It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Questions for Bush apologists

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
First read this article.

I know a lot of my fellow Christians were all hyped up, not wanting Kerry in, but here are the questions:

What do you think about Bush's pro-abortion stance (rape, incest, life of mother "exceptions")?

What do you think of Bush's approval of gay civil unions--but at state level? (Oh, NOW he's states' rights.)

What do you think of his anti-gun stance? He's for that weapons ban.

What do you think of his Skull and Bones membership? If it's such a benign group, then why can't he tell about it?

And the bonus question: What do you think of his Constitution-shredding?

And another question: Given the above, why are liberals whining that Bush is Prez?

[edit on 9/7/2005 by Amethyst]




posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst

What do you think of his anti-gun stance? He's for that weapons ban.

What do you think of his Skull and Bones membership? If it's such a benign group, then why can't he tell about it?


I'm neither Christian nor Bush Apologist - I do hope I may answer though?


Well...answer with a couple of questions, first.

What does his anti assault weapons stance (which is hardly the same as anti-gun, by any estimation,surely?) have to do with Christianity?

Skull & Bones...I suppose I'm not making the connection between "membership" and "fraternity" equalling "sinister" or "malignant" (the opposite of benign).

I guess I see that part as being similar to my high school girls-only club. Boys weren't allowed, they weren't told what happened, and they certainly weren't privy to knowing anything after we'd all left school. Not that there were any blood vows made, but you get my point.

Secret doesn't equal "bad", to me.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
The only thing I am going to add to this topic is the fact that you dont have to be a Liberal to question the actions of the Bush admin.

Dosnt it bother Americans that if peoples eye sight was as blind as there political ideals you would have a country of people who couldnt see 30cm in front of them?



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
And another question: Given the above, why are liberals whining that Bush is Prez?

Why am I whining? Because:

On abortion: these 'exceptions' aren't good enough for me. It's not ok for him to say, "You may have an abortion only when I approve or think it should be accepted." It's none of his or anyone else's business.

On gay civil unions: Again, to let the states decide is a bit of a step in the right direction, but still not nearly good enough. If straight people are allowed to get married, it's discrimination to prevent other people from doing so. Period. It's none of his or anyone else's business.

On the weapons ban: I don't care about the weapons ban. As long as it doesn't effect other firearms. I think "semi-automatic assault rifle" is a misnomer anyway. In any case, I don't have one and don't want one. We've been doing fine without them. ("anti-gun stance" is a real sretch. He's not anti-gun.) If he tries to take all guns away, then I'm going to have a real problem.

Skull and Bones?
That's what I think about his juvenile secret club.

Constitutional Breaching? I've been whining about that all along. I uphold the Constitution, I don't care if he's right, left or circular.

[edit on 7-9-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Have a WATS, BH


Particularly for the bottom line: "it's none of his, or anyone else's, business".




posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Secret doesn't equal "bad", to me.

Me neither when it is a girls-club in school or some good ole boys club like the Lions or Elks. But when it invloves the movers and shakers of nations that control the life and death of its citizens. Yeah, it equals bad to me!!
There are secret clubs that the elite belong to Called golf courses/country clubs where deals are made just like corp. America. And if you don't have the correct blood line these country clubs are closed to you.


Tinkle, How do you feel about VP Cheneys' secret meeting with the oil excs? Nah, they wouldnt cut any deals would they?



what am I doing wrong with this quote button?



[edit on 7-9-2005 by whaaa]

[edit on 7-9-2005 by whaaa]

(Mod edit: A little "quote majic" applied.)


[edit on 4/12/2006 by Majic]



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
But when it invloves the movers and shakers of nations that control the life and death of its citizens. Yeah, it equals bad to me!!
Tinkle, How do you feel about VP Cheneys' secret meeting with the oil excs? Nah, they wouldnt cut any deals would they?

what am I doing wrong with this quote button?


(You're putting the /quote command right after your entire post - that means you're quoting won't end until then; move it up so it can end the bit you want to quote)

Right then. Yup, I'm aware of the Cheney/Kerry/Bush/EveryoneElse link with that particular little club.

But, these were all members before any of them got involved in anything where they could really do any damage.

I have found elsewhere (in a book, alas, not online - I'm trying to "refind" the book itself as a source) instances of various world movers and shakers being involved in various other clubs/memberships (many are members of Tibet House, for example), and the book pointed out that sometimes, it really, genuinely might be a simple case of "so what?".

As in, "they were also all members of XYZ, but that isn't really saying much, when you consider the hundreds (thousands) of members of that same club who don't hold any political/national/international power".

I suppose we can see it both ways, can't we?

It may - or may not - be conspiratorial. Or indeed, anything to worry about.



Edited for repeatedly spelling things incorrectly. Bah.

[edit on 7-9-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


On abortion: these 'exceptions' aren't good enough for me. It's not ok for him to say, "You may have an abortion only when I approve or think it should be accepted." It's none of his or anyone else's business.

On gay civil unions: Again, to let the states decide is a bit of a step in the right direction, but still not nearly good enough. If straight people are allowed to get married, it's discrimination to prevent other people from doing so. Period. It's none of his or anyone else's business.



Abortion is everyone's business. Because it's murdering innocent children and sometimes their mothers in the process. And the NWO pushes this under the guise of "woman's rights" so they can depopulate.

Same with gay "marriage." It's destructive to the family and therefore to society. Again, the NWO pushes this to depopulate. It's not discrimination to forbid a "marriage" between two people of the same gender. Just as it's not "discrimination" to prevent a human/animal marriage (not to give PETA any ideas).

I highly recommend Henry Makow's site. He explains how feminism, abortion, and sodomy are destructive to the family unit.

Tell you what, 50 years ago you didn't have all this nonsense going on. Now look at what's happened since then because people demanded "rights" they're not entitled to, such as abortion (no woman has the fundamental right to kill her child, born or not).



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Abortion is everyone's business. Because it's murdering innocent children and sometimes their mothers in the process. And the NWO pushes this under the guise of "woman's rights" so they can depopulate.


No. It's classed as "murdering innocent children" only by your religious beliefs - it is these which need to, quite frankly, stay out of the law. This is not about murder, at all. It's about religion trampling over personal legal choices which are already available. Why are your religious beliefs more valid, in terms of how they might affect the law, than those of anyone else?


It's not discrimination to forbid a "marriage" between two people of the same gender. Just as it's not "discrimination" to prevent a human/animal marriage (not to give PETA any ideas).


I'm astonished you actually said this. Are you unable to see the difference between two consenting adults and a union made with one being/human/animal which cannot consent?

Please, tell me you can see the difference here.



Tell you what, 50 years ago you didn't have all this nonsense going on.


If you think abortion is new, you're gravely mistaken. It's been practiced around the world for millenia, in one form or another. Same with homosexuality.

And not everyone thinks their religious beliefs should be dictating the legal process.





[edit on 7-9-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Abortion is everyone's business.


I disagree and I've heard all abortion arguments before and still, I think it's nobody's business. Pregnancy is a medical condition and none of your business, so what a woman chooses to do about this condition is also none of your business. It's medical. If a woman finds a lump in her breast, you want to legislate to her what's to be done about that?

(And before you jump on me for comparing a zygote to cancer, remember you've compared gay people to animals.)



Same with gay "marriage." It's destructive to the family and therefore to society. Again, the NWO pushes this to depopulate. It's not discrimination to forbid a "marriage" between two people of the same gender. Just as it's not "discrimination" to prevent a human/animal marriage (not to give PETA any ideas).


I have never heard a rational explanation of how 2 gay people getting married destroys anything. Care to give it a go? Frankly, if you want to marry your goat, have at it. It's not going to bother my marriage.



I highly recommend Henry Makow's site. He explains how feminism, abortion, and sodomy are destructive to the family unit.


I'd love to read it but the site doesn't come up for me. I do know that feminism, abortion and sodomy haven't bothered my family unit one bit and I cannot imagine how they possibly could. If you want to explain, I'm all ears. I suggest that if other people's private practices destroy your family unit, it wasn't very healthy to begin with.

Thanks Tink. (May I call you Tink?)



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
The only thing I am going to add to this topic is the fact that you dont have to be a Liberal to question the actions of the Bush admin.

Dosnt it bother Americans that if peoples eye sight was as blind as there political ideals you would have a country of people who couldnt see 30cm in front of them?


Hum I find this interesting you are right you don't have to be liberal to question the government?

Do I have to be a "liberal" to see the mess our government has made of our nation not only abroad but also at home?

So do I have follow the president blindly if he tells me to go hang myself in his name?

I think that anything that is wrong with this administration is so obvious that you will have to be a die hard follower not to acknowledge it.

I agree that is people that can not see beyond bush.


By the way Religious right wants abortion to be everybody's business but is only the business of the women and her womb.



[edit on 7-9-2005 by marg6043]

[edit on 7-9-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Did a little searching and I've seen all I need to about old Henry. I finally got his site to open. He seems to be pretty paranoid about just about everything, except white, Christian, male-dominated family units with 2.3 children.


While I can actually say I agree with some of his views, some of the things he says, have me dropping my jaw.

Just a snippet from his site (I have bolded the phrases that have me particularly wide-eyed) :


What are the elements of this male-female dynamic?

1. The male must present a woman with a spirit that she can embrace. Men generally use money or power to appeal to women. However, a man is much more than a provider or doer. He is an agent of God. Every man has a divine mission and purpose on earth. This mission imbues him with a confident masculinity, which appeals to a woman's higher instincts.

2. Do women lose their identity in this process? Yes. Partly. Psychiatrist Marie Robinson calls this their "essential altruism." Women were designed to find identity and self-fulfillment in their husband and family. This is positive. Ultimately, women do not get satisfaction in worldly achievement. They find fulfillment from giving and receiving love. They are creatures of love, God's creatures.

3. The essence of womanhood is the maternal. A woman nurtures and makes things grow. She gives her husband and children unconditional love. Similarly, the essence of manhood is the paternal. A husband gives direction, purpose and security to his wife and family. Everything leading up to marriage is preparation for these complementary roles.

4. Marriage is a mystical union. Man and woman become one. The sword in its sheath; the record in its sleeve. This union in love is the wholeness we all seek. It is a prerequisite for happiness and personal development. Otherwise, we are stalled, i.e. obsessed with sex. In order for union to take place, a woman must identify her self-interest with her husband's. She becomes part of him. He becomes part of her. Their happiness is one.

Members of couples who remain "independent" are in competition with each other. They cannot know true intimacy. They cannot know true love.


Source

What I find so interesting about this guy is that he seems to think he knows everything about how women are. Why they do the things they do, how they are fulfilled and what is important to them. And if they don't fit into this structure of his, there's something wrong with them.


If it's all the same to you, I'll go ahead and go with my own instincts on that.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   
he, he, he is the typical "re constructionist" all in the name of the lord and anything to regain American for the Christ.

I bet he is a member of Pat's group.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Ok so if you believe in abortion exceptions for rape that automatically makes you 100% pro choice. Fine then ok I'm on the pro choice side. Anyone who'd prevent a rape victim from getting an abortion is anti-woman and sexist. Any woman who'd agree obviously likes being objectified and treated like a slave. BTW in the case of rape who really gives a rats @$$ if it's human or not?! Oh and don't say adoption; she still has to carry the thing for nine months and then go through a long hard labor. And why? Because she got assaulted by some pig! I sure as hell would not keep the spawn of my attacker if I were in that situation. And what's with pro lifers and thinking saving the life of the baby is more important than that of the mother's?! The mother's life takes priority; she's already born, she was there first, and the baby couldn't even survive without her body anyway. Geez if men ever went through this stuff...



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Tell you what, 50 years ago you didn't have all this nonsense going on. Now look at what's happened since then because people demanded "rights" they're not entitled to, such as abortion (no woman has the fundamental right to kill her child, born or not).



Gee if we listen to you blacks would still be slaves , women would have no rights and women would be struck in unhappy marriages. What I have mentioned is the tip of the iceberg. People have drifted away from being brainwashed by people preaching in churchs sadly things havnt got any better people are now brainwashed by the news media.

When are religious people going to stop looking for there vision of society that never existed ?




top topics



 
0

log in

join