.

We can not continue down this path for four more years. We should fear the impact on our nation of Christian compromise more than the spread of humanism. Because Christians are God's chosen people, we have a special duty to rise above partisan interests and factionalism so that we can be the Lord's representatives in this nation. We must be the first to praise a leader for righteous conduct and the first to hold leaders accountable for advocating policies which are an offense to the moral law of God. We must eschew the hypocritical and idolatrous tendency often found in our camp to berate Democrats for sins, but to cover, deny and even facilitate the sins of Republicans. We must be the one group that is known as truly independent of partisan factionalism. We must be the one group that always raises the righteous standard in the land.

Source: Doug's Blog

 

I think that he will appoint Supreme Court judges that can make a difference for the next generation coming up. Those people seem to last forever--like the engergizer bunny. They must take some kind of vitamins that I wish I could get my hands on.

Whoever is appointed will indeed make rulings that will last long after I am gone. I want my grandchildren to have a decent country to live in.

 

AMEN! to that.

 

Second that AMEN!

 

How about you disproving it tragic_pizza? It would make for more enjoyable discussions if you backed up your views with more than chuckles. mmmk?

 

Prove what? Here's what Jim said:

You're insisting that I "prove" the Repuiblcian Party doesn't own the evangelical vote. I can't prove a negative, ponch, and niether can you.

Tell ya what, if we need to start swinging "prove it's" around, why don't you and Jim get together and prove Jim's assertion, OK?

 

Hey Poncho,

I heard that you murdered a five year old girl today. I want you to disprove it. Let's see if you can. I have no actual proof that you did it, but that doesn't matter. The burden is on you to prove that you didn't do it. Do you see how ridiculous that line of thinking is?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Karl Rove was on television last night bragging that they got the evangelical vote this year. They did it by inviting the evangelical leaders to the Whitehouse to wine and dine them.

They have proven they can do whatever they want during the four years they are in office, and still count on the evangelical vote as long as they "get out the vote" the months leading up to the election.

 

News flash: I don't get my marching from evangelical leaders. I know very few evangelicals who do. Try harder.

Oh, and I doubt an evangelical leader would have wine...

 

Bottom Line:

Pocket Book, Pocket Book, Pocket Book:

Believe the captital gains tax rate will remain at 15% with Bush in the White House. I'm not one of the rich, and have worked very hard for what I have. If Kerry had been elected, I would have had to scramble to divest, and reinvest. Probably into some of the same tax-free funds that he is invested in. I am retiring in ten years, so I still need to keep my money in higher yielding investments.

Although there was much rhetoric to the contrary, the tax cuts did benefit more than just the rich. It has been very beneficial to me. I wanted the tax cut to remain.

I am not depending on Social Security for my retirement, but the idea of privatizing for some of our younger group is very appealing to me. I have a 28 year son, and believe it will benefit him tremendously. Yes, I voted for his future, also.

I am adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq; however, since we are there, I believe that Bush will do a better job of putting an end to it than Kerry would have. This belief is based upon my preception that Kerry will surround himself with very poor decision makers.

I could go on, but I have just stated some of the reasons that I voted for Bush. I am not presenting them as a basis for argument.

 

Yes I see what your saying Joseph, your guilty until proven innocent...a basic American ideal in the courts of today.

People have opinions. Some have these opinions based on information that is true, some have opinions based on information that is false. Some folks have opinions just to have opinions, and some folks will try to discredit others opinions with anything other than information that they themselves have accepted as facts.

I've had people calling me a conspiracy theorist, a nut, liberal wingnut, moron and so on and so forth because my opinions differ from theirs, most will not give any reasons why they think my opinons are wrong they just do the standard labeling and ridicule without offering anything of substance on their own behalf to discuss. This leads me to believe that either these folks don't know why they think like they do or they think of themselves as in the majority and the majority is always right.

You have no trouble articulating your views with some substance and facts Joseph. Your willing to back up your views with something other than double talk and to discuss it openly with others. Then there are some that just like to make snooty remarks and argue without the possibility of discussion.

 

And some who just disappear when their agrument becomes indefensible.

 

Threads are shutting down fast in this forum when they start turning ugly.
I'm seeing the early warning signs of that here, so let's not allow that to happen please.
Gina