Bush vindicated during visit to city

StarPhoenix ^ | October 23, 2009

[Stultis]

“You guys are complaining about Bush lying us into war, “

I don’t recall saying that.

Sorry. That was a sloppily generic "you guys."

[Stultis]

When you insult a person like you just did Stultis, you're supposed to ping him.

Thanks for the heads up, and the far too kind words.

I'm not going to try to process this whole thread though anyway. Just stick to a few key points.

[mkjessup]

At the risk of even greater ridicule than I have already experienced here, I feel I must come back one more time to apologize to all, and to confess my sin before men, if I have in any way been a detriment to the Name of my Lord Jesus Christ by my behavior and arguments on this thread.

Oh here we go again. Enter the mad puppy and her chew toy.

If I have in any way hurt His Name before others by my words I am ashamed. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I humbly bear the name Christian as one who is a sinner saved by grace alone, and not through any works of my own. This should never have gotten this far, and I am certainly partly to blame. I am not a 'victim' here, because I fully participated in arguments with multiple attackers that I could have walked away from.

a.) You're not big enough to hurt His Name.

b.) If you were not so totally emotionally invested in your worship of George W. Bush, you might have been able to 'walk away' but like the true cult follower, you just couldn't help yourself.

I would also like to add that I believe that mkjessup has exhibited behavior here that is the least Christian, the least decent, the least ethical, the least loving, the least honest, the meanest, and the most condescending that I have ever seen in 8 years on Free Republic.

Playing the victim card to the very end. Wah, Wah, Wah.

While I am ashamed of my sin here, she is proud of hers.

One last time, one FINAL time, now pay close attention here:

I'M A MALE YOU IGNORAMUS!!

SHe is boasting of her his nastiness, and will continue to be in my prayers, and should be in the prayers of any believer in Jesus Christ. But at the same time, her HIS sin does not excuse mine.

Here's some advice for you: instead of wailing away about how I'm going to be in your prayers, why not just "take it to the Lord in prayer?" without the self righteous proclamations? You want everyone to know that you're gonna 'pray' for me, instead of just going into that prayer closet (as I suggested you do a few posts back) and talking to God about it, just Him and you. REAL Christians just DO it (pray in private). Hypocrites, fakes and frauds make a big production of it.

I believe that Christians should never argue with each other in this kind of public setting, especially with sarcasm (my weakness and besetting sin) or meanness. We dishonor the Name of Christ when we behave in such a despicable manner, and for my part in that, I apologize.

You started all of this crap with your post #109 playing the God card and condemning rabscuttle385 (among others) for daring not to fall in line with your BushBot talking points. And it just continued from there. Your #156 was a classic example of slavish cultist behavior. I didn't even enter this thread until my post #223 where I proceeded to clean your clock for you (in a quite restrained fashion I might add, as I had experienced your emotional hysteria in a previous encounter), and your response at #232 was vacuous, without substance but did contain the statement "You boys carry on with your Bush bashing and feel good about yourselves. I'm moving on out."

What a shame you couldn't adhere to that aspiration.

One freeper said that people like me were the reason he stayed away from Church for 50 some years. If that is true, then it is a devastating blow to me, because Scripture tells us that others should know us by our love, and I have fallen short of that.

That was StephenJohnBanker who said that, and like him, I have seen your kind over and over again, you're the typical self righteous, tongue clucking, gossiping, sniping holier-than-thou 'church lady' who judges everyone else, while proclaiming your own holiness and the rightness of your cause (which in this case, is 'defender of the faith' for Saint George W. Bush).

I must stay away from here and not respond to others because frankly, being "rebuked" as demonic is a blow so deep and so painful that I cannot trust myself to behave in an adult manner in any further discussion. I must leave that accusation to the Lord.

You are so full of sh*t you stink. I never said you were demonic, never even had the thought. I rebuked you on the basis of your statement suggesting that because I had taken issue with your views in this thread, that I had "sinned against God", and as I see it, that is borderline blasphemy. I stand by what I stated, and I would state it again when dealing with you or any other faux religious hypocrite.

I will also try in the future to not "wear my faith on my sleeve." I have always been very up front about my faith in Christ, but if that has offended here, I am deeply sorry.

Nobody cares if you wear your faith on your sleeve, there is nothing wrong with being a strong advocate for Christ. What is offensive is when you USE that faith in a secular manner to promote and elevate a mere mortal sinner (George W. Bush) and accuse those who do not share your lofty view of GWB of being ungodly, 'sinners' for not agreeing with you, and drawing a moral equivalence between loving and admiring George W. Bush and being obedient to God. That is shameful.

I will pray that things will be made right. If you wish to respond to me, please do in freepmail (not mkjessup - I believe God is telling me to avoid you at all costs, and I will be obedient).

That's funny, God revealed to me last night that you need some serious professional help, and I hope you get it.

So, once again, forgive me, and if you are not a Christian, please do not judge the Lord Jesus Christ on any of my sins here, and go in peace. Thank you.

Again, you're not big enough to bring any shame or dishonor to the Name of Jesus Christ, He remains King of kings and Lord of lords, and nobody in their right mind would associate anything you've had to say with His Majesty and His Holiness.

Now go get that help that you need so badly.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Now go get that help that you need so badly.” (mkjessup to ohioWfan;)

Ditto,
I saw reports of studies of those with mental illnesses being fixated with the internet. I thought of them as I read ohioWfan posts and webpage.

[Stultis]

You just repeat Hannity’s nonsense.

I'm not a big fan of Hannity. Don't particularly have anything against him either. But you seem to have some obsessive issues with him. Have you noticed you mention him almost every other post? Whatever they may be, they're your issues, not mine.

May get to the rest of your post later, but for now, I notice you still haven't addressed the points on which I accused you directly, twice now, this the third time, of being a liar.

If somebody directly and spefically accused me of being a liar, I would address it. But maybe that's just me.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”.. I accused you directly, twice now, this the third time, of being a liar. If somebody directly and spefically accused me of being a liar, I would address it. But maybe that's just me.”

Sounds like you have an exaggerated view of your own importance. I don't. But speaking of liars, I was wondering about this:

“Amazing. You guys are complaining about Bush lying us into war, ...” (Stultis replying to #553 below to both Impy and sickoflibs at #556 )

I couldnt remember Impy and I doing what you accused us of. So I looked back a few replies (very difficult research) :

"I think the Bush admin believed the (as we know now bad) intelligence that Saddam had nukes. "(Impy to sickoflibs at #553)

"I have no reason to believe that Bush lied (as liberals say), meaning that I don't think Bush was intentionally making it up ". (sickoflibs to Impy at #554 )

Pretty clever making up things we said and arguing against them. Now you say liar???

[Stultis]

Sorry. I was confused by the things you said happened that never happened. I assumed you knew better, that you hadn't bought the leftist spin, and were asserting that Bush lied about things you knew weren't substantiated, even at the time. But I gave you credit for too much knowledge.

IOW, as you quote yourself just now, you really do believe that Bush believed "that Saddam had nukes". But Bush believed nothing of the kind, nor did he ever say or suggest anything of the kind. He (correctly) asserted that Saddam had an historical interest in obtaining WMDs, that this interest persisted, and would be a continuing danger in the future, especially as the sanctions regime continued to break down.

Bush (and other world leaders) were incorrect in believing that Saddam had retained usable chemical and biological weapons. But no one believed that he had working nuclear weapons. They knew Saddam had had a nuclear weapons program, which at some points (e.g. during the Iran/Iraq war, and just before the Gulf War) had been fairly advanced, but it's status as of 2002 was unknown.

So, again, I apologize for getting your take wrong. I ask you to excuse me, as it is very difficult to argue with someone who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.

Now you say liar???

Yes. And I say it know for the fourth time. Will you finally address it?

To remind you, one more time, I accuse you of lying in suggesting that Bush said, or implied, that those opposing his Iraq policy were against America. In fact, as I noted previously, his famous, "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" rhetoric was ONLY used to call NATIONS to take sides in the war on terror and follow through on their commitments. You suggested Bush employed this rhetorical formulation to attack persons. That is a lie and you need to either support or retract this claim.

[sickoflibs]

RE :” I think the Bush admin believed the (as we know now bad) intelligence that Saddam had nukes ”

Chris Wallas had Rush on and asked him about the current war in Afghanistan, and Rush (and Cheney) being critical of Obama’s delays. So Chris asked about something I have pointed out this thread, and many other threads about Bush/Cheney delay to call for a Iraq surge until after the 2006 election. To anyone who is not a Bush-bot or neo-con this looked very political, while troops were dieing in Iraq(harms way). Rush's response?? He said he has been to the white house and saw Bush crying over the troops (his proof Bush wouldn't follow politics.) Chris asked “ You don't think Obama cares about the troops? ” Rush went on about how Obama opposed the surge, proof that Obama doesn't love the troops, or even hates them.

You see what the Bush argument is? Bush's decisions and claims may have not worked out well, but it doesn't matter because he meant well. Now with Obama he hates us and hates the troops is the reasons things go wrong.

Republicans : “They are wrong and make very bad decisions but mean well because they love us“

Democrats :” They hate everybody and are pure evil”

Now how you can see where the argument for McCain comes from, exactly above. I got in an argument with a 'conservative' using this argument FOR McCain Friday.

[rasl04]

Republicans : “They are wrong and make very bad decisions but mean well because they love us“

Democrats :” They hate everybody and are pure evil”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This also works for the other side.
I work with a woman who thinks BO is doing a great job. She is a dyed in the wool Dem. I pointed out to her that BO is doing all the same things, and more, that Bush did that she hated. Her reply was along the lines of, “he has to do those things.” LOL!! As long as a “D” was after his name, it was all good.

The two parties demand blind, unquestioning loyalty and way too damn many people give it to them

[Stultis]

I have pointed out this thread, and many other threads about Bush/Cheney delay to call for a Iraq surge until after the 2006 election. To anyone who is not a Bush-bot or neo-con this looked very political

That's a valid criticism. But (although I realize you just can't help yourself) your knee-jerk swipe at neocons doesn't work so well in this instance. It was largely neocons who were pushing the change in strategy.

Recall that the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group had been mixed and strategically unfocused, and that Bush's own Joint Chiefs, and Iraq commanders General Casey and General Chiarelli were, as of December '06, pushing on Bush a plan basically opposite to the counter insurgency strategy, i.e. pulling American troops out of contact with the population and into big, centralized bases, to concentrate on training Iraqi forces.

It was an AEI report -- Iraq: A Turning Point, presented to Bush in December by Fred Kagan, General Keane and Ken Pollack (foreign policy hawks/neocons all) and released to the public in early January -- which was the real impetus pushing Bush towards the surge and counterinsurgency strategy.

And of course neocons like Kagan (and not a few neoconish FReepers!) had been pointing to the successes of locally applied counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq, and to the "Anbar Awakening" and it's potential to be leveraged, for many, many months, even before the real problems began in the wake of the '06 Gold Mosque bombing and it's aftermath.

It would be almost humorous, if not so often regretful, how often neocons are blamed for the results when their recommendations have not been applied, or have been applied belatedly.

[Gondring]

The bigger question is why so many FReepers were duped into demonizing this good man. The vitriol is still over-the-top.

If you don't pay taxes assessed, they come after you to lock you up at gunpoint.

GWB pushed for and signed MANY unConstitutional bills that spent money from his own pocket and The Bush that this writer heard is the same Bush that Texans elected and elected again and who went to Washington and did a good job under extreme hardship.

Uh, no.

While W was Rah-Rah open borders as both Governor and President, he was in direct opposition on many things. Most glaring is the way he spoke out vigorously against interventionism and "Nation Building."

I'm sure you're familiar with President Bush Debates Governor .

[Gondring]

ugh... Windows. Didn’t mean to post that yet.

Let’s just say it wasn’t his money... I don’t see him eating a diet of Ramen noodles, yet he can take money from those who are. It’s awfully easy to spend other peoples’ money and call yourself compassionate.

[rasl04]

It’s awfully easy to spend other peoples’ money and call yourself compassionate.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

LOL!!! You should come to NE Minnesota and see the number of people who believe Wellstone had tons of compassion.

They look at you dumbfounded when you point out that Wellstone was compassionate when he had other people's money to try to spread around

[sickoflibs]

RE :” This also works for the other side.
I work with a woman who thinks BO is doing a great job. She is a dyed in the wool Dem. I pointed out to her that BO is doing all the same things, and more, that Bush did that she hated. Her reply was along the lines of, “he has to do those things.” LOL!! As long as a “D” was after his name, it was all good. The two parties demand blind, unquestioning loyalty and way too damn many people give it to them “

I talk to Obama liberals regularly and what you say is true. In fact that was part of what motivated this morning's post of mine link below.

I followed talk radio and believed blindly in GWB back in 2002 like the O supporters now. Back in the 1990s Rush preached "If only republicans were in charge we would fix...". Now it's democrats turn to get disillusioned.

How Long can it all be Republicans fault??