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!
Well, you are entitled to opinion and by defending the GOP no matter what must mean you have turned into a pro-homosexual and pro-abort, for that is the direction the party has headed. Voicing dissent does not make me or anyone else a Michael Moore.
Not you too.
Interesting. I was wondering about the facts of hte case. I can see now why Jonathan was hesitant to post them. It seems to show, if this is right, that there was more to this ruling than meets the eye. It is a shame that Jonathan didn't tell the whole story.
It's not part of the official cabinet, but according to the Washington Times, Ken Mehlman, campaign manager for Bush-Cheney '04, will be named head of the Republican National Committee.
You're over the top. Just repeating what you've read without all of the facts. It's amazing how much news that you're regurgitating here is nothing more than OPINION PIECES.
His votes as a judge in Texas may be Public Information but I have not seen anyone on this board post any of this public information. Instead you have merely taken the word of someone who has said they they have examined these records and have stated their opinion about what they contain.
His votes as a judge in Texas may be Public Information but I have not seen anyone on this board post any of this public information. Instead you have merely taken the word of someone who has said they they have examined these records and have stated their opinion about what they contain.
But I do care.Originally posted by JGrubbs:
I would assume that the Washington Post did the underlining in the document, but underlines and circles don't change what is in the document. I know, you don't care, you consider this to be equal to the documents from PNAC.
No, but the legal reasoning was interesting behind it. We live in a nation of laws. We detest judges that make law from the bench. They are to interpret the law. I disagree with that ruling, but I hardly think it makes him pro abortion. It would have been better for you to state the facts and let people decide. Of coures, they might not come to your opinion on it.
Probably not ... "basically ok'ed" is pretty broad and there is no evidence that anyone condoned it. The fact that detainees at certain camps may have had information that could have saved American lives is an important fact. How would you like to tell a parent that their son could have been saved, if only that prisoner would have talked. But because you did not force the issue, their son is dead. That is horrible military policy and bad politics. It is immoral to let an enemy continue to hide information that would save lives. I can't imagine that is even questioned. But perhaps it shows a great hypocrisy in your view of the sanctity of life.
In some cases it should be. The security of a nation is at stake. When people do not tell the truth, they should face the consequences for it. If you don't want to be tortured, then talk. It is that simple. I am not arguing we should endanger lives or prisoners, who treat them inhumanely. But lives are at stake.
They are not US citizens. They were illegal combatants. That is a matter of fact. There is nothing sinister about that. They wanted to fight a war. They could have laid down their weapons and walked away, but they didn't. So now they pay the price. Do not blame our government for their bad choices.
I don't see anyone here justifying a liberal leader. You are simply extremely biased. Bush is moderate to conservative. He is not a liberal. I don't support much of what Bush does, but as I have pointed out, you guys attack him no matter what he does simply because of your political bias. And taht is what is truly sad.
No. They will hypocritically make excuses.