A point of discussion...

[Riptide]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=15261

Read, analyze, destroy (or not). :)

It is very critical of Bush, so I'm sure some of you will just love it to death. ;)

[PsychoSy]

I would have to agree with Rev. Lang.

I'm kinda of saddened to see Charles Stanley's name mentioned, though.

[intercede007]

The headline block says "Fair and Balanced", then shows a banner with half the face of President Bush and the rest of a chimpanzee. The website is called Smirking Chimps.

I became indifferant before the text even loaded.

[DiscipleDOC]

I would have to agree with Rev. Lang.

I'm kinda of saddened to see Charles Stanley's name mentioned, though.
I did not read the article, but I can tell you that Dr. Stanley is a renowned minister, and I respect his views.

As I'm writing this, that page still has not come up. :drooling:

[PsychoSy]

I did not read the article, but I can tell you that Dr. Stanley is a renowned minister, and I respect his views.

My sentiments exactly -- the man pretty much saved me from suicide in the early 1990s. But if he's allying himself with the likes of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and "Bureaucrat Man" Paul Bremer, I think the days of me having much respect for him will cease.

[UDawg]

My sentiments exactly -- the man pretty much saved me from suicide in the early 1990s. But if he's allying himself with the likes of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and "Bureaucrat Man" Paul Bremer, I think the days of me having much respect for him will cease.

Over his political idealology? Hmm.

There are lots of political pastors and reverends on both sides of the political isle. They should not be taken any more serious than Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh.

I don't like political pastors that is why I don't watch the 700 club and other such pastors or reverends. My pastor is not political and I like it that way.

[Riptide]

I did not read the article, but I can tell you that Dr. Stanley is a renowned minister, and I respect his views.

As I'm writing this, that page still has not come up. :drooling:
Came up OK when I tried it just now... Try again?

[Riptide]

I'm actually kinda surprised noone has tried to destroy this thing yet. DD? UDawg? I wrote up a response for the first half of this thing yesterday and sent it over to my cousin, whom I got the link from. I should've saved it and just posted it here so you guys could hammer at it.

**Edit** I actually did save some of my response. I'll post it below so you guys can shred it. ;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a nice editorial but I have quite a few problems with it.

For starters, this is bull**** about the president having unrestricted power to go to war against any country he chooses (it says it, not he but that is what they really mean). Last I checked, congress gave him full support to go to war in Iraq including Ketchup Boy John Kerry who has now flip flopped on that issue. This is not something he just decided to go off and do and then thumb his nose at congress. It kinda makes having a formal declaration of war pointless when you already have the support of the legislative body that he had to answer to.

Next, this thing about Padilla and Bush rounding up all the citizens on a whim. When you can show me that he's started to lock up hundreds of people with no reason whatsoever then you'll have a believer in me. Fact is, you can't nor can this article prove that. Padilla is a scumbag from what we know of him, do you (or the guy that wrote this) even know what they have or don't have on him? I do agree that he shouldn't be held forever without a trial and that sooner or later they need to do something about it. He deserves a military tribunal and not a civil trial in my opinion. His conduct results in the forfeit of his citizenship and there is legal precedence for this: see the quren case from WWII. Bush didn't just make this up, but the article ofcourse neglects to mention any of this.

I love how they try to make the argument that Bush thinks if you don't support us you're "with the terrorists". That leaves open a huge gray area obviously (ie, what does he mean "with us", that isn't well defined) and they are really running with it in this editorial. Running WAY to far as a matter of fact. Last I checked, we still have favorable relations with many countries in Europe that didn't support our action in Iraq. Not exactly supportive of this article's assertion that he now considers them terrorists is it? But ofcourse, they leave that out.

What I particularly find interesting, and a lot of his detractors seem like this, is they are very willing to critisize him for the patriot act, use of military force, etc. to solve the problem of terrorism. Where is their solution? There is plenty of room for dialogue, but I don't hear any workable solutions from these people that write stuff like this. They just critisize. That's all they do. If they have a better idea, then sell it to the people. But they haven't produced a better idea that I've seen.

Newsflash, the war with Iraq was justified and just because his business partners in France, Russia, etc. didn't like it or agree to it doesn't mean squat. I've already gone over this with you before on the justification, it was clear. He was not cooperating, noone else was going to do anything about it except be their usual passive selves. They have no solutions. People would still be getting fed feetfirst into plastic shredders if we'd done nothing, not that it was the main reason for us going in there. But it is a truthism.

The comments on Scalia are just silly. It's paranoia. Scalia nor Bush are out to dominate your life and force christianity on you. I just don't see it, but whatever. They are making assumptions here and act as if they can tell what he is really thinking, such as the comment about how they "Tried to kill my dad" regarding Bush and his father. Nor are they removing your right to protest. Protests happen all the time, and you and this guy still are expressing your opinion right now. Call me when they lock you up and then I'll believe this.

Unfortunately, I'm out of time and don't have the two hours it would take to write a rebuttal out for this entire thing. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I wish I had more time because there is a LOT to critisize here.

Oh, and btw, this united states IS a christian nation. It was founded by people who happened to be christian and like it or not it is populated with a christian majority. Therefore, it is a christian nation. That said, IT HAS A SECULAR GOVERNMENT. They aren't drawing any distinction here ofcourse and are taking and twisting what the Texas Republican Party means there. I've seen people do it before so I know what I'm looking at there.

[UDawg]

Meh. I think the reverend is wrong but I don't like blasting reverends. I will just let this one go.

[PsychoSy]

If his conscience or faith compells him to ally himself with nutjobs that quite clearly can't stand the idea of democracy in America -- a democracy that allowed him the freedom to have such a nice cushy Church down their in Atlanta -- then why the hell not? I've got faith and a conscience as well ... and it's telling me that the good doctor here is too blind to see that BushCo's just pandering to him in much the same fashion leftists have pandered to minorities.

Good grief, Al Sharpton woke up and saw the light ...

I just hope Dr. Stanley sees the light, hopefully waaaaay before an "anti-Liberal" sermon graces the Sunday morning "In Touch" airwaves ...

[DiscipleDOC]

It loaded for me...now I'm wishing it did not.
That dream died in December 2000 when the checks and balances of our Constitution collapsed and George Bush was inserted into the Presidency of the United States. September 11, 2001 furthered the atrophying of democracy handing the country into the hands of an emerging Corporate (and I say Christian) Fascism.

If you're that unhappy here in the US, I'm pretty sure Canada/France/Germany will welcome you with open (in a position of surrender) arms.

I've seen alot more contradictions in his article, but I'm too lazy to post about them. I'll tag team with other conserves here.

[Riptide]

II've seen alot more contradictions in his article, but I'm too lazy to post about them. I'll tag team with other conserves here.
What did you think of my first attempt at a response that I posted above? Am I way off base?

[DiscipleDOC]

What did you think of my first attempt at a response that I posted above? Am I way off base?

I think you're spot on. What really get's me is his liberal views, and they show a hint of sympathizing with an enemy that hates his 'proclaimed' beliefs. If he claims to be a Christian, why is he not condemning the actions like 9/11 and others? He's using his title for his own agenda--not Gods.