| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/26/2006 12:15:26 PM · #1 |
Reading my paper again today and came across this story.
//news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1930129.ece
Had to laugh really, this has to rank as one of the dumbest things I have ever heard someone say. Still, this is what happens when people get into power who then go on to let thier religeous beliefs dictate policy which then affects a whole country.
If I were an American, as far as I would be concerned, I would want the elected body to make decisions based on what is best for the people, not let his their own personal beliefs decide the outcome of a decision.
In the UK we have heared quite a bit about the really dirty campaign that is going on for the midterm elections, sounds like Bush and his murderous corrupt party are getting desperate to me. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 12:40:20 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by LoveSpuds:
... sounds like Bush and his murderous corrupt party are getting desperate to me. |
Yep, Rush Limbaugh is certainly calling the shots in this midterm election process. Please. Give it a rest... |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 12:43:02 PM · #3 |
Although the news article is about this Limbaugh fella, the rest of my post is directed at Bush and most of his administration.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why stem cell research should be halted then?
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 12:54:04. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 12:58:30 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by LoveSpuds:
Had to laugh really, this has to rank as one of the dumbest things I have ever heard someone say. me. |
Then if you like laughs do a google on Rush Limbaugh. You're sure to find many things to laugh about. Over here in the states I read many different things about the UK. Lots of them are not very flattering. So I tend not to discuss them in the forums because I've not yet visited the UK and don't know for sure they're true.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:21:07 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by LoveSpuds:
If I were an American........
|
............you'd be more informed on this issue and wouldn't sound so ignorant.
As has been said before, give it a rest. The same old political tirades are getting stale and the participation list on them is becoming predictable. Just so everyone knows, a political post made in a photography forum has yet to change anyone's mind or beliefs. Making such posts in a forum like this is comparable to discussing Luke Skywalker in a cooking forum.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:28:29 PM · #6 |
Some Americans are in complete agreement with you, Spuds. Our nation is really divided right now. I think my precious Constitution is under attack and I'm amazed how many other Americans can't see that, including most of the news media over here.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:31:26 PM · #7 |
I guess it all depends where you read the information. If we are talking about the British tabloids and their hysterical rantings about immigration, about gun toting gangsters and how teenagers would stab your eyes out as soon as look at you, then you would do well to ignore this.
However, if we are talking about well written and accurate discussions about current affairs that appear in publications like The Independent and Private Eye, regarding things like how much money the UK makes from exporting arms to the middle east and how our current government just do and they are told by the US, then I think you will be safe to beleive what you read.
The trouble is, almost every person on the planet that lives outside America feels the same way about George Bush and his cronies, doesn't that tell you anything? The man is a plum for gods sake!
How can his religeous beliefs stopping research into the most important discovery since DNA be seen as looking out for the welfare of his people?
As for posting this here, I didn't realise I was in the photography forum, I thought this was the rant forum................oh wait a mo :)
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 13:34:04. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:33:28 PM · #8 |
Our country is divided at every election. That's sort of the point of having different candidates.
I assure you both parties are equally desperate to grab more power and/or hold on to the power they've got already. Politicians trying to gain power and influence doesn't seem very newsworty to me, but the European press has its own ideas about that I guess. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:41:27 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Our country is divided at every election. That's sort of the point of having different candidates.
I assure you both parties are equally desperate to grab more power and/or hold on to the power they've got already. Politicians trying to gain power and influence doesn't seem very newsworty to me, but the European press has its own ideas about that I guess. |
A very valid point Router, and I am not daft enough to think that any one party has all the answers. But when I think back to how the US was viewed when Clinton was in power it was totally different.
Sure he wan't perfect (far from it), but he at least acted on what he thought was best for the country (and I think was a fantastic statesman, because he made the rest of the world feel that he considered there feelings too).
I mean, Bush even has the nerve to ignore every scientist and state that Global Warming is not occuring. Of course, the fact that if he had stuck to the Kyoto agreement it would have cost his cronies companies billions to meet the targets has nothing to do with this..........yeah right.
When New York and Florida and vast swathes of the UK are under 25 feet of sea water in 90 years time our kids will all be very thankfull for all our efforts!
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 13:42:25. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:41:44 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by LoveSpuds:
I guess it all depends where you read the information. If we are talking about the British tabloids and their hysterical rantings about immigration, about gun toting gangsters and how teenagers would stab your eyes out as soon as look at you, then you would do well to ignore this.
However, if we are talking about well written and accurate discussions about current affairs that appear in publications like The Independent and Private Eye, regarding things like how much money the UK makes from exporting arms to the middle east and how our current government just do and they are told by the US, then I think you will be safe to beleive what you read.
|
The accuracy of one news source and another here is being verified by what? You've not gone out and checked the facts of any of those stories yourself. You've decided you agree with what ideas the one is pushing so you give that one the benefit of the doubt as far as being accurate. The ability to write well does not preclude a writer from being a liar, pushing an agenda, or on someone's payroll.
Originally posted by LoveSpuds:
The trouble is, almost every person on the planet that lives outside America feels the same way about George Bush and his cronies, doesn't that tell you anything? The man is a plum for gods sake!
|
I pay very little attention to the rest of the world's feelings about American politics. The rest of the world proves itself as hypocritical, lazy and unable to act time and again. The biggest gripe the rest of the world has with our President is he actually takes action when he believes it is the right thing to do. It is easy to make a target of someone who acts, because you can sit around for years and postulate all sorts of ideas about how boneheaded the action is, why it shouldn't have been taken, why some other action should have been taken, etc - all while continuing to do nothing yourself.
Originally posted by LoveSpuds:
How can his religeous beliefs stopping research into the most important discovery since DNA be seen as looking out for the welfare of his people?
|
First, this is still a fairly religious country. While that may change in a generation or two, a lot of people in the US do take a Christian view about things and tinkering about with things they believe are 'in God's domain' makes them uncomforatble. These people also vote in large numbers, hence the politicans bowing to their desires on matters such as this.
Also you should be accurate in what you are describing. Research into the use of stem cells has not stopped in the US. The government will simply not fund this research. That does not prevent the private sector from funding all the research they like.
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 13:43:25. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:49:40 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Also you should be accurate in what you are describing. Research into the use of stem cells has not stopped in the US. The government will simply not fund this research. That does not prevent the private sector from funding all the research they like. |
That would be the Federal government -- various states have already passes their own funding plans for stem cell research.
The problem is when a decision is based not on scientific evidence, but on ideological positions.
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 13:49:59. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 01:53:42 PM · #12 |
While stem cell research is still at an early stage, the restriction and federal funding restrictions imposed by Bush will eventually have a massive impact on stem cell research.
This could potentially cure hundreds of diseases. I assure you if Bush had money in a pharmacuetical company that was researching this technology he would be backing it up the ying yang.
The only religeon Bush follows is the $.
And I dont buy the the pro life thing either, he is quick enough to drop bombs and support Isreal when its was using chemical weapons agains Palastinian civilains, but taking cells from a non sentient lifeform is murder, I just dont get it.
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 13:54:32. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 02:02:16 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by LoveSpuds:
... taking cells from a non sentient lifeform is murder, I just dont get it. |
As I recall when he was Governor of Texas he didn't seem to have a problem with capital punishment either.
I find it interesting that he's never proposed a law which would prevent all those discarded embryos (from fertility clinics) from going to the incinerator, but somehow believes that allowing their cells to grow in perpetuity for the benefit of others is wrong. However, then I rememeber that religion and logic are mutually exclusive ...
BTW: Here's another take on the Limbaugh/Fox brouhaha: Dave Ross on the Fox Ad |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 02:08:30 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I pay very little attention to the rest of the world's feelings about American politics. The rest of the world proves itself as hypocritical, lazy and unable to act time and again. The biggest gripe the rest of the world has with our President is he actually takes action when he believes it is the right thing to do. It is easy to make a target of someone who acts, because you can sit around for years and postulate all sorts of ideas about how boneheaded the action is, why it shouldn't have been taken, why some other action should have been taken, etc - all while continuing to do nothing yourself. |
I must agree here.
Regarding the stem cell research question and the positions of various parties, a distinction between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research must be made. No one is saying that adult stem cell research should not be done and/or continued. It is the embryonic stem cell research that is the debate. Let us not confuse those that oppose embryonic stem cell research as opposing all stem cell research. It simply is not true.
Regarding the General's point...it is ideology. He is correct.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 02:19:52 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
then I rememeber that religion and logic are mutually exclusive ... |
Yep. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 02:31:49 PM · #16 |
I don't know why I wade into these things...
1) I think you guys are very callous and cynical to state that religion and logic are mutually exclusive. Sure I know this is hyperbole, but I'm annoyed by it.
2) Paul worries about a position based on ideology and not on scientific principles. I agree to some extent, but at the same time science does not address whether something should be done, only that it can be done. To paraphrase a quote by Norwood Hanson, "Science without Philosophy is blind; Philosophy without Science is empty."
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 02:41:50 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by LoveSpuds:
While stem cell research is still at an early stage, the restriction and federal funding restrictions imposed by Bush will eventually have a massive impact on stem cell research.
This could potentially cure hundreds of diseases. I assure you if Bush had money in a pharmacuetical company that was researching this technology he would be backing it up the ying yang.
The only religeon Bush follows is the $.
And I dont buy the the pro life thing either, he is quick enough to drop bombs and support Isreal when its was using chemical weapons agains Palastinian civilains, but taking cells from a non sentient lifeform is murder, I just dont get it. |
I wonder how much money pharmaceutical companies would lose if those diseases were cured by stem cell research?
I also wonder where is the outrage that the lives of children are put in indefinite limbo by being stored in freezers for the sake of reproduction; and that many are knowingly killed when implanted into the mother's womb? The ones that don't make it are being sacrificed for the few that survive. Somehow that seems to be OK. That tells me that the whole stem cell outrage is just a farce.
Sadly abortion and stem cell research debates are just decoys to keep Americans distracted from the big picture. Sometimes crazy celebrities and beautiful missing white girls aren't enough to keep the masses hypnotized.
As a non-partisan American, I do find it interesting how certain individiuals want to shut down the game when they might be losing the ball. I'm curious how extreme and hypocrytical Limbaugh will have to get before he alienates his followers?
Where were these objections to criticism when Clinton was being impeached? For the record: I never trusted Clinton; although I believe he was a much smoother diplomat than we can expect to see, again, for a very long time.
As for me, I think the rant section of a photography forum is a perfectly acceptable venue for a political discussion.
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 15:12:00. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 02:43:20 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
then I rememeber that religion and logic are mutually exclusive ... |
Yep. |
I agree here too.
I also remember reading somewhere a while ago that some schools in the US where trying to rubbish Darwins Theory of Evolution, and instead wanted to suggest to these kids that life forms were created by some supernatural being. I find this incredible!
I dont want to start slating peoples beliefs, thats not really what this post was about, but if my child was going to school and being taught that cavemen and dinsosaurs and all that history were wrong, all because of a few polititians beliefs, well that is bonkers I am sorry. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 02:49:07 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I pay very little attention to the rest of the world's feelings about American politics. The rest of the world proves itself as hypocritical, lazy and unable to act time and again. The biggest gripe the rest of the world has with our President is he actually takes action when he believes it is the right thing to do. It is easy to make a target of someone who acts, because you can sit around for years and postulate all sorts of ideas about how boneheaded the action is, why it shouldn't have been taken, why some other action should have been taken, etc - all while continuing to do nothing yourself. |
Wow, you've made denial an art form.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
a lot of people in the US do take a Christian view about things |
Non-funding of stem cell research is not a Christian view. Neither is the invasion of Iraq. Nor are most things on Bush's agenda.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 03:07:48 PM · #20 |
I guess the US administration is allowed to interfere with other country's governments but noone is allowed to say anything about the US administration.
Tolerance breeds tolerance. (and lack of it breeds a lack of tolerance)
-- flame away
edit: This goes for religious organizations as well as goverment administrations
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 15:09:01. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 03:51:28 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
I wonder how much money pharmaceutical companies would lose if those diseases were cured by stem cell research?
|
How much would they make for selling the cure?
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
I also wonder where is the outrage that the lives of children are put in indefinite limbo by being stored in freezers for the sake of reproduction; and that many are knowingly killed when implanted into the mother's womb? The ones that don't make it are being sacrificed for the few that survive. Somehow that seems to be OK. That tells me that the whole stem cell outrage is just a farce.
|
You're right. Those that have problems with embryonic stem cell research should also have problems with that. However, I don't see how it makes the whole stem cell outrage a farce. A least no more of a farce than say many on the left who don't have problems with abortions especially late term abortions but do have a problem with capital punishment. Hypocrisy is on both sides of these issues unfortunately hence why each issue should be addressed separately.
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Sadly abortion and stem cell research debates are just decoys to keep Americans distracted from the big picture. Sometimes crazy celebrities and beautiful missing white girls aren't enough to keep the masses hypnotized.
|
So what are you saying here? That republicans control the media, hollywood? What's the bigger picture in your opinion?
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
As a non-partisan American, I do find it interesting how certain individiuals want to shut down the game when they might be losing the ball. I'm curious how extreme and hypocrytical Limbaugh will have to get before he alienates his followers?
|
Who is trying to shut down "the game"? Like always these threads start out by first someone blasting the president, republicans, christians or Americans in general. I have no problem with someone criticizing the president or the republican ideology but when you get into making statements about a "group of people" calling them stupid it's no different than calling other groups of people like say hispanics or gays similar names. So perhaps "the game" should end when civil discourse abruptly turns into name calling.
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Where were these objections to criticism when Clinton was being impeached? For the record: I never trusted Clinton; although I believe he was a much smoother diplomat than we can expect to see, again, for a very long time.
|
Maybe I'm missed the post but who objected to criticisms of Bush in this thread? All I have seen are objections (mine included) in regards to calling certain groups of people names. I think those are perfectly valid objections.
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
As for me, I think the rant section of a photography forum is a perfectly acceptable venue for a political discussion. |
I agree.
Message edited by author 2006-10-26 17:49:59. |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 06:08:24 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
I wonder how much money pharmaceutical companies would lose if those diseases were cured by stem cell research?
|
How much would they make for selling the cure? |
Good question. I guess it would depend on who held the patent for the cure. If it were developed using public funds, I'd think it would be more difficult to proprietize. You might not get very far with me on this subject; since my attention has been on other issues and I haven't researched the stem cell thing as much. This is why I asked a question instead of making an accusation. I do have a "sense" that there is more to this than we are led to believe; and on other issues, that sense has turned out to be accurate.
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
I also wonder where is the outrage that the lives of children are put in indefinite limbo by being stored in freezers for the sake of reproduction; and that many are knowingly killed when implanted into the mother's womb? The ones that don't make it are being sacrificed for the few that survive. Somehow that seems to be OK. That tells me that the whole stem cell outrage is just a farce.
|
You're right. Those that have problems with embryonic stem cell research should also have problems with that. However, I don't see how it makes the whole stem cell outrage a farce. A least no more of a farce than say many on the left who don't have problems with abortions especially late term abortions but do have a problem with the capital punishment. Hypocrisy is on both sides of these issues unfortunately hence why each issue should be addressed separately. |
I contend that it's a farce, just as the capital punishment thing is a farce for the left. This is one of the issues that pushed me into being an Independent, because I've never been able to reconcile the extreme stances taken by either party. I think abortion is sickening, I think capital punishment is sickening; and the only thing that I find more distasteful is the fact that politicians use these issues to polarize and control the populace all the while the greater issues are ignored.
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Sadly abortion and stem cell research debates are just decoys to keep Americans distracted from the big picture. Sometimes crazy celebrities and beautiful missing white girls aren't enough to keep the masses hypnotized.
|
So what are you saying here? That republicans control the media, hollywood? What's the bigger picture in your opinion? |
I didn't say that; but I suppose I could. Fox Whistleblowers Fess Up. I won't even go into how Mark Foley was misrepresented as a "Democrat" by Fox News. The examples of media corruption are almost endless. As far as "The Bigger Picture" goes, my opinion is that we have been conditioned to accept what we are told and not to question anything for fear of being ridiculed. Luckily, I have no fear of ridicule; as I have been both incredibly foolish and remarkably right on numerous occasions throughout my life. Unfortunately, all of my suspicions about The Bush Administration, 9-11, Afghanistan, The Iraq War, North Korea and Iran have been right on target. I refuse to accept that this is strictly a conspiracy of Republicans, since many Conservatives oppose these policies and some Liberals support them. What's sinister about our country's leadership is not sanctioned to a single political party. To emphasize this, I would like to defer to the examples of Republicans Tim Ferguson and Curt Weldon as proof that not only liberals are questioning our current system. I will reserve the remainder of my energy for those who are interested in questioning the brass ring through our collective nose; since I don't believe that is the case here.
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
As a non-partisan American, I do find it interesting how certain individiuals want to shut down the game when they might be losing the ball. I'm curious how extreme and hypocrytical Limbaugh will have to get before he alienates his followers?
|
Who is trying to shut down "the game"? Like always these threads start out by first someone blasting the president, republicans, christians or Americans in general. I have no problem with someone criticizing the president or the republican ideology but when you get into making statements about a "group of people" calling them stupid it's no different than calling other groups of people like say hispanics or gays similar names. So perhaps "the game" should end when civil discourse abruptly turns into name calling. |
Honestly, I don't recall a statement about a group of people being called stupid. I will have to read back and see what you are referring to. I do believe it's possible to judge the actions of a person without assasinating their character. However, I don't believe that Rush Limbaugh and his followers are able to make that distinction.
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Where were these objections to criticism when Clinton was being impeached? For the record: I never trusted Clinton; although I believe he was a much smoother diplomat than we can expect to see, again, for a very long time.
Maybe I'm missed the post but who objected to criticisms of Bush in this thread? All I have seen are objections (mine included) in regards to calling certain people in general names. I think those are perfectly valid objections. |
|
I was referring to the following post:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by LoveSpuds:
If I were an American........ |
............you'd be more informed on this issue and wouldn't sound so ignorant.
As has been said before, give it a rest. The same old political tirades are getting stale and the participation list on them is becoming predictable. Just so everyone knows, a political post made in a photography forum has yet to change anyone's mind or beliefs. Making such posts in a forum like this is comparable to discussing Luke Skywalker in a cooking forum. |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
As for me, I think the rant section of a photography forum is a perfectly acceptable venue for a political discussion. |
I agree. |
Glad we agree on something!;) |
|
|
|
10/26/2006 06:57:54 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Hypocrisy is on both sides of these issues unfortunately hence why each issue should be addressed separately. |
Actually, both sides are completely consistent. Pro-Lifers want to protect innocent life only. They feel that someone on death row deserves to die as per the Old Testament. They also feel that the collateral damage of war is okay because the war is for the greater good. In other words, they feel that God is on our side no matter what war we fight. A borderline-psychotic but perfectly consistent viewpoint.
On the pro-choice side is also the notion that a life is not inherently worth saving. In their case, they don't believe in the soul. They think a life is only worth saving if it has formed enough to survive independently, and it becomes more worth saving as a mind develops. Once this mind is fully developed, the life is "sacred" in some rationalistic sense of the word. They don't believe that a government has the kind of authority to take a human life.
Then there are the rest of us, who fish out a stance between these extremes.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 07:16:37 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Where were these objections to criticism when Clinton was being impeached? For the record: I never trusted Clinton; although I believe he was a much smoother diplomat than we can expect to see, again, for a very long time.
Maybe I'm missed the post but who objected to criticisms of Bush in this thread? All I have seen are objections (mine included) in regards to calling certain people in general names. I think those are perfectly valid objections. |
|
I was referring to the following post:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by LoveSpuds:
If I were an American........ |
............you'd be more informed on this issue and wouldn't sound so ignorant.
As has been said before, give it a rest. The same old political tirades are getting stale and the participation list on them is becoming predictable. Just so everyone knows, a political post made in a photography forum has yet to change anyone's mind or beliefs. Making such posts in a forum like this is comparable to discussing Luke Skywalker in a cooking forum. |
Sorry but ignorant was the word that fit best in this situation. Read the original post and show me where I am incorrect in labeling it as such. The link was to Rush "blowhard" Limbaugh's comments but his post hardly said such did it? He goes on to say, "if I were an American, blah blah blah". However, if he were an American would he not know that Rush Limbaugh is a radio personality and hardly a policymaker here? Do you not consider that to be ignorant?
Frankly I am not a fan of George Bush or his mistakes, but I am a fan of America. Nothing bothers me more than misinformation on either side of the political spectrum and there's plenty of it spewed in my face on a daily basis. So much hypocrisy exists on both sides that if you think the Democrats are more for you than the Republicans are you are a fool - and vice versa. It's time for a change but until we pull our heads from our asses and realize that until we refuse to make the choice of the lesser of two evils we will never be where we should. Give 3rd 4th and 5th parties a chance. I find it saddening that the most powerful nation on earth can only find two people to choose from every 4 years.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2006 07:37:22 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I pay very little attention to the rest of the world's feelings about American politics. The rest of the world proves itself as hypocritical, lazy and unable to act time and again. The biggest gripe the rest of the world has with our President is he actually takes action when he believes it is the right thing to do. It is easy to make a target of someone who acts, because you can sit around for years and postulate all sorts of ideas about how boneheaded the action is, why it shouldn't have been taken, why some other action should have been taken, etc - all while continuing to do nothing yourself. |
Wow, you've made denial an art form.
|
I'll bite. Since you couldn't put together an intelligent rebuttal, allow me to ask some questions that might prompt you to do so.
Having in no way argued the point that 'the rest of the world' as the OP claims hates George Bush, what exactly am I in denial about?
How is dismissing the concerns of people who do nothing but bitch and never take alternative (and presumably more enlightened) actions on their own a form of denial?
In what ways have the those who have denounced the actions of George Bush taken steps to counter him and effect policies of their own?
Originally posted by posthumous:
Non-funding of stem cell research is not a Christian view. Neither is the invasion of Iraq. Nor are most things on Bush's agenda. |
As has already been mentioned, religion does not bow to logic.
Stem cell research wants to, in part, capitalize on the remains of fetuses destroyed by what many Christian people consider an immoral act - abortion. Therefore by funding stem cell research using embryonic stem cells, in their mind, the government is tacitly supporting an immoral practice and attempting to justify the means with the (yet to be seen, very much hyped) beneficial ends.
The war on Iraq. So many ways to find a religious motivation here. Not the least of which being George himself saying he prayed and god told him to do it. George also calls democracy and liberty 'divine gifts' which it is our duty to spread to all nations in the world. his words, from his state of the union address, not mine.
So why do you say that he does not have a religious motivation for his actions? Having a religious motivation does not preclude him from having other motivations (he is a politician after all), nor do religious motivations exempt him from being judged on the merit and consequences of the actions he takes? Do you feel in some way his actions are a smere on the otherwise fine historical reputation of Christian beliefs? Pardon me while I go laugh so hard my spleen bursts. |
|
