Dubya's screw-ups, 1000+ with 2 years to go

[newbie]

Pretty much self-explanatory, good reading for those restless repub nights.

http://www.thousandreasons.org/reasons.php

[Guest Warwick Green]

Pretty much self-explanatory, good reading for those restless repub nights.

http://www.thousandreasons.org/reasons.php

Where you sit is where you stand. I know people who look at Bush's record and only see a man promoting family values and the Christian faith. :angry:

[GostHacked]

Pretty much self-explanatory, good reading for those restless repub nights.

http://www.thousandreasons.org/reasons.php

Where you sit is where you stand. I know people who look at Bush's record and only see a man promoting family values and the Christian faith. :angry:

He should be promoting family values (the real definition of family has changed in the past 50 years) And he should not be promoting faith of anykind. He should be a neutral party in that manner. If he promote Christian values, then he should promote all other religious values. Or none at all.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Pretty much self-explanatory, good reading for those restless repub nights.

http://www.thousandreasons.org/reasons.php

Where you sit is where you stand. I know people who look at Bush's record and only see a man promoting family values and the Christian faith. :angry:

He should be promoting family values (the real definition of family has changed in the past 50 years) And he should not be promoting faith of anykind. He should be a neutral party in that manner. If he promote Christian values, then he should promote all other religious values. Or none at all.

Couldn't agree more. But the religious right are a big constituency of his and he panders to them.

[sharkman]

I imagine Dubya does what Clinton did when his enemies were plotting his impeachment and downfall. He ignored them and let his underlings handle it. In retrospect, Clinton did pretty good at not allowing his enemies to shorten his time, we'll see how Bush does.

[newbie]

But the religious right are a big constituency of his and he panders to them.

Yeah, big time. For the 2004 election, he garnered 78% of the evangelical vote, 59% of Protestant vote and 52% of the Catholics. Pretty clear to me who put him in power.

[sharkman]

And don't forget the blacks. Christian blacks voted for him in bigger numbers than previous republicans. You could say he instilled a lot of faith in some people.

[newbie]

And don't forget the blacks. Christian blacks voted for him in bigger numbers than previous republicans. You could say he instilled a lot of faith in some people.

Too bad Dubya doesn't live the Christian life he espouses.

[Guest Warwick Green]

And don't forget the blacks. Christian blacks voted for him in bigger numbers than previous republicans. You could say he instilled a lot of faith in some people.

With his low numbers on the polls I suspect the only support he has left are those far to the right on everything - abortion, gays, immigrants, guns, Iraq, etc. I suspect anybody with any hint of liberalism has by now given up on Bush.

[Liam]

Actually, some hardcore conservatives have been abandoning Bush lately. The fiscal conservatives see the mounting deficit and blame Bush and his GOP majority in Congress. The social conservatives see things like his proposal for guest worker status/"immigration reform" and Rx drug coverage and think he has sold out to the likes of Teddy Kennedy. Liberals, social and fiscal moderates, and independents have long ago abandoned Bush. His core of support now is primarily among the most Christian-fundamentalist among us, rural voters (Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah are the only 3 states where his approval remains at or above 50%), and the few GOP hawks remaining who think he's the only option we've got in terms of battling terror.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Actually, some hardcore conservatives have been abandoning Bush lately. The fiscal conservatives see the mounting deficit and blame Bush and his GOP majority in Congress. The social conservatives see things like his proposal for guest worker status/"immigration reform" and Rx drug coverage and think he has sold out to the likes of Teddy Kennedy. Liberals, social and fiscal moderates, and independents have long ago abandoned Bush. His core of support now is primarily among the most Christian-fundamentalist among us, rural voters (Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah are the only 3 states where his approval remains at or above 50%), and the few GOP hawks remaining who think he's the only option we've got in terms of battling terror.

The socons may not be happy about "guest workers" but so long at there remains a chance for Bush to appoint another anti-abortionist to the USSC they will hang on with him.

[BHS]

He should be promoting family values (the real definition of family has changed in the past 50 years).

This suggests that any change in values must be unidirectional. I disagree, though I favour the more modern definitions.

And he should not be promoting faith of anykind.

This is ridiculous. A lot of values, outside of religion, are based on faith or gut feeling or common sense. Political decisions are as often as not based on emotions as they are rationality. Environmental concerns are based almost entirely on the irrational concept that the environment as it presently exists must be kept in stasis for the rest of eternity. Are you saying Bush shouldn't promote environmental concerns?

If he promote Christian values, then he should promote all other religious values. Or none at all.

This is wrong in two ways. i) "Christian values" are not "Christianity". Promoting any set of ethical or moral values does not inherently mean promoting any belief system that may have informed them. ii) As often as not, "Christian values" are entirely compatible with the values cherished by other religions, and so promoting "Christian values" necessarily means promoting at least some of the values held by, say, Muslims. In fact, I leave it to you to point out which are the values specifically ascribed to by Christians that Muslims might find offensive. On the other side of the same coin, suggesting that he promote no religious values whatsoever means that he promote no ethical or moral values whatsoever by default, as any given moral or ethical value set is a probable subset of some pre-existing religious values set. I'm not entirely against the idea that the government should keep it's nose out of legislating morality, but why are these arguments only brought up when a Republican is in the White House, or when Christianity is the informing system of belief?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Could someone define what is meant by "Christian" or "family" values as used by social conservatives?

Thanks.

[BHS]

Could someone define what is meant by "Christian" or "family" values as used by social conservatives?

Thanks.

It would be easier for you to post what you think they are, and have the rest of us argue it out from there. I don't think there's any sort of existing standard definition for either word. Catholics view their Christianity different than Quakers do. Family values are generally meant to convey a preference for the old fashioned nuclear family model, but I may not be entirely right about that.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Could someone define what is meant by "Christian" or "family" values as used by social conservatives?

Thanks.

It would be easier for you to post what you think they are, and have the rest of us argue it out from there. I don't think there's any sort of existing standard definition for either word. Catholics view their Christianity different than Quakers do. Family values are generally meant to convey a preference for the old fashioned nuclear family model, but I may not be entirely right about that.

"The old fashioned nuclear family model" - I presume for starters that that does not connote a marriage of persons of the same sex. It sounds to me like an arrangement where the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home (father knows best) - but maybe I am wrong there. As for values I am not sure what is meant there - values such as honesty, integrity, sincerity, respect for those of different faiths and opinions are not restricted to any particular group.

During the SSM debate both sides said they were fighting for "marriage" - of course the definition of marriage each side was using was not the same.

I was once told of the difference between a Catholic and a Baptist. A Catholic is someone who is conservative when it comes to family issues but liberal when it comes to social spending; on the other hand, a Baptist is someone who is conservative when it comes to everything.

[PolyNewbie]

All we need to do is get 50 guys to wait at the border with box cutters (pack a lunch). As soon as they do something stupid we annex the country.

[KrustyKidd]

Pretty much self-explanatory, good reading for those restless repub nights.

Pretty minor stuff for the most part. Any president has a gazillion of those I'm sure. I'm against many of them and approve of some but, for the most part, think he did the right thing on the bigger ones like Afganistan and Iraq. His handling of NK and Iran is pretty good as well. Most people would have not done a thing or, simply thrown a few cruises at Afganistan and called it an operation. Ignoring the force that Conservative Wahabbism and attraction has to unify disatified Islamic people and hid from the inevitable confrontation like the House of Saud did for decades. Good for him, us and, very bad for the Conserative Islamists. I often wonder if any other president would have had the guts to attempt such a project, one that would have almost certainly led to his not being re elected and, possibly going down in history as a failure. Abe Lincoln did worse and is remembered as one of the best presidents. Engaging the country into a war that need not have been, kiling over a million US people. So, to put him down for being against gay marriage and upholding the main religion his country was founded on is pretty minor compared to what is really going on.

[Leafless]

Pretty much self-explanatory, good reading for those restless repub nights.

http://www.thousandreasons.org/reasons.php

So , socialist can read newspapers!

What else can they do besides trying to get governments to spend tax payers dollars on their endless list of fantasy socialist demands and their PINK VISION of world affairs.

[gc1765]

On the other side of the same coin, suggesting that he promote no religious values whatsoever means that he promote no ethical or moral values whatsoever by default, as any given moral or ethical value set is a probable subset of some pre-existing religious values set. I'm not entirely against the idea that the government should keep it's nose out of legislating morality, but why are these arguments only brought up when a Republican is in the White House, or when Christianity is the informing system of belief?

I disagree here. Moral and ethical values are not necessarily a product of religion. Non-religious people still have morals, like for example believing that you should not kill people, steal etc... These are values that are pretty much universal across all religions, including no religion at all. Therefore, I see no problem making murder illegal even though the bible says "thou shalt not kill". That is not promoting Christianity or any other religion. I think this is what you are trying to say in this quote below, so I agree with that.

Promoting any set of ethical or moral values does not inherently mean promoting any belief system that may have informed them. ii) As often as not, "Christian values" are entirely compatible with the values cherished by other religions, and so promoting "Christian values" necessarily means promoting at least some of the values held by, say, Muslims.

[windyman]

The article this thread starter posted was left wing propaganda. Bush is handling the economy well(it is growing rapidly), and Iraq is now nearly over with after having a democratic government elected there.

Bush has done more good than bad over his first five years in office.

[newbie]

The article this thread starter posted was left wing propaganda. Bush is handling the economy well(it is growing rapidly), and Iraq is now nearly over with after having a democratic government elected there.

Bush has done more good than bad over his first five years in office.

Feel free to rebut the information. Polls indicate most disapprove of Bush's overall job performance as well.

[sharkman]

The article this thread starter posted was left wing propaganda. Bush is handling the economy well(it is growing rapidly), and Iraq is now nearly over with after having a democratic government elected there.

Bush has done more good than bad over his first five years in office.

Feel free to rebut the information. Polls indicate most disapprove of Bush's overall job performance as well.

Personally, I don't think he's turned out the way conservatives had hoped, what with the deficit problems and other missteps. However, he came through with the Supreme Court nominations, and changing the balance on that will be one of his legacies. That alone makes him worth the price of admission in many books.