View Full Version : Bush, "I Have no compassion."
02-28-2006, 07:26 PM
Omigosh...I just watched W's interview with Elizabeth Vargas on abc news. Of course it was edited & sanitized by the White House but there was one exchange that they must have missed, it blew me away!
Vargas was asking him about the drunk twins and if there may be a White House wedding. He said any suitor would have to come to the Oval Office & talk to him first. Vargas asked him if he realized how intimidating that could be and then said, "Don't you have compassion for the boy?"
"No. I have no compassion," he replied.
And that my friends has been what these last 6 years have been all about. He literally sucked the soul of the nation out, such that we are now hated almost everywhere on the planet. He looted the treasury such that we are 8 trillion dollars in debt. The effects of global warming are out of control
such that catch-up may be impossible.
And where did he spit the aftertaste? On us, on gay people. He used gay marriage and fearmongering to do his deed. (No, not on Muslims-- he is still in bed with the Saudis and the UAE, & he has no clue nor care where Osama is hiding.)
Gay people ended up being the wrench that connected the dots for him. When 'Amurrica' comes back to its senses (as it seems to be, slowly) I hope the price of homophobia becomes clearer to us all.
02-28-2006, 07:42 PM
I looked up that interview online, there is a transcript. It's a bit scary.
VARGAS: Do you have compassion for the people that they do date, and probably …
VARGAS: No, OK — well that settled it. (Laughter)
BUSH: No, I don't have compassion.
He cut her off and answered bluntly from the looks of things. That's very indicative of his character, in my opinion.
02-28-2006, 09:48 PM
Thanks, Keltic...the actual exchange is even scarier in print. I think he thought he was being "cute" in reality, but, as Shakespeare said, "How oft the truth is spoke in jest."
I say Bush has no soul because he has tried to serve 2 gods : Christ and Mammon. yikes, revtj
03-01-2006, 08:20 AM
wow I don't know what to say :'(
03-01-2006, 08:42 AM
Yikes. Indeed, he (Bush) has no compassion.
03-01-2006, 09:05 AM
I think I always sensed that he didn't have much warmth or compassion for any person, but this just clinches it in my mind. No matter what bad choices that President Clinton made personally, and even dodging issues at some point politically, I always felt he had a character that really, genuinely cared about other people and their circumstances. I have never sensed that from President Bush, and that is part of why his response to the human factor of the levee breaches in New Orleans felt so emotionally hollow. It is unfortunate that we as his citizens pay the price for his insensitivity, but we have to strengthen our resolve. Easier said than done?????? :confused:
03-01-2006, 01:20 PM
Yeah, you know the Kennedys for all their sadness and sins are very well known for giving plenty of time and money to charity. So are the Clintons and they're not nearly as rich as the Kennedys. But Cheney with 236 million (when he went in to office in '00) has hardly given pennies. Same with the Bush criminals.
These people have convinced me that greed is a demon that takes over your soul. I mean, if he has 236 million, why steal (through no-bid contracts and missing money in Iraq)? Why on earth would you be tempted to steal if you had 236 million?
As foreign as it is to my liberal lips, I can only find one answer : it's SATAN.
Well, gotta go get a beehive hairdo and pick up the snakes for the prayer meetin' tonite. :lol:
03-03-2006, 08:11 AM
As much as I enjoyed the 'antichrist' reference to Bush I can understand it being the wrong tone for this forum. I wanted to leave this explanation instead of deleting it entirely to avoid any confusion because there's referrences to it.
03-03-2006, 09:30 AM
Economic Indicators report that a depression might be on the way. Not hard to understand when the nation is 8 trillion in debt, sunk into war without end, and most American households are up to their eyeballs in debt.
All of this could increase hatred, blame and projection. I am concerned that hate crimes against gays will increase (even more).
Do we need to start a Gay Underground Railroad? Start finding ways out of the country for our people?
Please tell me I'm over-reacting. :pray:
03-03-2006, 10:17 AM
I must say I have been eyeing Canada for quite some time.
03-03-2006, 05:28 PM
You are not the only one to have that thought, TJ. You're not alone at all.
At this point in time, TJ, yes, to think that way is overreacting. But if things get worse, at some future time it's possible that it might be an appropriate reaction to have. Things are falling into place to make life significantly worse for queerfolk, and some of the gains we've made *could* be rolled back. It *could* happen. Not it *will* happen.
All my intuition says that things can go in any direction from here. I have no sense that there is a need for us to flee. To the contrary, I feel that now is the time for us to stand our ground.
But please don't feel alone when you have those scary thoughts. I'll confess to you that I'm very afraid of something terrible happening to gays in America, and by terrible I mean worse than the things we've seen so far. But I believe that fear is irrational at the present moment.
It is a conversation I've had with my friends many times. At some time in the past year and half, ALL of us have had the very same question you just posted, TJ. The parallels between the US now and Germany in the 1930s are striking, and it is NOT an exaggeration to make some analogy between them. But at this point, talk of running away is overreactive, yes.
We need to wait and see what happens in November. Consider: with Iraq a monumental disaster, with Katrina a hideous disaster, with illegal spying scandals, with the Abramoff scandal, what have right wing republicans to stand on? Anti-gay bias, basically, along with anti-immigration bias out here in the southwest. But nationwide, it's going to be anti-gay. With 7 outta 10 folk opposed to gay marriage, whaddaya think is going to shore up the vote for the right this election season?
Expect things to be very ugly for the next 7 months. Then we should expect a change of some kind, who knows what, after the elections. It's a year from now that we will probably see better the direction the country is going in, as far as our community is concerned.
03-11-2006, 05:41 PM
Remember, Compassionate Conservatism is an oxy moron, Geo.
W. Bush, merely a moron.
(edit) Dfn: Compassionate Conservative. A Compassionate Conservative is someone who gives you a shot of Novocaine, just before he slides the knife in
O.K., I apologize. The above remark is un-Christian, and Geo. W. Bush is a child of God, as are we all.
However, I will point out that I believe the source of most of this country's problems, and many of the world's problems are the people that own the Republican party, as well as much of the rest of our country, and it's government.
03-12-2006, 03:30 PM
A younger, less media savvy Bush expressing himself. 18 ...and no, he didn't just miss his nose.
03-12-2006, 03:35 PM
I know this will sound like I am a party pooper, but your post is an attack directly on the president. I offer you Principle Number #3......
"A third characteristic of this method [non-violence] is that the attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who happen to be doing the evil … We are out to defeat injustice and not persons who may be unjust."
03-12-2006, 03:48 PM
A younger, less media savvy Bush expressing himself. 18 ...and no, he didn't just miss his nose.
Now there's the Bush we all love:lol: :lol: :lol:.....not
03-12-2006, 03:52 PM
"A third characteristic of this method [non-violence] is that the attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who happen to be doing the evil … We are out to defeat injustice and not persons who may be unjust."
Sorry Joe, that's a hard one for me to remember.... it's an automatic reaction....
03-12-2006, 04:05 PM
Were the picture photoshopped to exaggerate a point and fall into satire, I would agree and wouldn't bother with it. I feel for the man and pray he defeat those forces influencing him. I do not feel so for the "President", the office and symbol killing in my name. The principles are the target, and where they reside, crosshairs. Which this is a picture of, you decide.
03-12-2006, 04:35 PM
it is not the picture, my friend. It is that you posted it. It may be the truth. It may not be altered, but your point in posting it was to attack the president. That is the violence to which I object.
By posting it, you want others to have a laugh at Bush, at his expense. How is that different from the president saying bad things of gays to gain something wrong? Whenever we do things to demean someone else, even in good fun, it is violence. I am not pointing this out to take some moral high ground, but I did see it as a chance to let us all learn, including me, what violence is, and when to reject it. I apoligize in advance if my pointing this out made you feel bad, but it doesn't change what I believe that sometimes our greatest intentions of good are unknowingly wrong.
03-12-2006, 06:02 PM
Please do clarify your definition of Attack. The meaner captions that could have been included, I left out specifically in order to Not attack the man.
My intent goes much deeper than merely an uncomfortable laugh or good fun... It is different because he embodies an influence and power and capacity to alter my life. And he is WRONG. The photo shows him demeaning himself and the thousand words its worth aren't mine. I find it rather humanizing.
Don't worry, you didn't make me feel bad. "...our greatest intentions of good [being] unknowingly wrong." is a Truth we all need to discern. It also is why we are in this impossible, humiliating war.
Part of my intention is to point out where the principles we battle may reside, lest they remain permanently aloft, refusing to land for fear of causing the slightest offense. I don't consider it "violence". If the shoe fits...
03-12-2006, 07:08 PM
I think you answered your own questions if you re-read your own post. Myabe you and I differ on the principles of non-violence and what they mean. I am not sure.
Bush being wrong is not a reason to put up his picture in this light. That is the truth I see. Your truth may be different, if we look at this what would be the new truth if we combined our truths?
03-12-2006, 08:34 PM
I did re-read them, and find not one question was asked to answer for my self. (a flaw of self assuredness I continue to work on) Thanks for accidently pointing that out.
I shall familiarize myself the principles of nonviolence as put forward by this site and am open to change. If your interested, please see the 'what is violence' thread and the dialog between revtj and myself. Its applicable to my perspective here.
Being wrong doesn't qualify for being held up to public criticism. Being powerful, being dangerous and having access to the Button does.
' W. Bush, merely a moron'....BruceChris
'The parallels between the US now and Germany in the 1930s are striking, and it is NOT an exaggeration to make some analogy between them'....Zerbie
'If it walks like an antichrist and talks like an antichrist'.... Emproph
' Indeed, he (Bush) has no compassion. Same with the Bush criminals....As foreign as it is to my liberal lips, I can only find one answer : it's SATAN.... Bush has no soul' ...revtj
' It is unfortunate that we as his citizens pay the price for his insensitivity...Scary is right!'...Vanessa White
' Yikes. Indeed, he (Bush) has no compassion'....SoulInvictus
"No. I have no compassion,"....George Bush
Why did it take a picture, with no speculation, no insult or inference, to get you to respond? How is it more an Attack than the above?
"Bush being wrong is not a reason to put up his picture in this light."
That is EXACTLY why I put it in THIS glaring, burning, widely held light. It is the light of Truth that destroys the picture we prefer.
Again, it is worth a thousand words, or more... Considerring the damage that has been done in six years, the restraint demonstrated is actually admirable and a testiment that the principles of this site are working in a realistic way.
03-12-2006, 08:36 PM
:mad: Could this be turning into a discussion about exactly what violence is?
I have to agree with Joe it violates the principle. But I thoroughly enjoyed it and it is true that the picture isn't doctored, it's real. So, in a way we are exposing him for what he really is, a person who leads violence against the poor, the aging, the middle class, and oh yeah, LGBT people.
In the interest of keeping the question open, may I ask, if this very recent quote by Bush is considered violence,
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a g*dda*mned piece of paper!"
03-12-2006, 09:28 PM
What is my observation about the social climate we're living in doing in an argument about personal "attacks" on George W? Way out of context.
To clarify what I was thinking when I wrote that sentence, I was thinking of organizations like the AFA and the TVC which, insofar as gays are concerned, are hate groups. Just compare the way the TVC website dehumanizes gays to the ways Nazis of a few generations ago dehumanized Jews. THAT is what my statement is about.
Awediot, would you mind editing it out of your post?
03-12-2006, 10:11 PM
I appologize and don't mean to single anyone out or cause undue discomfort. I think we all can appreciate the context and sympathize with quick comments that appear a little different in hindsite. Your description of your thought process is reasonable (though maybe not needed as I suspect alot of people think you're right). This will likely serve only to make me look like a jerk, but I wouldn't remove the photo if Bush asked me either... You'll come off looking much sweeter than I.
03-12-2006, 10:11 PM
Please take no offense. I am just trying to narrow down precisely what this group and site stand for. You believe the photo, ..."violates the principle," as well as serves in, ..."exposing him for what he really is, a person who leads violence against the poor, the aging, the middle class, and oh yeah, LGBT people." It just did so in an unacceptable way...So, was it wrong to have been posted? (even though you thoroughly enjoyed it).
...and you believe:
"violence is extreme un-neighborliness."
"Violence occurs when one person harms...(anothers) feelings."
...and these quotes:
' W. Bush, merely a moron'....BruceChris (personal ATTACK)
'The parallels between the US now and Germany in the 1930s are striking, and it is NOT an exaggeration to make some analogy between them'....Zerbie (IMPLICATION Bush is Hitler)
'If it walks like an antichrist and talks like an antichrist'.... Emproph (IMPLICATION Bush is Satan)
' Indeed, he (Bush) has no compassion. Same with the Bush criminals....As foreign as it is to my liberal lips, I can only find one answer : it's SATAN.... Bush has no soul' ...revtj. (Personal ATTACK, IMPLICATION Bush is criminal ring leader, influenced by Satan and unredeemable)
' It is unfortunate that we as his citizens pay the price for his insensitivity...Scary is right!'...Vanessa White (Personal ATTACK)
' Yikes. Indeed, he (Bush) has no compassion'....SoulInvictus (merely highlighting an admittance/confession...1 out of five)
...are less hurtful than that picture? and seen as less of an attack?
Please clear this up for me as I would really like to support a site that shares my same goals and my hopes are fading.
03-12-2006, 10:29 PM
Clarifying for anyone else reading this that my statement which awediot consistently quotes out of context is intended as a description of a social climate that condones extremist hate groups, as I've said before. Whether or not my explanation is "reasonable," it IS what I was thinking.
That sentence was NOT written to imply that Bush is Hitler, Bush was not discussed at all in the original post, and such an implication is awediot's personal thought, which he has incorrectly attributed to someone else.
03-12-2006, 10:30 PM
Personally, I did not nor do I think anyone else advocated "violence" against Bush or any other person. Once taken into context, Bush's seemingly lack of compassion can be found in the non-action during Hurricane Katrina & the known levy problem in New Orleans before it hit (there is evidence in the media supporting it), the unnecessary war in Iraq, the recent Dubai scandal, and the recent violation of civil liberties in the name of protection.
I am merely stating that he seems to have little compassion for those outside his social class and ethnicity. Given his low approval rating (37 or 39 percent recently), members of this forum are not the only persons sharing such an opinion. However, promoting violence against anyone is wrong, and I have not seen what you have suggested here.
03-12-2006, 11:05 PM
i don't think anyone is advocating violence (what ever that is) and least of all you. You were the 1 out of 6 that made the point clear by merely quoteing his own quote,(condemning enough on its own) and didn't add anything that may be construed as an insult/hurting his feelings/violence. I thought a picture did the same... If the thread is read in full, one can see in defending my pov, I merely scrolled up and picked the WORST examples I could find of what to me seemed more along the lines of the sort of attack Joe Brummer saw in it. I appologize if thier reference was missed or they were out of context. It didn't seem so at the time.
03-12-2006, 11:15 PM
Forgive me, it is late and I haven't read all the posts since my last, but I did read awediot's post after mine. I will address it in this way.
I see where you are coming from and I sense, forgive me if I am wrong, but a sense of guilt.
Non-violence is not an easy path. The first principles tells us that it is a way of life for couregous people, not cowards. What I will add to that is that it is a jounrney. I don't know if I will ever be complete non-violelence. I don't know if I will ever understand what that means, but I will try. I hope that you will as well.
What I also know is that we as gays and lesbians will never get ehat is is we want until we are as non-violent to our adversaries. Including bush. Regardless of what he has done, reagardless of what he will do. Repsonding with any sort of violence will not get is what we seek. I will only spread more of the same. We must ignore and take it as redemptive suffering much like our brothers and sisters being arrested on the Ride.
There could be a million conversations about what is violence, but deep in your heart, you already know the answer to what violence is and I hope and pray we reject it. Posting the picture of bush in his weaker moments in his past was not a nice thing to do. It is done. Let it be said that regardless of what others think, and forgive me again if you all find me wrong, I felt that as an attack on him. I found it to be violence as i see it in the light of the princicples of non-violence. Even if you disagree that that was violence. I hope you will agree there is a better way than making jokes of him or having a laaugh at his exspense.
That is all I can say tonight.
03-13-2006, 10:54 AM
I don't think it's a question of whether we feel violence (in anger, in thoughts) I think it's a question of what we do with that, a question of how we act on it.
I don't think it is doing violence to display the words or photographs of another person who is doing violence.
It would be violence if we acted in the same manner (i.e. flipping off the president, screaming that the constitution is a **@#!** piece of paper and then continuing to violate peoples' established rights.)
God told Cain after he slew his brother that evil crouches at the door and waits for you. We make choices in how we respond. To expose violence is not the same thing as to do violence.
So, insofar as the posts on this thread go, I am confused as to why anyone is upset with anyone else. :confused:
03-13-2006, 11:51 AM
As a moderator of the forums, I feel several of the posts in this thread, while not necessarily violating community guidelines, are not helpful to either Soulforce or the progressive movement. In the future, when either critizing or condemning the actions of the President, or anyone else who holds a position of leadership, I ask that you do so in a manner that will reach the most people -- that group of thinking Americans that we're praying is still the majority. Provide clear explanations and keep it at a certain level of disciplined intellectual criticism.
Remember, Soulforce.org is visited by over 1000 unique people a day and we're growing. Although the views expressed in the forums are those of the individual authors and not necessarily those of Soulforce, remember that through these forums your postings can have a much larger audience than just those participating in the discussion.
03-13-2006, 01:30 PM
I am not sure yet if I need to examine my statement made early on in this thread or not, but I am using this post as a way to express what my intent was with my post. My intent was to express that, based on the quote from the interview, that it was a sad thing that the President could be insensitive to the needs of his citizens, including myself. I would not qualify that as an attack. If the reference is to my addition of "that is scary" or something like that, again, was not an attack, it is my true feeling. It is scary to me that President Bush could be our leader, although not chosen by me, when he so publicly seems to disregard the needs of many of his citizens. I do not make fun of him, disrespect him, and my comments were not meant as disrespect for him, but rather, respect for those of us that feel he has no feeling of admiration for us. As I said in a post earlier than that, even when President Clinton was embroiled in personal scandal, I always felt a genuineness and sensitivity that he possessed for his citizens. I think that is an important quality in a person representing our nation. I do apologize if I violated forum guidelines or seemed attacking in my manner. And, aweidiot, it is helping me to be more fully aware of what I post and to be sensitive to others and their point of view. Lesson learned I hope. Thank you also Jamie for your review of posting guidelines. Peace, Vanessa
03-13-2006, 01:37 PM
I just feel like I need to post again. I have a knot in my stomach over this. I really meant nothing offensive, harmful or attacking in my statements. I just went back and reread the thread again. Anyone else feeling somewhat the same? I really look to these forums for support and solidarity, and I feel like I crossed a line I was not sure existed. HELP!
03-13-2006, 02:40 PM
I got knots in my belly too over this. My first thought waking up today was "Why did anyone think I was "attacking" the President?" I did not read "attacks" into your statements either, and you, unlike me, actually did talk about your feelings regarding our prez. You didn't come onto the forum and write a bunch of cuss words or call names! Just like I didn't write "Bush = Hitler." (someone else did that, then attributed it to me.)
I guess what we have to do is learn to clarify what we mean in the original post we are making, rather than expecting our POV or intention to be "obvious" or easy to infer. It never occured to me someone would take my words as an "attack" on our administration, but I suppose it should have! Only for me to think of that, first I would have to have thought of attacking the administration.
Anyway, all in all this is a small incident. If our words are the "worst" examples of violence awdiot can find on this forum, then this is a pretty gentle little forum. I for one, was going to let all this go, til I saw that you had replied and wanted to step in and say, "yeah, me too."
Considering the number of hits this site gets, let's just make a pact with ourselves to be as clear as possible about our intention with what we write. Try to be mindful of how someone coming to it not knowing our thoughts might read into it - difficult as that is.
BTW - I agree that making observation about the social climate, political world, action of major world leaders, etc., is not only not an act of violence, but is in fact necessary if we are not to roll over and play dead in acceptance of any "violence" that *may* or *might* be waged by some such person/force/whatever. Note - I am not making specific reference to anything at the moment.
03-13-2006, 02:58 PM
Thanks for the input Zerbie. I will sign onto that pact, to continue to be acutely aware of my words and use of them. I really do find a lot of support and value in these forums, actually, the only ones I will take part in, and I do not want to be misunderstood by any means. This is a well worth endeavor, and I want us to be united, not divided. That only works against our overall cause. Peace to you and yours, Vanessa:love:
03-13-2006, 03:30 PM
Don't you all just love an opinionated Newbie to come in and stir things up now and then? I tend to do that. I also can't sincerely apologize for it either. I am just questioning.
I will appologize for where I may have overstepped the group's guidelines. Decipherring those guidelines has taken on a life of its own that was not my purpose. I have my preconcieved ideas of what attack, violence, abuse, cruelty, mean spirited, thoughtlessness, freudian slips, backhanded compliments and taking it the wrong way, all mean. I also draw a distinct line between action and thought, as well as if/when the recipient may deserve them or not. I am glad to have an unexpected chance to re-evaluate them. You're constructive criticism is more than welcome. The hypocritical finger pointing is not.
I have been gifted with innate wussyness, the classic wouldn't hurt a fly syndrome (not true, but I do put bugs outside or try to smack them accurately so they don't suffer). I have examined the aspirations of becoming a doormat in a few poems. I find ill tempered people sad and just plain mean ones, heaping negativity on their own head and I've no desire to add to it. Vengence is indeed the Lords and He's welcome to it. I dislike the anger it requires. Their justice is guaranteed with out me throwing any gas on their pilot light of a soul. And I don't know the full story... I do however calls 'em likes I sees 'em and let the chips fall away.
The idea that a thought of ruining my partners hideous flea market lamp (I wouldn't, thats mean) is equal to beating a child, is assinine to me. It is illogical and will serve no good to lump them together. Grasping that they are bad is a given. Stretching them to equally bad is an impossibility that will result not in less busted lamps...
I don't want to put anybody on the spot, but the work you do is crucial and life alterring and in the name of God. It ought to stand up to my uneducated observations. The real foe is a Hell of alot smarter and meaner than me, and he'll post MOVIES...
...and don't be too hard on yourselves. These are the kindest, most accomodating forums I have run across. The non-violent principles are doing thier job (dare I say it?), almost to a fault... I am new here, so chalk it up to ignorance, but: I personally think the President is terrifying. I resent him making me ashamed of my country. I am angry for the innocent people killed, for making torture plausible, for starting an unendable war with perpetuating enemies,for thinking the next attack here may serve us right, for bankrupting this country for decades to come and talking to the public like we are six years old, and mostly, for not being able to come up with ONE mistake he may have made. Laughing and mocking him through that photo is the least I feel justified in doing, God Bless whatever speck of a Soul he has left... (in no way do these views express the feelings of SoulForce, its members or partners, however much some of them agree. Just me blowing off some steam).
03-14-2006, 02:16 PM
How in the world does such a volatile topic one day, vanish from the radar the next? I cannnot believe the most prolific posters have nothing more to say, unless a quick, private message has gone out to maybe ignore it and it will go away? I do not know if that is the case, but I see no other logical explanation.
03-14-2006, 04:01 PM
There was no private message. We read what Jaime wrote and agreed. I feel Jaime said all that could be said. What response are you looking for? You stated you feel mocking the president is the best you can do and you feel justified in that. I have already told you that I don't feel mocking him serves anything, in fact I think it makes things. What more could be said?
I don't think people are ignoring you hopeing you will go away. I don't wish that for anyone. I just don't think anyone has anything more to say.
We hope you don't go away. I hope you stay, and I hope we can learn from each other.
03-14-2006, 04:54 PM
awediot, I’ve seen that before and it made me cackle again. I feel your frustration.
I admit I love to hate that man, but I have found one golden trick, a short cut if you will.
Next time you see footage of him walking toward the helicopter waving, Pay Attention. They never show who he’s waving to, but the waves he gives are some of the goofiest things I have ever seen. They're all personalized. When I noticed it myself I was actually grateful to have a lock on a memory of something genuinely endearing about the man. The ONLY thing perhaps, but a lock and endearing none the less.
The bigger issue is, like it or not he’s in charge of our beloved religious right and they need our prayers too, lest they see Love too soon..
I apologise for my part in setting the tone.
Remember, goofy waves, walking to helicopter, daytime. It works!
03-14-2006, 05:05 PM
I abandoned this thread because I agree it is off focus for Soulforce. I started the thread because I had strong feelings about a comment the President made. I respect Jaime's admonition, and we should be clear that this is not a partisan website. I recognize that some members and many visitors may in fact be here NOT because thay are in sympathy with our stated purpose as it shows on the masthead, but for other reasons. I wouldn't care that Big Brother is listening except that Big Brother has amassed trillions and thinks violence, torture and smearing people is a sport. Let's not even come close to stooping to that lowdown of a strategy. finis tbm
03-14-2006, 06:34 PM
just make sure we give awediot a chance to speak! I want us all to be heard.....
03-14-2006, 07:07 PM
Don't worry about that, JoeB... I appreciate some of the (overused term, but,) closure the past few posts gave. This war is a terrible thing where ever your support lies, and if it can't generate forgivable passions, than what can? Perhaps the other issues touched on are better left to a more focused thread and our leader can be put aside until the next spectacle worthy of comment.
04-14-2006, 04:27 PM
More bumping for Liberal Crozier - here are some more (intense) conversations we've had along the lines of your most recent post. Happy reading! :)
04-15-2006, 07:45 AM
04-15-2006, 09:13 AM
thus begins the English lyrics to our national anthem. We have a united right wing for the first time in our history, and they have succeeded in forming a minority government. Our left wing is fractured and led by pragmatic centrists intent on creating a new labour force for the global neocon strategies.
Yet, having said all this...I know that 35 million Canadians have a progressive and compassionate tradition that supports human rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We must have the hijacked Tories regain its progressive social wing, and we must purge the left of "enemies in the camp." and more, unite the left wing of the nation into one party.
The Original Underground Railroad, ended in Brompton, ON. Today, with GPS systems, fascist vigilantes, and a DHS entrenched in our Canadian airports, it will take ingenuity and commitment worthy of the European Allied Resistance during WWII.
04-17-2006, 02:44 PM
I come from a very conservative background and I used to support Bush, and others like him. But after his blatant disregard for the civil rights of gays and lesbians, and the bullying his administration has done to Iraq, I am not so sure I support him anymore. That is not to say that Democrats are any better. I don't think gays and lesbians would fare any better with Democrats in power. They might, but Clinton backed out on a lot of things he promised to GLBT people. Who knows? But I'm with schoolboi-Canada looks pretty good.:confused:
04-17-2006, 06:34 PM
There is no real reason to vote for democrats. I vote for them, but not because they're better. because they're less worse. :rolleyes:
04-17-2006, 08:27 PM
If some one claims to be a Christian, I take that at face value. It is off the table and a relationship between them and God I have no desire to challenge... But when horrible things are done in your name by association, and you become guilty and maligned by anothers action, it takes on a little different tone.
I have no idea who Bush is listening to, but it is not the God I know... His insane actions make perfect sense IF he 1. is a Globalist first 2. views patriotism as a roadblock to his global aspirations 3. sees a need to debase Christianity 4. is willing to commit political suicide and destroy his own reputation for the greater Universal good.
I think he has done a superb job paving the way and this country, and this religion will never recover. His boss should be delighted. (and to drag the conspiracy out, a dem wouldn't make any difference. Remember they, Bush and Kerry, were both bonesmen...)
04-17-2006, 11:49 PM
Russ feingold is the man, I love the last line he says regarding George W:
04-18-2006, 03:13 PM
What kind of country is it when Martha Stewart goes to jail for sort-of 50K insider trading but the president's son becomes president even though he was cited 3 times for intentional 200k+ insider trading but was never prosecuted because his daddy was president then?
Anyway, I want LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIANS to buy themselves a TV station like Faux News and CBN. Imagine Revs. Welton Gaddy and Jim Wallis and James Forbes and Irene Munroe and Peter Gomes and Martin Marty and Joseph Lowery (and the list goes on & on...) with 24/7 access to intelligent christian viewers...It would be like Sojourners and Christian Century and The Witness and the Door and the Other Side magazines have come to life...
mmmmmmm now that's a parousia I can commit to...:love:
04-18-2006, 04:56 PM
What is the joke that was circulating around - we take the only woman (you can insert 'person') who is willing to cook, clean, and do all the household crafts and projects and throw her into jail. Makes no sense!
There are others in higher positions who have done not only inside trading, but assorted crimes that would not only lead to prison time but possibly executed in this country and because of their position or who they know, they don't even get a slap on the wrist.
Makes no sense...:confused:
04-18-2006, 05:31 PM
Quotes like this solidify the disapproval of sexually unrestrained ideologies:
"...we who are christian are heirs to a body-despising, woman-fearing, sexually repressive religious tradition. If we are to continue as members of the church, we must challenge and transform it at the root. What is required is more than simply a 'reformation.' I am speaking of revolutionary transformation. Nothing less will do." ~Carter Heyward, Touching Our Strength:The Erotic As Power and the Love of God p. 47.
The New Testament writers speak volumes against living a life defined by eroticism. The vast majority of Christians read the Bible without "reading into it" things that are not there.
As a Christian and a married man, I do not despise my body, my wife's body nor fear women. Never have never will. The Bible is a very erotic book as evidenced by the women in the Bible mentioned over and over again as "exceedlingly beautiful." Sarah, Bathsheba, being so good looking men would literally kill for them. Until the LGBTQ community and culture stops presenting their views as those of pure sexuality the message will be what most fear. An overhauling of decency and sensibilty to unleash "Erotic as a Power."
(It's my opinion, I welcome input)
Quotes like this solidify the disapproval of sexually unrestrained ideologies
What are you talking about?:confused:
This is desperately offensive!:mad: "Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered" do not equal "sexually unrestrained."
Never say such a disingenuous thing again!
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.