• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is the president loosing it?

Is The President Loosing it??

  • WOHOOO I KNEW HED CRACK!!!! HOOAH!

    Votes: 9 34.6%
  • What nonsense. NO

    Votes: 12 46.2%
  • GOD I hope not He could take us with him!

    Votes: 5 19.2%

  • Total voters
    26
Yes, there is going to be some voter indescrepencies, but not in the porportion of these. There's just to many discrepencies in the 2000 election not to notice. The fact is W hijacked definetly the 2000 election, and if he fails to get impeached by '08, he'll go down in history as one of the most fraudulent Presidents ever.

Originally posted by KevinWan
Gore would of wimped out on 9/11. Obvious the President was pretty darn smart in ordering the downing of all aircraft in the U.S. His actions on 9/11 were superior, don't let Michael Moore lie to you otherwise.

First off, I don't pay attention to people the likes of Michael Moore. I have an inkling that you, on the other hand, listen constantly to Rush Limbaugh's idiotic soundbytes. Second of all, ideally, after 9/11 if George Bush, who claims he reads from the good book every morning, as well as falsely claims to be Christian, if he really followed the Christ, like he so aptly phrases it, would remember the famous words of Christian wisdom from Jesus: "Love your enemies". In a utopian, enlightened world, W would'nt have initiated a war, but by loving his enemies, would have given more support to Palestinians, received more Palestinian refugees, withdrew the military from SA, canceled the economic sanctions against Iraq (responsible for over 500,000 deaths), ask Israel to destroy their WMDs, and finally, gave as much money as it gives to Israel to Arab countries in a more balanced way. This action would have brought a wave of peace which would have dramatically lowered the number of potential terrorists.

Who cares if the President uses biblical references in his speech. Hate to break it to ya, but the vast majority of our country believes in some type of God. If hes such a darn fanatic... why hasn't he established Christianity as the state religion? If hes such a fanatic, why do you currently have to right to reject the existence of almighty God????

Do I have the right to label him a fanatic? C'mon it's a 2-way street here. You can't have it one way, and not the other.

Israel, India and Pakistan got their weapons in the pre-9/11 world. Theres a significant difference. Since when has Israel or India threatened our country, or supported Islamic terrorism?? Maybe Pakistan has, but was Bush around when they got their WMDs???

Saudi Arabia certainly has use for their weapons. Remeber the Gulf War?? Saddam would have invaded them had Bush Sr. not confronted him. Ever hear of Iran? Its just like we have weapons left over that secured us in the Cold War... they've got left over weapons too.

Now please, stop crying fowl over the two-time electoral victories of President Bush

Ok, so they did get their weapons then, so before you said it is Unacceptable for any Middle-Eastern country to obtain WMDs, now you are attempting to justify them having them? I'm confused here.
 
Last edited:
kal-el said:
Yes, there is going to be some voter indescrepencies, but not in the porportion of these. There's just to many discrepencies in the 2000 election not to notice. The fact is W hijacked definetly the 2000 election, and if he fails to get impeached by '08, he'll go down in history as one of the most fraudulent Presidents ever.

PLEASE... stop... Give it up already... I can find millions of reasons why the Dems manipulated the election also... You just can't buy into all of these nonsense stories of Bush stealing the election.. As I've said before, you're just listening to a bunch of sore losers. This site contains various reasons why Dems manipulated the 2004 election and various others:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008268.php


kal-el said:
First off, I don't pay attention to people the likes of Michael Moore. I have an inkling that you, on the other hand, listen constantly to Rush Limbaugh's idiotic soundbytes. Second of all, ideally, after 9/11 if George Bush, who claims he reads from the good book every morning, as well as falsely claims to be Christian, if he really followed the Christ, like he so aptly phrases it, would remember the famous words of Christian wisdom from Jesus: "Love your enemies". In a utopian, enlightened world, W would'nt have initiated a war, but by loving his enemies, would have given more support to Palestinians, received more Palestinian refugees, withdrew the military from SA, canceled the economic sanctions against Iraq (responsible for over 500,000 deaths), ask Israel to destroy their WMDs, and finally, gave as much money as it gives to Israel to Arab countries in a more balanced way. This action would have brought a wave of peace which would have dramatically lowered the number of potential terrorists.

I hate to break it to ya, but I've never even heard a single word of Rush Limbaugh... I couldn't even recognize his voice if I heard it... I'll give it to ya though, I've heard the words of Ann Coulter a few times, but I don't listen to her regularly, nor have I read any of her books.

You're only proving why your "Bush is a fanatic" rhetoric is nonsense... The Pope (although Mehtodists reject Papal authority) denounced the war in Iraq. However, I know for a fact that (as a Catholic) there is such a thing as "just war," and mass genocide is a just cause. Nocking out Saddam who kills tons of his own seems just to me. Then again, the President isn't Catholic.


kal-el said:
Ok, so they did get their weapons then, so before you said it is Unacceptable for any Middle-Eastern country to obtain WMDs, now you are attempting to justify them having them? I'm confused here.

Well, sorry for confusing you, I would have thought you would have known that I meant any IslamoFascist Nation or other nation with the potential to support Islamic extremism.
 
originally posted by kevinWan
PLEASE... stop... Give it up already... I can find millions of reasons why the Dems manipulated the election also... You just can't buy into all of these nonsense stories of Bush stealing the election.. As I've said before, you're just listening to a bunch of sore losers. This site contains various reasons why Dems manipulated the 2004 election and various others:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008268.php

The powerline site is an openly conservative blog. That's not biased! Maybe you should read some liberal and conservative publications and make up your own mind, instead of being spoonfed the "koolaid" from powerline, who answers directly to the Bush administration.

I hate to break it to ya, but I've never even heard a single word of Rush Limbaugh... I couldn't even recognize his voice if I heard it... I'll give it to ya though, I've heard the words of Ann Coulter a few times, but I don't listen to her regularly, nor have I read any of her books.

You're only proving why your "Bush is a fanatic" rhetoric is nonsense... The Pope (although Mehtodists reject Papal authority) denounced the war in Iraq. However, I know for a fact that (as a Catholic) there is such a thing as "just war," and mass genocide is a just cause. Nocking out Saddam who kills tons of his own seems just to me. Then again, the President isn't Catholic.

Yea, he isn't Catholic, or Christian. Again he falsley claims to be a follower of Christ. Arming Saddam in his extermination of the Kurds in 87-88, isn't that kinda hipocracy? And Rummy even offered Saddam amnesty if he were to go on live air and call an end to the insurgency. W is just another powerhungry, warmonger, leader who only holds open meetings with people who share the Same viewpoints as him. I guess he justifys his opinion in that someone out there agrees with him.

Well, sorry for confusing you, I would have thought you would have known that I meant any IslamoFascist Nation or other nation with the potential to support Islamic extremism.

Well you didn't mention that, you said All Mid-East countries. What about Russia? Should we invade Chechnya? The russian soldiers are fighting Islamic rebels there. And what about the Independent Republican Army in Northern Ireland? Should we invade cause the IRA are "terrorists? What about the ERA? Should we invade Spain? If you are going to enforce "freedom", you Must be consistent. You can't just fight the terrorists in Iraq. You can't pick and choose your battles.
 
Hey kal-el I am still waiting for your reply to my question in the other thread.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Hey kal-el I am still waiting for your reply to my question in the other thread.

What's that?
 
tHE last post on the should muslims be permitted to enter the us thread. Please answer my questions. thanks
 
kal-el said:
Yea, he isn't Catholic, or Christian. Again he falsley claims to be a follower of Christ. Arming Saddam in his extermination of the Kurds in 87-88, isn't that kinda hipocracy? And Rummy even offered Saddam amnesty if he were to go on live air and call an end to the insurgency. W is just another powerhungry, warmonger, leader who only holds open meetings with people who share the Same viewpoints as him. I guess he justifys his opinion in that someone out there agrees with him.

And who are you to say whose Christian and who isn't... If I remember correctly you "don't believe in a supernatural God." If your so strictly secular... you should be happen the President isn't allowing his religion to flow into his policies.

Last time I checked George Bush wasn't President in 87-88... Foreign policy doesn't require consistency decades later... If we were to follow the same foreign policy forever we would of never had one... we would have lived in splendid isolation for the rest of eternity... Obviously, we know the horrible implications of that (defeat in WWI, WWII, Cold War, Korea... the list goes on).



kal-el said:
Well you didn't mention that, you said All Mid-East countries. What about Russia? Should we invade Chechnya? The russian soldiers are fighting Islamic rebels there. And what about the Independent Republican Army in Northern Ireland? Should we invade cause the IRA are "terrorists? What about the ERA? Should we invade Spain? If you are going to enforce "freedom", you Must be consistent. You can't just fight the terrorists in Iraq. You can't pick and choose your battles.

No we should not invade any of the above mentioned. Why? Because they pose almost no threat to OUR country. And how would invading Spain (a free country with gay marriage to boot), Ireland (another free country) or Chechnya be consistence with enforcing "freedom???" If there already free whats there to enforce?? No we can't JUST fight the terrorists in Iraq... and thats why we're not going to, nor are we now. We fought them in Afganistan, the Patriot Act fights them here at home. We will bring the fight to other places, in the future I hope. You can't juggle a million things at once.. Once IRaq and Afganistan are finished... then Iran or Syria is next possibly. In the end, all nations harboring terror will be replaced with regimes that do quite the contrary, and the Middle East will be an entirely new place because of it.

We've fought for freedom in other areas of the world, Germany (2x), Korea, Vietnam, the USSR, etc etc. We've been pretty consistent. Obivously, if you think its logical to invade every un-free country on the face of the planet in the name of "consistency," that policy is terribly flawed.
 
Kevinwan, Kal-el hasnt yet learned alot of history yet to understand simple things. Once he learns about certain things mabe he will better understand why people do things and why it is needed.

He still thinks we shouldve had a ground invasion in japan. This kinda thinking draws you to conclude he really knows nothing about history and others cultures.

He also still thinks that any killing is wrong even in self defense. Which is retarted. Hey the monks in Tibet are recruiting such individuals.
 
Kal-el I do agree with you that killing is wrong. But there are times that KILLING is a must. If it werent for individuals who thought this way you would be a slave in Germany or in a concentration camp. Care to disagree with that? And would you want that? Cause if you do I can arrange it. I can use a slave around the house.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Kevinwan, Kal-el hasnt yet learned alot of history yet to understand simple things. Once he learns about certain things mabe he will better understand why people do things and why it is needed.

He still thinks we shouldve had a ground invasion in japan. This kinda thinking draws you to conclude he really knows nothing about history and others cultures.

He also still thinks that any killing is wrong even in self defense. Which is retarted. Hey the monks in Tibet are recruiting such individuals.

Self-defense is understandable. So as long there is No intent to kill. And if that unfortunate event should happen, it's justifiable as long as there was no evil intent.
 
Self-defense is understandable. So as long there is No intent to kill. And if that unfortunate event should happen, it's justifiable as long as there was no evil intent

Ok was it self defense that japan bombed pearl harbor? Because japan thought they coud stop america from underseiging them from oil? So they can cont. there campaign for world domination for there empire? Just answer this question yes or no.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Kevinwan, Kal-el hasnt yet learned alot of history yet to understand simple things. Once he learns about certain things mabe he will better understand why people do things and why it is needed.

He still thinks we shouldve had a ground invasion in japan. This kinda thinking draws you to conclude he really knows nothing about history and others cultures.

He also still thinks that any killing is wrong even in self defense. Which is retarted. Hey the monks in Tibet are recruiting such individuals.

I've been realizing this more and more...

kal-el said:
Self-defense is understandable. So as long there is No intent to kill. And if that unfortunate event should happen, it's justifiable as long as there was no evil intent.

Um... if someone if trying to rape/murder/rob me... I'm not going to be all "careful" in the heat of the moment and do everything in my power to stop myself from killing such a ruthless perons... Extreme pacifism is simply unrealistic
 
I've been realizing this more and more...

Yes I see that. I am trying to help kal-el but he has alot ot learn about history. So trying to debate with him on things he has no clue about is kinda pointless.

He has a good beleif though. Killing at all is bad which is good. I am glad he has a good beleif system. But in a world so sinful and imperfections this cannot exist. It is a utopianistic idea. And it will never heppen. Thats why we must defend freedom and ourselves from opposing threats.
 
Originally posted by KevinWan
And who are you to say whose Christian and who isn't... If I remember correctly you "don't believe in a supernatural God." If your so strictly secular... you should be happen the President isn't allowing his religion to flow into his policies.

Last time I checked George Bush wasn't President in 87-88... Foreign policy doesn't require consistency decades later... If we were to follow the same foreign policy forever we would of never had one... we would have lived in splendid isolation for the rest of eternity... Obviously, we know the horrible implications of that (defeat in WWI, WWII, Cold War, Korea... the list goes on).

The President isn't allowing his religion to flow into his policies? O man, wake up, we have a law that states we must have separation between church and state that has been maintined for nearly 200 years... Until Old Georgie came aboard, "God told me to strike at Saddam"- I think waging war on the Mid East in the name of "God" and saying things like "God is on our side", shows his religion DOES pour into his badly flawed policies.

[No we should not invade any of the above mentioned. Why? Because they pose almost no threat to OUR country. And how would invading Spain (a free country with gay marriage to boot), Ireland (another free country) or Chechnya be consistence with enforcing "freedom???" If there already free whats there to enforce?? No we can't JUST fight the terrorists in Iraq... and thats why we're not going to, nor are we now. We fought them in Afganistan, the Patriot Act fights them here at home. We will bring the fight to other places, in the future I hope. You can't juggle a million things at once.. Once IRaq and Afganistan are finished... then Iran or Syria is next possibly. In the end, all nations harboring terror will be replaced with regimes that do quite the contrary, and the Middle East will be an entirely new place because of it.

We've fought for freedom in other areas of the world, Germany (2x), Korea, Vietnam, the USSR, etc etc. We've been pretty consistent. Obivously, if you think its logical to invade every un-free country on the face of the planet in the name of "consistency," that policy is terribly flawed

No threat? That's odd, Iraq posed No threat either, and didn't we invade and continue to illegally occupy them? If you say Iran or Syria is next, at what price? 2,000 soldiers? how about 3,000? maybe 4,000?

People are being duped all the time by this administration. 70% of the German population was openly anti-semetic, and also Auschtwitz was a democratically planned event. See how people buy into propaganda? The germans hated the Jews so much cause they were being "spoonfed" by Hilter, and as a result, were ready to help Hitler exterminate the Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals.

Propaganda is a powerful tool. Hiroshima killed 300,000 innocent Japanease civilians in the worst terrorist attack in the history of humanity, and the majority of us still support such hostile actions. 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed and we still support it. Guantanamo is indeed a concentration camp with torture and abuses and a vast majority of us still go along with it.

That's democracy at work; the making of a democratically supported imperialist power. I bet it feels good to vote for the emperor, when you are a common citizen, benefiting from the fruits of the looting.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Yes I see that. I am trying to help kal-el but he has alot ot learn about history. So trying to debate with him on things he has no clue about is kinda pointless.

He has a good beleif though. Killing at all is bad which is good. I am glad he has a good beleif system. But in a world so sinful and imperfections this cannot exist. It is a utopianistic idea. And it will never heppen. Thats why we must defend freedom and ourselves from opposing threats.

I completely agree that killing is bad, but in our world killing is bound to occur. Its unfortunate, but it is also the greatest flaw of humanity. I completely agree with you.
 
KevinWan said:
Popular Vote... Since when does the popular vote mean anything at all? The president is elected by the electoral vote, therefore he won. Gore was pathetic... he didn't even win his home state/home county... Kerry should have won that election... his defeat was entirely his fault. I thought the President had alot of loopholes the Dems could of capitalized on... but o well.

The margin of victory was very small. Considering the media raped Kerry, GWB should have won the election by a landslide. If you look at it like that, it's amazing he came as close to winning as he did. Same deal with Gore. Damn! Where was that "liberal media bias" when we NEEDED IT!!!
 
KevinWan said:
I've been realizing this more and more...
Um... if someone if trying to rape/murder/rob me... I'm not going to be all "careful" in the heat of the moment and do everything in my power to stop myself from killing such a ruthless perons... Extreme pacifism is simply unrealistic

You failed to comprehend that Kal-el was saying it's ok if you accidentally kill as long as your intent was self-defense.
 
kal-el said:
The President isn't allowing his religion to flow into his policies? O man, wake up, we have a law that states we must have separation between church and state that has been maintined for nearly 200 years... Until Old Georgie came aboard, "God told me to strike at Saddam"- I think waging war on the Mid East in the name of "God" and saying things like "God is on our side", shows his religion DOES pour into his badly flawed policies.

Last time I checked we invaded Iraq due to the threat that they could have WMDs/regime change/oust Saddam/bring freedom... The President may use religion in his rhetoric, but his policies have little to follow with Christianity. They may follow Western, Moral Values, which may coincide with Christianity, but hey so don't alot of other Americans, such as myself. And if you want Church and State to the extreme, as you seem to want, then you're wrong when you say its been maintained for 200 years. If you ever wanted extreme seperation of the two, then guess what... YOU NEVER HAD IT. From day one, our country has had the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court Building, "In God We Trust" on our currency, and in my state of Massachusetts, up until a year ago, Puritan values FORBID THE PURCHASE OF ALCOHOL ON SUNDAYS. That was law, mind you.



kal-el said:
No threat? That's odd, Iraq posed No threat either, and didn't we invade and continue to illegally occupy them? If you say Iran or Syria is next, at what price? 2,000 soldiers? how about 3,000? maybe 4,000?

People are being duped all the time by this administration. 70% of the German population was openly anti-semetic, and also Auschtwitz was a democratically planned event. See how people buy into propaganda? The germans hated the Jews so much cause they were being "spoonfed" by Hilter, and as a result, were ready to help Hitler exterminate the Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals.

Propaganda is a powerful tool. Hiroshima killed 300,000 innocent Japanease civilians in the worst terrorist attack in the history of humanity, and the majority of us still support such hostile actions. 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed and we still support it. Guantanamo is indeed a concentration camp with torture and abuses and a vast majority of us still go along with it.

That's democracy at work; the making of a democratically supported imperialist power. I bet it feels good to vote for the emperor, when you are a common citizen, benefiting from the fruits of the looting.

In FORESIGHT its all fine and dandy to be able to say Iraq posed no threat. Its actually a relief. But the faulty intelligence indicated Iraq did have WMD's... when we entered the war... We went over this before, with that threat any rational person would have done the same as President Bush... even a democrat.

And your implying (again) what SKILMATIC mentioned before... WE COULD NOT HAVE A GROUND INVASION OF JAPAN. Upwards of 70% of Americans do believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. The Japanese were willing to fight until every last Japanese man woman and child was dead. Why?? They loved to die for their beloved Emperor Hirohito... I think we would of had trouble winning in a war like that and would of had to deal with another dictator, this time in Asia.

And PLEASE... lets not get into Hitler/Nazi comparison, eh?? Usually when one gets to that point in a debate... they're pretty much conceding defeat.
 
Originally posted by SKILMATICKal-el I do agree with you that killing is wrong. But there are times that KILLING is a must. If it werent for individuals who thought this way you would be a slave in Germany or in a concentration camp. Care to disagree with that? And would you want that? Cause if you do I can arrange it. I can use a slave around the house.
If you think that killing is a MUST, in a situation of self defense, let's say, you should render the attacker powerless, but executing them should always be a last resort. The first person that you kill in the name of a cause, contains the millions that can follow. For example- the first Jew killed by the Nazis contained the millions that followed. Its hard to stop at one. If we accept to kill one, then we can accept to kill another. There is no chance to restrict it to one, since if we killed one, why not two? And if two, why not four? And if four, why not eight? And if eight, why not millions?

Why not? It is the first one that we kill in the name of some cause who is most important.
 
ban.the.electoral.college said:

The margin of victory was very small. Considering the media raped Kerry, GWB should have won the election by a landslide. If you look at it like that, it's amazing he came as close to winning as he did. Same deal with Gore. Damn! Where was that "liberal media bias" when we NEEDED IT!!!

Not ANOTHER sore loser... a wins a win. Blame the media all you want... Clinton won a big victory in '92, '96... Where was the "conservative media bias," when I needed it THEN????

kal-el said:
Self-defense is understandable. So as long there is No intent to kill. And if that unfortunate event should happen, it's justifiable as long as there was no evil intent.

ban.the.electoral.college said:
You failed to comprehend that Kal-el was saying it's ok if you accidentally kill as long as your intent was self-defense.

What I was saying was that when Im under attack the LAST thing on my mind will be avoiding killing my attacker... I'm looking out for my life FIRST not the life of some ruthless moron... What I was saying was that self-defense is more difficult if one must worry about not killing their offender...
 
Originally posted by KevinWan
Last time I checked we invaded Iraq due to the threat that they could have WMDs/regime change/oust Saddam/bring freedom... The President may use religion in his rhetoric, but his policies have little to follow with Christianity. They may follow Western, Moral Values, which may coincide with Christianity, but hey so don't alot of other Americans, such as myself. And if you want Church and State to the extreme, as you seem to want, then you're wrong when you say its been maintained for 200 years. If you ever wanted extreme seperation of the two, then guess what... YOU NEVER HAD IT. From day one, our country has had the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court Building, "In God We Trust" on our currency, and in my state of Massachusetts, up until a year ago, Puritan values FORBID THE PURCHASE OF ALCOHOL ON SUNDAYS. That was law, mind you.

As for your rhetoric, I could'nt have put that better myself. You made my point for me. I agree with the separation of church and state arguement, even though we never had it, W does take it to the extreme when he believes a divinity is talking to him, giving him political guidance.

In FORESIGHT its all fine and dandy to be able to say Iraq posed no threat. Its actually a relief. But the faulty intelligence indicated Iraq did have WMD's... when we entered the war... We went over this before, with that threat any rational person would have done the same as President Bush... even a democrat.

And your implying (again) what SKILMATIC mentioned before... WE COULD NOT HAVE A GROUND INVASION OF JAPAN. Upwards of 70% of Americans do believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. The Japanese were willing to fight until every last Japanese man woman and child was dead. Why?? They loved to die for their beloved Emperor Hirohito... I think we would of had trouble winning in a war like that and would of had to deal with another dictator, this time in Asia.

And PLEASE... lets not get into Hitler/Nazi comparison, eh?? Usually when one gets to that point in a debate... they're pretty much conceding defeat

Are you going to sit there and condemn me for thinking differently from the crowd. Not following the rest of the sheep? Excuse me if I think every human life is priceless.

Why not? I think this administration shows drastic similarities to Hitler's regime.
 
People who thought human life was priceless never did much of anything on the world stage.
 
SHodges said:
People who thought human life was priceless never did much of anything on the world stage.

What? W claims to belive that. He insists he lives by that slogan. And didn't he send our troops into a bloodbath in Iraq?
 
kal-el said:
As for your rhetoric, I could'nt have put that better myself. You made my point for me. I agree with the separation of church and state arguement, even though we never had it, W does take it to the extreme when he believes a divinity is talking to him, giving him political guidance.



Are you going to sit there and condemn me for thinking differently from the crowd. Not following the rest of the sheep? Excuse me if I think every human life is priceless.

Why not? I think this administration shows drastic similarities to Hitler's regime.

W does not take it to the extreme any more than any other President has. To take it to the extreme would be to make a religion official in this country and/or strictly enforce views characteristic to only one religion... Opposing abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. etc. is characteristic of not only Christiainity but also many other religions such as Judaism... The President has taken his relgion so NOT far that he hasn't even re-instated school prayer, althought I certainly wouldn't mind if he did.

As for the Japanese thing... if one opposes the hydrogen bombs... then they can't claim to support life... Had we NOT dropped them more AMERICAN soldiers and JAPANESE MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN would have died...

If you look deep enough you could probably find Hitler similarities in every administration. Bringing up that kind of rhetoric is lowly, and lacks any credibility...
 
KevinWan said:
W does not take it to the extreme any more than any other President has. To take it to the extreme would be to make a religion official in this country and/or strictly enforce views characteristic to only one religion... Opposing abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. etc. is characteristic of not only Christiainity but also many other religions such as Judaism... The President has taken his relgion so NOT far that he hasn't even re-instated school prayer, althought I certainly wouldn't mind if he did.

As for the Japanese thing... if one opposes the hydrogen bombs... then they can't claim to support life... Had we NOT dropped them more AMERICAN soldiers and JAPANESE MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN would have died...

If you look deep enough you could probably find Hitler similarities in every administration. Bringing up that kind of rhetoric is lowly, and lacks any credibility...

First of all I already said that W refers to his Presidency in huge epic Biblical terms. No other President has done this.

As for the Hydrogen bomb, I oppose any bomb, I don't oppose hydrogen, for it is a bacic element of science. I oppose any armament. Armament kills, while science saves lives.

For the Hitler comparison, I believe it is valid, though Hitler was worse, I believe W isn't far behind. The fact of the matter is if W was the leader of any other country, the vast majority of us would despise him. A leader who claims a divinity talks to him, he believes, for god sakes, that he's carrying the "mantle" that Moses passed unto him.
 
Back
Top Bottom