Praise God for G.W.Bush!

[poncho]

Whatever PL. I have flaws I'll readily admit too. I make mistakes and get things wrong from time to time as others do. But I don't try to bolster my own imagine or feed my ego by capitalizing on others flaws and quirks the way you do. BTW, I don't really see any others here trying to capitalize on other's flaws either, you seem to have a corner on the market, bully for you.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

Funny thing is that everything I said I could cite from a recognized leader. If you heard it from them, you would agree. Because you disagree with me for some unknown (to me) reason, you don't like it. Those ideas came from people like Lee Iacocca, Bill Ford, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Bill Hybels, J. Robert Clinton, Ron Martoia, Erwin McManus, Bob Biehl, Ronald Reagan, Don Rumsfeld, J. Oswald Sanders, Zig Ziglar, Jack Welch, Mike Krysewski (I always spell his name wrong and don't feel like looking it up), Rick Pitino, Oliver North, and others. Those are a few of the people that I have read and studied on this topic. Tomorrow I am leaving to go to a three day conference on leadership in the church.

Perhaps you could give me a little rundown of who you have read and studied on leadership. I am always looking to add names to my reading list.

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.

That's not my leadership. Remember there are two categories of issues: Biblical/moral issues and non-biblical/non-moral issues. We handle different issues in different ways depending on a number of factors including the biblical revelation, the relative importance, the crisis factor, the possible outcomes, etc. A good leader recognizes these different situations and responds accordingly.

You have children? What if you want to play a game with your family and ask your kids what game they want to play. Let's say your children pick different games. How do you solve it? If you are wise, you lead them to a consensus.

You recognize that Sorry or Monopoly is not a moral issue. You can do either. You recognize that is not greatly important. No one is going to die over which one is chosen. You realize that there is no crisis. If you don't pick "right now," no one is going to get shot and die.

You would also treat a 6 year old different than you would an 18 year old would you not? A 6 year old is not prepared to be lead through all the reasons why he should be in bed now. An 18 year old should be more equipped to lead through the reasons why a curfew should be at a certain time.

There are just loads of different situations and one size doesn't fit all. In politics, we should handle abortion a lot differently than we handle tax policy. They are two different kinds of issues. Furthermore, in political leadership, we must recognize the reality. For instance in judicial nominations, the nomination has to get through the Senate. We might not like the standards the Senate uses, but they have to be worked with. You cannot by pass them. (Though I wonder if the president could make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court? HMMMM ... )

So a leader has to sense these different situations and respond accordingly to the need of the moment. My struggle in leadership is pulling the trigger. I am always trying to get more information. Other people struggle with pulling the trigger too fast, or not listening to enough people. Some people don't have a clear vision of what they want to do, or cannot anticipate possible outcomes.

The truth is that what I have laid out does work and it is well recognized to work. It is practiced by many people at all levels of success.

You claim to have some great insight into leadership

No not really. You asked for my perspective and I offered it. That is cobbled together from a number of different places, many of which have very similar ideas in different words. But I don't know a lot about it. I have studied it, and constantly work on it. My total reading on leadership probably numbers close to 10,000 pages if you add it all up. I do ask a lot of questions of people who have been successful in their fields. In fact, on my to do list is to make a phone call to a friend who was very successful in business and is now working at a Christian college. We talk fairly often and I have some specific leadership questions for him.

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 don't demean those who disagree with me, unless demean has changed meanings. We disagree and we talk about it. I don't mind that. I am not sure why disagreement necessitates all these charges. Why can't we agree to disagree? I don't really care what you or Poncho or BIR or anyone else believe. I enjoy the converstaion.

There are no doubt people here who are good leaders, far better than me. And there are no doubt people sitting around in their underwear making a life out of doing nothing. But I am not sure how the fact that there are better leaders than I, or leaders who are leading in tough situations is the least bit relevant, unless your plan of attack is to demean my leadership which you know nothing about. You asked my opinion and I gave it. You don't really interact with it. You just attack me.

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."

Why would I do that? As I pointed out, different situations require different things. Fox hole decisions are different than battle plans. They require different things.

BTW, did you ever read about how Ike's plan for D-Day came about? It wasn't one man sitting in the latrine drawing maps on TP. It was a long process of planning involving many different people giving ideas about what would work best. Ike is well respected for his leadership in bringing all those ideas into one plan.

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.

Why would he? He is God. He knows all things. But in his church, he did ordain leadership to work by consensus. Acts 15:20ff tells how the early church leaders, led by the Spirit did what "seemed best to them." In other words, James was the leader, but there were other people involved in the decision making process.

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

First, you don't have to call me sir. I am not that important.

Second, I don't think I have questioned anyone else's leadership ideas, have I? I don't really recall that, though I may have forgotten.

Third, perhaps you could show how my ideas are flawed. I would love to interact with you or others on leadership. I don't know it all and would love to hear ideas from people leading others things and glean from your knowledge. Would you be willing to interact so that I could learn from you?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes and they believed the lie because it was convienant and besides Bush would eventually take the fall for this one.

So they were on his side? And now they are not?

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.

I just don't know enough about Chalabi perhaps.

It is obvious Paster Larry that you will always worship at he feet of George Bush but feel free to continue being misguided

I am confused here. When I say that Bush has done a bad job, and has not done what he said I would do, I am misguided? You think he has done a good job? That sounds strange. I think you and I agree, for the most part, on Bush's job performance. And yet you call me a Bush worshipper and misguided. How does that work? Can you explain it?

It seems the only thing we differ on is whether or not Bush lied. I don't think he did. I think he was wrong, but I don't think he intentionally lied. I think he has been horrible on domestic policy, such as spending. I think his judicial nominations have been only fair at best, thought I think his SCOTUS nominations may be better than fair in the long run; only time will tell. I think his foreign policy has been too braggadocious and blustery. Originally I thought the Iraq war was justified. Now, I think it wasn't, but I think we need to finish what we started.

So tell me, where am I misguided?

There are a lot of tell all books just waiting to be printed on this President when his reign is through.

And there will likely be conflicting reports in them.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I have flaws I'll readily admit too. I make mistakes and get things wrong from time to time as others do.

I think we all do. And that is all I said. Recongize the possibility that you might be wrong.

But I don't try to bolster my own imagine or feed my ego by capitalizing on others flaws and quirks the way you do.

Really? Bolster my imagine? (What does that mean?) Feed my ego? Capitalizing on others flaws? Where have I done that and why are you making this about me? If you knew how much time I spent laughing while I type, you would be amazed. This is fun. I enjoy a good political conversation. I am not out to get anyone. Let's face it. All we know is what we are told.

BTW, I don't really see any others here trying to capitalize on other's flaws either, you seem to have a corner on the market, bully for you.

I haven't even seen me do it. How would I capitalize on others' flaws? What benefit would that bring? What difference would it make? What woudl I get?

Again, I am confused by that.

 

[poncho]

Well, I'm glad you're having a good time at my expense. You are very good at turning things around on people I'll give you that. There are a number of things about you that amuses me as well I especialy like the way you run and hide behind the gospel when your use of ridicule starts to fail you. :laugh:

But anyway this thread is about George Bush not you and I. You have distracted me enough with this silliness.

 

[steaver]

Two thumbs up for Larry's Christ like dialogue :thumbs: :thumbs:

Good leaders can take a tongue lashing from opponents and respond with thoughtfulness and kindly rebutals. Bush also has this quality. Good leaders take a consensus from people in the know when circumstances permit, but they do not simply foolishly follow the feelings of the masses who don't have all the facts and are only informed from bias media platforms.

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

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.

I believe God is in control of every government. Not personal sins. What do you think? Does God just sit up there and watch what governments do, hoping it all works out the way He wants it to?

God Bless!

 

[poncho]

Two thumbs up for Larry's Christ like dialogue

Good leaders can take a tongue lashing from opponents and respond with thoughtfulness and kindly rebutals. Bush also has this quality. Good leaders take a consensus from people in the know when circumstances permit, but they do not simply foolishly follow the feelings of the masses who don't have all the facts and are only informed from bias media platforms.

God Bless!

Oh how overworked and terribly cliche that statement is! :laugh:

The Pentagon did say they were going to infiltrate the internet with propagandists. I never thought they would be this easy to pick out of the crowd though.

How much are they paying you to post this stuff anyway? :laugh::laugh:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Well, I'm glad you're having a good time at my expense.

At your expense? What do you mean? What is this costing you?

There are a number of things about you that amuses me as well I especialy like the way you run and hide behind the gospel when your use of ridicule starts to fail you.

I really don't practice ridicule. I wonder if you might be being oversensitive for some reason. I don't use ridicule because I don't like it and don't think it furthers the conversation. I am sorry you think my priorities and values are running and hiding behind the gospel. It is not that way at all. It is my life. It is what I do, what I am passionate about. This is all a side issue, messing around with the temporal things of this world.

Perhaps we all need a value shift.

 

[Petra-O IX]

So they were on his side? And now they are not?

I just don't know enough about Chalabi perhaps.

I am confused here. When I say that Bush has done a bad job, and has not done what he said I would do, I am misguided? You think he has done a good job? That sounds strange. I think you and I agree, for the most part, on Bush's job performance. And yet you call me a Bush worshipper and misguided. How does that work? Can you explain it?

It seems the only thing we differ on is whether or not Bush lied. I don't think he did. I think he was wrong, but I don't think he intentionally lied. I think he has been horrible on domestic policy, such as spending. I think his judicial nominations have been only fair at best, thought I think his SCOTUS nominations may be better than fair in the long run; only time will tell. I think his foreign policy has been too braggadocious and blustery. Originally I thought the Iraq war was justified. Now, I think it wasn't, but I think we need to finish what we started.

So tell me, where am I misguided?

And there will likely be conflicting reports in them.

Well then Pastor Larry I certainly apologize for the remark of accusing you being a Bush Worshiper. The topic was orginally about the banning of partial birth abortions. Of course I am leary when folks overdo it on the praise of a President but I did not comment, however challenges were made of Bush's integrity and I couldn't completely agree with most folks about that especially when you consider some of the company that Bush has run with I think the worst would be Karl Rove.I think Bush did jump the gun on Iraq and would have been better off building on the success of Afghanastan but has made the feat of doing that more difficult by spreading our troops thin by taking on Iraq when he could have done like his predecessors by having kept Saddam in check with a few occassional bombings until we could dedicate a fuller troop force. One thing is certain that the discussion of the original topic has certainly went awry and I confess that I am a player in that but not by any deliberate intentions.
One site that I have gone to that discusses the lies of George Bush;http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031013/corn
makes for an interesting read , you might agree in part with their assumptions or you might not agree with any of them. I do think at one time Americans could feel secure that our government would not be totally corrupt as long as we had our checks and balances but I think checks and balances have now become a thing of the past and have been replaced with leveraging.

 

[Hope of Glory]

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:

There's a reason that most people don't consider GWB a conservative.

But, he's light years ahead of the whackos that he ran against.

I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat before I voted for Gore or Kerry.

Guiliani? Very liberal. But, would you want to be an Obama nation?

(I'm just hoping that Fred Thompson runs.)

 

[Hope of Glory]

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

So, you are now stooping to calling someone a liar when they present an opinion that is based upon sound economics?

Now, accusing him of wanting all those businesses to go under was sarcasm, based upon his vacuous accusations that I don't care about poor people.

But, his personal attacks, much like yours, does nothing to help poor people.

But, it sure does sound good to raise minimium wage for the poor people, even though it never does.

Kinda like the "tax cuts for the rich" statement that liberals always throw around while ignoring the extra revenue pouring into government coffers due to more tax revenue from these rate reductions. (Now, if Bush and Congress would quit wasting so much on givaway programs to buy votes.)

 

[Hope of Glory]

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.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

You get the prize for stating the obvious!

Bush won one victory, but we can't praise God because he didn't win the war in one fell swoop!

Socialism will cure the woes of the poor!

So on and so forth.

Sounds good on paper. If everything happened the way you wanted it to, it would be great.

But, each war is won one battle at a time.

 

[Hope of Glory]

==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.

Easily do?

It will take a Constitutional amendment to end abortion.

Do you have any idea how difficult that is, even if there is a large concensus on an issue?

 

[Hope of Glory]

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."

More appropriately, a leader would look at the information, and based upon his knowledge (that is based upon info of others, BTW), sees that his options are advancing and fighting and losing and every single man dieing, or staying put, saving the lives of only 10% of the men, but with the knowledge that they can return to the battle another day, and as part of the staying put, maintain the little bit they gained. And build upon that on "another day" when they have more troops.

Certain loss or possible win? Which one is better?

 

[Hope of Glory]

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.

Do you think God was in charge of putting David on the throne?

Do you think God was in charge of the whole, sordid Bathsheba affair?

 

[saturneptune]

There's a reason that most people don't consider GWB a conservative.

But, he's light years ahead of the whackos that he ran against.

I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat before I voted for Gore or Kerry.

Guiliani? Very liberal. But, would you want to be an Obama nation?

(I'm just hoping that Fred Thompson runs.)

In comparison to Gore or Kerry, he was the less of the two evils. This nation cannot afford another 4 years of that type of low level leadership to pick from. And no, I do not, under any circumstances want any nation of the democrats that has announced.

However, to get closer to the op, generally I am not a one issue voter. On abortion, I have no tolerence, of all the moral issues. There is no way on earth I will vote for Giuliani or Romney. In my book, that is the wrong issue to flip flop on.

 

[saturneptune]

More appropriately, a leader would look at the information, and based upon his knowledge (that is based upon info of others, BTW), sees that his options are advancing and fighting and losing and every single man dieing, or staying put, saving the lives of only 10% of the men, but with the knowledge that they can return to the battle another day, and as part of the staying put, maintain the little bit they gained. And build upon that on "another day" when they have more troops.

Certain loss or possible win? Which one is better?

First of all, I doubt those are the only two options. Second, there is a difference for asking for information for a decision to be made and taking a vote on a decision. That is call consensus leadership. This is a sign of a weak leader, and we need no more of them.

 

[steaver]

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

No, I agree. And it is a fact that the USA won the battle against Iraqu pretty quickly and now we are there as support for the new government that is being attacked daily by terrorist. Therefore God must have been on our side to remove Saddam and this was a just decision by Bush and everyone who voted "yes".

Now it is to be seen if God is on our side to remain as support. God will have us remain until His will for the Iraq people is accomplished in one of two ways. Either they repent of their hatred for one another and live peaceably or they refuse to repent and God has us pull out and allows the slaughter to begin full force as everyone knows it will.

My prayer is that the former succeeds, but if it cannot then at least I was on the side of caring for the Iraq people rather than the side of pulling out and letting them be slaughtered.

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).

That is your opinion and my opinion is the exact opposite. We look at the situation from different perspectives. I see the good more than the bad. You see the bad more than the good. Partial birth murder banned is very good to me, a front page victory. You see it as no big deal. I personally feel for those being murdered this way. Every single life is precious. You look at numbers while I look at human beings.

So I ask you to consider the idea that God may also disapprove of what this administration is doing in Iraq.

I do consider the idea. I do know that God wanted Saddam removed from power and God used GWB to do it. Therefore going in and removing Saddam was Just.

Does God still want us there, does God approve of what this administration is doing there now? This I do not know. I can only judge from hindsight what God's will was. This is why calling this war an unjust war from the beginning is railing against God's will that was done.

Is remaining there unjust now since Saddam is gone? Maybe, we will have to wait and see. I don't see Iraq as a war any longer, that part was over long ago. Us in Iraq now is supporting a new government. Now you can say that this should not be going on, but to say that this action was unjust from the get-go is simply wrong and in hindsight on the wrong side of God's will that was done.

God Bless!

 

[Martin]

And it is a fact that the USA won the battle against Iraq pretty quickly and now we are there as support for the new government that is being attacked daily by terrorist. Therefore God must have been on our side to remove Saddam and this was a just decision by Bush and everyone who voted "yes".

==Actually I disagree. The United States is, in theory, the world's major military superpower. Saddam's government and military was, at best, near third world levels. It would not require an act of God, a miracle, for the United States to over-throw/destroy that kind of weak government. It is sort of like Hulk Hogan beating up Pee-Wee Herman. The outcome is hardly questionable.

What is going on in Iraq now is that our troops, along with the Iraqis, are being attacked by various terrorist groups. Our forces are fighting those terrorist groups so we are still at war. Are we losing? Well we are not winning. Considering our military power maybe that is, by default, losing. Our military could literally roll over those folks tonight but this administration will not allow the military to do what it must to win this war. Why? Politics. But keep in mind that all of this would never have happened had this administration not gotten this country into a war that we did not "need" to fight. Clearly our country, as a whole, is getting little/no help from God in this war at least not at this point. Just because our military was able to over-throw Saddam's government, and just because God allowed it, and just because it was in His plan, does not mean that God assisted or that He approves of this war. Keep in mind that we live in a fallen, sinful world where leaders make poor choices. Sure God uses those choices to fulfill His final plan but that does not take away from the fact that leaders can make poor, and yes immoral, choices.

Now it is to be seen if God is on our side to remain as support.

==Personally I don't believe God is on either side. The issue is not whether God is on our side or their side, the issue is who is on God's side. Clearly the terrorists (etc) are not but that does not, by default, mean that the United States is. It could very well be that neither side is on the right side.

That is your opinion and my opinion is the exact opposite. We look at the situation from different perspectives. I see the good more than the bad. You see the bad more than the good.

==No, I am just dealing with reality. I see no reason to believe that God is blessing the United States' mission in Iraq. Thousands of our troops have been killed or injured, more die every day, our military is over stretched, our military looks weak to the rest of the world, etc, etc...

Partial birth murder banned is very good to me, a front page victory. You see it as no big deal. I personally feel for those being murdered this way. Every single life is precious. You look at numbers while I look at human beings.

==Partial birth abortion is not the number one type of abortion that is performed in this country. The number of babies being slaughtered by the more common forms of abortion has not slowed down and this administration has not done ANYTHING to even try to slow it down. Compared to the number of abortions performed in this country the number of partial birth abortions was small. Don't get me wrong one is too many. My point is, however, that I want to see all abortion ended and I will not celebrate until that happens.

I do consider the idea. I do know that God wanted Saddam removed from power and God used GWB to do it. Therefore going in and removing Saddam was Just.

==You just ignored the examples from Scripture I gave in my last reply. I am not surprised you did this I am just pointing it out.

Does God still want us there, does God approve of what this administration is doing there now? This I do not know. I can only judge from hindsight what God's will was. This is why calling this war an unjust war from the beginning is railing against God's will that was done.

==Of course you are assuming that God approves of everything He allows.

I don't see Iraq as a war any longer, that part was over long ago.

==Have you talked to any troops who have been in Iraq in the past two years or so? I have and they say it is war.

Us in Iraq now is supporting a new government.

==No, our military is the new government. Without our American forces that "government" in Iraq would fall apart and fall apart quickly.

I have to wonder if you be this supportive of the war in Iraq if Gore had become president in '00 and if he, not Bush, was the one who lead us into Iraq in '03. Did you support Clinton's war in Yugoslavia? Or how about Clinton's "miniwar" in Iraq (Desert Fox)?