Posted on 06/11/2004 9:00:42 PM PDT by nuconvert
By phrasing it as "so many politicians" I would take it to be generic. If he would have said "as a particular politician", I might wonder which one he might be referring to. Most of us would say something similar --- so many politicians do use religion for political purposes. Bush wouldn't happen to be on of them, he's one of the genuine ones like Reagan was when it comes to faith. "Wearing religion on a sleeve" would almost have to point to Clinton, Kerry, the Kennedys, and Carter. There is no way anyone could believe any one of them is sincere.
To be a liberal means never having to follow a point of rational thought to its logical end.
One particular Christian sect??
"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." 1 John 5:13
Absolutely.
We might not like his eulogy as much as the others --- but obviously it was best he give one. I thought his eulogy was clearly atheist --- but it would be fake for him to give a different type.
See the part about a "mandate".
Still --- as long as he's working for the Greens it's okay by me. I doubt he's saying much to justify the democrats and if he included Bush in his "so many politicians....", he certainly had to be including many democrats. He can help Nader all he wants --- that's a good thing.
Of course he should have given a eulogy. I liked his eulogy, though I didn't agree with the part under discussion. I thought he did well throughout the week and during his eulogy.
I think too many are confusing pointing out what he meant with criticism of him.
Probably because in print you can't hear the emphasis that was placed on (mandate), or the sarcasm.
So you say. Of course, you have no personal knowledge of his intentions.
If you'd prefer to seek out the worst in people be my guest. But let me point out that the man we honored this week would be ashamed of such conduct. It certainly hasn't taken us long to revert to bitter, overly politicized folks, has it?
I don't get why you see pointing out the meaning of what was said as "seeking out the worst" in people. How is that bitter? How is it we who are politicizing? We merely are recognizing what IS.
Well --- whatever he meant, I think for the most part he'll fade back into the woodwork --- I almost didn't recognize him --- I haven't seen much or heard much about him since his ballerina days.
IF he meant his words as a slam to the GWB, then he surely chose the most unfortunate of times to convey such a message. In fact, even if he strongly believes it, some things are best left unsaid. Certainly, I found no wisdom or solace in his very puzzling observation.....it's like commenting on the differences the past four presidents had regarding the Oval Office. Oddly, only one person's behavior shows itself to be crass, crude and totally classless. Or, should we have felt pity that he had such obvious signs of mental illness?
It seems to me though, whether you are four, forty or sixty-four.....the death of a beloved parent makes you as helpless as a baby. Though this is the regarded nature of life passing in a normal manner (the parents die before their children), it still does not make it easier to lose your Dad. Though believers KNOW this is not the end of the story, tears are shed for the loss on this end....even on Good Friday, Mary wept.
More puzzling is why ANYONE thinks they KNOW what is in the heart of GWB regarding his personal relationship with his Savior. I don't recall him telling the nation that the Lord had given him a mandate..... only that he and his family "served the Lord...."
One thing is for sure. Personally, I find the fact that GWB is clear on where his loyalties lay comforting. Don't most of you agree that our faith and allegiance to, in, for and by our Creator is all that stands between our very exisitence? We may well be in the last days of our final choices....Every day, I thank God for all those who have set a fine example.... and for the removal of all those who have served the enemy.
Now that President Reagan has been laid to rest, truly it was revealed once more in the past week that "All things come together for GOOD, for those that love the Lord....." We have had an opportunity to remember what "morning in America" can reveal....
But with each breath we take upon the earth, we continue to choose. The time is past for the trite and trivial. Those choices now carry the weight of the world and His Word. Choose now between immortal and immoral, dawn and dusk, service and servitude, our Creator or our destroyer.
It has become so very obvious (at least to me), that we must unite and stand together for what is right. If we fail to meet the test which is now upon us we may never have another opportunity ....
There are a number of ways in which you could interpret the remarks (or you could ignore them altogether and concentrate on the many wonderful events of the past week). Yet you choose to dwell on your perception (not "what is"), which is the worst possible reading of Ron's remarks.
Speak for yourself. I'm not bitter or overly-politicized. As I said in Post #190, Ron Jr. politicized the event, not me.
This thread is dedicated to commentary on Ron Jr. It's not about the overall tribute to Reagan in which the nation was immersed this past week and which has been a precious and uplifting gift for us all.
And I'm not saying the ceremony at the Reagan Library was ruined by Ron Jr.'s remarks, although they certainly didn't ennoble it. I'll even go so far to say that the comfort he gave his mother at the casket will be an enduring image in American history, and was a genuine and touching expression of his humanity.
I am not dwelling on the young Ron's remarks. I am focused on the entire wonderful week, as I've made clear.
It remains to be seen how and/or whether he confronts W more directly in the campaign. He has some post at MSNBC and that will give him a great vehicle to sow mischeif. Still, he may not want to do precisely that. We'll see.
Do you think its possible that young Ron equates religious mandate with opposition to stem cell research? Nancy is for it and President Bush is against it. Could stem cell research be used during the election to show that President Bush is opposed to something that Nancy favors, to make President Bush look bad?
is that right? is he really helping Nader? And an MSNBC employee at the same time!
Neatly expressed point. But you are wasting your time with that particular interlocutor. Back and forth advances the discussion not one bit.
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.