To The Religious Right: Get Tough With G.W. Bush Or Apologize To Bill Clinton

drbrumley

Well-known member
To The Religious Right: Get Tough With G.W. Bush Or Apologize To Bill Clinton
by Chuck Baldwin
May 18, 2006



George W. Bush was elected President of the United States largely on the strength of the image that he is a practicing Christian, a man of integrity and honesty, and a man who can be trusted. In fact, Bush has repeatedly used the "trust me" mantra throughout his presidency. And for the most part, evangelical Christians have done just that.

However, it is now time to face reality: George W. Bush is as big a liar as was his predecessor, Bill Clinton! His word means absolutely nothing!

First, virtually every reason Mr. Bush gave the American people for our preemptive invasion of Iraq has been shown to be false. Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) capable of threatening the United States, and the link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 hijackers was also proven to be nothing more than a figment of Bush's imagination.

However, it is the repeated lies and falsehoods of Bush's domestic policies that reveal a habitual, pathological penchant for duplicity.

For example, back in 2004, President Bush assured the American people that no government snooping took place without first obtaining lawful warrants. That turned out to be as phony as a three dollar bill.

Next, President Bush assured us that only international calls involving suspected al-Qaeda terrorists were being tapped. And even then, Bush was adamant that legal warrants were obtained before such wiretaps were put in place. That has since been proven to be a big, fat lie!

Then President Bush promised us that even though some Americans' phone calls might be targeted, they only involved international calls. Once again, we now know this was another fib.

Again, President Bush resorted to lies and deception by assuring the American people that no domestic calls or communications were being targeted by the federal government. NOT! We now know that every American citizen has had virtually every one of his or her phone calls "mined" by the National Security Agency (NSA).

Now, President Bush is promising us that even though the federal government is indeed compiling a database of every phone call made in the United States, it isn't actually listening to the calls or identifying the names of the callers.

Yet, even as President Bush makes these false assurances, we learn that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has secretly sought phone records and other documents of more than 3,500 Americans, including many journalists. And these records were obtained without warrants under a provision of the Patriot Act.

So, now journalists are considered terrorists? Who is next? School teachers? Engineers? Physicians? Ministers? Certainly, lawyers must be included (except those who are in Congress, of course).

How many times do we need to be lied to before we figure out that we cannot believe anything President Bush or his spokesmen tell us?

Then there is the illegal immigration issue. President Bush repeatedly states that his "guest worker" program is not amnesty. Get real! Even Jessica Simpson knows that's a bunch of horse manure! If it's not amnesty, why are so many millions of Mexicans breaking the sound barrier trying to get here? And why is it that nearly 50% of all illegal Mexicans who currently reside in this country came here since Bush was elected president? There is only one reason: they want amnesty, and they believe Bush (and his fellow travelers in Congress) is going to give it to them!

No wonder Bush's approval rating is currently at 29%. Every time he opens his mouth, he tells another lie!

It is time for G.W. Bush's hard-core base, the Religious Right, to publicly and vociferously call the president to task for his perpetual dishonesty, deceit, and duplicity! If they are unwilling to do this, they should apologize to Bill Clinton!
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Well done.

The hypocrisy of evangelicals and their desperation to be included in the circles of power means they will tolerate any kind of scandal, corruption, negligence, or abuse of power committed by a Republican, because Republicans throw Christians sops and the occasional bone.

The GOP sold out American Christians a long time ago.
 

Army of One

New member
Granite said:
Well done.

The hypocrisy of evangelicals and their desperation to be included in the circles of power means they will tolerate any kind of scandal, corruption, negligence, or abuse of power committed by a Republican, because Republicans throw Christians sops and the occasional bone.

The GOP sold out American Christians a long time ago.
Well said. :thumb:
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Out of those two options....:think: Get tough with Bush!

and what Granite said.....
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
heartless_Adam said:
Think how we feel in Britain. At least you guys get the Dumb tool bag himself. We're led by the dumb tool bags b*tch.
Let's watch our language shall we?

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
 

Army of One

New member
elyah said:
Yeah, ... that's the Right, but even more shamefully, ...that's been the dispo-of the Xtian Right!
Well, the Right certainly doesn't have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Rather, it's a symptom that is prevalent on both sides of America's political landscape (remember, feminists continued to support Clinton, minorities continue to vote for blatantly racist democrats, etc.). That is where the Christian Right errors: By placing their allegiance to the Republican party above their allegiance to God, morality, and the truth.
 

jeremiah

BANNED
Banned
I, personally was never fooled by G.W. He is, and always has been, a liberal!
I did agree with the invasion of Afghanistan, and the Bush doctrine on Terrorism. However he very quickly broke his own doctrine by not attacking the modern inventors of terrorism, and in fact wants to give them their own state.
My question for those who believed or still believe in G.W., is what would be harder to do! Get tough on Pres. Bush, or apologize to Bill Clinton?
It is G.W. who has been true to his own core beliefs. It is evangelicals who have compromised their's.
Actually the real question is can evangelicals admit they were wrong, and apologize to the rest of us true conservative, Bible believing Christians who did not vote for any liberal democrat, or "slightly" less liberal Republican!
That is the apology that I would be hoping for!
 

heartless_Adam

New member
I heard the other day that the republicans refused to raise your minimun age by like $2. 50, yet still made sure to give themselves a pay rise. Is that true?

If it is that is absolutely horrible. How can people live decently on like $200 a week? Especially seeing as how you guys in the US have to pay when you go to hospital and i imagine its the poorest people in America that have to go most often.
 

Mustard Seed

New member
The lies are those of Chuck Baldwins. The man takes so many things out of context and states that so many things were said that were not actualy said as he portrays them that it's rather apparent that Chuck is the one either horribly incompetent or the one willfully lying.

His logic is at best gravely deficient and at worst willfully manipulated. I challenge anyone to defend his points beyond his mere assertions. Give me the verbatim quotes he's referencing.

There were Chemical Weapons in Iraq from before the first Gulf War. It's just Iraq had many many more weapons stashes than we thought and had spread those chemical weapon remnants throughout those disprate locals.

The legality of Bush's surveilance programs has not been shown to be explicitly lacking and those who claim the proceedures to be illegal had no problem when previous administrations exercised the same flexibility.

Above all his claiming that all these constitute lies is one of the most dishonest assertions I've seen someone make in the context of modern politics.

Bring it all y'all Bush bashers. The vast majority of your talking points are mole hills you're trying to pass as mountains.
 

Mustard Seed

New member
heartless_Adam said:
I heard the other day that the republicans refused to raise your minimun age by like $2. 50, yet still made sure to give themselves a pay rise. Is that true?

If it is that is absolutely horrible. How can people live decently on like $200 a week? Especially seeing as how you guys in the US have to pay when you go to hospital and i imagine its the poorest people in America that have to go most often.


Minimum Wage is not meant to be a living wage. Those jobs that pay such are not designed to be viable career choices for those wanting to support more than themselves. If people are forever forced to pay more and more for jobs that can only bring in so much in terms of real economic revenue than all raising the minimum wage will do is eliminate the option for many employers to make more jobs available. I don't think congress should necesarily be giving themselves raises, but I sure don't think it's proper for them to eliminate jobs all for the sake of making them look like they're charitable or big hearted. If someone is in a minimum wage job their problem is not the wage or the job but their capacity. Giving hand ups rather than hand outs will help people far more than an artificial and eventualy contrarian choice. I can assure you that if the minimum wage is increased overall production and capacity in society will be hurt and those who's employers are already tight in their finances will sooner let go their impoverished workers than they will pay them a wage that keeps them from profitability sufficient to justify continued opperation.
 

Philetus

New member
Mustard Seed said:
Minimum Wage is not meant to be a living wage. Those jobs that pay such are not designed to be viable career choices for those wanting to support more than themselves. If people are forever forced to pay more and more for jobs that can only bring in so much in terms of real economic revenue than all raising the minimum wage will do is eliminate the option for many employers to make more jobs available. I don't think congress should necesarily be giving themselves raises, but I sure don't think it's proper for them to eliminate jobs all for the sake of making them look like they're charitable or big hearted. If someone is in a minimum wage job their problem is not the wage or the job but their capacity. Giving hand ups rather than hand outs will help people far more than an artificial and eventualy contrarian choice. I can assure you that if the minimum wage is increased overall production and capacity in society will be hurt and those who's employers are already tight in their finances will sooner let go their impoverished workers than they will pay them a wage that keeps them from profitability sufficient to justify continued opperation.


"For a man to be rich, he must dwell on small things, that he may enjoy them at another's expience." Joe Smith, the one living in our homeless shelter, who has a MBA and can't find a job anywhere except at Burger King. And yes, that is his real name.

I don't know where you are living but here we have moms and dads working two and three part time jobs at minimum wage ... because those hand up jobs are lost to this market. Your hand up theory sounds like GW's trickle down theory. Nothing flows in a dry land.

Long time, Mustard Seed.
Philetus

The US is funding both sides of the war, our side through taxes and the otherside at the gas pump. And the rich get richer.
 

Evee

New member
I believe every thing that was said in the first post.
Unfortunately another lying politician but he seems a cut above the others for his deception.
 

swanca99

New member
Unfortunately, our choice in 2000 was between GW and...Al Gore.

In 2004, it was between GW and...John Kerry.

In each case, I voted for the one I considered to be the lesser of two evils.

I hope we have some better choices next time, but I'm not counting on it.
 

Mustard Seed

New member
Philetus said:



"For a man to be rich, he must dwell on small things, that he may enjoy them at another's expience." Joe Smith, the one living in our homeless shelter, who has a MBA and can't find a job anywhere except at Burger King. And yes, that is his real name.


What state is he in and what are the details of his work history and current capacity?

I don't know where you are living but here we have moms and dads working two and three part time jobs at minimum wage ... because those hand up jobs are lost to this market. Your hand up theory sounds like GW's trickle down theory. Nothing flows in a dry land.

What kind of education do those moms and dads have? What kind of experience? What grasp on finances do they have and have they considered moving their family for their financial survival? It's easy to make claims that sound desperate. I've a great many relatives and many of them are highly qualified in their profesions. All of them have, in the last couple decades, had several bouts of either an extended period job loss or the need to retool their career to fit the market. You state things as if all is lost for these people. Again it's easy to make an aparent case for desperation and a status of one being vastly wronged when the details are so few. I'm not saying their life's situation is trivial. I'm just saying there are likely more factors that have them there than simply the current ruling powers in our government. Because frankly I don't know any administration of any people in any widely recognized history where significant numbers of people in whatever state or people you want to talk about didn't have some similar situation. To take cases like that and paint it like the current leadership of our government are all to blame for it is too simplistic and nigh scapegoating. And we wonder why we have a hard time finding good people to run for office. The economy has a down turn while you're there and you risk being labeled and scorned as a liar and one seeking personal gain.


Long time, Mustard Seed.
Philetus

Life treating you okay? Do you work at a shelter? I've worked at a few food bank volunteering before. Always wondered what it would be like working something like that full time.

The US is funding both sides of the war, our side through taxes and the otherside at the gas pump. And the rich get richer.

Don't forget the side at the publicly funded universities and the side at the right and left's media outlets. We subsidize the universities, pay the grants, finance the loans, pay the high legal or doctor fees so the doctors and lawyers can pay us back, pay the police who have to man the protests and the drinking parties associated with much of college life. Then we pay for much of the left wing propoganda that passes for public radio and public television. Then we pay for right wing radio when we pay for the welfare checks all the desperate, balding, anti-social, white, gullible males who listen to talk radio and don't realize that while some of the talk show hosts sometimes know what they're talking about that 95% of the advertisements that feed conservative talk radio are major scams. (It still blows me away to hear all the inane advertising that goes on in so much of talk radio. The fact that it's gone on for so long demonstrates that there are enough fools out there to continue to blindly subsidize the many scams that sadly seem the underpining of so much of talk radio's financing.)
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
swanca99 said:
Unfortunately, our choice in 2000 was between GW and...Al Gore.

In 2004, it was between GW and...John Kerry.

In each case, I voted for the one I considered to be the lesser of two evils.

I hope we have some better choices next time, but I'm not counting on it.

The "choices," so called, will be even more blatantly worse.

And a "choice" between two Bonesmen is no kind of choice at all. This is precisely why I don't vote: it's the same basic "choice" a john has when he walks into a brothel. Blond, or brunette?

Or you can just not go into the brothel at all.
 
Top