Protestantism

» pink101 - Think & Hope

.
Here's Wild Bill giving Obama his endorsement:
.
http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/2008/03/...
.
(Scroll down to the video)

-- posted by pink101

» redback - Who Will "Swing"

In response to Who Will "Swing" posted by pink101:

It's not my idea--it's a political paradigm.

YEP...understood that!

-- posted by redback

» Brian Tubbs - I'm curious

I have to wade into all this Bush-bashing (now McCain-bashing) and ask...

If there is no God, then by what external, moral standard do you all presume to judge George W. Bush's actions and policies as being wrong?

If the standard is merely your opinion - or the opinions of Bush's critics collectively - then we're just trading opinions, are we not? And since everyone has opinions, then what's the point? There is no objective Right or objective Wrong in that sense, so this is all just blabber.

Since I assume you consider your Bush-bashing opinions to be more than "blabber," please provide your STANDARD by which you presume to judge and condemn President Bush.

I'm not asking for an emotional anti-Bush rant here. Increasing your volume does not answer my question. Show me your objective, logical, external standard.

» pink101 - I'm curious

In response to I'm curious posted by BrianTubbs:

.
To whom are you addressing your questions?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - I'm curious

In response to I'm curious posted by BrianTubbs:
.
If there is no God, then by what external, moral standard do you all presume to judge George W. Bush's actions and policies as being wrong?
.
God has nothing to do with it. The 'external, moral standard' of law - US and international - judges Bush's actions and policies as WRONG.
.
Bush's invasion of Iraq was illegal (not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter - a crime against peace - and therefore a war crime). His actions were unconstitutional (War Powers Clause), and unjustified (based solely on fabricated intelligence), and in conspiracy with a foreign nation (Britain) to wage an illegal war (Bush and Tony Blair's administrations knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in making their case for the war - evidence per Downing Memo and Bush-Blair memo). To date, Bush's illegal war has caused millions of Iraqis to be displaced, 50 to 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, 4,000+ US troop lives, 30,000+ seriously wounded US troops, and $600 billion so far (including $9 billion dollars and $550 million in spare parts LOST/unaccounted for). Check out the stats here: http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelands...
.
Bush's "Military Commissions Act of 2006" was passed to cover up the illegal arrests, abductions (Extraordinary rendition), detentions, torture, and trials (?)of "unlawful combatants" - which violates international law and the Geneva Convention.
.
Bush commuted his good buddy Scooter Libby's 30-month prison sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice, in exchange for Libby's silence about his administration's involvement in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame (political retribution against her husband).
.
Bush had his Attorney General Gonzo fire 8 US Attorneys as retribution for prosecuting Republicans, or not prosecuting enough Democrats, for alleged voting 'corruption'.
.
Bush's Patriot Act nullified all but one of the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
.
Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program violates the law (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)) and the 4th amendment - which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures of US citizens, including electronic surveillance.
.
And this impacts you, me, every US citizen: Total federal spending has skyrocketed 45% since Bush took office in 2001.
.
These are just SOME of the reasons for Bush-bashing. The man was and is UNFIT to be President, and IMO, should've been impeached. And if McPain supports Bush's actions and policies, he is also UNFIT to hold the highest office and represent Americans internationally.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - A Police Officer's Mind

In response to I'm curious posted by Migisi:
.
Ah, knowing a police officer's mind and how it works.
.
You might think they come off the wall when they pull you over on any charge they might make; but, they ALWAYS do their homework.
.
They don't back up their charges with opinion--they are trained to ALWAYS have the evidence no matter what.
.
Good job, Migisi. The captain is going to single you out in the next shift meeting for your excellent footwork in response to Brian's post.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - A Police Officer's Mind

In response to A Police Officer's Mind posted by pink101:
.
The captain is going to single you out in the next shift meeting for your excellent footwork in response to Brian's post.
.
As the emotionless Sargeant Joe Friday said (in the old 50s Dragnet TV series), "Yes, sir. No, ma'am. Just the facts, ma'am." Dum de dum dum.
.
They don't back up their charges with opinion--they are trained to ALWAYS have the evidence no matter what.
.
It's called CYA (Cover Your Ass).
.
Given the mountain of evidence, how anyone can defend and support Bush (or his lacky, McCain) is beyond my understanding! Even my dyed-in-the-wool lifetime Republican husband can't find that possible.
.
I was impressed with the excellent vid you linked in another thread. Everyone should watch it and think hard on it. Let me repost it:
.
The Cost of War
http://www.afsc.org/cost/

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - I'm curious

In response to I'm curious posted by Migisi:

Okay...I appreciate the fact that you're providing a standard by which to assess Bush's actions and legacy. Your standard is US and international law.

Given the lateness of the hour (it's after midnight here), I'll limit my response to one point at this time...

The President takes an oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Therefore, I disagree with international law being an acceptable standard, except for one caveat...

The only "international law" that applies are those treaties ratified by the United States Senate. Those treaties would then rank up with the Constitution as the "Supreme Law of the Land."

So, the standard to judge a President (any President) in terms of "criminal" or "impeachable" offenses is the Constitution of the United States and all laws and treaties passed or approved in compliance with and according to constitutional protocols.

» pink101 - God's Profits

.
I picked up a great book yesterday.
.
If anyone gets a chance, get it and read it. Here's a link where you can learn some about it.
.
http://www.p3books.com/books/godsprofits/
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - I'm curious

In response to I'm curious posted by BrianTubbs:
.
The President takes an oath of office to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
.
Yes. That also means the Bill of Rights, which he did NOT preserve, protect, and defend. He did just the opposite.
.
Therefore, I disagree with international law being an acceptable standard,
.
When the US becomes a signatory to international agreements, treaties, charters, etc., it becomes law for the US. Are you implying that the US doesn't need to adhere to the Geneva Convention's stipulations because it's not an official amendment to the US Constitution?
.
except for one caveat...
The only "international law" that applies are those treaties ratified by the United States Senate. Those treaties would then rank up with the Constitution as the "Supreme Law of the Land."
.
All the Geneva Conventions were ratified in 1977 (except for two protocols). The Vienna Convention was ratified by the Senate in 1969. Neither are executive agreements. Therefore, by your caveat, they ARE the law of the land -- which the Bush administration usurped.
.
So, the standard to judge a President (any President) in terms of "criminal" or "impeachable" offenses is the Constitution of the United States and all laws and treaties passed or approved in compliance with and according to constitutional protocols.
.
Correct. Given that, he should've been impeached.

-- posted by Migisi