Thank you Bush

[Ben Kenobi]

I stand corrected.

I knew Reagan won a bigger mandate, couldn't recall off the top of my head what Eisenhower's percentages were.

Can we get back to the thread topic again? This thread really isn't about the comparisons of the 56, as to why it was better then the 52.

If you want to discuss that you should start your own thread.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Theben]

We elected the idiot. Twice.

We got exactly what we deserved.

Only once, in 2004. 2000 was a judicial coup-de-etat.


Now, how we elected him in 2004, after everything he had done and the path he was taking us down was pretty clear, is beyond comprehension.

[DaShi]

Since you know my life well enough, what's the last church that I attended that wasn't a Catholic church?

You define yourself simply by what church you enter? What happens if you accidently walk into a mosque? Will you claim to be a muslim then?

[Q Classic]

Why's that?

Your views are perverse, for one.

Additionally, the strain of Catholicism that you hew to isn't very catholic. Then again, the Church itself seems to be in conflict, much like any other church, torn between change and modernity, and becoming relevant to the actual conditions of today's world, and the reactionary views that you hold that are destroying it and leading it to irrelevance.

[SlowwHand]

I'm a Methodist. What's the question, girls?
No, I'm not going to read through buckets of crap in search of the question. Pose it again, please.

[Q Classic]

This isn't about you, Sloww.

The problem with you, Ben, is that you assume that you have the correct answer to everything, and that you are so certain about it that you deliberately twist facts to support whatever rickety "truths" you've come to, regardless of the truth. You've done away with the reason and the free will that your deity has imbued you with, relying instead on a text you assume is, for all intents and purposes, immutable and unchanging instead of being very much alive. Instead of having the actual integrity to then follow that book, you've done what all of the televangelists and "Christian" conservatives have done, picking and choosing passages you like, and ignoring the rest wholesale: somethings have to be seen through the lens of the era, while others are still valid?

Even more egregiously, instead of actively questioning and seeking the truths behind your beliefs, you've chosen instead to rely on the sophistry that the charlatans in cloth like Ted Haggard, Pat Buchanan, and Jerry Falwell have used so effectively, sanctifying your hate and making a mockery of actual critical thought.

[Q Classic]

Yes he did.

He has not. Not with his words, nor with his proxies.

Which began before him and will continue after him unabated.

You're incorrect. The military base there did not engage in torture, nor are all interrogations torture. Even so, for him to continue to torture is a moral failing that destroys any ground he has to stand on, as well as tarnishing our honor as a nation, as a people, and as fundamentally good beings. His unwillingness or inability to stop it once he was informed about it is a travesty, and for you as a religious person to support it makes you little better than Fred Phelps.

Yes, with the weather machine that made him direct the hurricane towards "Chocolate town". Let's not place any of the blame on the local authorities who through their decisions made the situation much worse. There have been plenty of hurricanes before and since, but Katrina had a different outcome then most? Maybe that has something to do with New Orleans rather then Bush.

I realize you have a poor memory, because otherwise you'd know that I have never excused the mismanagement of that catastrophe from the mayoral level all the way up to the Federal level. I am, however, faulting Bush for his cavalier, glib attitude to the suffering that was going on, with such glaring failings such as, "Doing a heck of a job, Brownie!"

Which will continue before and after him unabated.

The culture of death may have existed before him, but he did nothing to advance the culture of life. His un-Christian policies have done nothing for the poor; his foreign policy has done nothing but glorify the culture of death here and abroad, by cheapening the sacrifices of every soldier by boiling down their efforts into cheap slogans and cheaper ribbons, inciting anti-American sentiment to an extent where they--however mistakenly--think their only option is to destroy themselves.
His disinterest in actually tackling that culture, his refusal to actually create a culture of life can be seen in his despicable choice to veto the S-CHIP expansion (flawed as it may have been); his choice to instead refuse to help distribute condoms in Africa has led to an uptick in HIV infections; and his continuous avoidance of any issue that actively helps teenaged parents suggests to me that the culture of "life" he espouses only matters if you're virtually dead or as yet unborn.

Early because he won.

Some culture of life, being glib about that too, like Rush Limbaugh.
His later successes had less to do with his leadership and more to do with the fact that he finally hired competent people to prosecute the war. Y'know, like firing Rumsfeld.

Ran out of time on the clock. What makes you think it's going to end just because Bush is out?

I didn't say that. But his focus on Iraq, the unneeded war, has cost us precious time in Afghanistan, leading to many more deaths, the farmers backsliding into opium farming, and the Taliban regaining a foothold. Some culture of "life".

Wow, so you believe everyone was once a vegetable and later became a person?

It's this kind of bull**** that reflects poorly upon you. Clearly, you don't want to debate his grandstanding on Terri Schiavo to any real depth, so instead you're trying to be funny and coming across as a callous ass.

There are 10 thousand threads about his errors. This is one saying thanks.

In other words, we should thank the hand that just gave us a treat after it beat the **** out of us for eight years?

[Tuberski]

His disinterest in actually tackling that culture, his refusal to actually create a culture of life can be seen in his despicable choice to veto the S-CHIP expansion (flawed as it may have been); his choice to instead refuse to help distribute condoms in Africa has led to an uptick in HIV infections; and his continuous avoidance of any issue that actively helps teenaged parents suggests to me that the culture of "life" he espouses only matters if you're virtually dead or as yet unborn.

Ummm, his record on AIDS is actually pretty good... http://www.startribune.com/opinion/c...tml?page=3&c=y

Now, I don't understand how anyone can be a gay Republican, but he would understand the issues better than I.

ACK!

[SlowwHand]

I can hardly wait for Obama to get in the saddle. This is going to be entertaining.

[Dinner]

One star. This is terrible.

[Verto]

I can hardly wait for Obama to get in the saddle. This is going to be entertaining.

Yes, so we can see how hypocritical right-wingers are.

[Darius871]

Yes, thank you, President Bush.

I never thought I'd live to see a president more liberal than FDR and LBJ elected, let alone one who was black. I never thought I'd live to see the GOP reduced to a decidedly minority party with largely regional appeal. Heck, I never thought I'd see Americans proudly proclaiming themselves Liberals.

You did that, sir. My hat is off to you.

No, don't be modest. After all, can you imagine Eisenhower losing the 1952 election to someone whose middle name was Mussolini"? Can you imagine Reagan losing the 1980 election to an inexperienced politician whose parents christened him Ho Chi Minh? Of course not. But in your wake, the most popular, charismatic politician in the Republican party lost to a guy named Hussein.

Not just anyone could do that, sir. C'mon, take a bow.

QFT

(Except for the "more liberal than FDR and LBJ" part; that remains to be seen. If you really think we're going to see something on the scale of a New New Deal or Great Society, either you weren't paying attention to the campaign or you're incredibly optimistic...)

[Ben Kenobi]

You define yourself simply by what church you enter? What happens if you accidently walk into a mosque? Will you claim to be a muslim then?

That wasn't what I asked.

It's not that hard a question, and I've posted the answer here in probably the highest profile thread I've ever had.

If you can't answer that question, you obviously don't know anything about me.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your views are perverse, for one.

To whom?

Liberal cafeteria Catholics who despise the Church standing up for what it believes in?

I honestly don't see how my opposition to contraception is in anyway 'protestant' either.

Additionally, the strain of Catholicism that you hew to isn't very catholic.

Catholic as in, "it makes Teddy Kennedy cry", or catholic as in, "so broad-minded your brains fall out?"

Then again, the Church itself seems to be in conflict, much like any other church, torn between change and modernity, and becoming relevant to the actual conditions of today's world, and the reactionary views that you hold that are destroying it and leading it to irrelevance.

*crickets chirp*

Me and Papa Ratzi believe modernity can suck it. Why on earth do you think it is even relevant what people believe today? It's not. The Church is ancient, and one of the core tenets is the universality of church doctrine (it's the same no matter where you go), and that it is both timeless and unchanging.

If in fact the church were to embrace modernity, it would sacrifice catholicity, because different places believe in different things.