Bush admits revelations from God!! !!

Post Reply New Topic

In all seriousness for BlackLiger

This what I Think

The President himself has done what he has done not always right but not always wrong either.
What would You do if You where the President how would You or Any of You do better.
He may have bad intelligence before he went into Iraq. He should have stayed on the war against terrorism.

Just remember that You or any of You are not the President, Prime Minster, etc.etc.

Yes. They are very interesting.

Some of the hypotheses as to how a large number of people who are individually reasonable can bind as a group though a fundamentalist idealology. Simple, clear 'truths' provide a simple way for an individual to emotionally bond to the group as a whole. As more people become associated, the common values have to become fewer and stronger to cope with the number of people, leading to a fundamentalist structure for the group as a whole.

There are some very scary quotes from and about Bush in the articles

It is interesting to look at WP in this context (which is wonderfully diverse and tolerant at the moment), and ask how it might evolve if the number of users grows substantially. You see some of the pressures already, such as periodic suggestions to ban the NT infidels!

I find the whole group dynamic thing to be wierd, on a personal level, but can see how it might work. I'm more concerned about the amounts of money being poured in lobbying anti-science causes. Most christians I've known don't really have a problem with science, but those who do find it an affront, devoid of morality and meddling in the works of the force they see as the creator. Scary people.

The most feverent fundamentalists seem to be people who are afraid of change and difference and who can be almost obsessive in trying to impose their world view.

This should sound familiar. I'm not surprised that there are many fundamentalist traits in what is posted on WP, whether evangelical religious, anti-religious, hard right wing or hard left wing.

George W. Bush is a cheeseburger.

<<<<insert picture of Bush with a cheeseburger for a head with a flipped Amercian flag behind him with a normal picture of him on it with the word "TUMULTULIZE" (which is really just a word I made up to make fun of Bush) and a twisted smile planted on the cheweseburger's face (you would have to see my Bush drawings to get a good idea of how this would look like)>>>>

My aunt's husband's sister has some friends in the White House who say that Bush has taken to the booze again. Maybe that explains it?

Yes, but the President is supposed to answer to and serve the people. Therefore, the people have a right, even an obligation, to criticise him when they see fit. Not doing so is un-American.

Bec

But if You where President what would You do. Yes You are right that we all have the right to criticise him or any President or Prime Minister as we see fit to do so.

But he is making these decisions and hoping for the best of us all.

I think we all should give him or anyone that is the President or Prime Minister a LITTLE BREAK.

Actually, he is sworn to uphold the constitution, which means that he is supposed to serve the republic, not eactly the same thing as serving the people. That is why a president cannot administer by popularity contests but by what he perceives as right.

Lincoln would have left slavery alone and Roosevelt would have left Hitler alone if they were functioning at the will of the American people.

The right is criticize the president, however, is absolute. I don't agree that not criticizing him is un-American. To say what a person must or must not do to be American sounds pretty un-American to me.

Litguy

I will say he has up hold-ed the constitution and has served the republic as the President. I think the President is not trying to administer a popularity contest, his views are unpopular as is and he is perceiving himself as being right in his views.

As I have said before WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE HIM.

I think though we should give him a little break ab it.

OK

Technically you are correct, but why do people elect presidents and other officials? They do it to represent them.

Actually, no. They attempt to choose a leader, not a follower. Please understand that I am not saying that Bush is a great leader, nor am I saying that the war in Iraq is the right thing to do. Frankly, I'm not certain either way, but I am fairly certain that it is not going well.

I'm just saying that I wouldn't want a president that concerned himself with popularity polls rather than what he believed to be right. If that President has a religious conviction, it does not surprise me if it influences what he believes to be right.

If I don't agree that he is right, I have every right to openly criticize, protest, and work toward someone else being elected next time.

I voted no, and he is not good for the world.

Bush's ideology is subtley different from that of, say, the pope. To Bush, God is a coach who gives him direct orders. The pope prays to God, not expecting direct answers, but hoping that by doing so he will able to gain the strength to make the right decision.

The statement for Bush to make is a tenuous one. If he changes his mind, God won't change His. If we lived in ancient times, Bush would have been one of those rulers who would declare himself a god and order his people to worship him.

Good point.

hmm. An interesting concept of democracy we have here, Comrades!! ! A President who is election NOT to serve the people? Is that democracy?

Someone pointed out that Bush is trying to do what is best for his citizens. That is TOSH!! !! !

Bush is only serving the interests of the corporate elite, including his Saudi friends, and Halliburton buddies. He is giving them tax cut after tax cut, whilst the American State is going down the pan!! !!

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. I KILL PEOPLE......... WITH GUNS!

Sorry, but thats what this reminds me of.