The media keep up the constant reminders of how bad the Iraq war is going. They incessantly talk about it, even though we’ve heard it over and over again. They constantly bash President Bush (that’s right, he’s the President; remember that) for being a stupid idiot with a horrible administration. It gets nauseating after six years. However, the complaints are petty.
The media have been keeping up a campaign to fire Donald Rumsfeld from being Secretary of Defense for the past three years. They say he’s administering the war wrong (as if they could do a better job) and hasn’t done good enough of a job handling our defense. They say he’s been “running roughshod” over his officers, and for that matter, Mr. Bush has been “running roughshod” over his administration officials. They obviously don’t consider the fact that it’s hard running an administration. When you are an administrator, you have many people who disagree with one another and are lobbying to get their ideas chosen. You have to take initiative to be able to lead an organization like that if you want anything to get done. It’s the same way in any other large organization such as a company or foundation. Bill Clinton had the same problems. The degree that you notice the problems of administering government depends on how much the media want to highlight the faults of an administration. In this case, they definitely want to, and are pursuing that goal incessantly. There have always been problems in government, and there are more of them now that government is so big. But wait, that’s one of the liberal causes.
Yet, more soldiers keep coming back from Iraq who say that most of what is going on there is positive, and the general trend is headed toward progress. The media just focus on the extra-ordinary. They focus on the bad news, so that the Bush administration will look as bad as possible.
On a completely unrelated note, there is a shocking quote in WORLD Magazine this week that really says something about the moral values of this country and the influence of Pelagianism. Here it is:
“He’s a good kid. He just has a problem with stealing cars.”
This was said by a Riviera Beach, Fla., woman on her 15-year-old brother, unidentified by police because of his age, who has been convicted four times for car theft and also for cocaine distribution, marijuana possession, and larceny.
Just a little, tiny, itty bitty problem.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:33 am
george bush isnt a idot he is the 3rd best president weve ever had
the first is george cliton the president of funk
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:23 pm
That’s debateable.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:52 am
Well, it seems you’ve taken up a new stance in life.
Politics.
Why doesn’t that surprise me? Because you are such a bushphile you have no way to see past the spell he has cast on you.
The man didn’t even do his own duty in the service….don’t be of the mind that Rather lied about the papers, only that he didn’t HAVE the papers. He DID have a bundle of witnesses.
In any case, you pound down a president that almost cleaned up the national debt (not by himself, but with the help of businesses, too) but praise a man who has now murdered more of our citizens than the 911 incident did?
All in the name of “democracy”….
Bull.
He has no idea of what he’s doing nor of the consequences he has now forced upon the world. Just like his moron of a predecessor, Reagan, who refused to speak on the fact that he armed and trained bin laden.
Still, I would have thought, what with the name you are using, to be above this petty crap.
Guess not, eh?
Heck! I’ll betcha yer even the kind of person who flies to a bible to find ways to condemn other folks, aren’t you?
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Well, welcome back, Boneman. It’s been a while since we’ve had our lengthy discussion on your version of the Bible. BTW, thanks for the linkage (for other readers, you’ll find his link under the heading, “more bs”). Well anyway, let’s talk about your comment.
a new stance in life
You’re not a regular reader, you don’t even know me, and yet you resort to implying that I’m a childish hillbilly that has just discovered politics. You’ll notice that I have a whole category entitled, “Politics”.
bushphile
Again, you don’t even know me, and yet assume that I wrote this because I was a “bushphile”. But before reading this post, you didn’t even know I was a “bushphile”. That’s what you call circular reasoning.
spell he has cast on you
Wow, you’re even entering magical influences into the discussion.
he didn’t HAVE the papers
Please don’t yell on my blog (unless you’re Axinar). He did have the papers. It was because he had the papers that he was caught by LGF’s Charles Johnson. Okay fine, maybe he didn’t have them under his bed every night; but the network had them, and he showed them in his broadcasts.
bundle of witnesses
Despite the fact that there maybe were a few liars, I don’t think you should categorize people in “bundles”.
Bill Clinton vs. Pres. Bush
There are plenty of other reasons besides Clinton’s fiscal policies that I “pound” him down for (see here).
The definition of murder is willfully killing someone because of hate. You can see that Pres. Bush does not hate those soldiers going to Iraq and Afghanistan. Don’t forget that these soldiers joined voluntarily.
No one who has a level head that examines the facts carefully would call Bush a murderer of more than 3,000 people. Most liberals don’t even say that.
his moron of a predecessor, Reagan
Moron? MORON? You call the person who ended the Cold War, introduced fiscal responsibility to government, and started an economic program that has reaped many good fruits that even liberals admit to since then (especially in Clinton’s administration) a MORON? Man, you’re unbelievable.
We were focusing on Communism in the ’80s. Bin Laden was fighting the communists, so we helped him. No one can tell the future, and guess what, humans make mistakes. Don’t look back on people in the past and judge them according to what we know now. Judging in hindsight is not a good idea.
with the name you are using
Althusius was what you would call a conservative today. Besides, I’m not agreeing with any or all of Pres. Bush’s policies; I’m just defending him against the petty arguments of the media and liberals such as yourself.
I’ll betcha yer even the kind of person
Thanks for the generalization. Wait a second, that’s bigotry!! Percival, help me!
condemn other folks
Are you talking about the kid who stole 4 cars, dealt in drugs, along with a few other things as well?
Thanks for the comment. It was a lot of hot air that I had to meet with humor, but it wasn’t too bad. I can’t believe Percival the peevish peacock banned Aunty Belle from commenting, but not you.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Wow..that guy was completley inconsistent. Just another enemy of Christ, I suppose. Who does this guy think he is? Reagan a moron? are you flipping kidding me??? Reagan was the greatest president in US history! he knew that government control needed to be limited and that’s what he did. He made mistakes, just like everybody else. it’s called human nature. get over it…
October 4th, 2006 at 6:38 am
Well, take it all apart….hmmm.
Still no surprise.
Y’want it piecemeal or all at once?
How about “chunks”
I don’t “yell” but I do like to use italics and bold to emphasize.
Don’t know how, so I use capitals
October 4th, 2006 at 7:35 am
now, as for two other points, no. Percival did not ban you, Auntie, or anybody from his site.
He did, however, request that bigotry and similar forms of muck-raking, disparaging remarks of others (he was willing to accept criticism directed to him, not his ideals) and on that, he deleted items.
Truth be told, having not deleted fast enough, and seeing yer thoughts on what you call “religion”….well. That’s why I ever returned.
And, as for consistency….did you actually tell folks that come to yer place how to link to yer place from MY place? (note the emphasis, not the yelling)
October 4th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Actually, the more important point has NOT been covered.
Are you still capable of learning?
Now, that may sound like a slight, but, in truth, it is an honest question, and one which you should take the time to consider before answering.
It has been a blessing to me to have learned so late in life that I am still capable of learning. Still sharp enough of wit to deduct and to even speculate when the need arrives to do so.
For example, I called you a bushphile, when in actuality I have no idea who you voted for. My deduction comes from your less than honorable mention of clinton and your defense of bush’s less than intelligent policies.
As for the word “moron”, well, you might be too young to have heard it, but when he won Governorship in California, THAT was the word HE used to describe himself, and to add why he was going to get the smartest people he could find as state cabinet members.
My own views of him are far more critical than the word “moron” because of his total disreguard for opinions other than his own and his four point lies that got him re-elected. Not unlike the lies bush used in his own re-election.
“Going to make government smaller, more manageable…”
(tripled the size from Carter’s administration)
“Not going to accept threats from any other nation…”
(well, unless china shoots down an airplane full of civilians and tourists, or Libya shoots down a passenger flight)
“Cut the cost of government….”
(I don’t have to mention to you just how high he got the deficit while he was in, do I? I mean, he broke records at the amount…records that have actually been broken by the guy in office, now.)
“Mr. Gorbachev! Bring down this wall!”
I couldn’t believe it when he said that. Most European nations heads of states couldn’t believe it, either.
Not because it was a proud, boastful demand.
But, because the heads of state of most European nations knew that it was happenning. Gorbachev had rallied with them all to announce it, and to plead with them for two things…
#1 Secracy until it was done to better stop wholesale chaos on a market that was not ready for the action without specific laws in place.
#2 Help from the other nations in the changing of the system, which until that time, was totally state run.
But good ol’ gipper. Just couldn’t pass up a chance to try to upstage Kennedy, remarkably nearly sending the newly opened country into turmoil; the uprising between the political factions within the soviet union took the message as prophecy and formed a near disasterous response to Gorbachev’s work.
In essence, reagan nearly stopped the freedom from ever happenning.
And, by the way, if I might be so curious. Who DID you vote for? Not Kerry, I’m sure.
Probably not the right man for the job, either.
October 5th, 2006 at 8:05 am
And on to the definitions.
We had a disagreement on the word sycophant before, remember?
You thought I meant parasite. I meant fauning.
Now we seem to have another parting of the ways with the word “murder” and, doubtless you already recognize your mistake….
by your standards, a man who robs a bank with a gun, accidently shoots someone to death, is not guilty of murder?
Tell ya what.
Since I came over for some religious conversation and you have nothing but….whatever you call this….I’ll just leave you to your….whatever you call this.
In words spoken since the beginning of written words….you can’t mix religion and politics.
And from me, when you do, THAT is the taliban.
October 5th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Here’s how to do italics: type < , then enter i, then enter >, then type the italicized text, then type < , then type /, then type i, then type >. The result should look like this. You can use the same trick in Blogger. For bold, just substitute “b” for the “i” in the above directions.
Yes, Percival banned her from commenting because he viewed her comments as personal attacks and bigotry. You also were using personal attacks and bigotry on his blog and this one. That’s my point.
I would like you to link to my blog simply under the heading “Pro Rege Papers”. This is what everyone else does to every other blog (okay fine, maybe not everybody, but all the ones who are serious or well known).
Yes, I am still capable of learning. I am learning new things everyday, and yes, even changing my opinions (but not everyday). However, your arguments were not suitable enough to convince me to change my opinions, since they were easily refuted.
Bushphile
You still didn’t answer my argument that what you said was circular reasoning. Saying that Bush’s policies are less than intelligent is a matter of opinion, not fact.
Moron
Reagan might have used the term in humility and sarcasm, but you were obviously using the term seriously to describe the man.
Reagan made other parts of government smaller.
But for the arguments in general, they are no reason to call the man a moron. You pointed out a few of his failings and unfulfilled promises. Every President and every man has had those. As I said before, you can’t see the future, so you can’t predict that you’re going to have to spend billions on defense against the communists. The point is that the man did some great things that really helped our country and the world.
Your ideas on fall of the Berlin Wall are just a conspiracy theory.
Voting
I’m not going to disclose my voting habits for fear I may be prosecuted.
Murder
Yes, if he accidentally shoots someone, it is manslaughter, not murder. If he’s looking the other way doing something, and something falls on his hand so that the trigger goes off and kills someone, that’s manslaughter. However, he was endangering peoples’ lives anyway, and he should be held accountable for that, as well as robbery and manslaughter. If he shot someone intentionally in the course of the robbery, that’s murder.
The Blog
This blog isn’t all for religious topics, although I attempt to show the links between the things I write on and the Christianity I believe.
In words spoken since the beginning of written words….you can’t mix religion and politics. And from me, when you do, THAT is the taliban.
Since the beginning of words? Yes you can mix religion and politics. And from me, when you do, THAT is the Constitution and the United States of America. Your statement is true if you’re dealing with false religion (like Islam).
I don’t mean in any way that the spheres of sovereignty or power should be mixed between church and state, but I do mean that Christianity should be influential in political decisions and policies, and that the government should protect the Church. That’s Althusius’ political philosophy.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Its odd that these presidents are such idiots, yet the whole of America voted them into power…..i guess that makes us all idiots.
something to think about
October 19th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
However I may disagree with you, you do have a good point. It is something to think about, and it’s why direct democracy is not a good idea.
America is not a democracy (at least it wasn’t, it’s becoming more so). It’s a republic. Here’s just one example.
October 19th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Here’s another one, by the way.
October 19th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Actually we are not all idiots, we didn’t all vote for Bush.
Only history will tell just how good or bad this administration was, as of right now though it doesn’t look like Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld will rate too high.
October 19th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
It does not make us all idiots, but the majority of America did vote in favor of these men, revealing the majority of America’s views. what i am trying to say is, if these men were such idiots, America would not have voted them in. we have to respect them, however much we dont like them, because they are our God-given predestinated leaders…
October 20th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Yo, Anon; try using your real name or an alias so we can tell you apart from the other Anonymous that you obviously don’t agree with.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
: P
October 20th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
This
or 
, that is how you do it. 