-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If Bush could run again...
- Thread starter tinytim
- Start date
Magnetic Poles
New Member
I believe future historians will view the Bush 43 years as the beginning of the decline of America. Liberty was attacked from within under the pretext of safety and security, the nation started borrowing itself into bankruptcy while giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest of the wealthy, jobs were sold off to the lowest bidder overseas, and Americans began to see their economy and lifestyles sink. Decisions by Bush to invade a country that posed no threat to us, rather than pursue those who attacked us, let the perpetrators get away. We lost our moral high ground by embracing torture, thus becoming our own enemy, rather than upholding the dignity of human life. I also believe another attack is inevitable, based upon the fact that this administration squandered the goodwill of the world, replacing it with contempt by our adventures in Iraq.
Unless a new vision of America can take hold in Washington, one that values Americans jobs, health care, dignity, and worth; it can get much worse. We are on the precipice of disaster.
Unless a new vision of America can take hold in Washington, one that values Americans jobs, health care, dignity, and worth; it can get much worse. We are on the precipice of disaster.
As usual, I will repeat what I've said before on the subject of Presidents.Dagwood said:
Every President in my lifetime, which includes 11 Presidents - Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W.Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, at their worst, cannot even begin to scuff the shoes of such luminaries of that high office, or approach the depths of incompetency, to the degree that Presidents Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Grant, and Harding achieved, and it is an insult to the 11 occupiers of the Oval Office during my lifetime to even begin to suggest as much!
That is not to say that I agree with most or even much of what any from Kennedy forward have done or attempted, but they were not complete imbeciles and/or worse, like the other five I mentioned.
Saddest of all is probably President U. S. Grant, whose personal scrupulous honesty and most outstanding military acumen was basically equalled by his political lack of such accumen. Had he not had the great military success, he likely could not have been elected to any county office, let alone any national office. Before the Civil War, Grant had basically failed at everything he attempted, outside the military, including as a bill collector, and had to beg his own father for a job as a clerk in his hardware and harness store, just in order to eat!
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
Justlittleoldme
New Member
Dagwood said:
I seem to remember the same things being said about Reagan at the end of his office.
Oh, that`s right, you don´t like him either do you?
I`ll check back here in 30 years too with a History book in my hand.
Justlittleoldme
New Member
Tama said:
I wouldn´t think of bringing any other!:thumbs:
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Those darn "so-called" Christian curriculae.Tama said:
JustChristian
New Member
StefanM said:
This about a man who said that Moslems and Christians worship the same god and that Moslems will get to heaven but by a different way than Christians? How so?
Justlittleoldme
New Member
StefanM said:
Hey, it looks like we are winning them over to our side one by one! :smilewinkgrin:
Justlittleoldme said:
Not quite. I don't like Clinton or Bush.
For Bush, though, apart from his foreign policy, I don't have any major objections to his policies. I don't agree with him completely, but I think he's done ok. The Iraq War, however, was just bad policy. He should have focused on Afghanistan.
Also, if he were going to go into Iraq, he should have used twice the number of troops.
Tama said:
Most school textbooks are even-handed to the point of being milquetoast. They almost universally refuse to come down clearly in favor of one particular interpretation of an event.
There are major differences among historians on the interpretation of pretty much every historical event. History is an art, not a science. There is no one "correct" answer to questions like "What caused the Civil War?" Instead, we must analyze the historical evidence, attempting to arrive at a suitable conclusion. We must never think, however, that we have "figured it out." We cannot ever do that, for it would require perfect knowledge.
My experience with Abeka's historical curriculum (I went to a Christian elementary/middle school for 8 years) doesn't mean I'm an infallible judge, but everything I've seen tends toward a highly slanted interpretation of history that denigrates alternative interpretations of events. It also has a theological overtone that would make Augustine blush. This ignores the reality that there is no one "Christian" interpretation of history.
Justlittleoldme
New Member
StefanM said:
But then in all fairness you must agree that there is no one "secular" interpretation of history as well.
So then if they can state their take on history and teach it in the public schools, why isn´t okay for us to give ours and teach it in our Christian schools and homes?