Bush Evangelicalism goes too far

The president's rhetoric worries even some evangelicals

Is he insane or a moronic zealot ex-drunk?
Is he preparing for the apocalypse? Of course, the only basis for such apocalyptic meanderings are "the ravings of a maniac," as they were described by Thomas Jefferson.

It looks like he's gone off the deep end and we're in big trouble. His rising use of religious language and imagery in recent months, especially with regard to the US role in the world, has stirred concern both at home and abroad. Maybe the rumors of a siezure are true. Certainly, he is quite unable to answer simple questions nor function well under public scrutiny. But he thinks he can continue to fool us with scraps of "good news."

Good news for the economy in March gave a boost to President Bush, though he quoted only the
figures that suited him. Certainly, 308,000 new jobs were created and new claims for
unemployment benefits decreased. While decreasing from previous months, the roles of the
unemployed swelled by 328,000. Quite simply then, a net LOSS of 20,000 jobs was good news
to the president, added to more than 8,000,000 people already out of work. Apparently, his math
skills are on a par with his well-known verbal talents. As a caveat, the figures mentioned are of
indubitable veracity, citations for them include recent Bureau of Labor Statistics figures and U.S.
News & World Report, et al.

An additional quote from the latter publication struck further doubt on the competency of the
president. While Michael Barone attempted to favorably spin Mr. Bush�s responses during his
recent press conference, the author only impugned him. As quoted from Mr. Barone�s latest
column in the April 26, 2004 edition of U.S. News, �This was the Bush one sees in discussions in
the Oval Office or over the dinner table - discursive, speaking often in sentence fragments, coining
new words, but utterly clear about what he means and showing the determination and sense of
command he has not shown in previous press conferences or on Meet the Press earlier this year.�
Though forgiving the run-on sentence, the columnist characterized Bush�s evasiveness as
�determination and sense of command.� But in the latest presidential news conference, Bush
primarily repeated phrases without actually addressing the questions put to him.

It is the former portion of the quote that was most telling, in reference to �...the Bush one sees...�
First, the president was described as discursive, defined as �wandering from one topic to another;
rambling,� according to Webster�s Dictionary. Certainly the adjective characterized our
president very well, while the fragmentation of sentences further explained his thought processes -
fragmented. Then Mr. Barone referred to his famous coinage of new words and attempted spin
such meanderings as being, �utterly clear.� What clarity has Bush brought to current issues like
unemployment or the Iraq War? As a result of presidential obscurities, �what he means� has too
long been interpreted variously, spun favorably by the conservative press including Michael
Barone.

Never forget, that the man with his �finger on the button� can not even pronounce the word
�nuclear� correctly. How can he possibly be an effective captain of this most powerful nation
when he does not even have a command of the English language?

Firstly, this belongs in the Mud Pit.

Secondly, I find your signature rather interesting. While Mr. Einstein was no doubt correct when he made that statement, he did not mean for you to apply it to political debate. In this case, the facts side with Bush. Yes, the economy slumped in 2000, and continued to do so for some time. This cannot possibly be blamed on the president, though; take an economics course and you'll learn about things like inflation and the job market.

As for your theories on his evangelicalism, Mr. Bush's religion has yet to affect his policymaking. I remind you that the president, as a single man, weilds little power of his own. The House and Senate of the United States must approve by majority vote any propositions he makes; this Congress is made up of men and women elected by the citizens. Should a law be passed that, for whatever reason, unfairly exploited one religion or another, then it would be stricken down quickly by the Supreme Court.

Now that we've reviewed the basics of American government, do you care to continue, or shall we just forget this ever happened?

Originally posted by Xenographer
Secondly, I find your signature rather interesting. While Mr. Einstein was no doubt correct when he made that statement, he did not mean for you to apply it to political debate.

My signature is merely a caveat to all my remarks.

In this case, the facts side with Bush. Yes, the economy slumped in 2000, and continued to do so for some time. This cannot possibly be blamed on the president, though; take an economics course and you'll learn about things like inflation and the job market.

Of course I am well aware of such factors, being very well-educated though not in liberal arts, rather letters and science. Certainly your argument is so weak that you feel must justify it vis' a vis' ad hominem denigrations.

As for your theories on his evangelicalism, Mr. Bush's religion has yet to affect his policymaking. I remind you that the president, as a single man, weilds little power of his own. The House and Senate of the United States must approve by majority vote any propositions he makes; this Congress is made up of men and women elected by the citizens. Should a law be passed that, for whatever reason, unfairly exploited one religion or another, then it would be stricken down quickly by the Supreme Court.

Did you even look at the links provided?!?

Now that we've reviewed the basics of American government, do you care to continue, or shall we just forget this ever happened?

You make no case whatsoever and are merely beligerent. Duly, your condescension simply covers up your intense inadequacies, which you express quite well I must say.

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
My signature is merely a caveat to all my remarks.

Of course I am well aware of such factors, being very well-educated though not in liberal arts, rather letters and science. Certainly your argument is so weak that you feel must justify it vis' a vis' ad hominem denigrations.

Did you even look at the links provided?!?

You make no case whatsoever and are merely beligerent. Duly, your condescension simply covers up your intense inadequacies, which you express quite well I must say.

Are you nuts man, could I not say that a athiest was making policies on his beliefs such ass abortion, and Gay marriags. Would that be fair, beliefs are what make us, and he as a person is making decisions. Even if he did make all of his decisisions using a religious backbone would that be so bad? I mean what would be wrong with it? The only thing I can think of that would cause a stur is Gay marriage. And so what if a group of Christians thinks he has went too far. I am a christian and I don't think he has went far enough. Those are just opinions, quotes in his speeches don't make him a bad man , or insane.

Originally posted by infovacume
Are you nuts man, could I not say that a athiest was making policies on his beliefs such ass abortion, and Gay marriags. Would that be fair, beliefs are what make us, and he as a person is making decisions. Even if he did make all of his decisisions using a religious backbone would that be so bad? I mean what would be wrong with it? The only thing I can think of that would cause a stur is Gay marriage. And so what if a group of Christians thinks he has went too far. I am a christian and I don't think he has went far enough. Those are just opinions, quotes in his speeches don't make him a bad man , or insane.

Flaunting religion in no way gives credibility to a leader, even if he actually is making decisions. Consider that the Nazis used religion to claim some moral high ground and to justify genocide. Also, you seem to imply that an Atheist has no morals whatsoever. Without the prospect of being forgiven or having an afterlife, why would such a person ever think of breaking natural law? Certainly it was never on atheistic grounds that so many centuries of horrors were perpetrated on innocents. In fact the Church and all its permutations was the very cause of horrors such as the Inquistition, Witch trials and murderous Irish unrest. Of course, these examples are but a few instances in the shameful legacy of the Christian Church. But you are not satisfied with how far the president 'went.' Then just what are you suggesting? Maybe that his religion should be imposed on everyone or other such nonsense? To the contrary, the framers of our constitution ensured freedom of religion and even freedom from it. Our second president, John Adams put the sentiment very well, as follows, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" For his quote, I cite the following references:

"The Character of John Adams," by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and "John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words," edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, "Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim," by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814, www.dimensional.com...

Originally posted by infovacume
Are you nuts man, could I not say that a athiest was making policies on his beliefs such ass abortion, and Gay marriags. Would that be fair, beliefs are what make us, and he as a person is making decisions. Even if he did make all of his decisisions using a religious backbone would that be so bad? I mean what would be wrong with it? The only thing I can think of that would cause a stur is Gay marriage. And so what if a group of Christians thinks he has went too far. I am a christian and I don't think he has went far enough. Those are just opinions, quotes in his speeches don't make him a bad man , or insane.

The problem with bush's fundamentalist policies is he's causing the USA to move backwards in the world...

While the rest of the world is open to, or working towards, equal rights for gays bush is stripping the rights from them. And while the rest of the world is allowing women to plan their lives and not bring a child into this world if they arent ready, bush is stripping the rights away. in regards to abortion wouldnt it be better to let the child go then to bring them into poverty and live a sub-standard life. Bush is very backwards and it is costing him popularity...

Bush is a politician most of all, and recognizes that there are many who will vote for him based on the fact that they think he is religious, so he uses the gay and abortion issues and peppers his speeches with religion just to add to the performance. He realizes that religion is something that will get him a large number of votes.

so youd rather have something that congress passed along in the 50s to differentiate ourselves from communist totalitarian states gone because it "imposes our religion" on you? hellooo seperation of church and state is a principle, not a law. the only thing with religion congress cannot do is to pass any law affecting the practice of or establishing a religion.

Originally posted by Aeon10101110

Originally posted by Xenographer
Secondly, I find your signature rather interesting. While Mr. Einstein was no doubt correct when he made that statement, he did not mean for you to apply it to political debate.

My signature is merely a caveat to all my remarks.

In this case, the facts side with Bush. Yes, the economy slumped in 2000, and continued to do so for some time. This cannot possibly be blamed on the president, though; take an economics course and you'll learn about things like inflation and the job market.

Of course I am well aware of such factors, being very well-educated though not in liberal arts, rather letters and science. Certainly your argument is so weak that you feel must justify it vis' a vis' ad hominem denigrations.

As for your theories on his evangelicalism, Mr. Bush's religion has yet to affect his policymaking. I remind you that the president, as a single man, weilds little power of his own. The House and Senate of the United States must approve by majority vote any propositions he makes; this Congress is made up of men and women elected by the citizens. Should a law be passed that, for whatever reason, unfairly exploited one religion or another, then it would be stricken down quickly by the Supreme Court.

Did you even look at the links provided?!?

Now that we've reviewed the basics of American government, do you care to continue, or shall we just forget this ever happened?

You make no case whatsoever and are merely beligerent. Duly, your condescension simply covers up your intense inadequacies, which you express quite well I must say.

He said nothing beligerent. Its amazing when radical left wing nonsense such as the crap you just threw forward is the basis behind someones thought. It provided you with enough basis to call someone beligerent when they did nothing to you. AMAZING! How can you think rationally if you are so blinded by your own stupidity?

Worry about politics and policy. I hate liberal policy attachments. Racism, religion, abortion. These are all things that should not be related to a particular party...yet liberals let themselves be scared into victim groups by their own leaders like fools.