Why isn't Bush nephew fighting in Iraq, instead of fighting police

[Bro. Curtis]

That's not what this is about, James. This is about yet another completely lame attempt to make Bush and his family look bad. It is a waste of bandwidth.

As we have come to expect from A-PAL and his ilk.

 

[OCC]

Maybe...but I feel I'm right with my point. I am willing to be proven wrong though.

As for this thread...it may be to make Bush and his family look bad. But...it is true that when you are in the public eye your family affects your image. Family always matters. My girlfriend's brother joined the air force and the family had to be interviewed by the FBI...I hope it was ok to say that...if not, I'm claiming ignorance of the law...and I'm not an American anyway.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:


Again and again the bushbot apologist lash out because their boy and family is exposed.


Shocker!
Bush and Bush family values have not brought back
dignity to the white house. Shocker!

just like compassionate conservative gimmick

Draggon try to focus and stay on topic and not
make it personal..you are suppost to be disciplined...correct.

This is legit news it made the mainstream press
and is pertinent because of 1900 dead in Iraq
and 10's of thousands maimed and without out arms
and legs.

Again my salient point if a family is son deeply
convicted this war is just....then? why? isn't their blood joining up and on the front lines.

I think it is very telling. imho

FDR, JFK, LBJ, and WJC brought dignity to the Whitehouse. Is whoredom the demo/liberal/left definition of dignity?

 

[buckster75]

anyway to bump a post to the bottom?

 

[Pastor Larry]

I hope you weren't implying that I'm not a thinking person Larry.

There was no implication. There was an explicit statement: All thinking people can see the fallacy of this whole thread. It is self-explanatory.

"Secondly, believing a war a just and right does not obligate anyone to join up to fight." Ok. And believing a war is unjust and wrong does not make someone unpatriotic or a traitor. They don't have to "support the cause". Am I right?

Of course. Believing a war is unjust and wrong is fine. It may well be misguided, but it is certainly fine to believe that. What is not fine is to attack the soldiers, or reflect poorly on their service and commitment.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
... Draggon try to focus and stay on topic and not make it personal..you are suppost to be disciplined...correct. ...

Try to understand that it's not personal, ASLANSPAL, unless you want to make it that way. It's your comments that are being challenged. As experienced as you are at "attacking" the credibility of others - including the President who is a real live person - you shouldn't really have to much problem with some of us not buying into your standard presentations and raising concerns about what you post.

 

[OCC]

Glad to hear that Larry. Since I kind of agreed with AP...it rather seemed that you were implying it. I'm glad you weren't.

Yes it is fine to believe a war is unjust and wrong. It cannot be misguided because in most cases the belief is subjective. Nobody can be convinced that it is right if they do not believe so.

Yes, it is not fine to attack the soldiers. They are doing their jobs. I read on another thread where the person was basically saying that since soldiers died you should have exclusive access to another country's natural resources. That makes a mockery of their deaths...they did not die for American citizens to have exclusive access to oil. Right?

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
That's not what this is about, James. This is about yet another completely lame attempt to make Bush and his family look bad. It is a waste of bandwidth.

As we have come to expect from A-PAL and his ilk.

Well, this here ilk has decided that "Bashing Bush" or "Clobbering Clinton" is unproductive and uncalled for because these guys each in their own way knowing or unknowing (I lean heavy to 'knowingly') are setting up the conditions for the destruction of this country.

I apologize to anyone here that has thought of me as a Bush Basher or Clinton clobberer. I can see where people could get that impression from me and I intent to repent.

But, I also intend to go on exposing corruption in the government no matter if it's local county state federal or global. On the left on the right in the middle blue green or purple. And most especially the globalists no matter who's team they are on.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Since I kind of agreed with AP...it rather seemed that you were implying it. I'm glad you weren't.

IF you agree with AP's OP, then my statement still stands. The OP was based on a huge logical fallacy that all thinking people can see through. A president's nephew that fails to serve in the military has no relevance to the rightness or wrongness of a war. All thinking people can see that.

Yes it is fine to believe a war is unjust and wrong. It cannot be misguided because in most cases the belief is subjective. Nobody can be convinced that it is right if they do not believe so.

But belief is not the standard of right and wrong. Right is the standard of right and wrong. A belief can be firmly held and still misguided. And someone can be convinced of such. Whether or not they should be convinced about this war is another matter.

I read on another thread where the person was basically saying that since soldiers died you should have exclusive access to another country's natural resources. That makes a mockery of their deaths...they did not die for American citizens to have exclusive access to oil. Right?

I have never seen anyone say that. That is was wrong position. This war is not about oil.

 

[fromtheright]

poncho,

For what it's worth, yes, I have thought of you as a Bush-basher but "in a good way". Though I have disagreed with you, you have not gone out of your way, I don't think, to "find" whatever you thought might stick to him but instead pointed out substantive disagreements with the President. You do indeed seem to strenuously oppose President Bush, but so what? There is a wide gulf of difference between your opposition and ASLANPAL's, and I have great respect for you.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by fromtheright:
This is exactly why I have NO respect for ASLANSPAL. If you've got to dig this deep to find "dirt" on the President, you really have nothing to contribute.

Agreed. Between that and his goofy rants about Matt Drudge, I don't know what's wrong with this guy.

Reverend Joshua is banned, but this guy's allowed to stay? </font>[/QUOTE]You think someone should be banned because they have different viewpoints than you do?

You are free to ignore any topics you think are stupid or to post an answer.

 

[here now]

Originally posted by King James:
"Since when does the actions of a relative reflect on an entire family?"

They always do...especially when you are in the public eye. It is kind of like when such a big deal was made and many nasty things were said about John Kerry's wife during the election. People figured, with such an awful person for a wife, how could he be a good president?

One has a choice as to whom to marry. So if one chooses to marry someone that is awful, then yes that is a reflection on the other person, as well.

This is not so with family.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
You think someone should be banned because they have different viewpoints than you do?

And I said this...when?

Obviously, I was addressing his behavior, not his opinion.

My point was that Joshua's posts were well thought out and productive, misguided though his opinions were, and he was always polite and considerate of others. Unfortunately, he disagreed with us about gay people, so he had to go.

Aslanspal, on the other hand, is consistently rude, Unchristlike, obnoxious and generally just a waste of bandwidth but we're allowed the continued benefits of his brilliant observations on the world.

 

[OCC]

Larry, in a way I do agree with AP. Oh well...

The standard for right and wrong when it comes to war is a personal thing too though. If you believe it is right and I don't, then to me it is wrong and nothing you say can change that.

I stand by this statement though you didn't see it: "I read on another thread where the person was basically saying that since soldiers died you should have exclusive access to another country's natural resources."

It is here: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/18/3606/2.html

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by poncho:
... But, I also intend to go on exposing corruption in the government no matter if it's local county state federal or global. On the left on the right in the middle blue green or purple. And most especially the globalists no matter who's team they are on. ...

That's something we should all do! None of us should become so blinded or so loyal as to not want to see and reveal corruption or misuse of power or deviations from original intentions at any level of government by any political party.

The kinds of connections that ASLANSPAL frequently makes have come to have little to no credibility with me. These kinds of allegations have no substance and are easily seen for what they really are. Many are as incoherent as they are unfounded. The more they continue the more certain I am what they have to say isn't worth considering. They seem more based in a deep disdain for one person - the President - and anything or anyone that in anyway is connected with him or suggests any positive attribute about him.

Many people, such as you, Poncho, seem to have sincere intentions in your comments whether pro or con for a given political viewpoint. You at least get my attention and respect even if we don't always agree. Sometimes I don't buy the "globalization" theory but many elements of what you present to support that theory are worth consideration even on their own individual merits. There's at least some credibility in the theory. What I do like is that you stand against corruption, against misuse of power, and against deviations from original Constitutional government. Those are concepts I can and do support!

It's good to have people around that raise questions. It's good to be at least somewhat distrusting of government because the people in it can certainly otherwise misuse the power given to them in blind trust by the people.

I doubt any two of us can agree at all times with all the specifics or the theories but we can certainly respect the motives and give consideration to the ideas if they are truly for the purpose described. What we probably can't support, on average, is a never ending quest to find something - anything even remotely associated - discrediting about one particular party or person. I classify much of that as lies, exaggerations, and distortions.

Pray for us all here in Texas as we now make our individual decisions about what actions to take as we prepare for hurricane Rita.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

So how far into the family tree should we go into the family tree of Pres. Bush to find someone in military service, Would 27th cousins sons or daughters due?

 

[One View]

What a disgusting topic. John Bush is not a public figure and his circumstances are the business of no one but his family.

What a repulsive new low this board has reached.

 

[OCC]

Originally posted by One View:
What a disgusting topic. John Bush is not a public figure and his circumstances are the business of no one but his family.

What a repulsive new low this board has reached.

Likewise...it was repulsive when I saw on ANOTHER board much nasty "writing" about John Kerry's wife and how he shouldn't be president because of his wife.

Dragoon, am praying for you and Texas.

 

[OCC]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
So how far into the family tree should we go into the family tree of Pres. Bush to find someone in military service, Would 27th cousins sons or daughters due?

Yes. No. Maybe so.

 

[Rocko9]

Mortimer P. Muttonchops Bush once scared off a calvary of of Union Soldiers with an out of tune banjo.