What about the President of the USA
- Thread starter gladhatter
- Start date
I'v been following Bush, and just yesterday he came to my town, Davenport Iowa. It was great, Kerry was at the river center 3 blocks away, and I saw the Cops going to the banks that were robbed when Bush was speaking.
Anyway, I'v heard Bush and Kerry Speak, (different days), and have seen thier policies and thier statments. I feel very safe with Bush in office. He is strong and firm and would not resort to giving in to anyting that he does not believe in. Kerry says one thing and then another, Bad talks Bush and supporters, calling them goons. Bush cares about families and how we raise them. I just wouldn't feel safe with Kerry in office, I would feel prone to attack. The river center where Kerry was was invitation only. That was really smart, every American should have been able to have the chance to see him, Bush did that. Bush has spent alot of $, but it is for the better.
Bush didn't lie, intelligence from Russia, Britain, us, and other sources indicated that Saddam helped terrorists, in money to families of suicide bombers, money for weapons. He murdered his own people, we going to let a guy who dropped a chemical bomb on his people and torture his own people to stay in power? If we didn't invade Iraq, and some terrorists that got money from him attacked us, everyone would be yelling at Bush for not invading. Thats how I see it.
Anyway, I'v heard Bush and Kerry Speak, (different days), and have seen thier policies and thier statments. I feel very safe with Bush in office. He is strong and firm and would not resort to giving in to anyting that he does not believe in. Kerry says one thing and then another, Bad talks Bush and supporters, calling them goons. Bush cares about families and how we raise them. I just wouldn't feel safe with Kerry in office, I would feel prone to attack. The river center where Kerry was was invitation only. That was really smart, every American should have been able to have the chance to see him, Bush did that. Bush has spent alot of $, but it is for the better.
Bush didn't lie, intelligence from Russia, Britain, us, and other sources indicated that Saddam helped terrorists, in money to families of suicide bombers, money for weapons. He murdered his own people, we going to let a guy who dropped a chemical bomb on his people and torture his own people to stay in power? If we didn't invade Iraq, and some terrorists that got money from him attacked us, everyone would be yelling at Bush for not invading. Thats how I see it.
gladhatter
Guest
Some folks cannot see beyond today or their current hunger, sex drive or next party. They are whiners taht would not vote if they could and really have no agenda but to bash oterswhen its conveinent. Oters are of a political party or religion because their parents aunt uncle or significant other was. Some just like to join what ever club is popular at time. Others love to talk to be heard and the moment they cannot get popular support at thier local watering hole they run to another. A long time member here recently did just that, sent out all the insults he could and tried to get the locals to join him and when he found he was not king of th mountain and had no support at all, he runs to the safety of another venue. Bush takes the licking and keeps on ticking. I like men of backbone and courage not any loud mouth liar that is spinless and can only play with kids and when challanged by adults has to run off.
Luckylighter
New member
Pale Horse said:
We're talking about stem cells from a woman's eggs, which--as far as in vitro fertilization is concerned--are just thrown out. Bush is against this and all kinds of stem cell research. I know some might consider this off topic, but as long as we are talking about the president, I believe his views on important issues are fair game in this thread, and stem cell research is an important issue.
And as far as it "violating his sanctity of life," he has to remember that the United States is not made up solely of born agains. There are many Jews, Hindus, Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. whose religions do not necessarily dictate that stem cell research is "evil". There are many people who do not subscribe to his religious beliefs who are going to die because of them. Why should a Jew or a Buddhist, who have no religious qualms about stem cells, be denied the technology that could potentially save their lives? Bush represents the entire country, not just the Christian special interests, and he has to do what's best for ALL of us, not just a select priviledged few.
It's so easy to be against research when illness has never touched your life in a very personal way.
With that said, I don't want to sound like a total Bush basher. I'm not. Just on this issue, and censorship.
EDIT: One more thought...Bush needs to decide if he wants to be a religious leader or a Head of State. He can't be both.
Last edited:
gladhatter
Guest
I could not agree with you more. While religion has formed the nation and reformed it and goverened th world to some extent down through history, Its governing power has been largly through the people . Here Through the people is in the rom of a vote. We have recently seen about a 40% or registered voter turn out in presidential elections. That is some sad comentary in its self as to how important folks take the office. I am not talking about a person here but instead an office . The Office of the President is not the man but a position and that position should not be sterile but it surly should not be religion based either if it is to fairly represent the people.
When Clinton was president the office its self got ultimate respect from the military and the Mrines specifically but if you ever watched every president of modern times un board from any aircraft , you will notice the Marine first salute the man then they ALL have historically turned and followed visuyally the president to his desigination or departure from them. Watch any footage you will of Clinton and you will see this was not the case. He got teh salute for his office or psoition but he got nothing but a back turned on him as a sign of total disrespect of the man and no marine followed him visually after the official salute.
We can disrespect any man or hold him to high honor but the office of the President is an office and it is one that deserves some old fashioned respect.
I do not agree with Bush's policy on stem cell research either. I on the oter hand cannot agree with some folks indoctrined way of thinking about religious beliefs and folks that do as Paul accused some of having a form of religion but denying the power of it. and let not them that profess such religion to know Pauls instruction to his young deciple that later also wrote for the boo, when he told Timothy to study or give dilligenge to show thy self approved or God, a workman that need not be ashamed.
I have nothing aginst folks profssing religion but I take issue with any one that takes a handed down religion and never picks up the owner manul and studies it to see just what was said.
In the end it will not make any difference what we believe or do as the fossil evidence proves all species sooner or later go extinct and we certainly will be no different .
With the existing policies of th USA as a goverining power in most any respect you see really over the world at large and past policies pre bush I say extinction was going to be sooner not later.
While I certainly hate to see harm come to any masses, I imagine it is going to take a real good terror event to occur for folks to wake up and learn the violent tendences that man "Kind" has had from recorded history and on. Religion may fuel the fight but man is predisposed by nature to be violent and agressive. Bush is just being human in that respect. About bush and his religion, well there were religions long before the christian religion and while it is not a bad thing they do not have the patten on it nor the claim to be a first.
When Clinton was president the office its self got ultimate respect from the military and the Mrines specifically but if you ever watched every president of modern times un board from any aircraft , you will notice the Marine first salute the man then they ALL have historically turned and followed visuyally the president to his desigination or departure from them. Watch any footage you will of Clinton and you will see this was not the case. He got teh salute for his office or psoition but he got nothing but a back turned on him as a sign of total disrespect of the man and no marine followed him visually after the official salute.
We can disrespect any man or hold him to high honor but the office of the President is an office and it is one that deserves some old fashioned respect.
I do not agree with Bush's policy on stem cell research either. I on the oter hand cannot agree with some folks indoctrined way of thinking about religious beliefs and folks that do as Paul accused some of having a form of religion but denying the power of it. and let not them that profess such religion to know Pauls instruction to his young deciple that later also wrote for the boo, when he told Timothy to study or give dilligenge to show thy self approved or God, a workman that need not be ashamed.
I have nothing aginst folks profssing religion but I take issue with any one that takes a handed down religion and never picks up the owner manul and studies it to see just what was said.
In the end it will not make any difference what we believe or do as the fossil evidence proves all species sooner or later go extinct and we certainly will be no different .
With the existing policies of th USA as a goverining power in most any respect you see really over the world at large and past policies pre bush I say extinction was going to be sooner not later.
While I certainly hate to see harm come to any masses, I imagine it is going to take a real good terror event to occur for folks to wake up and learn the violent tendences that man "Kind" has had from recorded history and on. Religion may fuel the fight but man is predisposed by nature to be violent and agressive. Bush is just being human in that respect. About bush and his religion, well there were religions long before the christian religion and while it is not a bad thing they do not have the patten on it nor the claim to be a first.
S
skywlkrinc
Guest
The last four paragraphs don't have anything to do with the topic of our current president, nor do they have anything to do with politics (which is borderline off topic, but is still acceptable).gladhatter said:
I don't know why there can never be a conversation about the president or politics which does not skew off topic to religion. Whenever a conversation (or topic in this case) veers over to religion, people's toes are going to be stepped on and feelings will be hurt......prove me wrong on that. Why don't we move this conversation back on topic so it doesn't get locked down.
Luke
Deadlock
New member
Luckylighter said:
Yes, but expecting unanimity in what Americans want is unrealistic. We are never all going to agree, so it will always appear that the president is favoring a ?select few.? (And that will probably only come up when the president is doing something YOU don't like.) I would prefer that a president have a strong and distinct set of beliefs that he both reveals while campaigning and holds to while in office.
If what you value is on your sleeve and America elects you, then I do believe that, as president should, stick to your guns. (Because that?s why you were were elected.) If a presidental candidate's values only make him appealing to a truly tiny segment of society, then I think that he will be prevented from representing those extremist views by the simple fact that he won?t be elected.
I'd like to offer a view on Bush from the outside. But before I start, I however warn that what I'm going to tell you here is an excerpt from various sources of information and very small part of them is made up after my personal opinion.
I don't have to tell you that among the people in Europe, Bush is one very hated man. In simple words, he is seen as nothing but a pompous ass. And why is this? Isn't Bush a good leader for his people? Is he rude or untact? Does he not think the best of that people he's been elected to rule over?
The answer, to all points, is no. Bush fills all of the personalizations above, pretty well actually, but there is something in what Bush fails completely, and that is the foreign politics. This man is a horrible diplomat. But don't get me wrong - with this I don't mean that he wouldn't know all the possible aspects of proper behavior. Bush surely strictly behaves after the protocol, remembers all the compliments and knows his small talk, but when we get to those actions the US is going to take that directly convey to the same soup some other nations have their spoons in - the whole US adminstration appears to fail in predicting the response they're going to get from the other parties involved.
Of course, one man can not lead the country alone. Bush, as his every predecessor, has an army of specialists backing him up and telling him the proper things to do, coming all the way from reading speeches and telling what kind of tie to pick to invading other independent nations. But even these assistants seem to fail seeing how the world is going to react - or then they do but they don't care as long as the people of US are going to give it a positive go. There appears to be no other reason for this than some kind superpower hegemony... and trust me when I say, it pecks a great amount of people off, big time. The Europeans hate him and his adminstration for not taking them enough into consideration, they also hate Bush for walking over the UN - an association that is supposed to be the leading power in the world in their mind.
We can see these miscalculations all around us, Iraq is just merely a drop in the ocean (though it is a BIG drop). A while back, for example, Bush tried to lobby EU to start membership negotiations with Turkey, and he stepped on some big toes with that one, by trying to usher a process the US has <i>absolutely nothing</i> to do with. Of course, to a country like Turkey an EU membership would mean a great boost in economy, but Bush was not doing just a friend's favor. Turkey would be a great asset to the States by letting it use itself as a springboard and a base of operations to the Middle East.
Here we get to the another major issue that drives people mad about Bush - with every action he takes, he appears to have some kind of personal agenda involved, that can as well be his main reason for getting into that thing. The green activists hate Bush for disregarding the Kyoto protocol, because, as it appears, the man puts the monetary support coming from the big companies over the future of this planet.
(Then again, the Kyoto protocol would still be very ineffective even if it gets ratified, and many have predicted it to be nothing but a soft takeoff towards even greater scheme waiting somewhere in the future. P'haps this is what the great minds in the White House have actually seen and no one's going to know if the adminstration's going to jump the gun when the big green contract becomes topical, expressing a major, steep climb on the scale that is clearly visible. A miracle made in one night - that surely sounds like a piece of Bush's mind to me.)
It is highly anticipated for a man sitting in a chair like the one in the Oval Office to take things like those mentioned above into consideration, but to be completely wretched, it still says so nowhere. Bush does not have to give a rat's ass if he does not wish to, so the man is not doing anything wrong (except morally maybe, but I'm an analyst, not a philosopher, so I'm not going that way). All he has to care about is the United States of America, and with that, he's doing a decent job.
Or is he? Let's have a look in that what is currently going on inside the US, especially in the economics. There is one thing Bush seemingly wrecked (again, according to minds greater than mine), and that is the economic rise Clinton put in motion and built for eight years. Bush practically flushed his work down the toilet, they say. Even the Americans can't be ignorant towards the fairly poor state of their economy, even though you may have read the reports about how the stock market an' all seems to be in careful rise again... but that is for the short-sighted. And of course the US sources would never say "we're screwed" or even hint anything like that, while the European sources can be very harsh about this and very clearly state out that Dubya's still not doing any better with this, his actions are going to give nothing but a temporary boost (and prolly barely enough to carry him over the election). I dunno if Kerry would do any better though... if he gets elected and chooses the way of Clinton, he most likely still gets dissed, since by walking that path, you're not going to see any visible chances in the landscape after a short stride. And still, the actions can be ineffective.
Of course, should the rest of the (western) world be worried about this? This is one of those cases with what I'm going to say no. Trust me, to the other economical powers on this Earth (mainly EU and Japan), there is no better news than the weak Dollar.
Embark's message a few posts up inclines greatly the fact that in the US, what you intend to do is nothing compared to that how you act on stage. I in fact once read an article that ironically claimed that men like Jay Leno and David Letterman make presidents - and it wasn't even meant to be a complete joke. There is a good reason to that why Bush, at least at the moment, may arise more confidence than Kerry. First, the man's got way more time in spotlight, the last four years have turned him to a very skillful showman. And another point for Bush is that Kerry, he can't have a clear agenda. He must, all the time, follow how the people's reacting on him and his sayings, while Bush can go on from standing before one crowd to another, without having to make major cosmetic changes to what he's going to say - and of course, this brings you way more confident in the eyes of the regular folk.
Next, what if Kerry gets elected? Many people who have participated in this debate on this board claim that he would be a leader way weaker than GWB. Of course, Americans love the show. Bush takes action, he actually does things. While Kerry... if I've gotten the right impression of him, he's not being weak, but a "good diplomat", something I defined little ways up. He might advance way more carefully, probing the way ahead of him and making careful suggestions, just to see if the ground is safe. No wonder he might be seen as a weak leader.
(Then again, all things have two sides [you've heard a lot about <i>this</i> from me lately] and there can be good and surprising results by following the way Dubya does things too. While Iraq, despite the moral reasons being right but the concrete actions somewhat a screw-up, one of the positive outcomes was surprisingly enough Libya. They probably had a good look of the map in Tripoli and wondered where the imperialist madman might be headed next. Colonel Gaddafi knew they were being another sting the flesh of the US and drew some quick conclusions. A smart man.
Of course, North Korea can possibly also be on Bush's hit list, but there is a great and unpredictable northern neighbor the US adminstration's got to sum in their outcome of possible actions.)
Now, if I were American and got to pick my side on this election, where would I go? To be honest, I'll have to admit that Bush is not completely out of the league here. While the man still appears a little mind-dividing choice, he is by no means a loose cannon, but all of his actions are very predictable. Kerry, hmm. He would certainly bring the current policies of US little closer to those of Europe (though I can't be sure if majorly noticeably), there are still a lot of unanswered questions about the man.
I guess that if I was choosing a leader of the free world, I'd pick Kerry. If I was choosing an American president, I'd pick Bush.
I think I'll toss a coin.
I don't have to tell you that among the people in Europe, Bush is one very hated man. In simple words, he is seen as nothing but a pompous ass. And why is this? Isn't Bush a good leader for his people? Is he rude or untact? Does he not think the best of that people he's been elected to rule over?
The answer, to all points, is no. Bush fills all of the personalizations above, pretty well actually, but there is something in what Bush fails completely, and that is the foreign politics. This man is a horrible diplomat. But don't get me wrong - with this I don't mean that he wouldn't know all the possible aspects of proper behavior. Bush surely strictly behaves after the protocol, remembers all the compliments and knows his small talk, but when we get to those actions the US is going to take that directly convey to the same soup some other nations have their spoons in - the whole US adminstration appears to fail in predicting the response they're going to get from the other parties involved.
Of course, one man can not lead the country alone. Bush, as his every predecessor, has an army of specialists backing him up and telling him the proper things to do, coming all the way from reading speeches and telling what kind of tie to pick to invading other independent nations. But even these assistants seem to fail seeing how the world is going to react - or then they do but they don't care as long as the people of US are going to give it a positive go. There appears to be no other reason for this than some kind superpower hegemony... and trust me when I say, it pecks a great amount of people off, big time. The Europeans hate him and his adminstration for not taking them enough into consideration, they also hate Bush for walking over the UN - an association that is supposed to be the leading power in the world in their mind.
We can see these miscalculations all around us, Iraq is just merely a drop in the ocean (though it is a BIG drop). A while back, for example, Bush tried to lobby EU to start membership negotiations with Turkey, and he stepped on some big toes with that one, by trying to usher a process the US has <i>absolutely nothing</i> to do with. Of course, to a country like Turkey an EU membership would mean a great boost in economy, but Bush was not doing just a friend's favor. Turkey would be a great asset to the States by letting it use itself as a springboard and a base of operations to the Middle East.
Here we get to the another major issue that drives people mad about Bush - with every action he takes, he appears to have some kind of personal agenda involved, that can as well be his main reason for getting into that thing. The green activists hate Bush for disregarding the Kyoto protocol, because, as it appears, the man puts the monetary support coming from the big companies over the future of this planet.
(Then again, the Kyoto protocol would still be very ineffective even if it gets ratified, and many have predicted it to be nothing but a soft takeoff towards even greater scheme waiting somewhere in the future. P'haps this is what the great minds in the White House have actually seen and no one's going to know if the adminstration's going to jump the gun when the big green contract becomes topical, expressing a major, steep climb on the scale that is clearly visible. A miracle made in one night - that surely sounds like a piece of Bush's mind to me.)
It is highly anticipated for a man sitting in a chair like the one in the Oval Office to take things like those mentioned above into consideration, but to be completely wretched, it still says so nowhere. Bush does not have to give a rat's ass if he does not wish to, so the man is not doing anything wrong (except morally maybe, but I'm an analyst, not a philosopher, so I'm not going that way). All he has to care about is the United States of America, and with that, he's doing a decent job.
Or is he? Let's have a look in that what is currently going on inside the US, especially in the economics. There is one thing Bush seemingly wrecked (again, according to minds greater than mine), and that is the economic rise Clinton put in motion and built for eight years. Bush practically flushed his work down the toilet, they say. Even the Americans can't be ignorant towards the fairly poor state of their economy, even though you may have read the reports about how the stock market an' all seems to be in careful rise again... but that is for the short-sighted. And of course the US sources would never say "we're screwed" or even hint anything like that, while the European sources can be very harsh about this and very clearly state out that Dubya's still not doing any better with this, his actions are going to give nothing but a temporary boost (and prolly barely enough to carry him over the election). I dunno if Kerry would do any better though... if he gets elected and chooses the way of Clinton, he most likely still gets dissed, since by walking that path, you're not going to see any visible chances in the landscape after a short stride. And still, the actions can be ineffective.
Of course, should the rest of the (western) world be worried about this? This is one of those cases with what I'm going to say no. Trust me, to the other economical powers on this Earth (mainly EU and Japan), there is no better news than the weak Dollar.
Embark's message a few posts up inclines greatly the fact that in the US, what you intend to do is nothing compared to that how you act on stage. I in fact once read an article that ironically claimed that men like Jay Leno and David Letterman make presidents - and it wasn't even meant to be a complete joke. There is a good reason to that why Bush, at least at the moment, may arise more confidence than Kerry. First, the man's got way more time in spotlight, the last four years have turned him to a very skillful showman. And another point for Bush is that Kerry, he can't have a clear agenda. He must, all the time, follow how the people's reacting on him and his sayings, while Bush can go on from standing before one crowd to another, without having to make major cosmetic changes to what he's going to say - and of course, this brings you way more confident in the eyes of the regular folk.
Next, what if Kerry gets elected? Many people who have participated in this debate on this board claim that he would be a leader way weaker than GWB. Of course, Americans love the show. Bush takes action, he actually does things. While Kerry... if I've gotten the right impression of him, he's not being weak, but a "good diplomat", something I defined little ways up. He might advance way more carefully, probing the way ahead of him and making careful suggestions, just to see if the ground is safe. No wonder he might be seen as a weak leader.
(Then again, all things have two sides [you've heard a lot about <i>this</i> from me lately] and there can be good and surprising results by following the way Dubya does things too. While Iraq, despite the moral reasons being right but the concrete actions somewhat a screw-up, one of the positive outcomes was surprisingly enough Libya. They probably had a good look of the map in Tripoli and wondered where the imperialist madman might be headed next. Colonel Gaddafi knew they were being another sting the flesh of the US and drew some quick conclusions. A smart man.
Of course, North Korea can possibly also be on Bush's hit list, but there is a great and unpredictable northern neighbor the US adminstration's got to sum in their outcome of possible actions.)
Now, if I were American and got to pick my side on this election, where would I go? To be honest, I'll have to admit that Bush is not completely out of the league here. While the man still appears a little mind-dividing choice, he is by no means a loose cannon, but all of his actions are very predictable. Kerry, hmm. He would certainly bring the current policies of US little closer to those of Europe (though I can't be sure if majorly noticeably), there are still a lot of unanswered questions about the man.
I guess that if I was choosing a leader of the free world, I'd pick Kerry. If I was choosing an American president, I'd pick Bush.
I think I'll toss a coin.
gladhatter
Guest
Well the one over looked fact here, I think is the Clinton issue. Clinton, that is Ms clinton has no earthly desire nor do any clintonites to see Kerry get elected. They in fact oppose it in their heart of hearts. They want Bush in there for 4 more years So Ms C can any up the tnext round and she will win it if Bush keeps the terrorist on the run and the short term economics look as freary as they do now.
Does Bush really have any thing to do with our economic situation or is is credit that has sunk America. I am sure its credit. You live on credit and you die on credit.
Furthermore how bad a condition are we really in? I mean really come on and take a look around . I live in the mosst economically depressed region of VA and one of the most in the USA and I see every family driving a2 new cars and all thier kids deriving a new car to school and when I went to school I rode a bus as did all others but select few. Everone has 3 bathrooms and 5 computers and all the kids are wearing reboks or Nike or what ever high dollar tennis shoe is the current fad. grocery prices are sky high and people pay it and never even flinch about it. Movie stars and ball players are making millions and billions and the entire nation is sloppy fat.
Now just how bad is it ????
When I grew up we eat pinto beans and fried popatoes we grew in the garden 6 days a week and had chicken we killed and plucked for Sunday dinner. We never owned a car and did not have a television till I was almost grown. We got a new pair of shoes and 2 pair of pants for school and it was a struggle to get them . I dreamed of such things as computers and was thought to be crazy for my far fetched thinking. I went to school in a big old open building that share several grades in one room and was heated with a wood stove. I could go on and on about how bad things were or how good they are.
Fact is we live in a nation of fat, rich undeserving and un appreciative people.
Bush is not better than another but he is what we have and he is " good enough".
Does Bush really have any thing to do with our economic situation or is is credit that has sunk America. I am sure its credit. You live on credit and you die on credit.
Furthermore how bad a condition are we really in? I mean really come on and take a look around . I live in the mosst economically depressed region of VA and one of the most in the USA and I see every family driving a2 new cars and all thier kids deriving a new car to school and when I went to school I rode a bus as did all others but select few. Everone has 3 bathrooms and 5 computers and all the kids are wearing reboks or Nike or what ever high dollar tennis shoe is the current fad. grocery prices are sky high and people pay it and never even flinch about it. Movie stars and ball players are making millions and billions and the entire nation is sloppy fat.
Now just how bad is it ????
When I grew up we eat pinto beans and fried popatoes we grew in the garden 6 days a week and had chicken we killed and plucked for Sunday dinner. We never owned a car and did not have a television till I was almost grown. We got a new pair of shoes and 2 pair of pants for school and it was a struggle to get them . I dreamed of such things as computers and was thought to be crazy for my far fetched thinking. I went to school in a big old open building that share several grades in one room and was heated with a wood stove. I could go on and on about how bad things were or how good they are.
Fact is we live in a nation of fat, rich undeserving and un appreciative people.
Bush is not better than another but he is what we have and he is " good enough".
Rick5150
New member
Plus he says some really stupid things during his speeches that really entertain the media.
That has to be good for something. It may not be seeing giant rabbits, falling down all the time, vomiting on the Japanese Prime Minister or falling asleep at press conferences like his predecessors did, but it is something.
monkey
Guest
Just a couple of observations here after reading through the most recent posts on this thread.
Skywlkrinc, you do have a good point about this thread veering off into religion, but in this case I think it is justified. It seems that unfortunately many people in America are basing their choice for president on their religious beliefs. I don't think that is a good thing.
At the risk of offending the Christians on this forum, (and most of my best friends are very devout Christians) I have to say that America is a secular nation. Despite what many people think it is a nation that is based not on so called 'Christian values', but rather on the Rule of Law; not religious law, secular law.
Religion should play absolutely no part in Government. And in fact the founding fathers of America were very specific with regards to the separation of Church and State.
A President of the United States is elected to lead a secular nation. If he allows his religious beliefs to influence his decisions then he is betraying his office. There is a term for that, it is called "Theocracy". In Iran they call him the "Ayatollah". I don't want a Christian Ayatollah ruling my country.
Luckylighter you make a most excellent point in your post. Why Indeed should someone who has no objections to stem cell research, and who could be helped by such research, be denied it because of the religious beliefs of others? In a secular nation they should not be denied the benefits of medical research.
Skywlkrinc, you do have a good point about this thread veering off into religion, but in this case I think it is justified. It seems that unfortunately many people in America are basing their choice for president on their religious beliefs. I don't think that is a good thing.
At the risk of offending the Christians on this forum, (and most of my best friends are very devout Christians) I have to say that America is a secular nation. Despite what many people think it is a nation that is based not on so called 'Christian values', but rather on the Rule of Law; not religious law, secular law.
Religion should play absolutely no part in Government. And in fact the founding fathers of America were very specific with regards to the separation of Church and State.
A President of the United States is elected to lead a secular nation. If he allows his religious beliefs to influence his decisions then he is betraying his office. There is a term for that, it is called "Theocracy". In Iran they call him the "Ayatollah". I don't want a Christian Ayatollah ruling my country.
Luckylighter you make a most excellent point in your post. Why Indeed should someone who has no objections to stem cell research, and who could be helped by such research, be denied it because of the religious beliefs of others? In a secular nation they should not be denied the benefits of medical research.
Deadlock
New member
I don't mean to lecture, but here is a little background info on the origins of "separation of church and state" (from a rational non-religious source).
Anyway, this was part of a longer paper, available at the link above. The paper goes on to detail of the problems when religion and government are mixed, and looks at Saudi Arabia. I'm still formulating my own thoughts for a post on the matter, but I thought I'd post some info (because I know everyone wants the facts).
Anyway, this was part of a longer paper, available at the link above. The paper goes on to detail of the problems when religion and government are mixed, and looks at Saudi Arabia. I'm still formulating my own thoughts for a post on the matter, but I thought I'd post some info (because I know everyone wants the facts).
Last edited:
Deadlock
New member
Monkey, we have GOT to stop meeting like this. Anyway, here goes...
Yes, but the founding fathers didn't fall from the sky. They were Englishmen and they brought the English system of common law with them, which was, in turn, HEAVILY influenced by Christianity. To deny the Judeo-Christian roots of our secular system is inaccurate at best and quite destructive at worst.
Sorry, can't agree. Number one, there's no precedent for the degree of separation that you're talking about... Don't believe me? Our money still says "In God We Trust" last I checked.
Number two, I hope some larger moral code comes into play when our leaders make decisions. People are constantly bashing on politician's for being inconsistent in their voting... Um, yeah, that's the behavior of someone without a clear set of ideals. Always doing what's popular can be dangerous and even wrong. Let me remind you that slavery was popular once.
Number three, there's nothing in the "job description" for being president that says "Thou shalt be devoid of any influence of religion and shall ignore all tenets espoused by any religion anywhere when making decisions." So I don't think letting religious ideals influence decisions is "betraying his office" by any means.
Anyway, here goes...monkey said:
Yes, but the founding fathers didn't fall from the sky. They were Englishmen and they brought the English system of common law with them, which was, in turn, HEAVILY influenced by Christianity. To deny the Judeo-Christian roots of our secular system is inaccurate at best and quite destructive at worst.
monkey said:
Sorry, can't agree. Number one, there's no precedent for the degree of separation that you're talking about... Don't believe me? Our money still says "In God We Trust" last I checked.
Number two, I hope some larger moral code comes into play when our leaders make decisions. People are constantly bashing on politician's for being inconsistent in their voting... Um, yeah, that's the behavior of someone without a clear set of ideals. Always doing what's popular can be dangerous and even wrong. Let me remind you that slavery was popular once.
Number three, there's nothing in the "job description" for being president that says "Thou shalt be devoid of any influence of religion and shall ignore all tenets espoused by any religion anywhere when making decisions." So I don't think letting religious ideals influence decisions is "betraying his office" by any means.
...<i>and</i>, it also says, in Latin, <i>Novus Ordo Seclorum</i>, "New Secular Order".Deadlock said:
<i>Secular</i>, adjective:
1. Lasting from century to century.
2. Worldly rather than spiritual.
3. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
4. Relating to or advocating secularism.
5. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
6. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
Of course, it's easy to say the definition of the word is in the first description... but when you look from 2 to 5, it kinda still makes you think, doesn't it?
Last edited:
Rick5150
New member
I know this is the third post in a row...
But here's my idea for the ideal candidate:
Being a huge Stooges fan I have to agree. We have certainly had stooges in that position before. May not be a great country, but it sure would be a fun one. I would expect that deficit problems would increase as well.
But here's my idea for the ideal candidate:
Being a huge Stooges fan I have to agree. We have certainly had stooges in that position before. May not be a great country, but it sure would be a fun one. I would expect that deficit problems would increase as well.
gladhatter
Guest
Well they teach you in school that there was supposed to be a clear seperation of church and state. Of course the taught in grade school how great the ex presidents like Jeffersson were too. Then in college they revealed what a scoundral he was. Then in life beyond school you learn that all men are just men and they all pretty much are scoundrels one way or the other. regardless of being a scoundrel men surly are opinated and them opinions certainly do not drop from thin air but are based on thier enviromental upbringing. Ain't no body going to be come a Christian or any other religion with out being trained up into it. You may decide to depart from your religious training when you get to some age status or even office of President but fact is you cannot escape it. I cannot imagine teh religious beliefs and certainly not the practices of the prevailing religions from countries from afar. Why because of living here in USA where you are influnced by religion if you are a part of it or not. We can not seperate religion from any office or any part of life regardless of how much we say we can or should. If you study the Bible in a historical prespective you will soon realize that it is nothing but a political text in of its self . If you study it as a religious text then you can come up with all manners of thinking. If you try to use it in the office of President you will get called to the task for your misdoings but if you say that it does not influence that same office then you are just being naieve.
monkey
Guest
Deadlock, you're right that our money says "in God we trust" on it.
And when the Muslim extremist murders chop off peoples heads, they shout "God is great!"
Anyway..........
You can have your "God", but keep him/her/it out of my bedroom, out of my house, out of my life, and out of the laws that govern me. Keep your "God" out of the scientific laboratories that conduct research, out of the schools that teach my children, out of womens' reproductive rights.
Sure, Western Civilization has its origins in the Judaeo Christian Tradition, as it is called. But the Greeks and Romans, Vikings and Celts sure had a lot to do with it too.
In "God" we trust????? Which one??? Jupiter? Odin? Frey? Zeuss? Aphrodite? ........
(By the way Deadlock, I like and respect you, please don't take offense. You know that I like spirited debate.)
And when the Muslim extremist murders chop off peoples heads, they shout "God is great!"
Anyway..........
You can have your "God", but keep him/her/it out of my bedroom, out of my house, out of my life, and out of the laws that govern me. Keep your "God" out of the scientific laboratories that conduct research, out of the schools that teach my children, out of womens' reproductive rights.
Sure, Western Civilization has its origins in the Judaeo Christian Tradition, as it is called. But the Greeks and Romans, Vikings and Celts sure had a lot to do with it too.
In "God" we trust????? Which one??? Jupiter? Odin? Frey? Zeuss? Aphrodite? ........
(By the way Deadlock, I like and respect you, please don't take offense. You know that I like spirited debate.)
monkey
Guest
I would vote for Curly, if he were still alive. He certainly couldn't botch things worse than the candidates we have to choose from.
By the way, make Larry the Secretary of State, and Moe the Secretary of Defense...........Oh yeah and Shemp.........how about National Security Advisor.
By the way, make Larry the Secretary of State, and Moe the Secretary of Defense...........Oh yeah and Shemp.........how about National Security Advisor.