Posted on 01/08/2003 10:24:48 AM PST by Jean S
I wonder what you'd have said to Churchill supporters during Neville Chamberlain's term.
----------------------------
What was the original thrust and intent regarding the issue. The move was toward practical erasure of national boundaries. Now, because of outrage and influx of terrorist the original thrust and intent must be deferred temporarily as pap for public consumption while one left wing clown in mexico quits in protest and there is simultanously no attempt to stop the mass invasion across the borders. Coordinately the illegals are rewarded with medical care, benefits, and access to social services to entice them to invade.
----------------------------------
As far as I am concerned Bush is committing treason. I view him as a type of Christian Marxist in the pattern of the Maryknolls and other religious groups. Whether we are at war can not be used to excuse the pattern. In addition, he is a dim bulb. As far as open rebellion, I've always advocated non-violence and am getting too old for rebellion. I'll rebel at the ballot box and in my writings and theoretics in a useless attempt to keep you and people like you from delivering this country into being conscripted into national and international social servitude.
-----------------------
Just who the hell are we specifically at war with? The Bush family has a habit of screwing things up, then going over for some half-assed bombing of some ragheads while strutting around with their chests puffed out. In the recent action in Afghanistan the big cheeses were allowed to escape to Pakistan and elsewhere and we are back where we started.
I avoid church because I am wearied by evangelicals and charismatics who use the Bible as a totemic object and recite from it as if they were intoning magical incantations. I object to the idea that humans uttering words can persuade the Almighty to manipulate the universe of time and matter. I resent preachers comitting errors of scientific and historical fact and then inferring that I am possessed by Satan for objecting to those errors. It has been my observation that people who rely on prayer and charismatic, euphoric, religious enthusiasm as decision making tools tend to screw up their lives and the lives of those around them. Religion burns up money almost as fast as politics and cocaine do.
In the affairs of this world, one is not saved by faith, rather, one is saved by its absence. The Apostolic Age and the miracles associated with that Age are over. God is no conjurer, pulling financial and other rabbits out of hats. Financial well-being is the result of sober minded serious effort and cold, calculating analysis. The same is especially true when choosing the leaders of our country. This is why God designed our brains in a certain way. Refusing to use the higher critical faculties which we have, that no other creature on God's green Earth does, claiming that there is something more accurate that rational, critical thinking for making important, life or death decisions, can be argued to be heretical. One should pray for moral backbone and that one reflect well on one's faith, family, and country, but these endless attempts to find the correct combination of words, Bible verses, tithes, and love offerings to make critical life decisions is delusional thinking and those who advocate it should be kept far away from impressionable adults and children.
Being as how I am a person of faith and consequently lower intellect, I believe I will take myself to threads where positive discourse predominates. I recommend you follow the same course of action.
And who addressed you, may I ask?
---------------------------
Don't try to imagine it, just consider yourself lucky and try to learn from it. It's a chance of a lifetime.
I work in a hospital, on the ICU psychiatric ward, and can infer from your handle and choice of words that you are the sort of person who would know nursing inside and out, who would make a splendid charge nurse or director of nursing, someone who I would implicitly trust and obey when it comes to providing patient care.
However, when it comes to the subjects we lock horns about, on this thread and others, you are just plain wrong, wrong, wrong, and I will use what words are appropriate at the time to express my disagreement with you.
Sincerely Yours,
M. Snavely
Here is the problem with discussions like this. You think because I disagree with you that I am unaware of the border problems, or that I don't care. That is not the truth at all. I do not support illegal immigration and I want to get it under control, if not totally eradicated. I myself support more stringent penalties for employers of illegal aliens, regardless of their nationality.
However, whenever the discussion begins, all I hear from some people are how NOTHING is being done, that Bush doesn't care, that he supports illegal immigration, etc. etc. That is not true, and if you look at both the Homeland Security bill and the Patriot Act you can find all sorts of things that have been done.
Have they been enough? No, or we wouldn't still be having the problem
But anyone wishing to argue persuasively to me about this is going to have to do better than accusing me of dope-smoking.
I would, however, be a terrible nurse, as I am squeamish. That is why my degree was in geology, rather than biology. LOL!
There certainly are things to complain about in Bush, but after the advertised Reagan and Gingrich "revolutions" didn't happen, it's pretty clear that there will be no Bush "revolution." So maybe he's just clearsighted and honest about what is politically possible. While it's pretty obvious that there won't and couldn't be any large-scale rollback of government programs right now, if Bush does fail on national security or international trade questions, it will come back to haunt him, and us.
Because of the war, people aren't concerned about the way the entire US economy is being exported to Red China. This will eventually reduce us to a third world country, with a technical capacity less than Red China's, but perhaps not as bad as Brazil's. As far as trying to co-opt "liberals," all that's happening is that Bush tries to champion moderate, centrist positions, while the bounds of political discourse are moved ever leftward. This means that the center of today is the hard left of yesterday, and no there is no ideological progress because Bush is unable to see the problem and is unwilling to do anything about it for the sake of affability. Ultimately Bush is trying to make friends with psychopaths by sacrificing me and mine for political expediency. How, pray tell, can Bush be considered a conservative champion, then? How can he substantively be considered a conservative?
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.