Bush Administration receives call from above

[jackie hayes]

We must prepare the world for The Rapture!

Sure, right after we get rid of Social Security. Priorities, man.

[mreye]

Well when you only quote and do not use any substance in your own arguments than all we can work with is what is inferred by your statements.

 

Lets look at the chain of events:

 

Yasny says he prefers god fearing man, to non god fearing man.

 

I post that is illogical.

 

You sarcastical post: "Best argument I have ever heard, I am converting."

 

Your response intuitively suggests that you are in disagreement with my statement. If you are in disagreement with my statement which was in disagreement with Yasny's statement, than you are in agreement with Yasny's statement.

 

So therefore, eventhough you have tried to weasel your way out of taking a position by merely quoting and throwing in 1 or 2 liners, it is clear to probably anyone that knows what the word "infer" means, can understand that you infer a position with your posts.

 

It may not be your position, but when you do not explicitly state a position, and rely on piggy backing on some one elses statement, Yasny, than it is reasonable to believe you are taking a similar position.

 

Whatever the case, I really do not have time to argue semantics. I would be interested in why believing in god would make you any better at a job than some one who does not believe in god. But that is not the way this thread is heading.

 

SB

 

I don't believe it does automatically make you a better President, but I agree with Yasny, that I'd rather have a Pres that does believe. Can you see the difference. Maybe I'm not making myself clear. I'm commenting about Grahams comments about God guiding elections. I tend to believe that. That's not to say that God only wants Bush as apposed to Kerry this time. I believe it goes further. I believe God guides the men that run for the presidency. Kerry wasn't going to burn bibles or anything like that.

 

I do believe that in a leadership position as influential as President of the United States believing in God will make you a better leader by making you humble. Geroge Bush believes that there is a higher being that he must answer to at sometime and therefore will be less likely to believe that he is God himself.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I appreciate SB's sentiments on a very personal level, while at the same time respecting the right of everyone to worship (or not) as they see fit.

 

Very simply, for those of us who don't take much stock in the eternal reward system, the Divine carrot-and-stick doesn't hold any fear or promise. If this is all there is, why not strive to make it the best here and now we can? SB's logical contention is that world leaders with such a mindset should be the ones that are most effective at working to better things here for the living. Of course, sound logic doesn't take into account that humans are a very spiritual and.or superstitious lot (depending on your point of view) and on the whol have yet to warm up to secular humanuism as a valid world view.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I do believe that in a leadership position as influential as President of the United States believing in God will make you a better leader by making you humble.

 

As clearly seen in George "I haven't made a single mistake" W. Bush.

[mreye]

As clearly seen in George "I haven't made a single mistake" W. Bush.

Haven't we done that?

[Rex Kickass]

I still don't see a problem.

 

I take it like this: He's saying "Thank You" for picking Presidents throughout history that are good decent men and not Hitlers. That's just my opinion on the quotes you've given me. I have no problem with these two men believing God has a hand in things like elections and freedom in general. I believe the same. Ronald Reagan believed the same.

So are you saying that Billy Graham was calling John Kerry Hitlerlike?

[mreye]

So are you saying that Billy Graham was calling John Kerry Hitlerlike?

Not in that particular quote. I won't defend Billy Graham across the board. I know he's a nutball!

[Rex Kickass]

So your saying that its more important that a lower level person do their job well than a higher level person?

 

The President should base his decisions on what is best for present day United States. Not what is best for the United States should it turn out that god is a christian. Not what is best for the United States should it turn out Bhudda is God, or any other omiscient ideal.

 

To some how equate "believing in religion" with "better president", with out any form of proof or evidence of why, believing in religion will make some one a better president, is kind of silly.

 

I mean, its not that hard to do, but atleast present an argument. I mean I wouldnt want you to be considered "slothful".

 

SB

Actually making decisions about present day US' best interests is exactly what I don't want my President to do.

 

See Bin Laden for future reference.

 

Presidents and leaders of our government should do what is overall best for the running of our country. Period.

[Rex Kickass]

Not in that particular quote. I won't defend Billy Graham across the board. I know he's a nutball!

Couldnt resist.

[mreye]

Couldnt resist.

I hear ya.

[Soxbadger]

I have no idea how Bin Laden has anything to do with present day interest versus future interest.

 

Bin Laden's goal is for future interest, he is willing to sacrifice his people today, so that in the future American planes will not fly over holy land. In effect he is using "god" as a rationale for why he can do this today.

 

Even though most people would consider suiciding bad, he can say it is good, because the type of suicide he is promoting, is holy, and for gods cause.

 

Not sure how to disect the rest of your argument, you say they should do what is best for running our government, but you at the same time they should not be focusing on the present.

 

So when should they be running the government well?

 

If not in the present, and certainly not in the past, should they run the government in the future well?

 

Mr Eye,

 

I dont care what they say. First Amendment should allow them to profess any religion they see fit.

 

But just as god could humble a man, he can also make a man believe he has a "divine mandate" in which his actions are being endorsed by god.

 

It is something that cuts both ways.

 

 

SB

[jackie hayes]

Still, as FZ once observed, kneeling down is better than bending over.  Of course that was originally meant in a figurative sense, as it preceded the various church sex scandals by some 20 years.

See, now you messed up my plans again. At first I thought I could just go to limbo. That's so Catholic, I figured I'd be okay there. But w/ all the priests trying to get into limbo, that won't be any more pleasant. Crap, maybe I should just sell my soul now and at least get a donut out of it.

[FlaSoxxJim]

See, now you messed up my plans again.  At first I thought I could just go to limbo.  That's so Catholic, I figured I'd be okay there.  But w/ all the priests trying to get into limbo, that won't be any more pleasant.  Crap, maybe I should just sell my soul now and at least get a donut out of it. 

 

"Mmmmm... Forbidden Donut..."

 

"...But I'm so moist and delicious...!"

[Rex Kickass]

I have no idea how Bin Laden has anything to do with present day interest versus future interest.

 

 

It's pretty freakin simple really. In the early 1980s, the Soviet Union was embroiled in Afghanistan and foreign fighters (Mujahadeen) were fueling a civil war against the Soviet occupiers. The Reagan administration, at the time, thought it best to keep the Soviet Union embroiled in Afghanistan so it funded these foreign fighters. Osama Bin Laden was one of these Mujahadeen and he stayed connected with the government throughout the 1980s. I believe he even received CIA training.

 

Rather than considering the long term implications of funding and training a non-state "freedom fighting" group and the dangers that could exist should the group turned on itself, the Reagan administration decided to go ahead with the plan.

 

You can't really fault Reagan, because he was acting in a bipolar atmosphere. And the perspective he had was skewed towards a long term goal of the defeat of the other major superpower. Unfortunately twenty years on, this lack of foresight came home to roost in New York City.

 

I'm not saying that every threat and possible consequence can be assessed before an action, but some long term ideas about the overall goals of American national security should be considered in every foreign policy decision.

[Soxbadger]

Winodj,

 

Well its pretty hard to try and put your statement into the context of Cold War policies, because nothing in your post suggested I should be looking back that far in the past.

 

Also your statement holds no real water, because Reagan was doing what he thought was "overall best for running our government"

 

As at the time most would of said opposing Communism, and destroying the USSR was better for our Government than the chance that Afghani's would some day use our techniques against us.

 

Suprisingly, its not like this has not happened hundreds of times before. You could talk about training Vietnamese to fight Japan, training them to fight Communists, and so on and so forth.

 

But I doubt that at any point they would say that there decisions were not in the long term best interest of the US. I mean the destruction of the USSR probably still outweighs the fact that a few terrorist groups have splintered off. Seeing as its likely that there would be fundementalist terrorists against the US anyways.

 

SB

[Rex Kickass]

You look to the past for lessons in how to plan the future.

 

I specifically said, because he was acting in a different regime, his actions are somewhat forgivable. However, not entirely. Because Reagan never needed to do that. Its not like the insurgency would have been crushed without CIA training or arms funding, thats like saying that Iraq's insurgency is useless without Chinese or Russian fundage.

 

My argument does hold water. I gave you a specific example of the United States making a short term decision and sacrificing a longer term one. In the case of Reagan, his administration could plead ignorance. But its not an ignorance that our current administration can afford. If you'd like another example, a good one would be the Clinton administration's insistence on keeping bases in Saudi Arabia open, despite the fact that it would have been a better idea politically to move them to Kuwait. Instead of rewarding those who funded the 9/11 plotters, we could have moved to reward those who owe us a huge favor.

[YASNY]

You look to the past for lessons in how to plan the future.

 

I specifically said, because he was acting in a different regime, his actions are somewhat forgivable. However, not entirely.  Because Reagan never needed to do that. Its not like the insurgency would have been crushed without CIA training or arms funding, thats like saying that Iraq's insurgency is useless without Chinese or Russian fundage.

 

My argument does hold water. I gave you a specific example of the United States making a short term decision and sacrificing a longer term one. In the case of Reagan, his administration could plead ignorance. But its not an ignorance that our current administration can afford. If you'd like another example, a good one would be the Clinton administration's insistence on keeping bases in Saudi Arabia open, despite the fact that it would have been a better idea politically to move them to Kuwait. Instead of rewarding those who funded the 9/11 plotters, we could have moved to reward those who owe us a huge favor.

 

Actually, Reagan's decision to fund the Afghan rebels did contribute to the overall goal of toppling the Soviet government. The USSR had to keep spending money they didn't have to keep "their Vietnam" going. And as Vietnam did to our troops, Afghanistan drastically lowered the moral of the Soviet military. Reagan's main plan was to out spend the Soviets until their economy crumbled under the weight of the USSR trying to keep up with us militarily. That in itself worked like a charm. I believe Reagan was well aware of the debt his plan would cause this nation to shoulder, but decided that it was worth it to achieve the Soviet collapse. There was no way in hell, I believe, that he could have foreseen what eventually led to 9/11.

[Rex Kickass]

I would disagree with you. I think that the fall of the Soviet Union and its satellite states are much more complicated than bankruptcy from the arms race, although that was a contributing factor.

 

But sadly, I'm at work and have a headache so that discussion will have to wait until after the blizzard passes.

[YASNY]

I would disagree with you. I think that the fall of the Soviet Union and its satellite states are much more complicated than bankruptcy from the arms race, although that was a contributing factor.

 

But sadly, I'm at work and have a headache so that discussion will have to wait until after the blizzard passes.

 

Oh. I'm sure there were other factors. I'll not argue that point. However, I believe that Reagan had a plan and implemented it.

[PoohIss]

My accountant isn't the "Leader of the Free World."

Maybe you need a better accountant. Low achiever!

[PoohIss]

I don't believe it does automatically make you a better President, but I agree with Yasny, that I'd rather have a Pres that does believe. Can you see the difference. Maybe I'm not making myself clear. I'm commenting about Grahams comments about God guiding elections. I tend to believe that. That's not to say that God only wants Bush as apposed to Kerry this time. I believe it goes further. I believe God guides the men that run for the presidency. Kerry wasn't going to burn bibles or anything like that.

 

I do believe that in a leadership position as influential as President of the United States believing in God will make you a better leader by making you humble. Geroge Bush believes that there is a higher being that he must answer to at sometime and therefore will be less likely to believe that he is God himself.

If I remember correctly, Kerry believes in God as well. What's the difference?

[FlaSoxxJim]

If I remember correctly, Kerry believes in God as well.  What's the difference?

 

God and W are tight.

[Soxy]

If I remember correctly, Kerry believes in God as well.  What's the difference?

Kerry is a Mary-worshipping Catholic!

[PoohIss]

God and W are tight.

What, they hang out? Please. :banghead

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If I remember correctly, Kerry believes in God as well.  What's the difference?

 

 

The difference is that the left bashes Bush for being religous and not Kerry.