Law School Discussion

Is George W on a mission from God?

jgruber

Re: Is George W on a mission from God?
« Reply #30 on: July 28, 2004, 05:24:53 PM »
that's not fair.  don't generalize.  Cheney doesn't tote a bible.

One of my motivations to become an attorney is so that when I grow up I can prosecute Bush, Ashcroft, and the rest of the bible and gun toting psychos.

Re: Is George W on a mission from God?
« Reply #31 on: July 28, 2004, 05:27:58 PM »
Yes, you are right about 'ole male private part.  I didn't mention him because I don't expect him to be around by the time I graduate LS.  Can you spell M-A-S-S-I-V-E C-O-R-O-N-A-R-Y  ???

jgruber

Re: Is George W on a mission from God?
« Reply #32 on: July 28, 2004, 05:28:58 PM »
Yes, you are right about 'ole male private part.  I didn't mention him because I don't expect him to be around by the time I graduate LS.  Can you spell M-A-S-S-I-V-E C-O-R-O-N-A-R-Y  ???

No, I can't

buster

Re: Is George W on a mission from God?
« Reply #33 on: July 29, 2004, 05:38:01 AM »
That's M-A-S-S-I-V-E C-O-R-O-N-A-R-Y. You're welcome.  ;)

Yes, you are right about 'ole male private part.  I didn't mention him because I don't expect him to be around by the time I graduate LS.  Can you spell M-A-S-S-I-V-E C-O-R-O-N-A-R-Y  ???

No, I can't

egfmba

  • ****
  • 109
    • View Profile
Re: Is George W on a mission from God?
« Reply #34 on: July 29, 2004, 03:21:59 PM »
I think to assume Bush is on a mission from God would also be to implicitly assume that Bush knows what God wants.  So, we would have to believe that Bush is a chosen prophet and has a direct line to God.

Barring that, we would have to assume that Bush is taking his directives from the Christian how-to manual - the Bible - and that said Bible is actually the word of God.  Lots of assumptions, folks, considering the Bible was written by men.

Granted, these men claimed a direct line to God which enabled them (and, somehow, only them) to know what was in God's heart and mind. 

However, I would argue that Bush takes too much upon himself to assume God has such a bigoted agenda.  Like JJ, I think of God as much more loving than the hellfire/brimstone god (notice the little 'g') Ashcroft and Bush are currently holding forth as their shield.

So, no, I don't think Bush is on a mission from God.  I think Bush thinks he's on a mission from God, though... :P

But then again, so did David Koresh...remember?

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: Is George W on a mission from God?
« Reply #35 on: July 29, 2004, 03:40:24 PM »
no one is considering the fact that god can put anyone one any mission even if those missions are in direct conflict with each other.  god doesnt have to be consistent or reasonable or logical.  god may have put bush on a mission but that doesnt change the fact that i disagree with his policies and untill god explicitly tells me that bush is right i will continue to disagree with bush

jgruber

Re: Is George W on a mission from God?
« Reply #36 on: July 29, 2004, 04:27:54 PM »
God did tell us that Bush is right...on Fox News!

 ;D

no one is considering the fact that god can put anyone one any mission even if those missions are in direct conflict with each other.  god doesnt have to be consistent or reasonable or logical.  god may have put bush on a mission but that doesnt change the fact that i disagree with his policies and untill god explicitly tells me that bush is right i will continue to disagree with bush

jas9999

  • ****
  • 726
  • Actual Law Student
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Is George W on a mission from God?
« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2004, 05:56:00 PM »
In this case, I don't see any reason to believe Bush is being secretive because he's so corrupt.  I've heard people comparing him to the Nixon adminstration... but those voices have been on the left, so I take them with a grain of salt.  A voice with an agenda is a voice to be considered in context.

the esteemed senator robert byrd, who can only be described as a moderate (he's a democrat from wv), and who's been in the senate since the eisenhower administration, says in his book 'losing america' that bush is far more secretive and corrupt than nixon.

even john dean, nixon's former personal aide, says bush is far worse. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/04/wnix04.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/04/04/ixportaltop.html

i'm sorry, it's not just coming from the left. all the people who have worked in this administration and then left in disgust have said the same thing.

He relegates authority, as is befitting of a man with an MBA.  He governs like a manager, and lets others see to the details.  They often make very questionable calls.  While Bush himself is responsible if he's relegating authority to corrupt subordinates, this doesn't make him a bad or immoral man.  It merely means he's trusting the wrong people.

but he has yet to question a single decision made by any person in the federal government since he became president. in fact, he's heaped praise on the people who have been consistently wrong about their most important decisions - rumsfeld, tenet, mueller, rice... bush has yet to take responsibility for anything except his tax cuts.

To me, it's a case of a president trying to protect the integrity of the executive branch against what he sees to be an attempt by the legislature to usurp his realm of authority.

good god, it wasn't a legislative committee. it was the independent 9/11 commission. it's amazing how many of your arguments are based on a complete misunderstanding of the underlying facts. this is the same committee that he stonewalled about having rice testify under oath, and only after the enormous public outcry did he relent. and what did we learn when she testified? that bush had received a briefing, one month before 9/11, entitled 'bin laden determined to strike inside america.' gee, you wonder why they were trying to hide that information? then, bush only agreed to 'visit' with the commission, in private (no cameras, no recorders), and with cheney at his side. all the while, the commissioners were complaining loudly that the bush administration was stonewalling on providing critical documents.

and that's not even getting into the whole energy commission. why don't you ask people who live in california how they feel about the $9 billion in long-term contracts the state was forced to sign for energy delivery in 2001 while enron was manipulating the market to put the prices through the roof. the governor begged bush to implement temporary price caps, which would have solved the problem instantly, but bush refused, because enron was his number one contributor. instead, it forced the third largest bankruptcy in history (pacific gas and electric) and billions in overcharging to california consumers. does a moral man screw millions of families to pump up the profits of his campaign contributors?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1972574.stm

buster

Re: Is George W on a mission from God?
« Reply #38 on: July 30, 2004, 05:21:46 AM »
Jas, your posts make me feel better.  :)

In this case, I don't see any reason to believe Bush is being secretive because he's so corrupt.  I've heard people comparing him to the Nixon adminstration... but those voices have been on the left, so I take them with a grain of salt.  A voice with an agenda is a voice to be considered in context.

the esteemed senator robert byrd, who can only be described as a moderate (he's a democrat from wv), and who's been in the senate since the eisenhower administration, says in his book 'losing america' that bush is far more secretive and corrupt than nixon.

even john dean, nixon's former personal aide, says bush is far worse. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/04/wnix04.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/04/04/ixportaltop.html

i'm sorry, it's not just coming from the left. all the people who have worked in this administration and then left in disgust have said the same thing.

He relegates authority, as is befitting of a man with an MBA.  He governs like a manager, and lets others see to the details.  They often make very questionable calls.  While Bush himself is responsible if he's relegating authority to corrupt subordinates, this doesn't make him a bad or immoral man.  It merely means he's trusting the wrong people.

but he has yet to question a single decision made by any person in the federal government since he became president. in fact, he's heaped praise on the people who have been consistently wrong about their most important decisions - rumsfeld, tenet, mueller, rice... bush has yet to take responsibility for anything except his tax cuts.

To me, it's a case of a president trying to protect the integrity of the executive branch against what he sees to be an attempt by the legislature to usurp his realm of authority.

good god, it wasn't a legislative committee. it was the independent 9/11 commission. it's amazing how many of your arguments are based on a complete misunderstanding of the underlying facts. this is the same committee that he stonewalled about having rice testify under oath, and only after the enormous public outcry did he relent. and what did we learn when she testified? that bush had received a briefing, one month before 9/11, entitled 'bin laden determined to strike inside america.' gee, you wonder why they were trying to hide that information? then, bush only agreed to 'visit' with the commission, in private (no cameras, no recorders), and with cheney at his side. all the while, the commissioners were complaining loudly that the bush administration was stonewalling on providing critical documents.

and that's not even getting into the whole energy commission. why don't you ask people who live in california how they feel about the $9 billion in long-term contracts the state was forced to sign for energy delivery in 2001 while enron was manipulating the market to put the prices through the roof. the governor begged bush to implement temporary price caps, which would have solved the problem instantly, but bush refused, because enron was his number one contributor. instead, it forced the third largest bankruptcy in history (pacific gas and electric) and billions in overcharging to california consumers. does a moral man screw millions of families to pump up the profits of his campaign contributors?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1972574.stm