President Bush's response to tsunami disaster criticised

[Anthony!]

For shame! I feel like saying once again - shame on you Bravus, Ron and Shane!

To you, Bravus for criticizing the U.S. for not giving more, in the guise of academics and intelligent argument! Especially when really, no nation is required to give anything! Would you also compare the ability and giving of your church's members in like manner? Also, shame on you for browbeating Ron with statistics so you may extract a concession from him!

To you, Ron and Shane, for failing to see points that Bravus is trying to make, and your perpetual recalcitrance and refusal to see that anyone who is politically liberal or Democrat or left of you has anything of merit or value to communicate!

Thread after thread and subject after subject and year after year it is always the same, ad nauseum - I think that the all of you need to come more to the middle and practice more tolerance and moderation!

How are you all going to get along together in the new earth?

As it has been said on other threads - "My Kingdom is not of this world".

OK, I am going to go vomit now.

[Bravus]

Fair enough, Anthony, and I do feel somewhat ashamed of my behaviour in this thread. (It was thinking about this that prompted me, in part, to start the 'Indignation' thread in Town Hall.) The only defense I'll offer to what I feel are your fairly valid criticisms is that I was willing to, and did, make a number of concessions, including accepting Ron's point about the total giving, acknowledging and praising America's giving and not really even challenging Ron's and Shane's statements that military interventions ('invasions' is the correct term but I was being conciliatory) should be counted as international aid.

I am not accusing America of being stingy or of not giving enough. I clearly said that how much America gives is a matter for Americans. My agenda was simply this: Americans in general, and in this case Ron in particular, wish to keep claiming that America is *the most* generous nation in the history of the world ever. Ron said as much in as many words. That is plainly counterfactual, and I do have some respect for truth and facts (not statistics and academics).

But I'm completely ready to leave it here. I've made all the concessions I can, without actively lying (in my world view, at least). I like and respect Shane, and I respect Ron's right to his opinion, although I'm frustrated by his incalcitrance and unwillingness to meet me halfway and work toward a civil disagreement at least.

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Bravus, I think you misunderstood my point about the military. I believed I was excluding Iraq and Afghanistan. I consider our military presence in such countries as Japan, Germany, Philipians and South Korea as international aid since the reason we are there is to provide security for those nations by detering an attack from another. I would also include the humanitarian use of our military like in Somalia and now in the Indian Ocean. Note that the $350 million the US has pledged does not include the cost of our military now being used in the region.

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Anthony, I have never indicated that liberals and Democrats have nothing to offer. Politically I am a moderate that leans to the right. I agree with the mainstream environmentalists in the Democrat party. I believe government can do things for the people they cannot do for themselves - like fund education. I am also in favor of some kind of socialized medicine. I favor government housing for poor seniors.

It pains me to see the radical, secular, Left take over the Democrat party because the party is losing power and I favor split government. Power currupts and with only one party in control there will be corruption. Also the Democrats have a lot of positive ideas that will not be dealt with as long as they continue to lose elections.

George Bush is closer to the middle than most on the Left want to admit. One need only look at his funding of education and prescription drugs for seniors. If Nwet Gingrich was President we may no longer have a Department of Education and certianly not prescription drugs for seniors. I thought Nwet was a great Speaker but wouldn't want him for President.

What is scary to me is that only 25% of those that voted for Kerry actually wanted Kerry himself. 75% of those that voted for Kerry simply didn't want Bush. That means Bush-hate got Kerry a lot of votes. The Democrats are not going to recieve any "Bush-hate" votes in the next election. That means they will need to get a canidate and ideas that Americans actually want. If the radical, secular Left keeps their grip on that party such a canidate isn't likely to get nominated. I doubt the Democrat party today would have nominated Jimmy Carter if it had been the same group in 1976.

[Bravus]

Thanks for that clarification, Shane, and my apologies for misreading your comments.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

What is scary to me is that only 25% of those that voted for Kerry actually wanted Kerry himself. 75% of those that voted for Kerry simply didn't want Bush. That means Bush-hate got Kerry a lot of votes.

---

Not actually Shane. First, I question the numbers you offer above -- do you have an objective source for this charge? Second, votes for Kerry that did not actually want Kerry himself, were not about "Bush-hate" so much as they were about Kerry being an acceptable "second choice" for a lot of Dems who wanted Dean or someone else. I personally favored Kucinick (sp?) at the outset but was prepared to vote Democratic because just like you voice concern about the extreme left influencing the Dem party, I feel more concern about the influence of the extreme right in the Republican party. We've both agreed at other times both extremes don't look too different in actual practice, so maybe you can at least understand my concern even if you don't share it or if you think yours is more justified.

Please try to remember that being greatly opposed to a figurehead's policies and administration does not equate to "hate", and to continue to characterize it that way is deceitful at worst and an inaccurate representation of others' positions at best. I know it's a convenient shorthand for you, but it's really not helping anyone.

By the way you state you don't like to see any one party in power but you are unconcerned about the complete Republican takeover of House AND Senate in addition to the White House? This seems contradictory to me. How do you reconcile your position there?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Please try to remember that being greatly opposed to a figurehead's policies and administration does not equate to "hate", and to continue to characterize it that way is deceitful at worst and an inaccurate representation of others' positions at best. I know it's a convenient shorthand for you, but it's really not helping anyone.

---

Nico,

I agree with this. Shane and I have had go around and go around over this, and, Shane, you still don't get it! If it is short hand for you, stop it, because you are a stumbling block for others, and not just me. The term "Bush-hate" may be short hand, but it carrys with it emotional baggage in such a way that reconciliation between people of opposing views CAN NOT be reconciled.

Woe to him who is a stumbling block....

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

you don't like to see any one party in power but you are unconcerned about the complete Republican takeover of House AND Senate in addition to the White House?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Since Brother Neil is concerned about short-hand, you may want to stop using terms like takeover. The Republicans did not storm Capital Hill with tanks and machine guns and kick out the Democrats that had been in power for 46 years. The Republicans were elected. That means they were choosen by the people. So if anyone "took over" it was the people.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Please try to remember that being greatly opposed to a figurehead's policies and administration does not equate to "hate"

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

The term "Bush hate" came from the Hollywood Left. The Radical Right didn't make that up or start using it to insult the Left. The Hollywood Left (Chevy Chase, Whoopie Goldberg, etc) used that to describe themselves. If the shoe doesn't fit you, don't wear it - I don't.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I feel more concern about the influence of the extreme right in the Republican party.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I am not too concerned about the extreame Right with Bush in the White House. Bush has demonstrated as both President and the Governor of Texas that he will give no preference to Christians just because they are of the same faith as he is.

However the extreame Right does have a lot of power over the party platform and that is a concern. It will be even a greater concern if the Democrats can't get their act together and isolate their own secular extreame. The secualar extreamists have made it so that no pro-life Democrat can get any power within the party. They are making the Democrat tent smaller and smaller while the Republican tent is becoming larger and larger. That, IMO, is not good for the country.

[Nicodema]

I didn't know "takeover" was an inflammatory term for you -- I wasn't thinking about tanks and machine guns when I used it. What would be a more appropriate one for the present imbalance of power? It is certainly imbalanced when we have the same party and the same views having majority rule in all three major components of the administration, is it not?

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The term "Bush hate" came from the Hollywood Left. The Radical Right didn't make that up or start using it to insult the Left. The Hollywood Left (Chevy Chase, Whoopie Goldberg, etc) used that to describe themselves. If the shoe doesn't fit you, don't wear it - I don't.

---

First off, Shane, you call yourself a moderate. But you characterize everyone in relation to yourself.

So, for those of us who are left of you, please don't lump us in the left. Because many of us are not, even if you beleive we are. So, even if the left did use the term "Bush hate" [which I doubt big time], don't you start using it to cause inflamatroy responses. It's called being a stumbling block to others, Shane.

We have asked repeatedly that you stop with the right wing language and you have not. I don't know what part of "Stop using that emotionally laden language" you don't understand, but whatever part you do understand, please impliement it immediately.

Your posts come across like a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or a Bill O'Rielly and it isn't good. These men may be of the entertainment industry, but they do so at the expense of others. You have complained about that, but you continue to emulate them. Stop it. Take a powder, a vacation, get lost in a different hobby, but stop using the right wing language that is inflamatory.

You know it is wrong, so why do you continue to use what is improper language and just plain wrong?

I tend to believe it goes to motive.....that you like doing it. That it pleases you to inflame others...Is that a Christian thing to do, Shane?

[Dr. Shane]

Very few things are inflamatory to me. I was being considerate of our brother Niel. He is the one that seems worried about inflamartory langage.

When I hear the word "takeover" I think of two things. A hostile corporate takeover or of a military coup that overthrows an existing government.

What would be a more appropriate term? How about the term "elected"? The Republicans we elected to Congress and the White House.

If you want to talk about anyone stealing power that happened when Tom Daschle conviced a Republican to abandon his party and give control of the Senate to the Democrats for a couple of years. The people in the US had elected a Republican majority and Tom Daschle undid the results of the election. Two years later the people spoke again and the Republicans once again found themselves in power.

Does it bother me? Yes, it does. It also bothered me when Clinton found himself in the same position with the Democrats controlling both houses in Congress and the White House.

What bothers me more is the Democrats inability to get their act together and win some elections. A lot has to do with the extreame, secular wing of their party. Do you think a pro-life Democrat like John Neely Kennedy of LA could ever get the Democrat nomination? The party could take a big step toward mainstream America if Tim Roemer becomes the DNC chairman but the extreame secularists are fighting agianst him.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane, you call yourself a moderate. But you characterize everyone in relation to yourself.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No, I characterize myself just a little bit to the right of the middle.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Your posts come across like a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or a Bill O'Rielly and it isn't good.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Those are some big names in media. If I come accross as good as they do that is quite a complement. Thank you. I didn't know you read much of what any of them write. I like Bill O'Reilly for the most part. I am a little suspicious of him but trust him a lot more than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hanity.

[Guest]

Lean to the Left

Lean to the Right

Stand Up

Sit Down

FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT

[Neil D]

Sorry, Jimbob, but if I am going to fight, I would rather stand up! :}

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Does it bother me? Yes, it does. It also bothered me when Clinton found himself in the same position with the Democrats controlling both houses in Congress and the White House.

---

Do we live in the same nation? Because I remember an entirely different history -- I remember a history where Democratic prez Clinton experienced a great deal of having his "hands tied" on things because the Republicans were in the majority in either the Senate or the House (can't recall which) and this meant a lot of legislative measures Clinton wanted to introduce never made it past the starting gate, so to speak. Why do you remember something different?

Quote:

---

What bothers me more is the Democrats inability to get their act together and win some elections. A lot has to do with the extreame, secular wing of their party. Do you think a pro-life Democrat like

John Neely Kennedy

of LA could ever get the Democrat nomination?

---

Without having a specific detailed outline of his stand (the site merely says "pro-life with exceptions") it's hard to say. My general sense is that anyone openly looking to overturn Roe v. Wade is not going to cut it with the Dems. However, I would not be so quick to fault the Dems themselves for this state of affairs. The right wing laid a great deal of groundwork in making this a key dividing issue, thus ensuring it would become ensconced as part of the general identity "Democrat" to polarize at one end and part of the general identity "Republican" to polarize at the other. Thus this current state of affairs is entirely their work and their doing.

[Dr. Shane]

Sister Nico, Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 when the Democrats controlled both the House of Representatives and the US Senate. The Republicans won both houses of Congress in 1994 with their Contract With America. Clinton had done a very poor job, Democrat voters were very disappointed and few turned out to the polls in 1994. The Democrats had been in charge in the House of Representatives since 1948. Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, lost. It was the first time a Speaker of the House lost since the Civil War. The Republicans pushed through a lot of reforms that Clinton signed and got the credit for. Two years later Clinton easily defeated his Republican challenger, Bob Dole. That is the history I remember.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

My general sense is that anyone openly looking to overturn Roe v. Wade is not going to cut it with the Dems.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That may be changing. There is a reason Tim Roemer's name is floating around for the new chairman of the DNC. It is the secularist extreame that is fighting against it. Yet look where this extreame end of the party has taken it.

The Republicans have never been more powerful. They not only hold all branches of national government, they hold more governorships and state legisltures than any time in recent history.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The right wing laid a great deal of groundwork in making this a key dividing issue

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I disagree but I wish you were right. The Republicans have a big tent. Some of the most influencial and powerful Republicans are pro-choice. It is the secularists in the Democratic camp that have fought to keep pro-life canidates out of "their" party.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The right wing laid a great deal of groundwork in making this a key dividing issue

---

I disagree but I wish you were right. The Republicans have a big tent. Some of the most influencial and powerful Republicans are pro-choice. It is the secularists in the Democratic camp that have fought to keep pro-life canidates out of "their" party.

---

They may have perceived they needed to defend that turf from the right-wingers however, because they (correctly) perceived the influence the right-wing would have within the Republican tent, however "big" it was at the time.

It's kind of a catch-22 as I see it. If the Dems move toward pro-life they will lose some of their longtime constituents and fracture their party further as many of these are already prone to fragmenting into smaller parties (e.g. Green, Libertarian, etc.) and are only sticking it out as Dems because they feel they need to pull together to fight the bigger dog right now. On the other hand if they don't move in that direction -- as I think I hear you pointing out -- they miss the chance of doing something successful with the currently perceived majority tide in the nation and thus making a comeback.

So it's hard to call. It could go either way, and I mean even if someone like Tim Roemer gets put up for new chairman of the DNC, the reaction to this could go either way, maybe a little of both. In the end do you really think it would be "enough" to win over either single-issue voters or those leaning Republican because of the right-wing influence? I seriously question that. Would the analysts, pundits, the media, etc. accept this kind of shift or would they just rip Dems a new one for taking the risk? Just so many factors here to calculate!

[Dr. Shane]

The fundamentals of the Democrat party is bigger, stronger government. Since 1948 national healthcare has been part of the Democrat party platform. The Democrats brought in Social Security and all the Great Society programs. There is no denying that the Democrat party is in favor of big, strong government. And in some areas I agree that big, strong government is needed.

The Republicans started out as an anti-slavery party. They have been the party of limited government for quite sometime. During the 1920s the Republicans implemented "Lassie fair" which helped contribute the the 1929 stock market crash. They opposed FDR's New Deal. Goldwater and Reagon both saw government as the problem and not the solution.

Contrasting these two philosphies, abortion shouldn't be a partisan issue. There should be as many pro-life Democrats as there are pro-life Republicans. While Reagon introduced the pro-life position into the GOP platform, pro-choice Republicans have never been denied positions within the party as pro-life Democrats have been within theirs.

I really am in the middle of the politcal spectrum and would like to have a choice among Democrats but when they rarely nominate a pro-life canidate I can rarely consider supporting them.

Here is a poltical test for any interested in where they stand. Political Compass On this chart (from the middle) I am two squares to the right and one square up toward authoritarian. So that is pretty close to the middle.