Our President is delusional, does that bother anyone?

  • News
  • Thread starter kcballer21
  • Start date
In summary: Middle East dispute when he first came into the presidency. After 9/11, he called for a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But it was half-hearted at best, and appeared to be a sop to halt the al-Qaida recruitment of Palestinians who were losing hope of independence.
  • #71
unprovoked attack

SOS2008 said:
Yes, except the part about war--source? And you realize invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked assault on an independent country, which breached international law. Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter. Which do you think was worse? :rolleyes:
The Democrats want the war to fail, and make false claims that WMD don't exist, but according to you they did? Source please.
You have it turned around. It is the Christian extremists who want to force their belief on everyone else.

In regard to "the public square" are you able to practice the religion of your choice, and practice your beliefs fully? Are you able to pray in public if you like, for example blessing the food at lunchtime in a school cafeteria or employee lounge? Are you able to proselyte door-to-door or preach from a soapbox on a street corner? The list goes on and on, and I fail to see how you are so repressed.

Let's please drop the religious tirades and return to the topic of this thread, which is about Bush and how he has misused religion to pursue his political goals, and/or whether he is delusional. I believe he is out-of-touch with mainstream America and the world for that matter, and I think he is an egotistical, self-centered idiot -- but not delusional.


Invading Iraq?

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;


This means the use of force, or to put it into military speak, war.

Why Iraq? Because they used illegal oil revenues to fund terrorist strikes in Israel and to assist other terror groups. Iraq also sponsored research in chemical and bio weapons in Northern Africa. At the recent 911 commission hearings a year ago or so, Clintons defense Secy William Cohen (R) admitted the 1998 strike on the "Aspirin factory" was a dual use chemical weapons facility that was visited and interacted with known al Queda operatives linked to bin Laden. The day before Clinton had to testify on perjury, he orders a military strike and explained it was Saddam violating UN sanctions and working with WMD. Not everyone saw this point, it was on Foxnews and some radio shows.

WMD in Iraq? Let's define our words, if there was even a trace amount of wmd, there would "BE" some quantity greater than zero. To say an item exists doesn't imply its quantity. The stockpiles of anthrax and other wmd were not found, but materials that qualify as wmd were found. The left scoffed in the news media saying "well they look like old weapons". Publicly we never located the infamous stockpiles, inspectors did find some small amounts of the term "wmd".

However that wasnt even needed, Saddam had USED wmd on civilians, yet the left does not complain about that fact. Rewind to the first gulf war? There were wmd stockpiles found then, according to reports, and they were systematically destroyed. Democrat apologists say:"oh, see? they destroyed them all, what else do you want?" If they were all destroyed then Saddam would not object to inspectors making sure, and if inspectors certified NO weapons programs? Iraq could sell oil and earn billions per year extra. Saddam refused and blocked inspectors, they were withdrawn in 1998.

Other middle eastern nations said they knew from Iraqi internal sources there were wmd programs.

The bottom line here is that after 911, who was cheering? Who was chanting death to the USA?? Some intelligence groups studied the issue and found Iraq to be not only using illegal OIL sales to pay terror groups, they used the UN oil for food scandal money to fund terror also. Even with what we knew, and with the 15 member UNSC in agreement, Saddam had to stop illegal wmd research and prove he didnt have wmd, let inspectors in, and not block them.

They blocked inspectors, found long range illegal missles and the full disclosure delivered Dec 2002? was full of papers from 1991 and notes from the first time they had to disclose, Iraq was officially in violation of UNR1441 and the US should have invaded then.

Bushes staff tried to show the world how Iraq was in violation, and by the rules make the case for harsher sanctions or war. During the 3 month delay? We saw peace protesters saying No war! and Stop bothering Iraq! Oil for $ and blood $ for oil or whatever. Where was the outrage over Saddams brutalities? The left should have demanded the US invade and topple Saddams regime.

Why were France, Germany and Russia so adamantly opposed to war in Iraq? We were not sure then, we are now. They all sold military materiel and armament to Saddam, illegally; There is still an investigation on the UN oil for food scandal. But all 3 nations opposed the war and tried to claim they loved freedom and individual rights?

We saw protests organized by... who? Moveon.org, Pacifica radio, Hamas, the PLO, the World workers communist party and ? The rallys would start by saying how wonderful Islam is, now everyone repeat this: and the announcer would rattle off some sentence of indoctrination to Islam, saying thank you everyone, you are now all Muslims. Now the Bush administration lied! They are invading Iraq illegally...

Why should a freedom rally begin by forcing everyone take the oath to change their religion to Muslim?

The tirade over losing Christian rights can be in another topic, like why schools must teach Intelligent Design.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
unprovoked attack

The 10 commandments should be good guidelines, why are they not?
 
  • #73
Brad_1234 said:
The 10 commandments should be good guidelines, why are they not?
Consider, for example, the first&second ones.
What is so great about religious INTOLERANCE?
 
  • #74
The 10 commandments should be good guidelines, why are they not?

The 10 commandments were provided to teach human beings what universal rightaction is, and that prior to doing any particular action, rightaction is no action at all, no particular word at all.

Hence, "Thou shalt not..."

The problems/chaos began when individuals breached that line of trust, and did a particular action, then decided to do it again, and again, and again. They went outside the guaranteed 'safe-zone' and went straight to H**L.

Diversification was favoured prior to unification. Rightorder is unification prior to diversification.

So, what particular word, what particular action, do you favour above universal rightaction?

o:)
 
  • #75
If at all, there's only any sense in (5), 6, (7), 8 and 9...at least, to me.
 
  • #76
Could you post what the first&second ones are?
 
  • #77
In effect, they are
"You shall have no other Gods than me" and "You shall not speak your God's name in vain, or make idols".
EDIT:
Oh yes, it seems I mixed up 2&3 here, as for the Christian celebration of religious intolerance, 3&4 should be included in my list.

Note, therefore, that at least 40% of the Christian bed rock principles makes religious intolerance into a moral duty.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
russ_watters said:
Regarding Arafat - it was the general consensus among conservatives, at the very least, that Arafat was an obstruction. The Nobel Peace Prize is a hippie(or the Sweedish equivalent) back-slapping convention with no real meaning, and Arafat and Carter made good bedfellows. Winning the prize has no real meaning, though.

I fully agree Arafat, Rabin and Perez should not have won the peace prize. However, you shouldn't blame the Swedish hippies, but more the Norwegian...
 
  • #79
Calling the august, retired Norwegian politicians in the Nobel comittee for hippies is quite a novel perspective..
 
  • #80
arildno said:
Calling the august, retired Norwegian politicians in the Nobel comittee for hippies is quite a novel perspective..

Was just using Russ' words, I know they're not hippies. I think they are doing quite good choises most of the times, but Arafat, Perez and Rabin was a blunder.
 
  • #81
I know, EL, I just hadn't copied your archeological feat in uncovering russ' original reply. Once made aware of it by your post, I responded to that.
 
  • #82
arildno said:
In effect, they are
"You shall have no other Gods than me"
...
Note, therefore, that at least 40% of the Christian bed rock principles makes religious intolerance into a moral duty.
I didn't realize "You shall have no other Gods than me" was synonymous with "Thou shalt not suffer others to have gods other than me".
 
Last edited:
  • #83
Brad_1234 said:
The 10 commandments should be good guidelines, why are they not?
For whom?

As far as I know, people in the US are free to use the 10 commandments as guidelines or not - certainly in the home and at one's 'chosen' place of worship.

The 10 commandments should not be invoked or imposed by any government institution, and the schools are a government service.

Freedom of religion, and separation of church and state.
 
  • #84
Skyhunter said:
Perhaps in name, but not in deed. Therefore I would not consider him to be a Christian, because he does not follow the teachings of Christ.
I think all real Christians should get angry when Bush says "he's a christian". That's really surprising that some people just support him because he pretends to be a Christian. As far as I know, Christianity is the religion of peace and kindness not war and killing!
arildno said:
To contribute to your own and other humans' happiness.
I need more clarification.
 
  • #85
Hurkyl said:
I didn't realize "You shall have no other Gods than me" was synonymous with "Thou shalt not suffer others to have gods other than me".
They were talking moral guidelines. If "You shall have no other Gods than me" is a good moral guideline, then what does that make someone who disobeys it?
 
  • #86
If "You shall have no other Gods than me" is a good moral guideline, then what does that make someone who disobeys it?
Immoral, probably. That is not synonymous with intolerable.
 
  • #87
So Buddests are immoral, or Hindu's are?

Different maybe but immoral?
 
  • #88
I only chimed into refute the allegation that the Ten Commandments command religous intolerance -- since y'all now seem to want to discuss other things, I'll accept my victory and continue lurking.
 
  • #89
Hurkyl said:
Immoral, probably. That is not synonymous with intolerable.
So deeming someone immoral entirely because they believe in another god is NOT religious intolerance..? Then I propose the term may be dispensed with entirely. I see no use for it. I wonder if, by the same token, believing someone to be immoral entirely due to, say, the colour of their skin does not constitute racial intolerance? Are there any other redundant intolerances we can forget about?
 
  • #90
Hurkyl said:
I only chimed into refute the allegation that the Ten Commandments command religous intolerance -- since y'all now seem to want to discuss other things, I'll accept my victory and continue lurking.
It IS intolerant, precisely because it deems others to be immoral merely for believing in another God figure.
Besides, Christians have an obligation to murder those human beings who haoppen to be witches.

To call this celebration of murder, violence and intolerance for a good morality is simply perverse.
 
  • #91
It IS intolerant, precisely because it deems others to be immoral merely for believing in another God figure.
(Assuming again, for the sake of argument, that it does deem others to be immoral)

I don't know about you, but I'm able to tolerate things I find immoral.

Besides, Christians have an obligation to murder those human beings who haoppen to be witches.

To call this celebration of murder, violence and intolerance for a good morality is simply perverse.
Red herring. This has absolutely nothing to do with your original point that the ten commandments command religous intolerance.
 
  • #92
It does command it. Period. Stop lying about that.
 
  • #93
Ummm, let's get back to the President and his delusions, wot ?
 
  • #94
(taken to private message)
 
Last edited:
  • #95
. . . . lying . . . .

It is not so much as lie, and a difference of interpretation. However, depending on how one interprets the first commandment, one could behave in an intolerant way.

As often written, the first commandment is: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." This simply makes the relationship between the individual and the god to whom this refers as an exclusive relationship. It was addressed to a certain group of people.

I see this thread becoming precariously close to a discussion of religion, or interpretation of religious texts.

There are discussions of the 10 Commandments at - http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c7.htm and http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #96
This has gone really off topic, let's get back to the subject. Thanks Astronuc, good reply.
 
  • #97
Astronuc said:
It is not so much as lie, and a difference of interpretation. However, depending on how one interprets the first commandment, one could behave in an intolerant way.
I merely interpreted these commandments in the same way that the dominant segments of the Church has interpreted them historically.
Who should know better than them?
If someone is eager to stretch their imaginations and find some other type of interpretation of these commandments, I won't argue on that.
 
  • #98
It is not so much as lie, and a difference of interpretation.
Well, since the discussion has stayed on the thing I wanted to say, I will briefly state it.

I have not given the question of whether the ten commandments deems disbelievers immoral any thought. My parenthetical was meant to correct those who thought I agreed that the answer was "yes", and was not meant to suggest that I think the answer is "no".
 
  • #99
Hurkyl said:
(Assuming again, for the sake of argument, that it does deem others to be immoral)

I don't know about you, but I'm able to tolerate things I find immoral.


Red herring. This has absolutely nothing to do with your original point that the ten commandments command religous intolerance.
But a commandment is a command right?

How can you interperet any other way without distorting the fundamentals of your religious beliefs?
 
  • #100
Astronuc said:
As often written, the first commandment is: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." This simply makes the relationship between the individual and the god to whom this refers as an exclusive relationship. It was addressed to a certain group of people.
Well, one person. Nonetheless, if it is exclusive, it does not constitute a good moral guideline, since it is found wanting when applied to a society of diverse religious backgrounds. If it is a good moral guideline, then it assumes non-Christian/Jewish faiths are inherently immoral, and so supports religious intolerance.

Evo said:
This has gone really off topic, let's get back to the subject.
I think the person who brought up the 10 commandments did so to point out that, even if Bush is basing his most important decisions not on policy or intelligence, but on the teachings of the Bible, would this necessarily be a bad thing: i.e. do the testaments provide a good template for imposing moral order? It's a very good question, though I think as Arildno and co have pointed out, ultimately has to be answered in the negative.

A further reason I think this is relevant is that if you can show that Christian faith is unfit for providing guidance in one respect, prudence would suggest it should probably be discarded in matters of government entirely - this is the general idea behind the separation of church and state. If Bush now tells us his most important decisions have not been his own, but that of a God who, if he exists, is essentially unfit for government and, if he doesn't, is a figment of Bush's imagination (or technique of media manipulation), then there is cause for concern without having to analyse the pros and cons of the war in Iraq, since doing the right thing for the wrong reason invariably leads to doing wrong things for the same reason, by which point you can no longer argue the reason at all.

And at the risk of straining the reader's patience, this all feeds into whether someone who may answer to a possibly dubious/possibly non-existent entity over his own people is actually a reasonable candidate for party leader.
 
  • #101
No more discusion on this...PERIOD. This is off topic. If this thread doesn't get back on topic, it will be locked. (this was written prior to EHI's post) EHI, your post is acceptable, nit-picking over how to take a single commandment is not.
 
Last edited:
  • #102
I am most troubled by what Bush believes, because as president he can command the military - and at the moment this means a lot of people are being killed - and many more are suffering.

It is not clear that Bush has a clear grasp on reality, or perhaps his reality is so fundamentally different than mine.

I bothers me that he, Cheney, and Rumsfeldt seem to be able to casually accept the death and suffering of so many, when they themselves would never put themselves at risk.

As far as I can tell, the militant actions of the Bush administration indicated a callous disregard for human life, and that seems in sharp contradiction (even antithetical) to a doctrine of peace and love.
 
  • #103
Astronuc said:
perhaps his reality is so fundamentally different than mine.
I think that's true.

There is a consistency in his behavior, as far back as the eye can see. This is one reason he appeals to a certain segment of the population (he is a "straight shooter").

Further, since his actions are consistent, it seems his view of the world must be consistent, and in that sense it is his reality that differs from the reality some of us hold to be "real.".

Reality is a difficult subject in any event. People define reality differently - we agree (mostly) that there is an objective world more or less separate from us... I can't seem to get a handle on driving this last point home. Maybe I'll edit this last paragraph later. It has to do with confused definitions from one person to the next, across the board.
 
  • #104
It is not difficult to seem consistent to the dumbest sections of society if you have, and express, simplistic thoughts.

Anyone with a more nuanced and reflective personality will seem inconsistent in their behaviour to the same section of society.
 
  • #105
Yes, his reality is more fundamentally different than a WHOLE-WHOLE BUNCH of millions of people within our country and whether or not he's consistant is irrellavent. If he weren't, the spin would say he's a "dynamic leader unafraid to make a change or think outside of the box." What we have here is a total difference in social classes and the way those in the more priveledged arenas think. What I hear is "let them eat cake...because we tell them to, and why shouldn't they? We are the elite and the masses want to be like us because we are powerful and no one controls us so they'll do what we tell them and if they don't like it we'll just say that all evildoers hate cake and it will make Amerika strong".

Boom-Pow-Surprise! Hoooooooooooooo!
 

Similar threads

Replies
56
Views
10K
Replies
31
Views
5K
Replies
85
Views
7K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
75
Views
7K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
158
Views
14K
Back
Top