# hmmmm



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Just a newspaper report.

"It's that time of year again when President George W. Bush turns up around the United States in sumptuous commencement robes, assures thousands of college graduates that a C average does not preclude the presidency and urges them to go forth and do good.

Calvin College, a small evangelical school in the strategic Republican stronghold of Grand Rapids, Michigan, seemed a perfect stop this past Saturday for the president's message. Or so thought Karl Rove, the White House political chief, who two months ago effectively bumped Calvin's scheduled commencement speaker when he asked that Bush be invited instead.

But events at Calvin did not transpire as smoothly as Rove might have liked. A number of students, faculty and alumni objected so strongly to the president's visit that by last Friday nearly 800 of them had signed a letter of protest that appeared as a full-page ad in The Grand Rapids Press. The letter said, in part: "Your deeds, Mr. President - neglecting the needy to coddle the rich, desecrating the environment and misleading the country into war - do not exemplify the faith we live by."


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The truth shall set you free.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

indsport said:


> nearly 800 of them had signed a letter of protest that appeared as a full-page ad in The Grand Rapids Press. ."


hmmmmmm.... very interesting since the college only has 900 graduating students. Here is a link http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0505/ ... 186713.htm which states there were only 100 faculty and 40 faculty members that signed a petition.
Here is a second link to support the numbers in the first one. http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0505/ ... 186713.htm

Yes Ken W, the truth always does come out.......... BTW the President delivered the commencement address as scheduled and without incident.

And for both you and indsport, this quote in indsport's post *"Your deeds, Mr. President - neglecting the needy to coddle the rich, desecrating the environment and misleading the country into war - do not exemplify the faith we live by."* does not appear in the letter of protest. It is more fabricated bs that the left wing media knows they can spoon feed some gullible people that will swallow whole without question. Don't believe me........ the second link above has the complete letter as printed from the college....... read it yourselves.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

As usual with conservatives, they also spin and quote half truths. The link mentioned in the previous post do not match the information printed in the grand rapids paper that has the original articles

see http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index ... 827700.xml

The detroit press got it wrong also as did the usual drivel and bombast of Hannity over the weekend presenting only half the story as is usual for the fair and balanced right wing extremist views of Fox news. The previous posted link to the full text does not work.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

indsport said:


> As usual with conservatives, they also spin and quote half truths. The link mentioned in the previous post do not match the information printed in the grand rapids paper that has the original articles
> 
> see http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index ... 827700.xml
> 
> The detroit press got it wrong also as did the usual drivel and bombast of Hannity over the weekend presenting only half the story as is usual for the fair and balanced right wing extremist views of Fox news. The previous posted link to the full text does not work.


LOL....Everybody got it wrong except you huh......... the one thing you spoon fed liberals keep forgetting it only takes a click of a button to look up the truth. Apparently you never even bothered to see what was actually going on by reading the letter printed in the Grand Rapids paper. If you did then it certainly wasn't very smart trying to spread the junk you originally posted.

What ever you do don't let the truth get in the way. The link above doesn't have the original story either. Don't know why the link I provided doesn't bring up the site I viewed so ............... try this one http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0520-27.htm and in the event you can't figure it out .....Here ya go.... the actual letter that was sent to the paper.

*An Open Letter to the President of the United States of America, George W. Bush

On May 21, 2005, you will give the commencement address at Calvin College. We, the undersigned, respect your office, and we join the college in welcoming you to our campus. Like you, we recognize the importance of religious commitment in American political life.

We seek open and honest dialogue about the Christian faith and how it is best expressed in the political sphere. While recognizing God as sovereign over individuals and institutions alike, we understand that no single political position should be identified with God's will, and we are conscious that this applies to our own views as well as those of others. At the same time we see conflicts between our understanding of what Christians are called to do and many of the policies of your administration.

As Christians we are called to be peacemakers and to initiate war only as a last resort. We believe your administration has launched an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq.

As Christians we are called to lift up the hungry and impoverished. We believe your administration has taken actions that favor the wealthy of our society and burden the poor.

As Christians we are called to actions characterized by love, gentleness, and concern for the most vulnerable among us. We believe your administration has fostered intolerance and divisiveness and has often failed to listen to those with whom it disagrees.

As Christians we are called to be caretakers of God's good creation. We believe your environmental policies have harmed creation and have not promoted long-term stewardship of our natural environment.

Our passion for these matters arises out of the Christian faith that we share with you. We ask you, Mr. President, to re-examine your policies in light of our God-given duty to pursue justice with mercy, and we pray for wisdom for you and all world leaders.

--Concerned faculty, staff, and emeriti of Calvin College
*


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

I think I am going to start calling Gohon "Little Carl" :lol:

TC


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

tail chaser said:


> I think I am going to start calling Gohon "Little Carl"


Well, I don't know who little carl is so that means nothing to me but I can only assume it was someone that just possible pointed out spoon fed left wing bs also............ having problems swallowing today are you.... :lol:


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Litttle Carl what do you think of this letter?



> An Open Letter to the President of the United States of America, George W. Bush
> 
> On May 21, 2005, you will give the commencement address at Calvin College. We, the undersigned, respect your office, and we join the college in welcoming you to our campus. Like you, we recognize the importance of religious commitment in American political life.
> 
> ...


From what I gather just because he gave the speech you think mission accomplished the American public just loves Bush! The fact that the administration asked to give the speech proves to me it was all propaganda, its ok though we get 3 more years of seeing what this piece of work is about. if nothing else its good for a laugh.



> BTW the President delivered the commencement address as scheduled and without incident.


Perhaps you were hoping some lefty would heckle him or throw pie in his face?

TC


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

tail chaser said:


> Litttle Carl what do you think of this letter?


Ok, lets get the rules straight....... if you insist on calling me someone I'm not then surely you have objection to me addressing you in the future as "Butt Chaser" or maybe something else along those lines, especially since tail chaser has implication of a bloated ego to start with. ....... You go ahead and set the rules TC, I'm game. As to the rest of this post, like most of your posts, it simply runs in circles and this one proves you haven't a clue what you read in the letter from the school. So no reason to waste band width trying to explain it to you............


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Gohon/little carl You do crack me up :lol: Little Carl was in reference to Carl R the mind behind the Bush machine.



> Ok, lets get the rules straight....... if you insist on calling me someone I'm not then surely you have objection to me addressing you in the future as "Butt Chaser" or maybe something else along those lines, especially since tail chaser has implication of a bloated ego to start with. .......


how does being a pheasant hunter have anything to do with a bloated ego? get it.. I chase tails, or do you need to get your mind out of the gutter?



> As to the rest of this post, like most of your posts, it simply runs in circles and this one proves you haven't a clue what you read in the letter from the school. So no reason to waste band width trying to explain it to you............


Talk about running in circles! I like what the letter sais and think it was the right thing to do. You posted it I just thought I would ask why you thought it was important, I hate to say it but you don't care about its content you are just using it to prove others wrong. An opinion on the letter would be nice.

TC


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Ah Gohon,

Evidently you cannot click and read either. The link I posted was to the original article by the Grand Rapid newspaper, which was then quoted wrong and edited by the Detroit Press (which you provided the link) and has since been quoted wrong and edited to fit the spin by folks like Hannity and other righties. The original article I posted talked about the full page ad with over 800 signatories, as well as the letter you are so adamant about. I agree with you on the letter, but you completely missed the point in the original post as well as being able to read the Grand Rapids article. As usual, with conservatives, anything that does not match their slanted view of the world is completely overlooked and they are blind to it. As you so aptly say, do not let the truth get in the way of your view of the world.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Copied from above....

"An Open Letter to the President of the United States of America, George W. Bush
As Christians we are called to be peacemakers and to initiate war only as a last resort. We believe your administration has launched an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq.
As Christians we are called to lift up the hungry and impoverished. We believe your administration has taken actions that favor the wealthy of our society and burden the poor.
As Christians we are called to actions characterized by love, gentleness, and concern for the most vulnerable among us. We believe your administration has fostered intolerance and divisiveness and has often failed to listen to those with whom it disagrees.
As Christians we are called to be caretakers of God's good creation. We believe your environmental policies have harmed creation and have not promoted long-term stewardship of our natural environment.
Our passion for these matters arises out of the Christian faith that we share with you. We ask you, Mr. President, to re-examine your policies in light of our God-given duty to pursue justice with mercy, and we pray for wisdom for you and all world leaders."

So I ask you.....are those statements from the liberal left so vilified on this forum?

Intolerance.....definitley true here.....Just look at the thread by MT where he says goodbye.....


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

indsport said:


> Ah Gohon,
> 
> Evidently you cannot click and read either. The link I posted was to the original article by the Grand Rapid newspaper, which was then quoted wrong and edited by the Detroit Press (which you provided the link) and has since been quoted wrong and edited to fit the spin by folks like Hannity and other righties.


The content of the letter was not my concern. You posted the follow as if it were a actual quote from the letter ......*"Your deeds, Mr. President - neglecting the needy to coddle the rich, desecrating the environment and misleading the country into war - do not exemplify the faith we live by."*

The letter from the college to the newspaper did not say this but something tells me you would never had corrected this if I hadn't pointed the way to the original letter. You never even bothered to provide a link showing the actual content of the letter, instead your intentions were to deceive and pass off the quote in your post as authentic. You still haven't admitted your original post was in fact made up and incorrect. Hell, now two of your liberal buddies who themselves never allow the truth to interfere with anything have joined you. One of them is even calling Carl Rove a crook, no wait that was someone named Cohen from another thread(spine is hard to track of and you notice they try to mix threads to confuse the issue) and God only knows where he dreamed that up but he thinks tagging me with this name is suppose to be degrading....... Are all radical left wing extremists so petty and desperate like this or are you guys a special club from the same spoon feeding fraternity....... BTW, your one link provided does not contain the actual letter from the college so don't lecture me on point and click........... unless of course you intend to join the cut and paste cry baby club this month.....
:lol:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/23/polit ... etter.html

As an aside, Karl Rove is a crook, they just haven't caught him yet.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

indsport said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/23/politics/23letter.html
> 
> As an aside, Karl Rove is a crook, they just haven't caught him yet.


I'm not familiar with whatever controversy spawned this statement. Explain please.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

indsport said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/23/politics/23letter.html
> 
> As an aside, Karl Rove is a crook, they just haven't caught him yet.


Sorry, I have no intentions of registering with the New York Times just to read one of their left wing manifestos. Besides, it really doesn't matter or concern this thread which started on a fake quoted report to start with. How about that gets resolved first????????

BTW, spelling Carl Roves name as Karl serves no purpose other than to simply show the childishness of having no substance to a position or debate.......... Even when addressing someone I dislike such as President Clinton or Kerry I don't need to slander their name in a attempt to be cute. You have anything to support the claim Rove is a crook or is that just more liberal spin to throw attention away from this thread?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Since you insisted on not reading anything that doesn't match your viewpoint Here is the entire article which was not fake. I place it here for the other more open minded to make their own judgement.

Preaching to the Choir? Not This Time

By ELISABETH BUMILLER 
Published: May 23, 2005
WASHINGTON

It's that time of year again when President Bush turns up around the country in sumptuous commencement robes, assures thousands of college graduates that a C average does not preclude the presidency and urges them to go forth and do good.

Calvin College, a small evangelical school in the strategic Republican stronghold of Grand Rapids, Mich., seemed a perfect stop on Saturday for the president's message. Or so thought Karl Rove, the White House political chief, who two months ago effectively bumped Calvin's scheduled commencement speaker when he asked that Mr. Bush be invited instead.

But events at Calvin did not happen as smoothly as Mr. Rove might have liked. A number of students, faculty members and alumni objected so strongly to the president's visit that by last Friday nearly 800 of them had signed a letter of protest that appeared as a full-page advertisement in The Grand Rapids Press. The letter said, in part, "Your deeds, Mr. President - neglecting the needy to coddle the rich, desecrating the environment and misleading the country into war - do not exemplify the faith we live by."

The next day, Mr. Bush was greeted by another letter in The Press signed by some 100 of 300 faculty members that objected to "an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq" and policies "that favor the wealthy of our society and burden the poor."

At first glance, it seemed as if a mainstay of Mr. Bush's base, the Christian right, had risen up against him. At second glance, the reality was more complex. The protests at Calvin showed that Mr. Bush's evangelical base was not monolithic and underscored the small but growing voice of the Christian left.

That movement, loosely defined as no more than several million of some 50 million white evangelicals, opposes abortion and generally supports traditional marriage. But as a group it is against the Iraq war, the administration's tax cuts, Mr. Bush's environmental policies and, not least, the close identification of evangelicals with the current White House.

A leader of the Christian left is Jim Wallis, the editor and founder of the Christian political magazine Sojourners and the author of "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It." Mr. Wallis, whose book has been on the New York Times best-seller list for the past 15 weeks, appeared at Calvin College on May 5 and is advising Democrats on how to appeal to religious voters.

"The monologue of the religious right is over," Mr. Wallis said in an interview before Mr. Bush's appearance. "There is a progressive, moderate evangelical constituency that is huge."

Others see the group as a far less powerful force, but they acknowledge that the Christian left cannot be a cheery development for Mr. Rove. "Were this movement to continue to grow, it could create some problems, probably not for President Bush but for future Republican candidates," said John C. Green, the director of the Ray Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron and an expert on the voting patterns of religious groups. In short, Mr. Green said, "Democrats have an opportunity to get some votes."

One question is whether Mr. Rove knew what he was getting into when he asked that Mr. Bush be invited to Calvin, a theologically conservative college in the tradition of the Christian Reformed Church that is politically more progressive than other evangelical colleges. (Faculty members estimate that about 20 percent of students opposed Mr. Bush in 2004.)

Mr. Rove secured the invitation through Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, the Republican who represents Grand Rapids and who attended Calvin.

"I think they understood the nature of Calvin," said Jon Brandt, Mr. Ehlers's press secretary, who also attended Calvin. "The White House isn't stupid."

That would be the view of Corwin Smidt, a political science professor at Calvin and the director of the Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics. Mr. Bush's visit, he said, was both "rewarding the faithful" who voted for him in 2004 and a strategic positioning for 2006.

That is when Dick DeVos, an heir to the Amway fortune and a member of a Michigan family that has been a major contributor to the Republican Party and Calvin College, may challenge Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, a Democrat. Republicans will also try next year to unseat another Democrat, Senator Debbie Stabenow.

As for Mr. Bush, his commencement address on Saturday drew no protests in the Calvin field house other than from students who wore buttons that proclaimed "God is not a Democrat or a Republican."

One other small objection came from the bumped commencement speaker, Nicholas Wolterstorff, a Democrat, a former Calvin academic and a recently retired philosophy of religion professor at Yale. Dr. Wolterstorff said in an interview last week, "Here's a Yale professor being bumped by a Yale graduate with a very average college record." He said he planned to stay home and garden in Grand Rapids instead of attending the president's speech.

Dr. Smidt, a Republican, had a different view of the presidential visit. "I do think it's an honor for the college," he said. "Even if Bill Clinton had come at the height of Monica Lewinsky, I don't think I would have objected then, either."


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Since you insisted on not reading anything that doesn't match your viewpoint Here is the entire article which was not fake. I place it here for the other more open minded to make their own judgement.


It is not a question whether I want to read it or not but that I don't want to register with the site you referenced just to read it. Check out your link, you have to be registered with them to read it.....You have a problem with that?

Now lets try this one more time . This quote is from your last post........

*"The letter said, in part, "Your deeds, Mr. President - neglecting the needy to coddle the rich, desecrating the environment and misleading the country into war - do not exemplify the faith we live by." *

Now here again is the full letter that was sent to the paper by the college.....

*An Open Letter to the President of the United States of America, George W. Bush

On May 21, 2005, you will give the commencement address at Calvin College. We, the undersigned, respect your office, and we join the college in welcoming you to our campus. Like you, we recognize the importance of religious commitment in American political life.

We seek open and honest dialogue about the Christian faith and how it is best expressed in the political sphere. While recognizing God as sovereign over individuals and institutions alike, we understand that no single political position should be identified with God's will, and we are conscious that this applies to our own views as well as those of others. At the same time we see conflicts between our understanding of what Christians are called to do and many of the policies of your administration.

As Christians we are called to be peacemakers and to initiate war only as a last resort. We believe your administration has launched an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq.

As Christians we are called to lift up the hungry and impoverished. We believe your administration has taken actions that favor the wealthy of our society and burden the poor.

As Christians we are called to actions characterized by love, gentleness, and concern for the most vulnerable among us. We believe your administration has fostered intolerance and divisiveness and has often failed to listen to those with whom it disagrees.

As Christians we are called to be caretakers of God's good creation. We believe your environmental policies have harmed creation and have not promoted long-term stewardship of our natural environment.

Our passion for these matters arises out of the Christian faith that we share with you. We ask you, Mr. President, to re-examine your policies in light of our God-given duty to pursue justice with mercy, and we pray for wisdom for you and all world leaders.

--Concerned faculty, staff, and emeriti of Calvin College*

Now do you see this quote from your reference *"The letter said, in part, "Your deeds, Mr. President - neglecting the needy to coddle the rich, desecrating the environment and misleading the country into war - do not exemplify the faith we live by."* anywhere in the actual letter.........answer is no you don't. That makes the quote in the article you referenced a fake.

Is any of this sinking in?........ I know everyone else can see the truth so I'm not going through this drill with you again.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

last comment on the topic. For those that can read, the quote I took from the article clearly states it came from the full page letter taken out in the Grand Rapids paper BY OVER 800 PEOPLE, NOT THE LETTER TO THE EDITOR TO WHICH GOHON IS REFERRING. THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ITEMS IN THE GRAND RAPIDS PAPER. IS ANY OF THIS SINKING IN?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Well one things' for sure, those so called "Christians" are in the minority of Christian opinion, in fact its indisputable that Christians of this country are solidly behind Bush. Those are really a bunch of leftist claims that cannot be supported with fact which again is not unusual for leftists. And the NY times is extremely leftist so wheres your crying towel about propaganda with them, they have one scandle after another with their reporters faking stories that support the leftist viewpoint. Of course the reason they have to fake them is that this country is slowly realizing that the leftist viewpoint is full of falsehoods and destoying the country. The Leftist viewpoint is recognized for what it is and the Democrat party better quit allowing hard left viewpoint dinosaurs like Kennedy, Dean and others to set their adjenda or they will continue to become more and more irrelavant. They have basically banished the conservatives like Liberman and Zell Miller because the democrats will not allow any opinion in their party but the far lefts, they have no idea what the country needs or thinks. Your party is collapseing before your eyes, yet you glom on to pablum from some leftists at a university that doesn't represent the countries view?? Go ahead keep supporting leftists like Kerry ect, by the way Kerry still will not allow the military records about his so called " Purple Hearts" to be released as he has promised why do you think that is ??? :eyeroll: 
What can you be thinking???? Why support this suicidal march to obscurity that the leftists in the Dem party are demanding. Notice that even Hillary has disavowed herself of them, you don't see her in their company much, shes smart enough to see the country is leaving that ideaology! You should be also. Bush isn't perfect but hes does his best and has taken on some issues most politicians woudnt touch for fear of political repercussions, the man has character and guts.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

The Democratic Party is out of touch with mainstream America. I feel sorry for the guys in the Party who are pro-life, pro-military and so forth. It has to be hard watching your party be controlled by the liberal left. But, I give you guys credit for trying to change the party. When you get tired of fighting feel free to come over to the Republican Party.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

This will be the next step in the decline of the Democrat party due to their strange allegiance with the far left.

Liberals, race, and history
Thomas Sowell

May 24, 2005

If the share of the black vote that goes to the Democrats ever falls to 70 percent, it may be virtually impossible for the Democrats to win the White House or Congress, because they have long ago lost the white male vote and their support among other groups is eroding. Against that background, it is possible to understand their desperate efforts to keep blacks paranoid, not only about Republicans but about American society in general.

Liberal Democrats, especially, must keep blacks fearful of racism everywhere, including in an administration whose Cabinet includes people of Chinese, Japanese, Hispanic, and Jewish ancestry, and two consecutive black Secretaries of State. Blacks must be kept believing that their only hope lies with liberals.

Not only must the present be distorted, so must the past -- and any alternative view of the future must be nipped in the bud. That is why prominent minority figures who stray from the liberal plantation must be discredited, debased and, above all, kept from becoming federal judges.

A thoughtful and highly intelligent member of the California supreme court like Justice Janice Rogers Brown must be smeared as a right-wing extremist, even though she received 76 percent of the vote in California, hardly a right-wing extremist state. But desperate politicians cannot let facts stand in their way.

Least of all can they afford to let Janice Rogers Brown become a national figure on the federal bench. The things she says and does could lead other blacks to begin to think independently -- and that in turn threatens the whole liberal house of cards. If a smear is what it takes to stop her, that is what liberal politicians and the liberal media will use.

It's "not personal" as they say when they smear someone. It doesn't matter how outstanding or upstanding Justice Brown is. She is a threat to the power that means everything to liberal politicians. The Democrats' dependence on blacks for votes means that they must keep blacks dependent on them.

Black self-reliance would be almost as bad as blacks becoming Republicans, as far as liberal Democrats are concerned. All black progress in the past must be depicted as the result of liberal government programs and all hope of future progress must be depicted as dependent on the same liberalism.

In reality, reductions in poverty among blacks and the rise of blacks into higher level occupations were both more pronounced in the years leading up to the civil rights legislation and welfare state policies of the 1960s than in the years that followed.

Moreover, contrary to political myth, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But facts have never stopped politicians or ideologues before and show no signs of stopping them now.

What blacks have achieved for themselves, without the help of liberals, is of no interest to liberals. Nothing illustrates this better than political reactions to academically successful black schools.

Despite widespread concerns expressed about the abysmal educational performances of most black schools, there is remarkably little interest in those relatively few black schools which have met or exceeded national standards.

Anyone who is serious about the advancement of blacks would want to know what is going on in those ghetto schools whose students have reading and math scores above the national average, when so many other ghetto schools are miles behind in both subjects. But virtually all the studies of such schools have been done by conservatives, while liberals have been strangely silent.

Achievement is not what liberalism is about. Victimhood and dependency are.

Black educational achievements are a special inconvenience for liberals because those achievements have usually been a result of methods and practices that go directly counter to prevailing theories in liberal educational circles and are anathema to the teachers' unions that are key supporters of the Democratic Party.

Many things that would advance blacks would not advance the liberal agenda. That is why the time is long overdue for the two to come to a parting of the ways.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

indsport said:


> last comment on the topic. For those that can read, the quote I took from the article clearly states it came from the full page letter taken out in the Grand Rapids paper BY OVER 800 PEOPLE, NOT THE LETTER TO THE EDITOR TO WHICH GOHON IS REFERRING. THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ITEMS IN THE GRAND RAPIDS PAPER. IS ANY OF THIS SINKING IN?


Unbelievable........talk about a hard head. there was only *ONE* letter. I have shown you that one, not once but a couple times. Even TC reprinted it for you all to see. Where is this mysterious second letter you keep talking about. Does Dan Rather and NewsWeek ring a bell. You were simply fooled by a propaganda paper and taken in so what is the big deal in admitting it instead of screaming all the way over the cliff.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bobm, have you read Zell Miller's book "A National Party No More"?
Very interesting book with a few back room deals revealed that I was not aware of. Democrat or Republican, this should be a must read book.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Yes its a good book I read it hot off the presses. Then I sent it to my folks to read. Life long Democrats that are really conservatives like Ken are the people that should read it, they need to start trying to change their party back to some semblence of sanity.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bob....I would have a hard time doing that.I was brought up in Minnesota....a Democrat Union state.All of my family work for someone....the only way to get anywhere was to belong to a union.Thus all my relatives are Democrats.

All of the divisive things that seperate the far left from the far right aren't even on my radar.I just have a tough time going along with the Republican pro business ideals....

Yes I have opinions on those other things....some on the right,some on the left.....that's why I can actually agree with Bill O'Reilly on a lot of things.

The best for me would be one of those moderate Rep. or moderate Dem....like the 14 who came up with the compromise on the judges....Senator McCain would be a Rep I could vote for....I also actually like ND Gov. Hoeven....except for some of his hunting ideas.

So who do we have to choose from to vote for President????

A turkey on both sides.....when that is the case,I vote Democrat.

When will one of the parties nominate someone from the middle....guys like Bush,Reagan,Kerry,Gore,Clinton make me sad....because I have to pick one.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken, Zell is a life long Democrat and a sane person as most conservative Democrats are, he recognizes whats happened to the Democrat party and his book speaks about it in detail at 70 some years young and a life long Democrat political player he has a good perspective to lecture on the subject and is a Democrat of high moral stature. You ought to read the book, and I think you would get what I'm trying to say. PM your mailing address and if my mother hasn't given it to someone I"ll ask her to mail it to you.
Labor unions are unfortunately another area where the pendulum has swung too far, power corrupts and they are both powerful and corrupt.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Bobm said:


> power corrupts


Who controls Washinton?

Sorry, I coundn't resist Bob :lol:I will try to get the book though.

TC


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Congress does and you'll get no argument from me both sides are corrupt not all of them but enough to really make us at risk. Anyone can see that their own power is more important to them than solving the countries problems. They won't do the latter if its risks their hold on power.
Presidents are figure heads with suprisingly little actual power, its concentrated in the congress and the judiciary.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Presidents are figure heads with suprisingly little actual power, its concentrated in the congress and the judiciary.


Presidents are a little more than figure heads but you are right in that haven't as much power as most people think. In my opinion foreign affairs and as a moral leader are the only two real jobs the President has. Take JFK for example ............ in truth he accomplished very little for the country during his short time in office but still the population would have followed him over a cliff if asked. At the time he was almost on equal footing with the pope as far as Americans were concerned........... well, maybe not that far up on the ladder but......... I think the Speaker of the House is the real person in power in congress. Nothing goes through without his approval..... that's power.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

AGain i fail to see the problem.

Is Bush perfect? HECK NO! But do you REALY want to start listing off mistakes of the president? fine. then you have to go back to other presidents and list theres also.

you say Bush doesnt live by his moral code. Many other presidents didnt have one (Clinton).

you say Bush led us into Iraq on false pretencees. I dont seem to remember us having any "real" reason to be in Bosnia either.

Whats my point? Eveory president is going to make mistakes. LOTS OF THEM. Democrat 0or republican makes NO difference.


----------

