CarolinaTiger 0 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Seattle Times Editorial Endorsing Kerry an interesting read. ct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Where to start? The first priority of a new president must be to end the military occupation of Iraq What?! They are starting to sound like the terrorists. "Occupation"? Do they honestly believe we are trying to make it our 51st state? And they want us to leave now...causing anarchy over there? It would end the back-door draft of American reservists and the use of American soldiers as imperial police Every time I hear someone refer to Reserves being called up as a backdoor draft, I want to puke. These guys are RESERVES. They get a paycheck for being ready to be called at any moment. Calling it a backdoor draft makes it sound like GWB is doing something sinister. No one is in Iraq who didnt sign up for it. It would also provide a chance to repair America's overseas relationships, both with governments and people, particularly in the world of Islam. I dont care WHO our president is...the world of Islam doesnt want to reconcile its differences with America via a political medium. That has been proven time and time again. He has sided with pharmaceutical companies against drug imports from Canada. How many times do we have to prove that you can't introduce drugs, or any product for that matter, from a price controlled environment (Canada) and expect the market to be balanced ? Drug competition in america is what it is for a reason. It also reflects the free market in which this countrys economic system is based. We also agree with Sen. Kerry that Social Security should not offer private accounts. Why? Because the govmt does such a good job with it now? Interesting that they didnt elaborate on this issue. There is in these positions a presidential blending of politics and religion that is wrong for the government of a diverse republic. Translated: We approve of Kerry appointing LIberal activist judges who will work hard to fully remove any references to Religion (christianity especially) anywhere in our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 You were doing pretty good up to this point... Translated: We approve of Kerry appointing LIberal activist judges who will work hard to fully remove any references to Religion (christianity especially) anywhere in our society. That's pretty over-the-top, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Al, I just get tired of every journalist and liberal who wants to slam Bush for being overt about his faith. Its not like he's gotten on air and said hes leading a christian crusade against the Muslims. Why is it so wrong to have faith in (G)od these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Why is it so wrong to have faith in god these days? There's nothing wrong with it. Why do you believe that that's the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 One example being this article. And the professor I had at UA who hated Bush..in his own words "because bush was a religous crusader" Why? Because he makes it no secret hes christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 Why do you want a blending of politics and religion in government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,006 Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 One example being this article. And the professor I had at UA who hated Bush..in his own words "because bush was a religous crusader"Why? Because he makes it no secret hes christian? Think he hated Jimmy Carter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,006 Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 Al, I just get tired of every journalist and liberal who wants to slam Bush for being overt about his faith.Its not like he's gotten on air and said hes leading a christian crusade against the Muslims. Why is it so wrong to have faith in (G)od these days? Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ush-cover_x.htm According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.j...sID=0&listSrc=Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 He sounds like a religious crusader! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 I dont see anywhere that is says a crusade against the muslims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 Why do you want a blending of politics and religion in government? The Soviet Union didn't allow religion and politics to mix, and we saw what a failure that government and society was. Our founding fathers mixed religion and politics, as has just about every President over our 200+ year history, and we have built the strongest, most freedom loving, religiously tolerant society ever on the face of the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 Interestingly enough...my comment about religion is the only one you guys seem to disagree with. Thats cool. At least you are looking at it from all sides. 5/6 aint bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 Interestingly enough...my comment about religion is the only one you guys seem to disagree with. No, it was just very over-the-top. The Soviet Union didn't allow religion and politics to mix, and we saw what a failure that government and society was. That makes more sense. I always thought the right's assertion that Reagan brought down the Soviet Union was a little too presumptuous, anyway. Our founding fathers mixed religion and politics, as has just about every President over our 200+ year history, and we have built the strongest, most freedom loving, religiously tolerant society ever on the face of the earth. I was probably too vague. Why would you want religion and government so intertwined to the point that you have public school teachers leading prayers or having Bible study or allowing the government to promote/endorse religious denominations? Why would you not want the government to be as neutral toward all religions as possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 Interestingly enough...my comment about religion is the only one you guys seem to disagree with. No, it was just very over-the-top. The Soviet Union didn't allow religion and politics to mix, and we saw what a failure that government and society was. That makes more sense. I always thought the right's assertion that Reagan brought down the Soviet Union was a little too presumptuous, anyway. Our founding fathers mixed religion and politics, as has just about every President over our 200+ year history, and we have built the strongest, most freedom loving, religiously tolerant society ever on the face of the earth. I was probably too vague. Why would you want religion and government so intertwined to the point that you have public school teachers leading prayers or having Bible study or allowing the government to promote/endorse religious denominations? Why would you not want the government to be as neutral toward all religions as possible? It was Reagan's faith and absolute confidence that the US was on the right side morally that gave him the strength to lead the US over he Soviet Union. Can you not see that someone with strong religous morals as the leader of the free world is a good thing? And that is my point on the second statement also, I said nothing about the government as an institution imposing a specific religion on anyone. It is possible to have strong moral leaders, and a religously tolerant government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 Can you not see that someone with strong religous morals as the leader of the free world is a good thing? As I said, I was probably too vague earlier and I apologize. I wasn't implying that elected officials, government employees or contractors needed to be areligious, agnostic or atheistic. What I meant by saying 'blending of politics and religion in government' was more on target with separation of Church and State issues. Rephrased, I would ask, "Why would one not want a separation of Church and State?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.