It is quite ironic that a typical Christian college often claims to be a "liberal arts" institution and one that embraces Christian values (whatever that mean), reconciliation with the society, and in pursuit of intellectual growth.
It looks like the successful rate of Christian colleges is quite low. The evidence is that many members (students, faculty, and staff) seem to embrace any thing but of intellectual values. But instead, they allow themselves to be bounded with the conservatism that has blinded them from seeing the truth. It seems as if they are seeking comfort in lies and deception. The prime example of this is the fact that these so called Christians condone, tolerate, and otherwise support the lies generated by the world-class moron named George W. Bush. This idiot sought military actions against a nation that has been proven to have nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks nor having weapon of mass destruction. He lied to the American people. He lied to the world. He has killed hundreds of thousands of innocents (and seems to be happy to do so) while plunging the country's economy to the toilet causing misery and hardship to the same people whose sons and daughters are making huge sacrifices in the deserts far away from their homes. In the meantime, Bush has helped his evil friends like the scum at Halliburton, Lockheed, et. al. to bleed the Americans taxpayers to their last few drops of blood.
Does this picture look like one that the Christians would be proud of?
>From what's been going on, it looks like the Christians enjoy the
suffering of others, especially those of a religion that they've been told to hate. Ignorance seems to flow strong in the veins of these Christians, a.k.a, "conservatives", "far right", "right wing", "neo-con", and total losers.
Education obviously has done no good to people like JohnC, whose head has been kept so reverently and rigidly in the toilet bowl waiting to be flushed down. I have absolutely no respect for an institution that exploits the noble ideals of education and the salvation of religion to advance their evil agenda. Scum like Gaylen Byker, who uses an education institution to help his friends in the oil industry to launder their dirty money, are the enemy of humanity. And therefore must be dealt with accordingly.
The materialistic conservatives have now been associated with what the world once spent lots of resources to get rid of: Nazism. And like their Nazi ancestors, these so called conservatives will face a shameful and humiliating defeat.
When I see posts like this from "Laura B", first I laugh..then I wonder if she is really some prankster conservative "pretending" to be a far left wacko liberal to make them look bad.
I mean, it's almost like she took a list of michaelmoorisms and other Democrat talking points and focus group phrases, and jumbled them all up into one post! For example every good liberal post must have the words "Halliburton", "Bush is a moron and an idiot", "Saddam nothing to do with 9-11", "WMD", "Bush lied", "country's economy in the toilet", "materialistic conservatives=Nazism", and on and on.
All those talking points are based on lies, of course, as I explained in my post "To the Leftists at Calvin", if you care to read it. The factual refutations are all there, for the world to see. Yes, it is long...because the liberals have put out a lot of lies so it takes a long time to refute them all.
For example, let's just take one statement: "This idiot sought military actions against a nation that has been proven to have nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks nor having weapon of mass destruction. He lied to the American people. He lied to the world."
First of all, Bush agrees with you that we have no evidence that Saddam was directly involved in the attacks of 9-11, and has said so repeatedly, in the face of liberal media distortion.
Anyone who is following the news knows that Bush and his administration never said we had any evidence yet that Saddam was directly involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks. But since the 9/11 Commission concluded the same thing, the liberal press has gone bonkers trying to use it for their partisan political advantage. They tried to use it to get their candidate, John Kerry, elected. The liberal press has an unfounded, illogical hatred for Bush.
Laura_B., there were weapons of mass destruction. They had been used as recently as the '91 Gulf War. Saddam Hussein was doing nothing to follow through with resolution after resolution after resolution that he get rid of them. Worldwide intelligence indicated that Saddam was building up, and after 9/11 the chance could not be taken that he was lying -- we had to go find out. It's a different world after 9/11.
Democrats on the WMD: "We are in possession of compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Democrats on the WMD: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy "Socks" Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
Democrats on the WMD: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Laura_B., Saddam was responsible, through the first gulf war cease fire agreement and the 14 UN Resolutions, to PROVE he destroyed the WMD....WHY DIDN'T HE?
Laura_B., why did the UN security council vote unanimously, 15 to zip, in UN Res 1441, including France and Syria, that Saddam had WMD and had not disclosed where they are or proved that he destroyed them?
Text of the preliminary David Kay report: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_1002200... read the entire actual David Kay report first...then you can talk intelligently about what he found and what he didn't find yet...otherwise you are just repeating liberal spin.
Laura_B., on the WMD stockpiles...where are they? What happened to them? It is not arguable that they didn't exist. Clinton, the UN, Kerry, France and all the Democrats and the UN always knew they existed. We found the evidence that Saddam was building WMD, just not the stockpiles that the UN and the french and kerry and clinton said he had.
Laura_B., why do you ignore the recent evidence that Saddam moved his WMD to Syria? http://www.netwmd.com/articles/article404.html We know he had them because the UN documented he had WMD and also he used WMD on his own people, killing hundreds of thousands...
Laura_B., why would Kerry give himself cover on weapons of mass destruction stockpiles? Why would he allude to the fact that we may find them a month or two from now? It means he knows very well they existed.
Laura_B., the liberation of Iraq and the disarming of Saddam was justified over 14 years, 17 UN resolutions, 2 bipartisan and bicameral overwhelming resolutions, and the overwhelming support of the American people. We were further justified by the David Kay and Duelfer report detailing the WMD and the linkages found between Saddam and al qaeda.
Laura_B., where did Saddam Hussen move the WMD? To Syria? Elsewhere? Did he hide some of them in a hidden spider hole? Look how long it took us to find Saddam in a spider hole!
Laura_B., we need to find the WMD before they get in the hands of terrorist groups like al Qaeda and they are used on innocent people in US cities or other cities around the world.
Laura_B., former chief U.S. weapons hunter David Kay said Wednesday "I think the disarming and liberation of Iraq was absolutely prudent. In fact, I think at the end of the inspection process we'll paint a picture of Iraq that was far more dangerous than even we thought it was..."
Laura_B., so you disagree with Kerry and Clinton on the WMD then?
Democrats on the WMD: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Democrats on the WMD: "Let me be clear: the vote that I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction" **== John F. Kerry, October 22, 2002.
Now let's take this liberal canard "while plunging the country's economy to the toilet causing misery and hardship to the same people whose sons and daughters are making huge sacrifices in the deserts far away from their homes."
Laura_B., the Bush economy is BOOMING! The blowout jobs report for April, with 274,000 new business payrolls and an upward-revision of 93,000 for February and March, virtually assures that economic growth for the first half of 2005 will come in around 4 percent. The tax-cut led economy continues to be stronger than mainstream economists and the media would have us believe.
Winning the war on terror and ZERO terrorist attacks on US soil! You see, we TOLD you tax cuts work to improve the economy every time they are tried!
Stocks Rise on Strong Jobs Data Friday, May 06, 2005 The Bush Boom and jobs growth continue! This is great news for Americans and Bush, but bad news for liberals and democrats.
So yes, Christians can be very proud of our Christian brother George W. Bush and all the good he has done in the world, in spite of the attacks on him from the left.
John, most of the quotes you're using from Dems and others concerning WMD were spoken when those people thought they could trust the information that that Bush was giving them. We now know, especially via this month's revealing memos from London (Downing St. memos) that both Blair and Bush had an agenda to attack Iraq, but because there was really no cause to, they began to create evidence that wasn't there to further their agenda. Many of these people changed their tune once they had accurate information.
As far as the economy goes, it's finally beginning to improve, but that can hardly be called booming.
I'm so sorry you feel you need to attack other Christians who have political views that differ from yours. God is neither a Republican or Democrat, and many Christians have very serious concerns with Bush. Asserting that all Christians need to get behind a president or political party is simply illogical and downright dangerous. I respect your right to your beliefs, and I'm not interested in convincing you that my thinking is the only way, but insulting others who don't agree AND have a large body of evidence to behind them, as progressives do, is unnecessary.
My problems with Bush are many, but they mostly boil down to his habit of lying to the American people. He says he's pro-life, yet he lies to start a war and abortion rates have increased since he's been in office (see the posting entitled A message from the group moderator for references and additional info). He gives huge tax cuts for the rich, and seeks to make the poor poorer. I could go on, but that's the bulk of it.
Blessings to you as you work out your faith. I wish you peace.
For the record, the statement alluding to the idea that Bush was the sole provider and diseminator of intelligence regarding WMDs (from tcm3crew) is simply a clear detatchment from reality.
One more thing, don't start using arguements about abortion rates going up and somehow linking that to Bush and saying that it makes him less principled and less pro-life. That is an unfounded and indefensable extrapolation and you know it. It does demonstrate that abortion rates are more complex that legislative policy but your conclusions are faulty.
One more thing, I've read tcm3crew's comments in the past, unless you have had a serious change of heart, your comments about blessings, faith and peace are rather shallow. That is not an attack, that is just my extrapolation from the data you have given me.
"DEE" says "JohnC, I'm just curious -- I assume you are a young, strapping guy. If Iraq was such a good idea, why aren't you over there?"
"DEE", you make one false assumption and then fall into faulty logic.
"DEE", no one cares whether I served or not...they want Bush to protect the American people...and he is doing a masterful job! Thank you President Bush and Thank You Troops!
"DEE", Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan also never saw combat - but they won wars and established Freedom. People like you are always going to try to advance this silly argument simply because they think it sounds good to you.
"DEE", what about Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln only saved the nation. Abraham Lincoln served for four months in the militia. That's what the National Guard was in Lincoln's day.
"DEE", Lincoln never saw combat, but he saved the union in the bloodiest war in American history. He was in the militia at the time of the Black Hawk War. He saw no combat.
Obviously, "DEE", Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who led us to victory in the greatest world war ever, saw no military service whatsoever.
"DEE", Ronald Reagan, a soldier in the state-side army cavalry never faced combat, led us to victory over the Soviet Union and won the Cold War. I mean, I can nuke this stuff any number of ways...
"DEE". Kerry tried to pull this trick during the 2004 campaign also. Of course we respect his brief service in Vietnam, but that doesn't make him right on the issues and it doesn't absolve him from what he did when he returned. See http://www.wintersoldier.com and http://www.swiftvets.com
Also why hasn't Kerry released his SF-180 form yet? What is he hiding? He said he would release the form during the campaign but we are still waiting.
"DEE", so how does service, or non-service, in a war serve a politician? I don't think it matters at all, really. The question, between John Kerry and George W. Bush was, what lessons have you learned, and what do you believe?
"DEE", the President's minimal standard of competence is protecting our security, of protecting us from violent attacks by foreigners. We fight wars not to have peace, but to have a peace worth having. "DEE", pacifism and appeasement, in the face of unimaginable inhumanity, is not peace. You may think it is, but try being the victim like the Iraqis under Saddam, and tell me if it's peace!
"DEE", does service in Vietnam qualify or disqualify one from the Presidency? I don't think it matters. Service in a war, even heroic service, does not tend to enlarge or enlighten one's political philosophy on war.
"DEE", it is true that one who has put his guts on the front line may "know what it's like." But maybe their beliefs were themselves flawed. "Because I had the courage as a young man to die for my country, I am qualified to decide when to call upon our young men and women to make the same sacrifice." This doesn't wash, for two reasons.
The first is, The President does not have the Constitutional authority to start wars. Only Congress is authorized to declare war. A President may ask for such a Declaration, but then must provide clear and convincing evidence to the Congress that the threat facing the United States is very real, very clear, and very present. Experience, or lack thereof, in previous wartime service shouldn't make a difference. The President doesn't need to be any more qualified for making this judgment by having served in combat, than any member of Congress who might vote for the declaration. There may be some war heroes in Congress, of course. There might also be those who by some disability or accident of having spent young adulthood in a peaceful time, never served. Should only those who have served in military combat get to decide when we go to war?
The second is, the President's physical courage as a young warrior doesn't mean he has moral authority, sound judgment, or intellectual and political courage. George W. Bush, who served honorably in the National Guard, and has responded brilliantly to 9-11, has demonstrated to me that he has all of these traits. Then again, John Flipflop Kerry, who apparently served valiantly in Vietnam, has none of these traits.
"DEE", John Flipflop Kerry's war experience obviously hasn't opened his eyes to the folly of his anti-war stance.
"DEE", we must face the hard and bitter truth that good people can walk away from a fight, but when they do, bad people will have the field and we have seen the horrors they can inflict. Pol Pot, Saddam, Osama, ...
Then tcm3c...@gmail.com says "I agree that Bush is an awful president, but do you really need to be so insulting? Using words like "scum" and "losers" really doesn't help anyone."
Very true, tcm3crew. I, too, wish people would be a little more respectful of our President, and do some reading before they call him an "awful president".
Then tcm3crew goes on to further the confusion about the WMD. The bottom line is, there were weapons of mass destruction. They had been used as recently as the '91 Gulf War. Saddam Hussein was doing nothing to follow through with resolution after resolution after resolution that he get rid of them. Worldwide intelligence indicated that Saddam was building up, and after 9/11 the chance could not be taken that he was lying -- we had to go find out. It's a different world after 9/11.
So the quotes from the Dems cannot be discounted because "those people thought they could trust the information that that Bush was giving them". Those Democrats were getting the same intelligence and made their own decisions, their own votes. See the overwhelming bipartisan and bicameral votes on the two (2) authorizations of force the congress gave. The intelligence community made some mistakes but overall they did a good job. Thank God we removed Saddam from power, and stopped his state-run rape rooms, stopped him from building WMD, stopped him from stealing money through the "oil for food" program with Kofi Annan and the french, and stopped him from paying and harboring terrorists.
Also tcm3crew, stop lying about Bush and Blair, there is NO EVIDENCE that "they began to create evidence that wasn't there to further their agenda". That is a bald faced lie that was refuted by the 9-11 Commision report. Just because you say it is so, or you wish it were so...does not make it so.
Then tcm3crew says "As far as the economy goes, it's finally beginning to improve, but that can hardly be called booming."
tcm3crew, did you see the news today? 5/26/05 The economy grew by an encouraging 3.5 percent in the first quarter of the year - up from a 3.1 percent estimate last month. Investors welcomed the report as a sign that the economy was still growing and inflation risks had lessened.
tcm3crew, I'm not attacking "other Christians who have political views that differ from yours." I am simply presenting the facts, with backup, to refute the false claims of some of those on the Democrat side. Please address the issues and the facts I have presented, and don't descend into ad hominem attacks and the politics of personal destruction.
And Bush and I agree with you, "God is neither a Republican or Democrat"... so those buttons and your repeating of this reflects a misunderstanding about Mr. Bush's faith. Bush actually prays for guidance, for wisdom, for strength. Bush doesn't think 'I'm God's guy, he agrees with everything I do'. If he did it would be disturbing to say the least. But Bush is not John Brown saying God himself told me to start this war, and he's not an ayatollah saying death to the Great Satan. Bush is just a Christian asking God for help and trying in turn to do what is helpful. When you do this you're acknowledging your inadequacy and dependence. It's a declaration not of pride but of humility. To a Christian it's like declaring reality. It's like saying, "There's weather outside."
tcm3crew then says "and many Christians have very serious concerns with Bush". Here is where I disagree with you tcm3crew. I don't think many Christians have serious concerns with Bush. I think they have POLITICAL concerns with Bush, and they are trying to use Christianity as a weapon to bash him.
The letters and ads in the paper did not say "We are liberals and we disagree with your policies, we think you should raise taxes, or stop your insistence on standards and testing in schools, or we think you should have coddled Saddam a little longer and maybe he would have seen the light and given up his WMD programs".
No. Instead you said that Bush's domestic and foreign policy went against Calvin's "deeply held principles" and his deeds "do not exemplify the [Christian] faith we live by."
So in effect you were trying to use religion as a weapon to divide our nation and advance a narrow partisan agenda. At the same time you were calling Bush "non-Christian" for his policies, all of which have been based on his Christian faith and many of which have been very effective. (e.g. Tax Relief leading to the economic boom, war on terror being effective, capturing and disarming Saddam, stopping the mass graves and rape rooms, etc. etc.)
So, tcm3crew, I do not assert that "all Christians need to get behind a president or political party", as you falsely accuse. I am simply presenting the truth, and you can make your own decision whether you want to follow Christ or not, and whether you want to follow the more effective political policies or not. If you want to follow failed socialist and liberal policies, that is your business and I will not call you "non-Christian" because of it. I will simply point out that those policies are failed and do not work. But if you vote for people who follow the policy of abortion on demand, no parential notification, no limits on partial birth abortion, no limits
...
I do wish you both blessings. It's hard for me to see both of you say
you want discussion, then when someone begins, there are only attacks
in response. What baffles me about the responses from both of you is
statements that imply that you know my mind better than I
do--outlandish and disappointing. I'm referring to statements like, "be
honest," and "you don't mean what you just said," or "this is wrong and
you know it." I'm at a loss. I can't believe that someone would insist
I'm lying about my own feelings or beliefs simply because we don't
agree. I wouldn't have taken the time to write if I didn't mean it.
I am not interested in trying to say my beliefs are the only ones, that
you two need to believe what I believe, or that I have all of the
answers. I simply presented the evidence that has led me and many other
Christians to genuinely question Bush's policies. The issues here are
complex, and we're all working our way through them.
Just because I disagree with you two politically, does not mean I think
ill of you. I'm sorry there's been a misunderstanding on that issue.
Mark, I wish you all the best, truly, in med school or residency, or
whatever's up next for you. John, I wish you the best as you continue
to research this area of politics that obviously means so much to you.
Blessings to both of you. I've been praying for you and will continue
to do so. We are all Christians, and I pray we will be able to continue
to display God's love and grace in our lives. . . especially to each
other.
tcm3c...@gmail.com, I also wish you blessings and also I wish you
Godspeed as you try to learn why the liberal protests at Calvin were
wrong, because they were based on faulty logic and lies about Bush.
Yes, I want discussion of ideas, and that will be continued on
Why do you assume my statement of facts, and exposure of liberal lies,
are "attacks"?
In that case, any statement other than "yes, I agree, tcm3crew, and
liberalism is correct here" could be interpreted as "attacks".
Statements of fact are not attacks.
And I don't assume I know your mind. I simply know the words you
post, and I know liberal ideas, probably better than most liberals
think they do. In fact, a lot of the liberal protesters at Calvin
probably just agreed to wear the buttons or carry as sign because they
"heard" Bush was a bad man, "Bush is Hitler", "Bush hates the poor
and is stealing from them to give to his rich Halliburton oil buddies"
"Bush is bad for the environment", and other liberal canards.
I know it's hard, tcm3crew, once you start to defend liberalism, you
get sort of locked in and have to keep defending it. But it is a death
spiral, and it leads no where. It never has lead anywhere good.
I don't insist that you are lying about your own feelings or beliefs.
I think you really do believe them. My intent is just to have you
examine them, truthfully and in the light of the Word of God. I think
you will find them lacking.
The problem I see is the leftists "say" they are presenting
"evidence" that Bush is not a Christian due to his policies.
There is no such evidence. Michael Moore movies don't count.
tcm3crew, I agree with you: "Just because I disagree with you two
politically, does not mean I think
ill of you". There is no misunderstanding on that issue. I do not
think you think ill of me. I don't want you to think ill or good of
me. I want you to consider the ideas and the consequences of those
ideas and the votes, politicians and policies they produce.
So blessings to you. I've been praying for you and will continue
to do so. We are all Christians, and I pray we will be able to continue
to display God's love and grace in our lives. . . especially to each
other. And especially to the innocent unborn growing baby boys and
girls, who have no voice, and feel pain when they are aborted as a
result of Democrats in office making laws approving of it.
|
