Bush: I'm God's Delivery Boy

TwistedMac said:
why not just make up a few figures while you're at it and use that? '
"last year 2.000.000 anti-bushers shot up on blacktower heroine while screwing hookers... and they were not only unprotected, they also had wives and 5 kids at home!.. God is rotating in his grave, he is!"

:giggle:


HAHA, Funny you. :bluush: :giggle:
 
Hachiko said:
You're mistaken on that. Actually, it was Jimmy Carter who set the tone for all this to happen. Clinton had to finish what Carter started. Carter, in this case, is the idiot here, and Clinton is who I would call the "idiot's puppet." See this source and this source.

What exaclty are you talking about? The canal, or pres. f*cking up?

Clarify your clarification.
 
Clarification on clarification

Winter said:
What exaclty are you talking about? The canal, or pres. f*cking up?

Clarify your clarification.

I'm talking about both the canal, and the president being forced to f*ck up. It wasn't Clinton's fault, it had already been set. Did you even bother to read the sources I posted? Here's your clarification, chief. I'll ice the Panama Canal topic here, and we'll move on.

September 7, 1977 - Signing of the Panama Canal Treaty (Torrijos-Carter Treaty) between the Republic of Panama and the United States of America. The Organization of American States was the site of the signing of the Treaties, attended by 28 governments and 19 heads of state as witnesses to the signing of the historic agreements guaranteeing the Canal would be transferred to the Republic of Panama, which will assume full responsibility for its administration, operation and maintenance. The parties also agreed on the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal. This agreement establishes a regime of neutrality that guarantees that the Canal shall remain open, safe, neutral and accessible to vessels of all nations.
 
Last edited:
The New York Times
April 1, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST

* Charlie McCarthy Hearings

By MAUREEN DOWD

Following is the text of a letter sent yesterday to Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton of the Sept. 11 commission from Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to President Bush.

While we continue to hold to the principles underlying the Constitutional separation of powers, that the appropriate and patriotic action for the Commission is to shut down and stop pestering us, the President is prepared, in the interest of comity and popularity, to testify, subject to the conditions set forth below.

The President at all times, even on trips to the men's room, will be accompanied by the Vice President.

The Commission must agree in writing that it will not pose any questions directly to the President. Mr. Bush's statements will be restricted to asides on Dick Cheney's brushoffs, as in "Just like he said," "Roger that" and "Ditto."

Another necessary condition, in keeping with the tenets of executive privilege: Mr. Cheney will require that the Commission observe the rules of his favorite show from the Eisenhower Administration, "What's My Line?" The panelists, in the manner of Dorothy Kilgallen and Bennett Cerf, must try to guess what the President and Vice President didn't know and when they didn't know it through questions that elicit a "yes" or "no."

After 10 "no" answers, the panel will not be allowed to question Mr. Cheney or anyone else in the Administration ever again. In the mystery-guest round, Richard Ben-Veniste, Bob Kerrey and other Democrats on the Commission will be blindfolded.

(Or Mr. Cheney is willing to follow the precedent of Garry Moore and Bess Meyerson, using "I've Got A Secret" rules: The Vice President will whisper a secret about the Administration's inadequate response to terrorism in the President's ear and each panelist will have 30 seconds to question Mr. Cheney in an attempt to guess the secret, which he will not reveal even if they guess right.)

As an additional accommodation, the President and Vice President have now agreed to take a "pinkie oath," looping little fingers with each other, while reserving the right to cross the index and middle fingers of their remaining hands and hide them behind their backs.

We must deny your request that Mr. Cheney bring along a PowerPoint presentation depicting who was in and out of the loop, in accordance with separation-of-PowerPoint principles. The Vice President has decreed that the loop of influence is under the cone of silence.

The White House is taking the extraordinary step of bowing to public opinion -- even though Mr. Cheney states that he doesn't give two hoots about public opinion. Therefore, the Vice President will only entertain questions about negligence in fighting terrorism concerning the critical period between Jan. 21, 1993, and Jan. 20, 2001. As President Bush stated on Tuesday, March 30, the Commission must gain "a complete picture of the months and years before Sept. 11."

The Vice President will not address any queries about why no one reacted to George Tenet's daily "hair on fire" alarms to the President about a coming Al Qaeda attack; or why the President was so consumed with chopping and burning cedar on his Crawford ranch that he ignored the warning in an Aug. 6, 2001, briefing that Al Qaeda might try to hijack aircraft; or why the President asked for a plan to combat Al Qaeda in May and then never followed up while Richard Clarke's aggressive plan was suffocated by second-raters; or why the President was never briefed by his counterterrorism chief on anything but cybersecurity until Sept. 11; or why the Administration-in-amber made so many cold war assumptions, such as thinking that terrorists had to be sponsored by a state even as terrorists had taken over a state; or why the President went along with the Vice President and the neocons to fool the American public into believing that Saddam had a hand in the 9/11 attacks; or why the Administration chose to undercut the war on terrorism and inflame the Arab world by attacking Iraq, without a plan to protect our perilously overextended forces or to exit with a realistic hope that a democracy will be left behind.

The Commission must not, under any circumstances, ask the Vice President why American soldiers and civilians in Iraq are being greeted with barbarous infernos rather than flowery bouquets.

Finally, we request that when the President finishes with this painful teeth-pulling visit, the Commission shall offer him a lollipop.

....
 
I hate posting on things like this because everyone bites my head off.

Well, anyway. First: A lot of people listen to God for guidence in doing the right thing. I do it, and a know a lot of you do it too. Why is it so wrong that Pres. Bush is doing it to help guide him? Is it only because he is President?

Second: He is trying the best he help this country stay together and get back on its feet. Sure, there's a lot of things he's done wrong, but he's human and people make mistakes. He can't please everyone with everything he does.

Third: I like to hope that he's the lesser of two evils. And if Kerry does get in this next term then God be with him and I hope he tries his best to run this country to the best of his abilities.
 
nikki_the_insane said:
I hate posting on things like this because everyone bites my head off.

Well, anyway. First: A lot of people listen to God for guidence in doing the right thing. I do it, and a know a lot of you do it too. Why is it so wrong that Pres. Bush is doing it to help guide him? Is it only because he is President?

Second: He is trying the best he help this country stay together and get back on its feet. Sure, there's a lot of things he's done wrong, but he's human and people make mistakes. He can't please everyone with everything he does.

Third: I like to hope that he's the lesser of two evils. And if Kerry does get in this next term then God be with him and I hope he tries his best to run this country to the best of his abilities.

It's fine if Bush--or any President--believes in God and follows God's guidance in his personal life, but he has a duty to the American people, as President of the United States, to keep church and state SEPARATE. That's what this is about.
 
This pretty much says it all ...

----------------------
 
As Linus Van Pelt (of the Charlie Brown comics) used to say, the three things you never talk about in public (to avoid major conflicts and arguments) are Politics, Religion and The Great Pumpkin. This topic has at least two of them....I'm awaiting for the third to pop up pretty soon here :D
 
Lol, that has been the funniest bush parody I have seen! Good job lol... :giggle:
 
den4 said:
As Linus Van Pelt (of the Charlie Brown comics) used to say, the three things you never talk about in public (to avoid major conflicts and arguments) are Politics, Religion and The Great Pumpkin. This topic has at least two of them....I'm awaiting for the third to pop up pretty soon here :D

I think The Great Pumpkin just popped up in your post!! :D
 
Satori said:
It's fine if Bush--or any President--believes in God and follows God's guidance in his personal life, but he has a duty to the American people, as President of the United States, to keep church and state SEPARATE. That's what this is about.

Well, I know that but it's hard to seperate it sometimes. At least he isn't forcing his religion or beliefs on us.
 
nikki_the_insane said:
Well, I know that but it's hard to seperate it sometimes. At least he isn't forcing his religion or beliefs on us.

It's against the law for him not to, and the point of this article is that he has been merging church and state. By the way, quite a few people in this country would disagree with your assertion that he is not forcing his religion and beliefs on us! There's plenty of evidence that this has been done throughout his term of office.
 
Did you know that the Great Pumpkin looks for the most sincere pumpkin patch and gives toys to all the good children of the world? If this is so, then I wonder when the tale diverged from Old St Nick? Oops, this would encourage getting close to both religious and potentially inflammatory pagan holiday rituals that would cause more fallout in this thread! :D
 
Satori said:
It's against the law for him not to, and the point of this article is that he has been merging church and state. By the way, quite a few people in this country would disagree with your assertion that he is not forcing his religion and beliefs on us! There's plenty of evidence that this has been done throughout his term of office.

Do you think you can give me some honorable websites that have some of this evidence of his forcing of his religion on us so I can see for my own eyes?
 
nikki_the_insane said:
Do you think you can give me some honorable websites that have some of this evidence of his forcing of his religion on us so I can see for my own eyes?

Oh God, that's all over the internet, in practically every news article, TV source, etc. Believe me, it would not be difficult for you to find. Just do an internet search and you'll find PLENTY!!! It's been discussed since he took office. Good luck!
 
Hi Nikki,

I just thought I should point out the reason I suggested you do your own internet search. You asked me if I knew of any "honorable" web sites. Since my idea of "honorable" and your idea of "honorable" may differ, that is why I thought you might have better luck on your own. For instance, I don't consider Fox News an "honorable" news source (not many people do), but maybe you would. But there's a lot of information out there on this subject, so you shouldn't have any problem turning up information. Good luck!

Satori
:)
 
Satori said:
Hi Nikki,

I just thought I should point out the reason I suggested you do your own internet search. You asked me if I knew of any "honorable" web sites. Since my idea of "honorable" and your idea of "honorable" may differ, that is why I thought you might have better luck on your own. For instance, I don't consider Fox News an "honorable" news source (not many people do), but maybe you would. But there's a lot of information out there on this subject, so you shouldn't have any problem turning up information. Good luck!

Satori
:)

Yeah, I had read your post before and was thinking, 'well she didn't give me any sites,' but I understand your point when we have different ideas of 'honorable.' Thanks for clearing that out for me. :)
 
Back on topic.

I found this. We are being "called " some more.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/23/text.bush/

CNN.com said:
The text of the statement by President George W. Bush to Pope John Paul II:

Your Holiness, thank you so much.

Mrs. Bush and I are honoured to stand with you today. We are grateful for your welcome.

You have been to America many times, and spoken to vast crowds.

You have met with four American presidents before me, including my father.

In every visit, and every meeting -- including our meeting today -- you have reminded America that we have a special calling to promote justice, and to defend the weak and suffering of the world.

We remember your words, and we will always do our best to remember our calling.

Since October of 1978, you have shown the world, not only "the splendour of truth," but the power of truth to overcome evil and redirect the course of history.

You have urged men and women of good will to take to their knees before God -- and to stand, unafraid, before tyrants.

And this has added greatly to the momentum of freedom in our time.

Where there is oppression, you speak of human rights. Where there is poverty, you speak of justice and hope.

Where there is ancient hatred, you defend and display a tolerance that reaches beyond every boundary of race and nation and belief.

Where there is great abundance, you remind us that wealth must be matched with compassion and moral purpose.

And always, to all, you have carried the Gospel of life, which welcomes the stranger and protects the weak and innocent.

Every nation, including my own, would benefit from hearing and heeding this message of conscience.

Above all, you have carried the message of the Gospel into 126 nations, and into the Third Millennium, always with courage and confidence.

You have brought the love of God into the lives of men. And that good news is needed in every nation and every age.

Thank you again, Your Holiness, for your kindness, and the honour of this meeting.
 
One of many instances where Bush's religious beliefs has impacted the citizens of the US is how he signed that partial birth abortion ban (which was clearly unconstitutional, and cost a LOT of taxpayer's money in the courts until it was ruled against very recently):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3768331.stm

I live in a country where church and state really aren't separate, and I have many, many strong issues with this situation, especially when a rapidly growing percentage of residents here do NOT belong to the faith in question. Even if they did, laws should not, imo, be passed to enforce a particular religious doctrine.
 

This thread has been viewed 25142 times.

Back
Top