1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Which Republican is next?

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by StraightAndNarrow, Nov 28, 2005.

  1. Dunamis XX

    Dunamis XX New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cheney is a good VP and will remain til the end of his term. The Dems don't have anything of substance on him. The Dems just HATE GWB and Cheney and will remain a thorn in their side til the end of 2008. As for Condi, who knows for sure, she says the POTUS is an office she is not interested in at all. Who knows? Only time will tell.

    If Bush continues with excessive spending, allowing illegals to continue to come into this country and does not bring an established democracy in Iraq...we will be calling Hillary, "Madame, President" IMHO.
     
  2. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    In other words, you're saying that Bush didn't give Congress all the intelligence information that was available to him. I agree with you. That's way our representatives who voted for the war shouldn't be critized for changing their minds now when it has become obvious that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place.

    Bush has withheld a lot of information from the American people. I don't think the fault has been bad intelligence so much as a very poor evaluation of the available information by this administration. Bush wanted to invade Iraq as Wolfowitz had argued 10 years earlier. He was just looking for a good excuse. 9/11 was that excuse.
     
  3. Rocko9

    Rocko9 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have stated it absolutely perfectly StraightAndNarrow, it's all smoke and mirrors and a pretty good illusion at that until you know how the trick is done. It is time to get on with real partisian politics and do what is right for fighting men in the field and for the dignity of America. This war has been won for our part, it is up to the Iraqi people to either continue upon their destructive path or to embrace the oppurtunity of having a democracy.
     
  4. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    Name the "communists in congress" with proof, please. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, I should have said, new socialist leftist communist wannabe's, afraid to reveal their true intentions for America. </font>[/QUOTE]I repeat. What's your proof?
     
  5. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The proof's in the title of Hillary's book..."It Takes A Village"
     
  6. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    When a baby is dedicated to God in my church the mother and father are asked if they will protect him and teach him the faith. Then the church is asked if they will support the parents in bring up the child in a Christian environment. Therefore, you could say that it takes a group, the congregation, to bring up a child in the faith. Do you claim that this is "communist" as well?
     
  7. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    43,044
    Likes Received:
    1,647
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't think there will ever be a consensus about the wisdom of invading Iraq. We are all doing nothing more than butting our heads against a wall to think that our side's arguments will carry the day on the subject. What we all need to do is learn our lesson from this situation and the next time, regardless of who the president is and regardless of which party he/she is from(Democrat, Republican, or whatever), we must all address with much, much greater skepticism the reasons given for military action and demand much more convincing proof.
     
  8. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't think there will ever be a consensus about the wisdom of invading Iraq. We are all doing nothing more than butting our heads against a wall to think that our side's arguments will carry the day on the subject. What we all need to do is learn our lesson from this situation and the next time, regardless of who the president is and regardless of which party he/she is from(Democrat, Republican, or whatever), we must all address with much, much greater skepticism the reasons given for military action and demand much more convincing proof. </font>[/QUOTE]The problem is that I believe this has happened before. Another thread provides an article on the Gulf of Tonkin incident which dramatically esculated our involvement in Viet Nam. I also think there's a good chance that Roosevelt knew in advance about Pearl Harbor. How many more of these do we have to accept before doing something about it? I think entering WW2 was probably inevitable and Pearl Harbor simply hastened U.S. involvement. But what if the Gulf of Tonkin affair had been exposed? Maybe we would never have gotten involved in VN in a significant way. Think of the positive effect that would have had on our country. Kennedy was even approached with an idea to blow up a U.S. airliner and blame Cuba to get support for an invasion.

    I just can't get arould Wolfowitz and the rest of the think tank crowd (which includes most of Bush's high advisors) broadcasting the desire to invade Iraq throughout the 1990's and evn saying that it would take another Pearl Harbor-like event to get American support for the invasion. They took this request to GHW Bush and to Clinton and were rejected but found a willing supporter in GW Bush. Somewhere you have to draw the line and I say it's right here.
     
  9. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I would say that a baby dedication service is a completely unscriptual event, but that's another thread. But it is pimarily the parents job to raise their kids, and should answer only to God for the way they do it. The congregation has no say.

    And you know that's not what Hillary means, so the comparison is silly.
     
  10. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    I would say that a baby dedication service is a completely unscriptual event, but that's another thread. But it is pimarily the parents job to raise their kids, and should answer only to God for the way they do it. The congregation has no say.

    And you know that's not what Hillary means, so the comparison is silly.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Well, the Bible says you're wrong. Jesus himself was dedicated to God.

    Luk 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. Luk 2:22 And when the days of her puri-fication according to the Law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present [him] to the Lord. Luk 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.)
     
  11. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    43,044
    Likes Received:
    1,647
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Please read the actual report. Here's a link:

    www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (See pp. 50-51 of the report.)

    The Pearl Harbor comment was not referring in any way to invading Iraq.
     
  12. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    43,044
    Likes Received:
    1,647
    Faith:
    Baptist
  13. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I would say that a baby dedication service is a completely unscriptual event, but that's another thread. But it is pimarily the parents job to raise their kids, and should answer only to God for the way they do it. The congregation has no say.

    And you know that's not what Hillary means, so the comparison is silly.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Well, the Bible says you're wrong. Jesus himself was dedicated to God.

    Luk 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. Luk 2:22 And when the days of her puri-fication according to the Law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present [him] to the Lord. Luk 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.)
    </font>[/QUOTE]Again, I will argue baby dedication services on another thread, maybe.

    Is Hillary talking about this ? Does she mention Jesus Christ once, in her book ? You know she doesn't, so again, the comparison is silly.
     
Loading...