Posted on 06/10/2004 12:19:49 AM PDT by kattracks
June 10, 2004 -- NOW is a good time to look back at the landslide win that sent Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, because lots of analysts think 2004 could turn out the same way — close for a long time and then suddenly breaking wide open. In 1980, the break came just days before the vote, when Democrat Jimmy Carter finally agreed to debate. Reagan came off as sunny instead of scary and when he admonished Carter with a smile, "There you go again," it was all over.Like President Bush, Carter faced voters nervous over both the economy and foreign policy and wondering whether it's time for a change — in Carter's case, skyrocketing inflation at home plus the endless Iran hostage crisis.
But there's a big difference, since Carter kept getting bad news on both fronts, while Bush is starting to get good news on both the economy, with a surge in new jobs, and Iraq, with international support for the June 30 transfer of power.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
My comment to rabid Bush-haters is to tell them that their feelings are simply a reflection of their own soul which they are projecting onto an undeserving person due to their own feelings of inadequacy.
Maybe it doesn't always get them to come around, but it's the truth.
OK
Topical humor tends to be their strong suit.
Oh yea I especially love the Hardball skits. They never disappoint.
So, on the one hand, we have Japan, which has strong cultural, but weak religious, factors that still end up creating a stable, functional society. On the other, we have places like Afghanistan, or even the former Yugoslavia, which have strong religious factors but very weak cultural factors influencing the stability of those societies.
Religion, by itself, is not an indicator of stability for a society.
My bad.
Regardless of what Hitler believed, or any other Nazi, for that matter, Hitler could not have done what he did without the consent of the German people. The Christian German people.
Actually, by the 1920s most German churches were extremely liberal and mostly preached a mixture of German historical virtues and racist ideology based upon many secular influences of the day. Christianity, as we know it today, had almost ceased to exist, though there were notable exceptions.
Hitler did use Christianity as a justification in his speeches, and the iron cross was a major symbol used by the Nazis.
Quite true. A recurring theme in Hitler's speeches was his belief that divine providence had decreed his ascension to power. He also repeatedly stated his belief that his decisions were preordained by God. Of course, if the German people were actually practicing Christians, he could have never gotten away with such rhetoric, because even a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible would contradict many of those actions which Hitler insisted were within a religious framework.
I am aware of Hitler's experimentation with mysticism. His belief that "aryans" were the descendants of Atlantis. I am well aware of all of that,
Cool.
but I am also aware of his solid Christian background,
He had none. His family was nominal Catholic and he despised Catholicism. He never had any inclination whatsoever toward any form of Christianity. He hated it from his youth.
and I am not about to believe that all or even a significant number of Nazis believed in such occultism.
Virtually all of the Nazi hierarchy was deeply involved in the occult. That is historical fact beyond dispute.
My point was and remains that Germany was a Christian nation,
Depends on what your definition of "Christian nation" is. Historically, Germany is a Christian nation. But, in terms of the number of Christians in the population, Germany is an overwhelmingly secular nation, as is France. A nation of empty churches can hardly be called "Christian," regardless of how pretty the churches are.
Just as Christian nations launched the Inquisition and the Crusades.
Oh, play the "Inquisition and Crusades" card. Two of the least understood and misreported events in history, yet so many actually think they know what happened.
My point being that religious belief does not deliver instant morality,
We agree.
and this goes for Christians as well.
For nominal Christians who might go to church very other Easter and have never had any relationship with Christ (Christians in name only), you have a point. But, for truly born-again believers, who put pleasing Christ at the center of their existence, living a moral life is an imperative.
Just as lack of religious belief does not make one automatically immoral, or even more inclined towards immorality.
That is an arguable point, but I agree with you.
Explain 8 years of Clinton, then. No, we can't blame or praise God for the governments we get. At the end of the day, we are fully responsible for our leaders.
I disagree on a few levels, at least from a faith-based (Christian) perspective.
There are many references to the responsibility of not only choosing leaders, but of choosing good, upstanding, moral leaders. To those for whom the Bible is a reference, or is meaningful, look in Exodus, Judges, Proverbs, Romans, 1 Timothy, Hebrews,and 1 Peter. They say some very interesting things, such as:
---Leaders are to select qualified subordinate leaders, to help govern the people (Exodus);
---Sometimes, in judgment of Israel, God allowed bad leaders to overtake His people. Oppressed, the people would cry out to God, and He would send a righteous judge to conquer the evil force, and bring peace...at least until the judge died, and the people returned to wickedness (Judges);
---A verse in Proverbs says that the heart of the king is in the hands of the Lord, and that like a watercourse (river), He directs it;
---The Apostle Paul said that it is the duty of EVERYONE to submit to the governing authorities, because no authority existed that God didn't establish, and then he said it again for effect. He went on to say that those who rebel against such authority are actually rebelling against God Himself, inviting judgment on themselves (Romans 13:1-7)
---1 Timothy talks about prayer for, and submission to,all those in authority (Chapter 2);
---The unknown writer to the Hebrews said that we are to respect our leaders and to submit to their authority, and to do it so that the leaders' job would be a joy, not a burden (Hebrews 13);
---finally, the Apostle Peter talked about submission FOR THE LORD'S SAKE to every authority instituted among men--kings, governors...he also said that slaves (or currently translated, citizens, employees, et.al) should submit to their leaders with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh (1 Peter 2).
While I could not more categorically disagree that we cannot praise God for our leaders, I do agree that we cannot blame God for our leaders. We are responsible for them, through the wonderful process known as elections.
For those who say that we the people have no voice, all you have to do is look at the California Governor recall. Popular liberal governor, just reelected, booted out of office a year later.
So that is my perspective from a faith-based (Christian) point of view. As for the atheist, God-hating view...well, I can't speak to either, because I am neither. IMHO, if you are an atheist or a (true-God)hater, you have much bigger problems than who wins in any election.
I think you're painting with too broad a brush. The factors that lead to the creation of a system of free trade, where people feel safe doing business with strangers, is mostly a cultural and legal phenomenon. Even in most of Judeo-Christian Europe, business and commerce was heavily family-oriented and not "free," in the sense we're talking about. Think Italy during the renaissance or the system of patronage so historically dominant in Russia, France etc.
The "Western" system of doing business arose in England and places like the Low Countries and was, for the most part, a by-product of representative government. That is to say, our system of government was championed by the middle and merchant classes, who had a strong economic interest in setting up a commerical/financial/legal regime that allowed for enforcement of contracts, independent judiciaries etc.
So, our way of doing business is only appealing to a society with representative government. A society run by some form of aristocracy (whether hereditary or something like Communist China or even France) has no interest in a commercial/financial system that is open to everyone. I don't think religion plays an important role in this determination.
Kerry continues to show his confusions as all can see. Democrats are going to be very disillusioned by voting time.
I think by praise, you mean something to the effect of"Thank God Bush is the president," which is a sentiment I certainly agree with.
However, if you mean we should praise God for installing Bush as the president, that's too close to the "Divine Right of Kings" for my tastes.
The examples you quote from the Bible seem to cover situations where the governments in question were some sort of dictatorship/theocracy/monarchy where the people were not free to replace their leaders, except perhaps with bloodshed. I don't think such examples apply to a country like the US. Since, at the end of the day, we have several ways of getting rid of bad leaders, whether through elections, recalls, impeachments etc. When confronted with a bad leader like Clinton, it is a cop-out to cry to God for a change- we have to create the change ourselves.
Why? This country elected Bill Clinton. Twice. Never forget that, or the implications thereof.
MM
While I fully expect Bush to win in a landslide, that haunts the back of my mind.
Also remember that Gore was almost elected, by the slimmest of margins.
Any nation that would elect Algore as it's leader has forfeited it's right to exist.
Yes, to the former; No, to the latter.
I don't believe that President Bush was installed, or selected...he was ELECTED. That's what the Left, and the RINOs on the Right, still can't bring themselves to realize, largely due to the Fraudcast LameScream Media (and partially due to their own ignorance and stupidity).
All they can do is go to the "Bush was selected, not elected", "His buddies in the SCOTUS chose him", "Bush stole the election", blah to the 3rd power. They don't realize, or won't admit, that Bush won the original vote, and the mandatory recount, and every other recount since.
I was glad that Al Gore and the Democrats did not succeed in rewriting the rules, just to get themselves in power. I'm thankful for the truth, that there was an absolute law that said there was a violation of the Equal Protection clause, in the way that Gore tried to cheat. I was also glad that, unlike the way the media keeps saying it was a 5-4 vote, "seven justices STRONGLY agree" (against two nays).
It has nothing to do with the right of a king. George Bush entered into an election with Al Gore (and Ralph Nader) in 2000. Those who wished to, voted, and because of the rightful process, George W. Bush was ELECTED the President of the United States of America.
For that, you're darn right that I THANKED GOD...and I still do.
"Bin Laden is still dead. Perhaps we can find some bits of bone in the moountains and display triumphantly the DNA report."
I thought that for months, now I don't believe it. I think he is in fact still alive and in hiding somewhere along the Afghan / Paki border as suggested. Primarily based on the last two tapes verified (as well as can be given the techonology) where he cited relatively recent events during his rants.
Personally, I'd like to see Bush walk into the debates with bin Laden's head in a pickle jar, sit it on the podium, and say to Kerry "Would you like to comment?"....(grin)
I bow to your wise words and apologize for falling for their trap.
I hope you're right, but then, we said the same thing about X42, because we were sure that no American in his right mind would vote for a draft-dodger (among other things) for Commander in Chief.
Look what happened.
You look sweet in that skirt, GRUNT!
I love that skit. The one that focused of Janet Jackson's boob was great also.
I agree that we all suffer from this ego sickness in varying degree. I think it acute of you to see this and to see its application to liberal politics:
self-guilt and a lot of stupid behaviour is a direct outcome of this, and the demonrats and many America haters have a really bad case of it...
I would say that Reagan suffered from it very little and Nixon a lot. Clinton was utterly and ceaselessly at war within himself over this ego principle, propelling him to failure and it explains the great squandering of his undeniable genius. Reagan was "centered" that is, "surrendered" and content within himself. Nixon was eternally battling and slaying his ego only to see it spring like Phoenix full blown. But Clinton's whole existence, his very corporal body, is and was nothing but a life support system for his ego.
So, Mojowire, I say that you and I are very nearly in accord when you observe:
My comment to rabid Bush-haters is to tell them that their feelings are simply a reflection of their own soul which they are projecting onto an undeserving person due to their own feelings of inadequacy.
If the Bush haters only knew what a window to their souls they have opened and what an ugly prospect they have revealed. But I would say that their problem is not that they feel inadequate, but rather that they would be God and that condition is a foretaste of Hell by any definition.
Small wonder that Reagan lies mourned by all of America while Clinton winges because he is denied the center stage at the funeral.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.