DOOMED BY CONSERVATISM
Laura B.
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.
JohnC
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_10022003.html
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.
Dee
Iraq was such a good idea, why aren't you over there?
tcm3...@gmail.com
so insulting? Using words like "scum" and "losers" really doesn't help
anyone.
tcm3...@gmail.com
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.
msy...@mcw.edu
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.
JohnC
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 tcm3...@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."
So Mr. Bush doesn't shy from conclusions and he isn't embarrassed that
he asks for and needs God's help." From "Gut Time"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110003048 ]
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 on live birth abortion, and so forth, then yes, that is
un-Christian. Jesus respected life and the killing of growing baby
girls and boys in the womb is completely wrong and not Christ like. And
in voting for those Democrats who are aggressively pro-abortion, like
Gore, Kerry and both Clintons, who are strongly supported by NARAL,
Planned Parenthood, People for the American Way, National Abortion
Federation, NOW, The Democratic Party, Emily's List, and so on, you
are supporting the un-Christian practice of abortion. See details and
linkages at http://www.discoverthenetwork.org
tcm3crew then says "My problems with Bush are many, but they mostly
boil down to his habit of lying to the American people.
Can you provide any examples of this? And "Michael moore said so"
does not count.
For example, you cite "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). "
Yes, I saw that! And I also saw the accompanying post that showed that
was a lie, and abortions are actually going DOWN! So, lying about
statistics, and they using them as "evidence", does not count.
Also Bush did not "lie" to start a war. See "To the Lefists at
Calvin" for details.
Then tcm3crew you say "Then He gives huge tax cuts for the rich, and
seeks to make the poor poorer."
Again, a common liberal lie that has been proven wrong again and again
and again. But, liberals keep repeating it, hoping if they repeat the
big lie enough times people might believe it.
First of all, tcm3crew, did you know that the top 50% of wage earners
pay 96.03% of income taxes? So yes, of course when we cut taxes, which
were immorally high, those who pay taxes will get the tax relief. Those
in the bottom 50% of wage earners, the poor and middle class, do not
pay much in taxes (only about 4% of the total), so while they also got
tax relief, it was not as much as those who are paying all the taxes.
The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give
them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom
the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next
time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the
so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.
In fact the share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% was a
whopping 33.89%! Does that seem fair to you? If an American is paying
over 50% of his income in taxes, is that enough for you? Or you you
want to go back to the Carter days of mailaise and "misery indexes"
and raise American's tax rates to 90% or higher? Why not confiscate
100% of a workers income, would THAT be fair to you?
And are these "top 50% of wage earners" I speak of millionaires?
Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or
couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1%
earned $293,000-plus.)
This information is documented at IRS web site:
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
tcm3crew, Bush's tax relief for working Americans helps ALL working
Americans: for example, a married couple with two children and income
of $40,000 see their taxes decline under President Bush's jobs and
growth law by $1,133 (from $1,178 to $45) in 2003, a decline of 96
percent. So much for the liberal's mantra of "tax cuts for the
rich"!
The Democrat slogan appears to be: "Taxes for bureaucrats out of the
pockets of the people"
The tax cut for this working family was the result of Bush's lowering
the tax rates, and increasing the Child Tax Credit. An IRS Form 1040
was used, figuring the tax under the old, higher Clinton rates, then
under the new, lower, more compassionate Bush rates.
tcm3crew, do you prefer the new, lower, more compassionate Bush tax
rates? Or the higher, mean-spirited greedy Kerry tax hikes?
And what is the result of the Bush tax relief? Nationwide, the economy
has posted steady job gains for each of the last 23 months--creating
nearly 3.5 million jobs since May 2003.
Housing sale and starts are booming. Productivity growth is strong.
Factory orders have posted an increase. Construction spending has hit a
record high. Consumer spending was up again in March. The Bush boom is
continuing and strengthening.
And Bush has sent Congress a disciplined budget that keeps us on track
to cut the deficit in half by 2009, while meeting the essential needs
of our Nation - to defend and protect the American people.
So, tcm3crew , blessings to you as you work out your faith. I wish you
peace. Just stop bashing Bush under the guise of "Christianity",
implying that he is not a Christian or his policies are not Christian.
Remember, God is not a Republican or a Democrat. But God is against
abortion, and those who support it. On the war, you can argue from a
liberal partisan standpoint that Bush should not have liberated the 50
million and protected 280 million innocent Americans, or you can argue
that you would have done it a different way, given 20/20 hindsight.
But that is not a "Christian vs. non-Christian" argument. It is an
argument about the techniques you would have used to accomplish the
goal of safety and freedom for Americans. If you did it your way, using
appeasement and weakness and requesting approval from the corrupt UN,
and let's say 10 million Americans died due to your lack of action,
then could WE say your national defense policy was "non-Christian"
because we think you did it wrong?
Dee
tcm3...@gmail.com
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.
JohnC
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
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/God-Is-Not-A-Leftist-Calvin-Protester
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
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 display God's love and grace in our lives. . . especially to each
girls, who have no voice, and feel pain when they are aborted as a
result of Democrats in office making laws approving of it.