President Bush on Christianity

Well, I can tell you that when I travelled outside of the USA forty years ago, I never said anything against my country or against my government because I was taught that that was what politics ends at water's [sic} edge meant. And I do believe that it dealt with physical location because Carter came under attack for his remarks against his country while he was in Europe accepting the Nobel Prize.

I stand behind this statement:

The time-honored American tradition, whereby "politics ends at the water's edge," has historically sent a clear message to friend and foe alike that the American people, through their elected representatives, stood full square behind the armed forces and their commander-in-chief during time of war.

 

Where did you see me critise my country or my government CMG?

Is President Bush my country? Is he my government?

 

I am curious CMG. Would have you have been so demanding of my absolute support for the abhorrent, immoral behaviour of President Clinton while he was in office? When my Irish friends praised President Clinton I suppose I should have agreed what a wonderful president he was?

I believe that you are the first person ever to question my patriotism CMG, and you do so merely because I oppose President Bush's pro-gay agenda. I take great offence at that.

[ June 05, 2004, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Christ4Kildare ]

 

C4K, speak up. I see no reason not to make a verbal or written defense of our nation and its traditions just because you are in Ireland.

 

"Yes. In this area (as well as a few others)he deserves criticism. I honour him as my president and will obey him as Biblically mandated, but that does not mean I must never criticise him.

"Christians had no problem criticising President Clinton."

"Where did you see me critise my country or my government CMG?

"Is President Bush my country? Is he my government?"

No one has questioned your patriotism, Christ4K, but your wisdom. And it had nothing to do with the subject of your criticism.

I stand by my complaint about you and I will repeat it every time that I see you pull a Jimmy Carter. And, yes, the President is the head of your government.

The time-honored American tradition, whereby "politics ends at the water's edge," has historically sent a clear message to friend and foe alike that the American people, through their elected representatives, stood full square behind the armed forces and their commander-in-chief during time of war.

 

Wrong, rsr, it has applied to all American citizens. Why doesn't the man in Ireland just change his address on the computer to say that he is in OK or somewhere?

And thanks for the insult--don't you just love Baptists?

 

Now, admittedly this may sound old fashioned and rigid, but perhaps he doesn't do that because it would be dishonest.

 

So are serial adulterers and habitual liars. Should they also be prime candidates for high office? </font>[/QUOTE]First of all, we're not talking about serial adulterers or habitual liars.

Second, to my knowledge, no openly gay person has run for high office since President Bush took office.

My point was that gays have every right to participate in their government as anyone else. Just because you and I may disagree with homosexuality doesn't mean that they check their rights to participate at the door.

 

We are not a theocracy.

Whatever you or I may think of homosexuality, gays are Americans, too. </font>[/QUOTE]True, but we have no need of a president with a homosexual agenda. </font>[/QUOTE]As much as I know I shouldn't dignify such stupidity with a response, I'll bite: what "homosexual agenda"?

 

First of all, it might be in the best interest of your argument to give a link to a non-partisan site, rather than one set up for the purpose of bashing our president.

Second, since most of the outrages found on this site are not evidence of his supporting a "gay agenda", perhaps you could tell us specifically which of these is indicative of his supporting a "gay agenda".

As for the "truth hurts", in the section you recommended, "Bush on Sodomy", they include the following statement:

It is not the Democrats who have given us Roe v. Wade and are threatening to give us “gay marriage” – it is Republicans like George W. Bush!

I wonder if these guys realize that Roe v Wade was passed nearly thirty years before President Bush took office.

Idiotic statements such as these don't exactly establish them as a credible source.

 

Whether or not I like your source isn't the point. The fact is, if the source has an axe to grind, then this should be taken into account.

Bias is bias. I'm asking you for a non-biased, non-partisan source.

And your source for this conversation? I'd be curious to see it in it's proper context, since the conversation between the President and "Evertz" is referring to a specific incident, which is conveniently left out here.