Clinton Speaks about Bush-
 

Clinton launches withering attack on Bush on Iraq, Katrina, budget.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Former US president Bill Clinton sharply criticised George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.

Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq "virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."

The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism "and undermined the support that we might have had," Bush said in an interview with an ABC's "This Week" programme.

Clinton said there had been a "heroic but so far unsuccessful" effort to put together an constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq.

The US strategy of trying to develop the Iraqi military and police so that they can cope without US support "I think is the best strategy. The problem is we may not have, in the short run, enough troops to do that," said Clinton.

On Hurricane Katrina, Clinton faulted the authorities' failure to evacuate New Orleans ahead of the storm's strike on August 29.

People with cars were able to heed the evacuation order, but many of those who were poor, disabled or elderly were left behind.

"If we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out," Clinton.

He agreed that some responsibility for this lay with the local and state authorities, but pointed the finger, without naming him, at the former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

FEMA boss Michael Brown quit in response to criticism of his handling of the Katrina disaster. He was viewed as a political appointee with no experience of disaster management or dealing with government officials.

"When James Lee Witt ran FEMA, because he had been both a local official and a federal official, he was always there early, and we always thought about that," Clinton said, referring to FEMA's head during his 1993-2001 presidency.

"But both of us came out of environments with a disproportionate number of poor people."

On the US budget, Clinton warned that the federal deficit may be coming untenable, driven by foreign wars, the post-hurricane recovery programme and tax cuts that benefitted just the richest one percent of the US population, himself included.

"What Americans need to understand is that ... every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts," he said.

"We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."

Clinton added: "We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense."

Consider the source(bleh)

I find his criticism of Iraq laughable. Go ahead and talk about Katrina - everyone else is. Go ahead and talk about the deficit, and I agree to an extent, because the government spends too damn much money. But Iraq?

Clinton signed a joint resolution of Congress calling for regime change in Iraq. He talked about Saddam possessing WMD and launched attacks against various places in Iraq (and the Sudan) that supposedly were processing or had connections to WMD. And to talk of the UN inspections being incomplete....that would be because Saddam would not allow the inspectors to go where they wanted, which was what he was bound to do by the Gulf War I cease fire.

And GD - I didn't start the thread about Clinton, OK?

Gosh, I miss Clinton.
:)

Yes, Pan has given us a great gift here ;)

Me, too! I didn't really care much for him when he was in office, but I had no idea how messed up things were going to get, and it's really only just begun.

LOL You've been waiting for that one a long time, haven't you?

to live,
White lace and promises
A kiss for luck and we're on our way.
And yes, We've just begun.

:D

I miss him too. I remember going to see him speak on Halloween night 96 in Oakland just before the 96 election. I was given very close access to the stage got to shake his hand and even have a few words with him, as he gave me a lapel pin. They knew nothing of my background, weather i supported him or not.

During the Speech "Act Up" decided to climb the Speaker scafolding to let out a banner with some Anti-Aids Message. Not losing a beat Clinton turned toward them , telling them to be careful, not wanting to see security or them to cause anyone to get hurt. He left his speech to address them, and then went back to his topic brilliantly. He stood quietly when another guy started screaming about how he murdered Vince Foster. He told him to say "Hi' to Rush Limbaugh for him. Everyone laughed. He had a way of putting people at ease when he spoke.

I also was able to hear GW Bush in 2004 speak. He was strictly surrounded by supporters, in the front, in a seperate section, the general public was kept way back. ANYONE with any sort of Anti-Bush sign, shirt, or message that might get close was escorted out.

I have never seen a more uncomforable man in my life when Bush spoke it was painfully rehersed and stiff. He had some banter with well placed supporters, to the cheers and applause of the rest of the people in the front. ANYONE shouting anything from the back was INSTANTLY grabbed by security, and escorted out, some by force.

I know some is Security tightened from 9/11, but overall it wasnt. He only wanted to preach to the Chior.

I was AMAZED at how much things had changed in just 8 years.

Are you mocking me, mister?
;)

No, but now I have that song stuck in my head :eek:

Since he wasn't mocking you, can I?

Instant karma.:D

Scaeagles, I wouldn't want to be responsible for ruining your mock-free status.;)

I am a little goofy right now......2 nights without my box fan and I am going on maybe 3 hours of sleep this weekend. :D

Here ya go! Now, get some sleep, already!

Ok, but I am gonna need an audio file to go with that pic :D

Ya know, I'll say this about Clinton. It may be true that I could not stand him as President and anxiously awaited the end of his term, but I sure do miss having a Commander in Chief with charisma. Every time I see Bush doing anything I wonder, "We went from Hugh Hefner's long lost brother to a squinty eyed mannequin? What's next, electing a rock in 2008?"

Well, it is presumed that Kerry will run again in 2008. :)

I miss Clinton, too.

In fact, after 8 years of Bush disaster, I bet that so many people will be missing Clinton that Hilary will win just so's Bill gets back in the White House.

^^I really, really hope that she is the Dems pick:)

She won't be mine. I have zero respect for her, for a variety of reasons. Mostly because she sacrificed her self-respect in exchange for a turn at the Presidency, and has gone to extraordinary lengths to position herself for the nomination. How about earning it? She is just another politician, nothing more. We desperately need a leader.

So, WB, who would you like to see run in 08? The way I see it is that by default they are all politicians. I honestly can't think of anyone I'd be excited about voting for.

If the Dems were smart(he,heh) they would nominate someone like Bill Richardson and try to seize the middle back from the Republicans............but with Hillary I don't think the Reps have to worry about losing the middle.

I'm not so sure about that. They've been trying to middle for a while now. It may server them better to do what the Republicans have done, speak to their base and get them mobilized. The middle seems to move not towards the candidate that speaks to them, but to the stronger party.

At this point, I'm more interested in seeing what will happen in '06. That should be interesting.

As far as '08, I don't think that running any senator is a smart move. Governors seem to do much better in presidential elections. As far as who I think would be a good choice, I really have no idea. I hope that someone will emerge in the next couple of years. The dems would be idiots to try Kerry again.

I think Goofy would do a good job. Well, he'd try, anyway.:D

What I think is interesting in the whole electoral process - Senate, House, Govs, President - is that everyone always talks about how they don't want politicians. Yet those that run that aren't politicians - or have no previous politicial experience but perhaps turn into politicians - get little support.

I voted for Steve Forbes in the 2000 AZ primary.

I'm not a Wesley Clark fan, but he didn't fare well on the dem side in the primaries.

What is the reason for this? Is it the political party structure keeping those who haven't "paid their dues" out of the running? Hmmmm.....

Oh, I think it is most definitely a 'paid their dues' sort of thing. The thing is, exactly what type of dues are they supposed to pay? I'd love to see a candidate with half a brain and a limited history with the pack of wolves running the government these days. Or someone like Truman, who was chosen because they thought they could control him, and wound up being a very strong leader.

It's all semantics. If they are running for office, they're politicians. And, to be honest, I prefer someone with political experience in higher office. Getting things done in that environment is a skill that must be learned. Someone with no experience may have great intentions, but if they don't know the system, they aren't going to accomplish squat.

The key for me is to find someone who knows the system, and is willing to use the system constructively rather than to advance personal interests and do favors for their cronies. Or at least, keep that to a minimum (I'm not holding my breath for perfection).

Personally, I hope the dems DON'T run Billary. I'd like to see them produce a candidate I can actually vote for. I don't have much hope of my own party doing that (unless they wanna dust off Dole for another go).

I have no idea who the Dems could run as a strong contender next go 'round, but in my fantasy land that person runs on a strong platform focused on fiscal responsibility (reducing debt, developing alternative (non-federal) funding for social programs, streamlining social programs), smaller government, and restoration of personal freedoms, including freedom of association. I've long felt that the only real difference between the parties was gay rights and Roe v. Wade. So what would happen if the Ds co-opted the traditional conservative viewpoints and proved that the Rs are only socially conservative?

As I said -- it's my fantasy land. <sigh>

Wait a sec, we already had Goofy for president. Currently, we have his son Max. H'yuk.
:D

I fear the Dems have dug themselves into a deep hole, pandering to the far Left. As we have seen in this last election, there seems to be far more far right voters, than far left ones. (Thinaks in part to HUGE Republican voter registration drives at Churches...TAX EXEMPT Churches, but that is another thread)

I Hope McCain runs, as far as the GOP. As for the Dems, Gore has been quietly making some news of late.....Hmmmmmmm.... I wonder why?...... ;)

I too hope Hilary falls flat. As for Dole, He was my Pick in '88. Bush41 railroaded him, but good. And think, Had Dole Won in '88 (and possibly been re-elected in 92, as the Perotbots would not have split from the GOP in the numbers they did to escape Bush41) We Most definatley would NOT have Shrub in office Now.

The problem with the Democrats seeking the far left vote is that in some far left circles not voting is a mark of prestige. So while Republicans are runing church-held voter registration drives, far left fringies are stickin' it to the man by opting out of the electorate. And don't think this isn't a source of frustration. The Democrats have to draw their strength from the common man, so to speak. And right now that means heading toward the middle.

I'm glad there's at least one Democrat who is willing to speak up against this silly administration.
:)

Well, since you put it in this thread......

Are you suggesting that the predominant african-american churches throughout the south where Jesse and Al speak are registering republicans in droves? I know many Christians/Catholics who are registered democrats and may find you implication a bit insulting, as if someone who goes to church must, by default, be a republican.

I hate to tell you this, but I go to one of the largest churches in AZ, and I've never seen even one hint of a voter registration drive. I'm a bit confused.

Scaeagles, my daughter attended a homeschool group at a very large church here in Spokane. She did, anyway, until the homeschool leader, who also leads the church, sent us all an e-mail advising us to vote for the "more Christian of the candidates". We haven't been back.

I do Say i cannot speak for ALL Churches. If you are in a Church that does NOT cross it's politics with its message, than YOU are in a GREAT Church, and i wish I could be there to attend.

I am Catholic, WE were told to vote for a PRO CHOICE canidate is a SIN.
My Ex-Wife is raising my oldest 2 Baptist. THEY were told in sunday school the the best way to remember what party is the 'Good" party is that Domocrat means "DEMONCRAT." The party that wants to kill unborn babies, and just a few months ago were told again the DEMONCRATS wanted to Kill Terri Schiavo.

There are a number of Churches who also register Democrats, but obviously this last election were not as successful given they had no scare tactic to run on.

Churches in Ohio for instance wrere showing images of Long Lines of Homosexual couples at City Hall in San Francisco, and were told, If the Democrats win, this will be your town, etc... THEY CAME OUT IN DROVES.
(Droves, rhymes with Roves...as in his idea...)

I Say If ANY Church enters the Political arena. END thier Tax exempt status.
Pat Robertson makes Millions, pays ZERO tax?.....uh huh.

And before it gets Mentioned referring to above thread, Yes I Know, in 1960 good Catholics and Mobsters everywhere Put Kennedy in the White House.

(But would you realy have Wanted NIXON in the WH during the Cuban missle crisis? We would have been ALL Been toasted.)

Oh wait, I stand corrected, here are two more.

Clinton, Kerry and Edwards think Bush is doing a bad job............stop the presses;)

Nor would I. That's one of the things that irritates me most about politics in this country: people telling others how to vote and for whom. It's really nobody's damn business who anyone else votes for, and the quickest way to turn me against your candidate is to advise me to vote for them.


As far as Hillary, and this is only my take, the problem with her lies mainly in the difference between her and Bill. They're both kinda sleazy, (again, just IMO) but with Bill it's pretty obvious and manageable. He couldn't hide it, and nobody was surprised by anything he did. He's just Bill, that ol' dog. But Hillary is sneakier. She hides all of the same negative traits that Bill has underneath this disguise of poise and stature, making herself look better than she really is. She's like Chancellor Palpatine, waiting to take over the world, throw off the disguise, and become the evil Empor-her.


I'd love to see either party, or even a third party, put up someone I can stand behind. I finally decided to withhold my vote this past election because I didn’t feel that either candidate deserved it, and I’m not into just voting against the lesser candidate. Someone who I can put faith in would be awesome, though. Names that come to my mind from the political spectrum are McCain, Obama, Powell and Schwarzenegger. Well, okay, not Arnold. I just crack up at the thought of seeing a bunch of Hummers parked on the White House lawn and him giving the “Stayyyyt uv duh Yoonyun” address while puffing on a stogie. ;)

Bwahahahahah, I just had an image of a fleet of hummer stretch limos parked in front of the white house waiting for A'hnold as part of the presidential motorcade pop into my head.

Wow, McCain, Obama, Powell? You cover the Spectrum! Throw in Jesse Jackson and Santorum, and you have a ROYAL FLUSH! Which isn't a bad idea, if we were to Flush ALL of them.

And Hillary=Palpatine? Not Exacty that bad. However i would Vote for McCain, Powell, and Obama over her. My problem with Hillary is her OBVIOUS move towards the middle to attract those of us in the center. When i go to Vote I want to know who that person is now, and what his/her track record has been throughout their entire life in public service. Seeing a shift just before beginning a campaign is always suspect.

One thing Hillary would bring is a Big Stick with her if she was elected. I would pay BIG BUCKS to watch her B*TCH-SLAP Osama Bin Laden back to the Middle Ages. I Hear Billie is still unable to grow hair on the left side of his face after she found out about Monica. That Slap On Pennsylvania Ave that Night was heard all the way to ships offshore in the Atlantic....lol

Oh man, now I have to clean all this Dr. Pepper off my computer screen ;)

lol... Morrigoon was also surprised at my saying I am moderate. I am a Social Liberal, with a few exceptions.

I.E.- I personally do NOT Believe in Abortion. I believe it to be wrong, and i believe life begins at conception. However I do not have the right to tell my neighbor what to do in what i believe to be a very personal and moral issue. Coming back toward the left, I DO Believe in Sex Education, and that an educated person will make wiser choices when it comes to sex and birth control, unlike uber-conservatives who think 'If you show them how to do it, they will all run out and do it."

I Believe the "Wellfare Society" is a COMPLETE Failure.

I DO NOT believe in Affirmative action.

(Will that wake you a bit sleepyjeff?......lol)

I Have more....

Oh no, not an independent thinker. You know it would be much easier for me if I could just put you into a nice and neat little labled box ;)

Independant thought-- EXACTLY what they dont want. EXACTLY what we need.

Some others;

I Do believe in ALL people being treated equal, including Gay Rights, and Civil Rights, but I would rather live in a World where it just didn't matter what color you are, or who you sleep with to begin with.

BUT I am not exactly sure how two guys Dressed in silver chains and leather chaps with thier balls hanging out as they spank eachother on a float going down Market Street in the San Francisco Pride Parade is supposed to make Gays in America more accepted in Middle America. BUT I do support their right to do it. I also fully support legal marriage for ALL loving couples, BUT what your Church "Sanctifies" is up to that Church.

I CAN'T STAND IT that O.J. and Michael Jackson can pull the race card out of their butts, never having seen a day of persecution personally. BUT I Know racism still exists, and Rosa Parks, MLK, and countless others suffered greatly for the cause of Equality.

Those were just a couple of names off the top of my head; hardly a complete covering of the entire spectrum. But I do see them as good candidates because they all seem to present a sense of integrity and willingness to do what they believe is right, as opposed to dancing along the party line and making decisions based on opinion polls. But Jackson and Santorum? The biggest political opportunist of all time and a total Ivory Tower dwelling, holier than thou wacko? Hardly.

I hardly believe that Darth Blondie has the chutzpah to actually accomplish that. Talk about it? Yes. Do it? No. She’s as much of a cause-du-jour, all bark and no bite limp noodle as anyone ever has been. She wouldn’t dare ever step out and take any action that would make her score on “random” (liberal think tank generated) opinion polls take a hit. At least Bill shot up some tents. I doubt that Hillary’s ever even played “Battleship.”

On a side note, Jazzman, that is one hot woman with you in the pic. You are a lucky man. Anyway....

Back to the church thing....I am completely aware that people who are involved with leadership in religious organizations can be and are politically active. My only dispute was the "registration drives" at churches, which I've never seen before. I know all sorts of religious people involved with organizations that put out surveys with how candidates have answered certain questions. I have no problem with that, but saying you must vote for "the more Christian" of the candidates is way off. I don't know why religious people should be precluded from having religious views influence their politics or from trying to influence others as to how they vote. It's no less valid a reason than anything else.

As far as Catholics.....is it wrong for the leadership to say it is a sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate? I don't think so. Is it a sin? Not for me to say. The thing is, if you ar a catholic, should you not abide by what the catholic leadership says? If you do not agree with the catholic leadership, fine. Either accept that you may be sinning in the eyes of the leadership (and then presumably in the eyes of God), or do not participate as a Catholic.

But as to the name "demoncrat"....I like it, and may decide to start using it on a regular basis. :evil:

If all non conforming Catholics left the Church, there would be NO ONE in the church. How is it that a Bunch of old Men who never have sex (Hopefully) can say women shouldn't be on birth control if they choose, has always been amazing to me.

Depends on what you mean by "wrong". Legally? Probably not. But I don't consider it proper or particularly ethical for someone in that position to be giving that kind of political advice to their congregation. Go ahead and preach the values, but leave the political descission alone. It's one thing if an individual comes to them for dicussion and advice. But making that kind of blanket statement to a congregation is using the pulpit for something I don't think it should be used for, imo.

Sorry for the "last edited by" on your post, I hit the wrong button. Fortunately I caught my error and managed not to wipe the post out

Oh, yeah - sure. I think that must be what happened when I had my time line wrong regarding hurricanes Hugo and Andrew. I didn't really write that stuff - you edited them, huh????

That's why I never accepted your apology on that, scaeagles. I've been waiting for GD to grow a pair.

Jesus Spoke Of Politics "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God, what is God's"

The thing I find REMARKABLE about "Single Issue Voters" #1 being Abortion, is really, What has the Republican party DONE to try to STOP Abortion? Nothing. It will NEVER be outlawed, They dont Explain to their religious base that overturning Roe V. Wade will not make Abortion ILLEGAL, just turn it over to the States to decide. The Far right is AGAINST the ONLY thing that will reduce Abortions- EDUCATION.

Would JESUS Be a Republican?...lol. Would Jesus Stand up on a stage in his Armani Suit and Rolex Watch on T.V.?

OR Would Jesus walk the AIDS Wards offering comfort and Hope. Would Jesus Walk the streets at night helping the Prostitutes?, the Homeless? The Sick? The Poor? Would he be right there to Pull the Switch during Executions? or would he be against the death penalty?

Throwing Stones..... I think he spoke of that too....

Would He wear a pinky ring, would He drive a fancy car?
Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressin' room have a star?
If He came back tomorrow, well there's somethin' I'd like to know
Could ya tell me, Would Jesus wear a Rolex on His television show.

Would Jesus be political if He came back to earth?
Have His second home in Palm Springs, yeah, a try to hide His worth?
Take money, from those poor folks, when He comes back again,
and admit He's talked to all them preachers who say they been a talkin' to Him?

Ray Stevens

Honestly, I think Jesus would consider the politicians of today from all over the political spectrum as the Pharisees of the day. As the man on the corner praying loudly thanking God that he isn't a sinner like man in rags next to him. As the rich young ruler would couldn't give up his money to follow Him. As the rich man in the temple giving much and bragging about it, but not nearly as much as the poor woman giving her last cent.

He would be uninterested in them, or in politics in general.

He'd have been with Mother Teresa in India and Billy Graham on his worldwide crusades.

Whether you believe in the diety of Jesus or not, he certainly did walk the earth some 2000 years ago. And his ministry was a practical one. While he was certainly about preaching the word, he was all about meeting the needs of people. If you choose to believe it, he healed the sick. He fed the hungry. "In as much as you do it to the least of these, you do it unto me".

Practical Christianity is not practiced often enough. I read somewhere that some group was passing out New Testaments to Katrina victims. Like this meets any need they had at the time? Man shall not live by bread alone, but he certainly needs bread or he isn't going to live very long.

Jesus, though, wouldn't expect the government to do anything for the poor and sick. He would expect those who call him Savior and Lord to be out doing it. And Good Lord knows I don't do it near enough.

He would probably rebuke those that called him saviour and lord and did nothing to help the poor, and I don't mean helping the poor for the "publicity." And would point to the "hypocrites" that do all they can to help those that are poor, sick, homeless, etc, as examples.

The one thing that I like about the stories of Jesus, is that he was an unjudgemental man, he cared not about what a person did, but was more interested in the person as a person. If only many of the religious organizations of today would stop preaching, and sit and talk with people, then I would have more respect for those religious organizations.

Our current goverment has made much ado about being 'Christian'- so they are exempt because they govern? Bs, Scaegles, and you know it.

I think those who oppose the President make a bigger deal about his being Christian then does he......

I know! I mean if thry needed Toilet paper, why not hand the "The Koran"??

To the contrary - I know no such thing, In fact, there has been much complaining - here on this board as well, I point out - that the Bush administration would dare have his dreaded faith based initiatives to help the poor and needy. "Separation of church and state!" is the cry. Don't tell me it's bs, WB. The government has always sucked at helping the poor and needy (how much has been spent on the "war on poverty?????), and a new approach to try to integrate faith based organizations was derided wholeheartedly.

But from my experience, many faith based organizations seem to help the poor and needy for the publicity.(see my post above)

Or the faith based organizations place far more emphasis on the evangelizing and preaching then they do to actually helping.

Certainly true, Name.

However, so many great organizations are not like that. The Salvation Army is a good example. I could go on listing many great ones, but I'm certain that you could list many that are not. The larger ones with the established reputations are typically the best about really helping. Local ones are typically (from my experience) the offenders.

One that is lesser known that I support is an organization called Food for the Hungry. I've found that, just as one needs to do research when making an investment to make sure it is reputable, research is required prior to supporting any charitable organization, whether they consider themselves faith based or not.

:gasp: that's twice in a thread that I agree with you, holy cow

The charities have always been welcome to step in and help out, Scaeagles. Why do they need to integrate with the government to do so? They want it all- tax-exempt status, government funding, and then they want to distribute it in the way they see fit to the ones they think are deserving. Again, we have a leader who proclaims to the heavens his born-again status, yet so many people are suffering on his watch, while he funnels money into a questionable war and gives out no-bid contracts to his Bechtel and Halliburton buds.

Aboslutely, WB (on the charities being welcome). However, the charities in place have less bureaucratic overhead and the people in place - typically volunteers - to get the job done. MUCH more gets to the people that need it than if it goes through the government.

Are you telling me that the Salvation Army picks and chooses who it helps? Or Food for the Hungry? Of course they have to choose where the money goes, but they aren't screening clients. These people aren't making profits - although there are understandably paid staff - and they do it one heck of a lot more efficiently than the government.

does anyone bother to notice that Haliburton has the contract BEFORE any of this happened? Or is it just easier to accuse someone of things?

By the way- someone being born again doesn't mean that suddenly bad things never happen to people....

Honestly-sometimes I think some people believe that people have to prove their faith to them- if that is not supreme arrogance I don't know what is.

How does Halliburton get a contract for repairing a disaster before it even happens? And if they have an exclusive 'Contractor for the USA' contract, that's news to the rest of us.

You don't have to prove your faith to me, but you don't get to act like your on a mission from God, either. Bush thinks he is the Annointed One, and has ever since 9/11. I merely observe that oftentimes, people of a quieter faith show by deed, not by verbosity.

Supreme arrogance is being absolutely certain that your way is the only way.

Oh, and Scaeagles- the Salvation Army, while a great organization, has a bit of a rep in the anti- gay dept. Most of them do. We had a 'church' up here for decades that was pro- Aryan; think they would just give to anyone?

Does the salvation army ask people to prove sexual orientation before giving them food? I really doubt it, but I have no evidence to support my claim.

Of course there are whacko individual churches everywhere. This does not mean they would receive federal funds to support their charitable work.

I always liked the quote by Lady Thatcher - "Consensus is the absence of leadership." However, to suggest that Bush believes his way is the only way is not always true. Ted Kennedy (or rather his staffers) wrote the education bill. So much has been made of "flip flopping". He didn't want a Bureau of Homeland Security, then he changed his mind. There are other numerous examples. Was it flip flopping or seeing that his way wasn't best?

On tax cuts, no - he believed his way was best. He stood by it. Pushed for them in an uncompromising fashion. Does someone run for President because they believe they have ideas that will work for the country? Of course. This means you get in and push your agenda. Of course it is arrogance. Show me a politician who isn't arrogant. You must have an ego to run for office and tell people that you are the best to lead them.

I don't require anyone to prove their faith to me, in fact I don't require anyone to disclose their religious preference to me either.

That being said, its the people that do disclose their religious preference without being asked about it, that generally give religious people a bad name.

I am a big fan of the don't ask, don't tell policy, in almost everything in life, especially when the answer really has no bearing on anything.


To say that religious preference means anything, is arrogance, IMNSHO.

Okay, Scaeagles, so we screen the church entities that wish to participate. For what? To see if they are breaking any laws regarding equal rights, discrimination, etc? Few churches could pass that test. The Salvation Army has a policy in place barring employment of gay persons. (Or they did). Would their refusal to hire gays negate any government contracts? What about the actual ministering- would it be only to a particular churches' congregation, or like-minded people, or to the general public? (There goes a few more churches I can think of). Would they proselytize while they were doing it? Would they even be allowed to? Too many questions, and then don't even get me going on the type of governmental agency that would be created to oversee this whole mess.

And in the end, would there be enough to address the need out there? I doubt it.

So, then, WB, what you are saying then is that it is more important to make sure that those passing out food don't allow certain religious beliefs to influence their hiring practices and don't dare mention the name of Jesus or Allah or whomever.

I thought the important thing was making sure they got fed and had their needs met.

While we're at it, we better make sure no Christians take in foster children. Foster parents take state money to care for them and they might dare bring them to church.

The whole idea is to limit government regulation so that the help gets to where it is needed in a more efficient fashion. Current government regulation makes overhead ridiculous and the process as inefficient as possible. I do not believe that government can do it better than relifgious organizations.

Would there be fraud and misuse? I have no doubt. I would dare say that there may be just a bit of that going on in the current way of the government handling things.

When did a line in the Constitution deigned to protect religon from the Government get warped to mean just the opposite?

Scaeagles, you know perfectly well what I mean.

Separation of church and State- that "little line" is there for a damned good reason. Every word you say only convinces me more how very, very intelligent our Founding Fathers were.

As it stands now, the churches can go and do good deeds relatively easily. I can choose not to give to a church or organization that discriminates , and they are free to discriminate against me or my loved ones, so long as they don't do it on the public dime.

Many of the early settlers of this country also experienced life in a country that was taken over by religious zealots for a period of time. They knew what it was like to have one ruling religion, and I see that 'little line' as a protection against such a type of government. Tell me, would either of you be so eager to have religion play a larger role in government if that religion was Islam?

I see your point. I guess to me I have always read it "freedom of religon" not "freedom from religon"....although to some I suppose there is no difference. One of those shoe things I suppose :)

Well, WB, we are certainly not going to come anything close to agreement. So, I suppose it is time to remove the proverbial brick wall so that both of our foreheads are saved the pain.

Even comes from a super leftist site Link

But I would think it is clear that 2004 was before 2005, when the hurricane hit and Haliburton got the contract. Or maybe you are not clear about how few companies do the work that Haliburton can and does?

Mocking me doesn't change anything-nor does it make you right.

So, someone who stands by their faith and says their faith is right, and others wrong, is supremely arrogant? So, they lose respect because they believe something that strongly- what? Would they be acceptable to you if they suffered doubt, questioned themselves and constantly had to adjust what they believed because they might be wrong?

Yeah- got it.

First off- show me where I was mocking you. Don't accuse me of doing something I wasn't doing- I asked a largely rhetorical question as to how the hell Halliburton got a permanent no-bid contract, and you answered it. From the Bush Administration. Years ago, which dosen't make me feel any better about it.

As to the faith thing- I have the utmost respect for Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II, Mother Theresa and individuals like them. They didn't run around talking about how Christian they were- they were and are, in their actions and in their daily lives. Anyone can talk about being something, but I am far more impressed by those that actually live it.

I loose respect when they attempt to force that faith on others.

Does Bush really go around talking about how Christian he is? I just have never seen him do this(and I watch the 700 club ;) )

Is being confident in your faith the same as forcing it on others? I find that being confident in your faith and sharing it is no different than, say, a product testimonial or talking about a life changing event to someone else.

Ex-smokers can be this way. Often times they are so proud of themselves, so happy about the change they've made, that they want to tell everyone and can become antismoking zealots.

Maybe it's a matter of personal likes and dislikes. I am an ex-smoker, and I do not go around telling anyone they should quit. If they want to know how I did it and they ask me, I will gladly tell them, but I don't force my views on them without being invited.

Hey! I missed this one. You're right, we are not going to agree and there's no point in continuing. (At least I said you were right on this matter!)

I'm thinking of adding this to my signature line. :)

I am not accusing you of something you did not do- though perhaps the mocking and sarcastic tone to -
was unintentional-


Nor did it sound rhetorical- so I answered it.

Not all sarcasm is mocking of a particular person. Often it's mocking of the subject matter of the sarcasm. Let's not go getting personal here when there's no need to.

I was sitting at lunch today, and thought, hrmm, there is a way to have the government legally finance faith based initiatives, its even written in law. Its in the tax codes, and its called a write off. Quite simply, if you want to your favorite faith based charitable organization to be better funded, well then give to them, and to ensure that YOUR tax money as a tax payer is going to the organizations that you think they should go to, then write off that money off your taxes. In fact, if the government got out of the business of subsidizing all the charitable organizations, there would be absolutely no bitching or complaining about funding faith based organizations.

So, if you want to fund your favorite charity, and lessen the burden on the government to do it, give to them, it will decrease your tax burden at the end of the year, will ensure your charities(faith based or secular) have the monies they need, and the money that would have gone to the government to use as they see fit will now be going to your favorite charity. I think that a smaller government starts with everyone doing their part to help it become smaller.

Just a thought, and I hope it came out the way I intended it to.

Well, a very good point that the government can hardly become the smaller thing some people claim to want until those people start doing the things themselves which they want the government to grow smaller by not doing any more.

Good point...although I wonder if this is a chicken and egg type argument.

Excellent point, iSm.

Scaeagles- I almost fell out of my chair (from laughing) when I saw your post!

Nephytys, iSm is right- my post was not directed to you or at any one person, although the sarcasm was intentional. (Unless you personally awarded the no-bids to Halliburton and Co). I notice a lot of general sarcasm in these discussions, and we all do it. Be pretty boring if we didn't.

Yeah, whatever.





;)

Bite me.

"You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to wendybeth again."

"You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Motorboat Cruiser again."

:D

what a bunch of suck ups ;)

3 of my favorites right in a row:)

Luv you guys;)

Sucking up is swanky ;)

:)

"You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Ghoulish Delight again."

I think that's called Auto-fellatio

Ow, my neck.




Ever seen synchronized auto-felatio?

Only with pets

Are you mocking me?
;)

Always makes me thinkof the film 'Clerks"

Yes Sleepyjeff! Keep nudging your thoughts in this direction. Because Freedom OF Religion and Freedom FROM Religion are MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE, in fact they are pretty much the exact same thing and they are both necessary! We must be certain that both are guaranteed.

I've never understood those who separate the two, and who, on occasion, tell me that my freedom FROM religion is not included. Really? I thought that personal beliefs were supposed to come from one's deepest moral, intellectual and spiritual convictions. You just can't mandate that one way or the other. In my case, earnest inquiry has led me to conclude that there aren't any gods or skyhooks, and I treasure my right not to participate in the celebration of same. (And no, I don't accept that atheism is a religion. To say it is makes the word religion pretty much meaningless. Though, if it IS a religion, I guess it's protected, eh?)

I couldn't be happier that such a mind-boggling array of churches and sects flourish in this country, and I'm not in the least bothered when politicians allow their own faiths to guide their decisions. I am free to disagree when necessary. As long as they leave the establishment clause alone. That is sacred sacred sacred!

Treaty of Tripoli, written in 1796. Read before, and unanimously ratified by, the Senate in 1797. Signed by President John Adams and proclaimed publicly to the nation.

Article 11 of same (emphasis mine):

Word

Wow....at first I was saying who dredged up this old thread....but then I realized who:blush:

So long as we agree that "both" includes "of" I guess I can kinda agree with your thoughts here.