Praise God for G.W.Bush!

No, Jesus is God the Son. They partake of the same essence, but they are distinct.

 

No need to fear. It hasn't happened in the past and there's no reason to think that it will happen this time either.

But I guess there's no pleasing political conservatives: they whine when the poor get aid in the form of food stamps or welfare and they whine even louder if the poor are mandated a wage that actually makes it possible them to feed and clothe their families.

When James wrote those words I would bet that it never occured to him that one day there would be Christians who would accuse those who said such things of promoting "class warfare" and the "politics of envy."

 

He has caused the MURDER of tens and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians in this war which he justified by LIES.

 

The idea that Bush lied has been so thorougly debunked that it makes one wonder how it can continue to be said. He was wrong, but that is not a lie. He, and people on both sides of the aisle, and both sides of the world's oceans, along with presidents before him, and people now running for president all said the same thing. The intelligence was wrong, but there is no evidence of bad faith.

Furthermore, civilian deaths while tragic, are not murder unless it is intentional. It is unfortunate that civilians die. It is unfortunate that soldiers die. But that is not murder.

 

Baloney. When backed into a corner you resort to the typical Republican excuse of pointing to the Democrats and saying, "Them too." Well here's a fact for you: if you will bother to count the House and Senate votes together with regard to the October 2002 resolution that authorized President Bush to go to war in Iraq, it is an undeniable fact that a majority of Democrats voted against that resolution.

You conservatives criticise Clinton endlessly. For that reason I find it laughable that whenever Bush does something that is in the least bit controversial the first kneejerk response from conservatives is to point to something similar that Clinton did to justify their actions. That, my friend, is the height of hypocrisy.

 

The basis that hundreds of thousand of innocent lives have been lost in Iraq is soley based on a Lie that Bush chose to believe.
Even though Chalabi , who was very questionable as a reliable source in the investigation of WMDs.Bush chose to believe his lies over evidence that other reliable sources said that WMDs did not exist.
Why would one want to believe a proven liar?Yet that is what President Bush did, not because he was bamboozled but because it fit into his stratagy of making a case to invade Iraq.

 

Funny thing about it, we had UN authorization for years, based on Iraq's refusal to cooperate with inspectors and their constant violation of the no-fly zone, so there was no further justification needed.

But, Clinton was too busy with "other things". I supported his actions in going to war, although I do still question his motives, and am appalled at some of the things that were done, such as putting our soldiers in danger by limiting their actions just to make sure that no innocent civilians were killed.

When civilians are killed, it is regrettable, but not murder. Did we murder thousands of Japanes civilians when we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No. We brought an end to a war that was killing many times more civilians with carpet bombing and fire bombing.

One thing, though: The terrorists in Iraq are targeting civilians. The terrorists in the PLO are targeting civilians.

Also: We gave them so much time to hide WMD's that they could have moved Baghdad into Syria before we actually did anything.

 

Could be that George Bush is hiding them under his bed but that isn't factual either. :rolleyes:

 

Do you have evidence that he did?

There's plenty of evidence that there was some major moving going on from Iraq into Syria.

 

Proof? From a reliable source, not Hannity, Rush or WorldNetDaily.

Or the Washington Times.

 

Do you see the word "proof" in my last statement?

The only thing we have proof of is that Iraq violated their agreement, we had authorization to do something about it, but the former occupant of the oval office was too busy playing politics to do the right thing.

We also have proof that they have had nuclear material during this time, as we have found the empty barrels, we have proof that they had illegal weapons, as we found them buried in the desert, we have proof that they routinely violated the no-fly zone that was part of their agreement after Desert Storm.

We have lots of proof.

But, no, all I asked was if he had evidence that GWB had it under his bed, because we have evidence that large quantities of goods being moved into Syria.

 

Again, it seems you political conservatives cannot seem to make your case without resorting to the tactics of dishonest and deliberate deception in trying to re-write history. The truth is that the inspectors were in Iraq and had found nothing, including in those places that the US said they were sure to find WMD's. Moreover, Saddam was co-operating in those inspections in that he gave into every demand - up to and including inspections of his presidential palaces.

Furthermore, you seem to imply that the US was somehow upholding the UN when in fact there was no UN sanction for this war. As a matter of fact the UN was opposed to the US intervention in Iraq. In truth, under international law the US intervention in Iraq was every bit as illegal as was Saddams intervention in Kuwait during the early 1990's. This means that under international law this President is every bit the war criminal as Saddam.

If that statement weren't so pathetic it would be laughable. Again, the truth is that Clinton on several occasions took military action against Iraq (and Afghanistan). But whenever he did so Republicans accused him of "wagging the dog" in an attempt to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Yes, God forbid that we actually attempt to protect innocent civilians. I mean it's not as if the claim is that we're actually fighting this war for the benifit of those innocent people.

Again, at best, another 'ends justify the means' argument. Pathetic. Sorry, but count me out as a member of the "Nukes for Jesus" crowd.

So....what? If the PLO and the terrorists target civilians it means what exactly? That civilian deaths are therefore justified in our unnecessary war of choice in Iraq? Or that if the PLO and terrorists do it we should be able to do it too so long as we don't do it as much as them?

Could have, would have, should have. I've hear this time and again. Sorry, I don't want your suppositions: show me the evidence.

 

Assuming that everything else keeps up with the rising prices, as it has in the past. One little kink, and instead of being back to where we were, we'll be behind it.

You see, this is simply class warfare, for two reasons: One, the vast majority of those affected are teens and others who are starting at the bottom and working their way up, but it sure does sound good to buy votes, and it really socks it to that big, bad, mean, fatcat business owner!

Only problem is, it's not the business owner that pays it. It's the consumer specifically, and society as a whole.

I was in management during the last minimum wage hike. About six months before it took affect, we started rasing prices. We did it a little at a time so there would be no sticker shock. By the time it arrived, we were making more profit than before.

The only problem is, if you raise prices at McD's, then the donut store worker has to be paid more to buy a Big Mac, and the cop has to make more to buy donuts, and taxes have to be raised to pay the cops, and the price of carpet goes up so the carpet store owner can pay his extra taxes, etc., etc., with no one being any better off than before, and the extreme possibility that everyone will be worse off, especially with the looming problem of home foreclosures coming up because of people overextending themselves and getting ARM loans.

How many poor people with families live on minimum wage, with the exception of those who do it intentionally, such as waiters who get tips?

Very few.

It's mostly teens who are working for a few extra bucks.

Experienced employees, adults with a good work record, and those who are willing to work will usually start out above minimum, and usually well above minimum. Minimum wage here is $7.15 per hour, and you can hardly even get a teen to do it because anyone with even a smidgen of ambition can be making $10 an hour doing menial tasks. The place where I work part time starts at over $15 per hour, and we can't get employees! And we lose employees to companies that pay more quite regularly. I was offered a lot more money to go elsewhere, but the current schedule works for me.

However, I also own a business, and that teen that I did hire before to do some minor tasks for $7.50 per hour won't have a job this year. I'll just have to do it myself. I couldn't really afford it last year, but I wanted to help out a kid and teach him a trade. (Skilled labor, I can pay much more, but I will not be in a position to teach the skills to anyone at the new rate.)

It is nothing but politicians playing class warfare to buy votes, since this bill will benefit almost no one, but will harm many, and may greatly harm everyone.

 

Sorry, but in accusing me of class warfare you likewise accuse the writer of the Book of James. While you might be willing to put your pet economic theories above the Word of God I'm not willing to join you on that road.

The Bible speaks more about the condition and mistreatment of the poor than it does about adultery, homosexuality, and abortion combined. While I would never claim that these moral issues are unimportant, why is it that you political conservatives ignore the Bible passages that demand justice for the least among us?

 

I didn't know you had anything to do with writing these laws that are so damaging to poor people, which is what raising the minimum wage does. It actually harms everyone except for the politicians who buy votes with it. May businesses are on the verge of going under, and this is the final straw. Happened last time, it will probably happen this time.

I'm glad to know that you're all for putting people out of work.

BTW, this argument is just as valid as your vacuous accusations against me.

 

Your posts amaze me. Do you really have an understanding of the word conservative, moral principles, and Judeo-Christian ethic? These are words that imply a distinct standard and life mindset. They are not code words to glorify George W. Bush.

These are but a few of the black and white, no gray area standards.
A conservative with a Judeo-Christian ethic will:
1. Protect our borders, the number one job to protect the soverignty of this nation and protect the Constitution.
2. Limit government spending.
3. Not have out of control deficits.
4. Will really do something about abortion.
5. Will really reform social security and medicare
6. Will not lie to the American people
7. Will pick competent people for his cabinet and pick a credible Vice President
that reflects the standards he was elected on
8. Has leadership ability
9. Knows the purpose of war, how to win it swiftly, and exit

Need we go on. Your defense of Bush is an outrage. How does he match any of the above in the slightest way? Maybe where you are the frame of reference is different. Maybe since your state delights in electing democrats to office, your idea of a conservative is someone who claims it in a speech. Here, a conservative is just what the name implies.

Yes, I voted for this person twice, and no doubt one day I will give account for it. But one can learn. Those who keep doing the same thing get the same results. Tell me, just what would this guy have to do for you to doubt?

 

He would have to personally admit to the charges on Faux news and Rush Hannity Savage. No amount of evidence however compelling or well documented will sway the opinions of those who use little else but ridicule in their misguided defense of this self serving administration.

 

No wonder you can't see that Bush lied; you don't even recognize a lie when you are the one telling it! :laugh:

 

The issue is "praising God for GWB". It has to do with this issue because of what I posted about your refusal to give credit where credit is due. You say that you will not give God glory for GWB for signing into law this ammendment because GWB has not "done enough" for stopping all abortions. I used an example of you leading people to Christ, how many is enough before I praise God for your deeds in this area? 1, 2, how many must you lead to Christ before I praise God for you? And if a man runs into a fire and saves one child from the flames but cannot run back and save more (maybe some who could care less about children are blocking his way) should God not be praised for the one he did save?

Here we find the crux of your problem. This entire quote is 100% OPINION. It has nothing to do with praising God for GWB because he signed into law an ammendment that put a stop to "one" barbarack practice. You remind me of the parent who can see no good in his child and can give no praise when praise is due because they see so much bad in them as well.

Again only opinion and my "opinion" is that he will be one of the best. But these are only opinions.

You are correct, I used it only as an example of rejoicing over good things.

1) you don't sound happy and you refuse to thank God for Bush's part in it. 2) Again pointing to "not enough" rather than praising God for the good.

I pray you reconsider how you judge one's authenticity in Christ. I believe he is in Christ and I believe that he is God's servant and we should be careful how we judge God's servants. Christian or not, God has raised GWB up and God has moved his heart to remove Sadam for it is God who puts in place the leaders of governments and not men as we would like to believe.

No, No, No. God has dragged us into this war. GWB is only the man raised up for the action to be taken. You must get out of this narrow view that men are in control of this world and men decide who rise and who fall. It is God who has set this world in motion and it is God who put men in the places He choses that His will is exercised. To say this war is "unjust" is to say that God did not want this to happen. If God wanted Sadam removed by GWB then it is Just no matter what men think.

Thank You! So God wanted Sadam removed by GWB. Therefore it is not an unjust war from an informed Christian view point!

You just gave a biblical example of how God is the one who raises up men for His own purposes and then you say this. There are things to criticize about all men, but to say the war is "unjust" is to criticize God's will being done.

Then if God brought Saddam down by GWB it was "JUST". But it does not mean that God approves of everything Bush does. You are wrong to say going to war and removing Saddam is an "unjust" thing KNOWING that it is God who wanted it done. It is only "unjust" in your present opinion, however, your opinion should be lining up with what you know about God's word and God's ways.

From a biblical point of view this is incorrect. We know from the bible that it is God who raises up governments and tears them down. We know from the bible that it is God who moves the hearts of leaders to conquer other leaders FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES. Saddam's removal was JUST because God willed it to be done, ELSE Saddam would still be there and the USA would not.

Your stuck in politics and cannot see the bigger picture. Why do you think God put all that oil right there in the middle east? Do you think we would take a second glance at the mid east if it were not for the oil? God wants us there!!!!!!!! And if God no longer wants us to be powerful and influencial in the world, then it is God who will end the power of the USA. ANd in my "opinion" I believe He will as He rebuilds the power of the EU.

SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE FOLKS!!!!!!!

God Bless!

 

It's the same "lie" that every intelligence gathering nation believed, that every political leader on both sides of the aisle believed and repeated. The intelligence was wrong. But it was evidently accepted in good faith. If you make a mistake believing something that later turns out to be wrong, it doesn't mean you lied.

Rewriting history now will not help your case. Sorry