If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The Mother of All Hypocrits!
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I truly couldnt resist posting this when i read it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/06/14/national1155EDT0563.DTL
So now we're to believe that Bush holds Clinton or the Clinton Era with any respect whatsoever.
From Crocodile tears over the loss of life in Afghanistan and Iraq to the "glowing praise" for the very man on whom he has spent the past 3 years blaming his own administrations roster of failures, the lack of integrity is glaring!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/06/14/national1155EDT0563.DTL
So now we're to believe that Bush holds Clinton or the Clinton Era with any respect whatsoever.
From Crocodile tears over the loss of life in Afghanistan and Iraq to the "glowing praise" for the very man on whom he has spent the past 3 years blaming his own administrations roster of failures, the lack of integrity is glaring!
0
Comments
Quite why a single person in America would think different really beggars belief. Perhaps our sadly-departed Thanatos, one to despise Clinton while at the same time admiring the spineless chimp, would care to do a quick come back and explain...
Needless to say, the trained monkey bears the bulk of the responsibility as the Captain of the ship of state.
At least we can all feal safe of him loosing the next election, as long as the rednecks don't all turn out to vote, or he may get in again. The majority of honest, good hard working Americans hate him as well, and when he done away with pollution regulations i think he lost alot of support all round.
I leave you with a little statement from him i like:
'If we cut down all the trees, there would be no forest fires.'
About sums it up, i think...
Bush singled out the Clintons' daughter, Chelsea, and said, "The fact that you survived your teenage years in the White House speaks to the fact that you had a great mom and dad."
Not exactly the projects...
But then maybe he was thinking of his own daughters at the time
This statement I truly adored. Not only was it false—but poorly constructed; it is completely grammatically incorrect! If you’re one to insult, then at least you could do it dignified and correctly. Bush is no murderer—Saddam is. I believe we’re all civil and informed men and women here; you must of course have heard the infamous number “400,000.” Some may even have heard the tale of Iraq’s Olympic soccer team—which was tortured for losing. Excitingly enough, this will be their first game in quiet a while (this Summer’s Olympic games.) Some, also, may have heard of the executions of Baath party leaders. You may have been informed, as well, of Saddam’s peculiar fixation with Stalin. One of his several offices, remarked by the head of media propaganda (in Saddam’s regime), was full of books on Stalin, pictures and posters of Stalin, etc. He remarked that “You could even say he slept with the Russian dictator, for there was even a messed up bed shoved in the corner.” To my knowledge, George W. Bush has done none of these things. Deranged—no; there are no reports of insanity for the President. Corrupt war criminal? No, he isn’t. He has had to, however, make selective choices based on what is best for the Iraqi people—taking out Saddam was one of them. A tidbit of information: at latest, to my knowledge, we have captured forty five of the fifty Iraqi regime members. “Religious fundamentalist scumbag”—that was my favorite statement. Virtually all 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution were members of Christian denominations. 29 were Anglican, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 a lapsed Quaker, and 1 open Deist. Benjamin Franklin was he. Yet he attended every kind of Christian worship, called for prayer, and contributed to all denominations. All were very religious. So, you see, by your logic, every one of the 55 signers was a “religious fundamentalist scumbag.” As for “head of the government,” well, I have no problem with that statement. President George Walker Bush is the President of the United States—and such a position demands respect; no matter the man in charge. You may disagree with him, but disagree civilly.
This one ran a close second. Not to my knowledge has Bush beat any woman—and if he has, then he has felt great remorse for it. This would be seen by his extreme love of the American people… and his love of God. Also, Bush revived the process of meeting with the head of CIA every morning—he reviewed the documents set before him. Not only has he done this, yet he has diligently looked over and reviewed the documents set before him in all areas of government. He is a precise leader who loves his people and wants them safe. If by means of force this must be done, then so be it—the military is to defend. As for John Flip/Flop Kerry, well, he is the true hypocrite. You’d think he had a yeast infection for straddling the Iraqi conflict issue so long! I just love the fact that he claims he committed “terrible war crimes” while in Nam, yet his service is, invariably one of his large campaign props! Also, we must remember the tossing of medals. He claimed they were his, but now he sings a different tune; he claims they’re not! Let’s not also forget his membership in the Vietnam Vets Against the War—who were involved in speculating assassinations of Vietnam War supporters (congressmen, etc.) John Kerry is a confused little man—he’s the one who’s insane and troubled. Also, don’t feel too safe just yet—us “rednecks” are very patriotic—we’ll vote for he who supports our blessed nation. Also, the majority of happy, liberty-loving, hard-working Americans will vote for President Bush. You obviously haven’t researched the kinds of states which voted for him the first time. They were the farming states: the “little fellow states”, as I sometimes call them. There’s a quotation I like, regarding Liberals and the rich; “A Liberal will trample over a thousand poor people to throw a single stone at one rich man.” Let’s not also forget Kerry married into the Heinz Dynasty—very rich, very prestigious living. Now for your quote; once again, a Liberal taking Bush’s quotations out of context; what Bush probably meant by that statement was that clear-cutting forests would be more affective in bringing the lumber industry farther, and decreasing the number of accidents in burning the brush and dried forests. Well, I’m sure all of you will take this writing as long-winded, ignorant and arrogant, as well as harsh… yet verbosely well-written nonetheless.
I see you have gone to a lot of effort, so I'll try to return some of that! Anyway, on the religious fundamentalism; we are in a new Era now where politics are (supposed) to be rational and well thought-out. Bush has said though that "he received a message from god" or something. Interesting link. He also appointed Dr. W. David Hager to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee at the Food and Drug Administration. That doesn't sound that back, except when you find he is heavily religious and pro-life. I don't think it's fair to appoint someone who has such strong opinions in charge of millions of people's fertility.
'400,000' - strange that when you type it into googles all that comes up is anti-war demonstrations. I'm not in any way denying the atrocities and nor do I support Saddam Hussein but he was an old man, and I'm sure most of his political opponents were just biding their time till he died of old age!
He went into Iraq without thinking it through - he didn't even have support from the UN. Deranged? You think if the president was insane they'd report it? This is America we're talking about. (I'm not suggesting he is)
Oh also, just a personal note
possibly relevant to you, but most of us aren't that fussed about grammar when compared to the real argument. Still if you want to argue points of grammar we could pull your little diatribe apart for you.
Personally though I would rather argue the points raised.
Matter of opinion really. In the UK we consider the death penalty to be state sponsored muder. As GWB has signed numerous death warrants then he can be considered a murderer. Or at least a conspirator.
Many nations in the world also consider the war in Iraq as illegal. This would mean that every resultant death can be considered murder.
I'm not sure of the relevance of this piece. So Saddma may have been fixated with Stalin. Why does that mean that GWB isn't a hypocrite?
The man has openly suggested that he hears the voice of God.
Voice in my head. We have mental health wards filled with such people.
"War criminal" doesn't related to the capture of Saddam.
It's more about illegal wars, bombing civillian targets and the use of WMD.
And who is GWB to make decision on behalf of the Iraqi people. I don't remember them voting him into office?
Being religious and being a religious fundamentalist are different things. It's that kind of thinking which leads to all muslims being labelled as terrorists.
Bush uses religion to justify many of his actions, his stance on abortion for example...
The office commands respect. The man has to earn it. Just as in the military.
GWB hasn't earned our respect and will be treated as such.
I'm not aware of this eaither, but should it be true then remorse is irrelevant.
love of some American people.
love of God is a little worrying considering you don't believe him to be a fundamentalist.
Have you looked at those who went allowed to vote against?
Yes indeed. And sod the fact that forests are the earths lungs eh?
Have to agree with the concept of cutting down forests to prevent fire. Not only wouldn't there be the fuel for the fire anymore, but there wouldn't be the oxygene required either...
You did say earlier it was possible for someone to be religious, without being a fundamentalist...
Anyone who claims God speaks to him (and dictates him to wage wars, invade nations and kill human beings while at it) is not only a religious fundamentalist but a dangerous lunatic as well.
And there is no question about it.
Indeed it is.
Someone who wears his religion on his sleeve and uses it to dictate national policy is not just relgious but a fundamentalist. If he used the Koran instead of the bible then I am sure that you would be up in arms.
Belief in God is religion, love of God goes deeper.
The Qu'ran is fundamentaly the same as the Bible in both it's purpose and it's teachings
Apologies. I assumed (which I know I shouldn't) that you were Christian and therefore using the teachings of another religion as the basis for national policy wouldn't be something you'd feel confirtable with. Especially when it contradicts your own religion's messages...
Actually I haven’t; all information I’ve collected were tidbits through the news, pundits, readings, newspapers—not all at once, mind you. But, anyways, to the topic at hand: You are in this new era with your collective Liberal establishment of extremists. Not only is there a place and time for Christianity in this world, but it’s what it needs.
If it’s not alright to appoint one who has strong feelings and views against abortion, and is heavily Christian; then it must be alright to appoint one who is heavily pro-choice and anti-religion; either that, or one who is neither—in which one would have no decisive views to base their decision on. No, Bush appointed Dr. Hager because he believes his views are right and true. Also, it’s not simply his control—but the abstinence of sex before marriage—or before one is ready. The only good thing Jesse Jackson ever said was “The decision comes the night before, not the morning after.”
Alright, then I’ll enlighten you. The number “400,000” I speak of… means 400,000 murdered by Saddam—the 400,000 in mass graves.
I will not deny that Saddam was aged; he’s 67. Yet he always kept in top physical condition. Saddam swam, ran, jogged; he used to take walks around cities where his palaces were present, but the threat of danger became too great. Still, Saddam did keep exercising, which, of course, is the best way to live longer.
His political opponents? Nay, his sons Uday and Qusay were loyal supporters of their father; either would take over if Saddam died. Of course, when you’ve murdered just about every political opponent you have… it’s kind of hard for them to take control.
The UN is a joke; the League of Nations failed, and so has the United Nations. Bush went before the UN 16 times—there were 16 UN resolutions barring him from entry. He asked, they denied, too bad for them. The UN, as I’ve said before, is a joke. Yes, I think they would… this isn’t mid-century old England. (referencing to King George’s insanity.)
Hm. That’s an interesting question. My name is Aaron; I go by Melchiah, sometimes, because in Hebrew it means “God is my king.”
Some from the UK that is. We had an exchange student from the UK stay with one of the church families; she was a wonderful girl. She said she loved it here, in America, and didn’t want to go back. She shared, also, the views of Conservative Christian America—and for that, I respect her even more. To you; yet here, we consider the criminal a murderer. One who kills unlawfully, that is—for wanton greed or the many immoral ideals which have sated this land with poison.
Many nations in the world also consider the war in Iraq important and just. When legality bars the process of justice, then borders must be crossed—laws must, sometimes, be broken.
There’s a quotation I absolutely love from President Theodore Roosevelt. I’ve used it several times in political debate, this time shant be the last:
“My disagreement with the peace-at-any-price men, the ultrapacifists, is not in the least because they favor peace. I object to them, first, because they have proved themselves futile and impotent in working for peace, and second, because they commit what is not merely the capital error but the crime against morality of failing to uphold righteousness as the all-important end toward which we should strive ... I have as little sympathy for them as they have for the men who deify mere brutal force, who insist that power justifies wrongdoing, and who declare that there is no such thing as international morality. But the ultra-pacifists really play into the hands of these men. To condemn equally might which backs right and might which overthrows right is to render positive service to wrong-doers ... To denounce the nation that wages war in self-defense, or from a generous desire to relieve the oppressed, in the same terms in which we denounce war waged in a spirit of greed or wanton folly stands on a par with denouncing equally a murderer and the policeman who, at peril of his life and by force of arms, arrests the murderer. In each case the denunciation denotes not loftiness of soul but weakness both of mind and morals."
It doesn’t. I said this to show, just a little glimpse, of what views Saddam has based some of his “policies” off of.
You argue with it because you have not a faith in God. In Joshua 5:13-15 we see the Commander of army of God speaking with Joshua by Jericho. And in Joshua 6:2 we have the Lord speaking to Joshua. But is it really audible speech? Certain times I believe God does audibly speak; yet he always speaks to us through our hearts. As if someone were to say “honor speaks through you.” Honor clearly has no literal voice, but in a figurative meaning it does. The voice of love, compassion, hatred, justice, honor, humility etc… Yet God’s voice encompasses all—and so that is when you feel a tug on your heart strings. I believe this is what Bush meant by that statement.
1 Corinthians 2:16
For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
Oh no? Then you’re grateful we’ve captured him? Which, of course, was only done through this “illegal war.”
Actually, not to my knowledge do we bomb civilian targets willingly—only on grave mistake. No, for WWII, it will stick in my mind for all eternity—terribly and atrocious, but what other option was there? If there was one, then I am terribly sorry. But WWII is not the subject matter, the war in Iraq is. As for the use of WMD; at least we haven’t released toxins/poison gas on the civilians like he did on his. We’ve used missiles to destroy his bases and military factories, that’s true. We do use WMD—yet not on the scale of which is inhumane. What would you have? Do you wish the use of swords and maces, halberds and spears, etc.?
Of course, I don’t remember the Iraqi people given the right to choose their candidate without being tortured and murdered by Saddam, either. Who would you have step in? What would you have us do in this case? Throw down our weapons and beg Saddam to give his people freedom? I’ve got news for you, a little old, but still true: Saddam is evil—he doesn’t adhere to the pleas of liberty-loving people. Remember: Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
I enjoyed reading the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of “fundamentalism” for the fun of it. This is what it means, according to the AH Dictionary:
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
So, we would have to say that the Christian “fundamentalists”, such as me, are ones who wish to adhere to the old views and values and morals of Christian America founded, of course, by the 55 Christian signers. Therefore, you have the founders of this country to blame—sure, but without them, well, you wouldn’t be complaining right now. I mean this in that we would either be a third world country (for, in most cases, countries freely given their independence end up in terrible states), or even still English colonies. Of course, you could also say that being “deeply religious” is often construed as “extremism.” But, as Barry Goldwater said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” With some things, extremism is a good thing; not militant, but giving your life wholly to God and second your country.
Of course, the same could also be said for Liberals. Liberals, of which I see very few respectable men and women, only three come to mind: Woodrow Wilson, Lieberman, and that old “Christocrat”, as he called himself, Benjamin Rush.
Then it’s a wonder why someone would falsely accuse anyone of such a thing.
No. As was seen in the Republican Party reform of 1869, I believe it was, the running idea was loyalty to everyone—not simply one’s own party. This I believe to be what Bush believes as well. What he does he sees as the best morally for the American people. For “If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”-Daniel Webster
“Have you looked at those who went allowed to vote against?”
Well, you either must mean, by that garbled sentence, the states that voted against him, or the states that weren’t allowed to vote against him. Well, first off, every state was allowed to vote for whomever it so chooses. And second, the states which voted AGAINST Bush were, for the most part, big business states. While, those states that voted FOR Bush were, for the most part, as I’ve said, the “little guy” states.
Five were captured and brutally tortured. At least a dozen had their homes pillaged and burned. Nine fought in the war, and died from wounds too grievous to survive. Two lost sons in the Continental Army. Another two had sons captured.
They were ordinary men: lawyers, jurists, merchants, plantation owners, teachers, musicians, printers, etc. They had education, they had a life to live, yet they signed the Declaration knowing fully all that might end.
The Continental Congress fled to Baltimore on December 12, 1776. President John Hancock’s wife just gave birth to a baby girl, yet due to complications caused by the trip, she lived only a few months.
December 1776, during three days of British occupation of Newport, Rhode Island, William Ellery’s house was burned and all his property was destroyed
A New Jersey State Supreme Court Justice, Richard Stockton, rushed home after his signing, only to find his wife and children hiding as refugees with friends. They were betrayed by a Tory. British troops took him from his home one night, beat him, and placed him in jail; he almost starved to death. When released, he went back home to find his estate looted, his possessions burned, and his horse stolen. He had been so terribly treated in prison that he died before the war’s end. His surviving family lived off charity.
Carl Braxton was a wealthy plantation owner and trader. One by one, though, his ships were captured by the British navy. He gave much of his money to the American cause, but it was never paid back. He sold his plantation and mortgaged his properties to pay debts.
Thomas McKean was forced to move his family constantly, for he was terribly hounded by the British. He served in the Continental Congress without pay, and kept his family hiding.
Clymer, Harrison, Hall, Livingston, and Hopkinson’s properties were looted by vandals or soldiers or both. Seventeen lost everything.
Arthur Middleton, Thomas Heyward, Jr., and Edward Rutledge, all from South Carolina, were captured by the British during the Charleston Campaign, 1780. They were imprisoned in dungeons at St. Augustine prison until exchange the next year.
Thomas Nelson, Jr., at the Battle of Yorktown, noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken his family home for headquarters. He urged General Washington to fire upon his own home; this was done, and the home was destroyed. Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis’s home and properties was also destroyed. The British jailed his wife for two months; that and other hardships so affected her health that she died two years later.
John Hart; “Honest John”, was a New Jersey farmer. He was driven from his wife’s bedside when she was near death. His thirteen children fled, and his fields and grist mill were laid waste. For over a year he escaped capture by hiding in nearby forests, caves, and dried river beds. When he returned home, he found his wife dead, his children gone, and his stock and farm destroyed. Honest John died in 1779 without seeing any of his kin ever again.
These were the stories typical of those who risked all to sign the Declaration of Independence. They sacrificed everything for the Holy cause of liberty. Yet, the God-given right to freedom. God sure spoke to their hearts. They had education and wealth, and a faith in God. They weren’t rabble-rousing raving lunatics. They had security. Yet they felt life without liberty was waste. So, standing proud, unwavering, and strong, they pledged: “For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
Yes, you are right that I would be against him using the Koran to lead the country… for the founding of this great nation was not of such; but of the Christian faith.
That’s one of the only, and of very few, intelligent thing posted to this topic. That’s true; and it’s great… because Bush does both. He believes in God—and he loves him for sending his son to die on the cross.
Actually, it isn’t. Islam isn’t founded by a peaceful man. Muhammad was a violent, torturous man. Jesus was God’s son; he was perfect, blameless, pure, unblemished. He believed in “turning the other check,” but he also showed anger. It was violent for him to become so enraged at the sight of the gamblers and prostitutes and merchants taking over the temple, and rightly so. He went enraged. God has a just anger. Muhammad was a madman. Christianity does not teach members of the faith to murder the unbelieving, like Islam does. This is called “Jihad.” The Koran is not the same, basely, nor complexly, as the Bible.
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”-Samuel Adams
Signing off, and God speed.
Melchiah, God is my King.
I think some Muslim's interpretation of 'Jihad' is not too far away from some Christian's belief that the crusades were justified...
You have made the assumption we are all Americans. I am English, and I *think* Aladdin is Spanish, or Spanish / English, or some variation :eek2:, Clandestine is apparently from Brussels and Man of Kent, I would assume, is from Kent.
If America was still an English colony, I would not be moaning :razz:
Just to clarify, that a southern county of England, not part of Alabama...
Dont forget that I am welsh
If it lead to a balance then it would be fine, when it leads to imbalance it is wrong. Personally I would go with the person who didn’t hold strong views in either direction. Such a post should be a case of imposing your personal beliefs on others, but on doing what is in the best interests of the nation, even when that goes against what you may believe.
Won’t find me disagreeing with you one that one. You might find me supporting you though in previous threads on these boards.
The UN is a talking shop hampered by the permamanet five on the security council. The right of veto has been abused time and time again by all five members, including the USA.
One name – Ronald Reagan – proves the lie of that comment. He had alzheimers when he was in office but nothing was ever said. It would have undermined national security, you see.
Which takes us full circle to the abortion debate, I guess and a comment which can be levelled at each side of the debate. Hypocrisy.
Christian fundamentalist anti-abortionists do not hold with the taking of innocent lives, but are happy to kill “criminals”.
Most pro-choice campaigners would support the death of a foetus but not a criminal.
I considered it just, but I didn’t consider it legal. The two are not the same.
You assume that I don’t.
Do you know the implications of depleted uranium shells. The word “toxin” immediately springs to mind.
Radiation poisoning and “Mutation” are humane now then are they. If you think that then I can only argue that you have a pretty fucked up idea of what consistutes “humane”.
And they still haven’t been given that chance. As you say GWB is making decision on their behalf.
I wouldn’t, nor did I, advocate that course of action. That doesn’t mean that I will fall in behind the guard and argue that the Iraqi people have any more choice at the moment than they did under Saddam. The interim Govt was chose by the US, the policies they are currently implementing are almost all at the behest of the US.
I think the people of Florida may dispute that.
Oh, hang on, they did.
Basic science seems to have escaped you then. Yes, such a move would help reduce some of the forest fires, and yes it would help the logging industry.
Not cutting down trees would actually be a good way to help the environment, perhaps you missed that lesson in Biology 101.
Perhaps in the US they don’t teach their kids about the environment and how to protect it. I don’t know.
Which is the point.
GWB has control of the most powerful military force currently on the planet, possibly the most powerful nation in many respects.
He uses his Christian beliefs to dictate his policy.
These beliefs are at odds with the majority of people in the world. Is it not surprising therefore that he is not revered around the globe like he is in the US? As you say, you personally wouldn't like it is the leader of your country used a different relgion to base his policies on...
Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?
Melchiah however seems to be an arrogant, racist **** who hopefully will just dissapear.
Welcome aboard.
Just an aside, and following something I read elsewhere.
In this Christian United States, where the founding fathers were christian. How many references to God can you find in the declaration of independance and the constitution...?
The judge & jury in this case decided that the statue must be removed in order to ensure that the government and state was in no way related to any religion.
This indicates that the only sections in the constitution dedicated to religion actually prevent the state from becoming involved in any way.