George W. Bush's qualifications to be President

GWB is doing his part, what the problem is that the Democrats are abusing the their powers, our country wasn't founded as a king system (absolute powers), but a president serving up to 8 years, as commander an chief(within Congress, Senate, and the Courts), however the judges are supposed to interprete the law, and here we have the problem, where just the few, like Teddy Kennedy filibustering any nominee that GWB nominates, cause they know that they (liberals) have misinterpreted the constitution, in fact its surprising the GWB did as much for us an ours, given the democrats abusing their filibuster powers, all supporting what a leader of men, GWB actually is, Kerry in his 20+ years as a Senator had a far worse record, proving he lacks the leadership that GWB has exibited, in fact Kerry has burned his bridges, and GWB is building bridges, etc...P.S. You vote the Democrats out of office, and you'd see more postive interpretations of the constitution, etc...The liberals simply twist the constitution, to say what it doesn't say, so GWB is pushing for honest men to interprete the Constitution as it was intended, for it to be the will of the people, and not the will of the judges, this was why George Washington said that Congress was to protect the religion of Jesus Christ, cause of what were seeing in respect to the legalizing of Sodomy, cause of the religion of Jesus Christ clearly is against this abomination, which legalizing gay marriages, would pit the religion of Jesus Christ against the constitution, so its Congress that resolves this problem and not the judges, which GWB pursued Congress to make an amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage, so the church wouldn't be attacked for their belief in the sanctity of marriage, or the church could be prosectued for saying sodomy is a sin, as christians and our laws of this country have said it was, prosecuting sodomists, until the liberal judges reinterpreted this sin, so it would agree with world law (judges guilty of treason)are laws are to be soverign over world law), if your going to protect sodomists, you should be protecting the freedom to declare sodomy is a sin, cause our founding fathers believed that Congress was to protect the religion of Jesus Christ, so I have the right to declare sodomy is an abomination, that its a filthy lifestyle, that the bible agrees though that let the filthy be filthy still so to let the righteous be righteous still, and the holy to be holy still, so while you have the right to be filthy still, it should never be used to force the churches to become filthy, to be forced to allow gay ministers into the churches(this would be violating the separatation of church and state), when its against the religion of Jesus Christ, etc...http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/washington.htm

If GWB is not enforcing the laws of the land then he must be impeached. There are no excuses that can be made for that and there is no way that Congress can keep him from enforcing those laws.Either he is enforcing the laws or he is not. It's very simple and does not require a bunch of your bullshit.Simply answer the question. Is GWB enforcing the laws of the land?You said No.If that is true then you MUST support his immediate impeachment.If you wish to change your answer you may do so, but it requires only a Yes or No statement. Anything else will be ignored.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar, I'm not a politician, wingin it, but how would GWB go forward to have JFK prosecuted for breaking federal law, who is responsible in the senate for letting senators like Kerry to get away with breaking federal law, to recieve a salary, for time not present, and not recieve jail time, truly Kerry should be forced to resign from the senate, or don't you agree at the least return the money to the people, for he is cheating the people that elected him to be present, yet to take their money for time not present (this is stealing from the poor) is not Mr. Kerry far richer financially than GWB, its the issue he is taking money from the poor for services not rendered, and flagrantly violating federal law, that challenges Mr. Kerry's integrity, GWB could of recieved a governors salary while campaigning against Gore but didn't feel it right to take from the poor, talk about a man of integrity, GWB is the man, Kerry lacks integrity, he flip flops, not much postives in respect to his character, unless your believe your candidate should be a liar, a thief, a murderer (said he violated the geneva convention in murdering north vietnamese),(for his part in voting for the murdering of the unborn)(all the millins of south vietnamese that were butchered by the North vietnamese after we left, all because of kerrys part of lying before the senate), and is he not being accused by the Vets of being a traitor, to us and ours, in gifting china our nucleur hardened chip satellight technologies(clinton apparently needed to repay the chinese for their money they contributed to get him elected), Kerry served as Clintons point man to sell this sensitive satellight technology to china, and now he has the gall to say he is an american hero, etc...P.S. The American voters should realize its Kerry thats violating the law in the present, not GWB, not only is Kerry a liar (Vets rally discussing Kerry lies), he's also a thief (taking salary against the laws of the land), and a murderer, (cause he voted for partial birth abortion, abortion, the murder of a national resource our babies), a traitor, (selling sensitive technology to china), while GWB has proven to be honest, didn't even accept his governors salary when campaigning against Gore, believes abortion is wrong and will sign into law to protect the unborns rights if a bill comes to his desk, a patriot, because he developed star wars technology to beable to shoot down N. Korean, Iranian, and other rouge nations nucleur missles, where North Korea is no longer the threat it was when he took office, truly GWB has earned his wings, and his commission as commander an chief, etc...GWB has stood up to the world in respect to global warming, so our economy could get back on its feet, Kerry if elected would revert back to the UN laws on emmissions, which would mean an excessive burden to our industries recovering from Clintons exodus of our industries to other countries, like china, whole factories dismantling and moving out of america, we need to support our job base not destroy it, which is Mr. Kerry's intent, cause Kerry is a environmentalists, meaning he care nought for us and ours, nor cares about the environment of the earth, cause industries that fled america simply are polluting more, because of less stringent laws in other countries, so while I'm for water and ceramic scrubbers, I feel the environmentalists are part of the problem, cause they have polluted the earth with herbicides pesticides, mtbe, and simply caused industries to relocate to china where they are free to pollute the earth, the UN doesn't care about our economy, or these other countries, China, Mexico, etc... that are polluting the earth, but is concerned about controlling US emmissions, that would stifle the recovering economy. If you vote for Kerry, you will in essense stifle the economy, for so many reasons, like taxes, world emissions standards, price of crude, price of electricity, price of water, etc...The utilities should be decreasing in price if they really want to make the world a better place, what the globalists, the environmentalist, and democrats have done is institue the supply demand senerio, so that demand is alway greater than supply so to burden the people, truly we need to vote the democrats out of office so the republicans can start to develop an energy policy, increase refineries, cheap water usage, more electric power plants, drill for oil in alaska, off shore florida, coal burning technology, hydrogen from water on demand combustion engine technologies, instead of expensive hydrogen fuel cells, to move forward with the empowerment of the people than empowerment of the environmentalists that care not for the people, nor the environment, but for the power to spray your childrens schools with pesticides/herbicides, to pollute the fresh waters with mtbe, to cause forest fires in the west, cause selective cutting prohibited, causing higher lumber prices, against coal burning technologies cause it would make heating prices cheaper, and empower the people, etc...This message has been edited by whatever, 09-12-2004 05:49 PM

More crap as usual.One word will suffice.Does George Bush enforce the laws of the land. Yes or No. That is all that's needed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Message 223 still requires an answer as well.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar, More proof that GWB is a leader of men, that Colin Powell agreed to become his Secretary of State, etc...

So he was speaking of GWB?But you have not answered my other question.One word will suffice.Does George Bush enforce the laws of the land?Yes or No.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

> our country wasn't founded as a king system (absolute powers), but a president serving up to 8 yearsWrong. Term limits were a later addition. However, the executive branch has been strengthened way too much, and this really needs to change.> here we have the problem, where just the few, like Teddy Kennedy filibustering any nominee that GWB nominatesTed Kennedy is hardly the only one. Why focus on him?> cause they know that they (liberals) have misinterpreted the constitutionNo straw men, please. They're filibustering because they see these people as radical conservatives.> Kerry in his 20+ years as a Senator had a far worse record, proving he lacks the leadership that GWB has exibitedCite or drop. Generalizations are not wanted here.> GWB is building bridges, etc..."Two Americas". 'Nuff said.> You vote the Democrats out of office, and you'd see more postive interpretations of the constitution, etc... The liberals simply twist the constitution, to say what it doesn't say, so GWB is pushing for honest men to interprete the Constitution as it was intended, for it to be the will of the peopleThat was your opinion, stated as fact.> and not the will of the judges, this was why George Washington said that Congress was to protect the religion of Jesus ChristNo, he did not. Besides, A) most of our founding fathers were deists, B) several of them (such as Jefferson) were very against organized Christianity (he even wrote his own version of the bible), and C) you really need to read the Treaty of Tripoli, in which the US declared (shortly after its founding) that we are not a Christian state.> cause of what were seeing in respect to the legalizing of SodomyDidn't you just lionize the heroes of Flight 93 recently, or was that someone else?> cause of the religion of Jesus Christ clearly is against this abominationYou need to go back to one of the several threads devoted to this topic. The early catholic church (and many in present day, carrying on that tradition) saw it that way, mind you, but that's hardly the whole story.> which GWB pursued Congress to make an amendment to protect the sanctity of marriageHow is your marriage demeaned by mine? Was your marriage demeaned when blacks were allowed to marry blacks (people sure claimed it was then)? Was your marriage demeaned when interracial marriages were legalized? (people sure claimed it then, too).> so the church wouldn't be attacked for their belief in the sanctity of marriageNoone is attacking the churches. We don't care if your church honors our marriages or not. All we care about is that the state honors it, so that we're given equal treatment under the law.> or the church could be prosectued for saying sodomy is a sinOh please, cut it with the straw men.> cause our founding fathers believed that Congress was to protect the religion of Jesus ChristIn 1796, the US signed and ratified, unanimously and without any observable outcry, the Treaty of Tripoli, which declared " "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion...". This was the first time that congress cast a unanimous vote. Now, need I get into my Jefferson quotes, or is that enough for you?> so I have the right to declare sodomy is an abomination, that its a filthy lifestyle, that the bible agrees though that let the filthy be filthyA) Do you have a problem with sodomy if it is between to straight people?
B) Do you have a problem with a same-sex couple that doesn't commit sodomy?> it should never be used to force the churches to become filthy, to be forced to allow gay ministers into the churches(this would be violating the separatation of church and state), when its against the religion of Jesus Christ, etc...You keep repeating this misguided notion that others actually care about your church, who they have preach, what they're allowed to preach, etc We don't. Not one iota. The state doesn't care either. For all we care, you could be the Church of Jesus Christ of Juggling Saints, and require everyone in your church to ride a unicycle and dress like the Michelin Man. We Don't Care What Your Church Does..

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

No, Some laws are enforced by federal, state, civil courts, etc...Yes, He is about enforcing the protections of our freedoms, from the enemy (democrats, globalists, Muslim terrorists, etc...) that seeks to destroy us on his watch, leading us as commander and chief, he's not a pragamatists, but uses his supporting cast, delegating, showing his leadership, always moving forward, nominating federal judges to the bench, in spite of democrats abuses of filibuster powers, he does make some federal mandates like timber cutting, to benefit the people, making the hard decisions that come to his watch, a truly remarkable man, of integrity, conviction, honesty, caring about the defenseless, a humble man, not puffed up, grieving about our going to war, in Iraq, building up patriotism, about soverignty, etc...He is quite the opposite compared to Mr. Kerry, who has been proven by you all to be quite an unstable man, keeps changing his stands, Cheeny said that he is now taking Howard Deans stand on the Iraq war, keeps flip flopping what he says is his stand, (says he is believes life begins at conception, and votes for what he believes is murder of the unborn and partially unborn baby)(do you really want someone who believes its murder( you all believes the baby is not human, the difference between you and kerry is Kerry believes it is human, (if he didn't believe life was sacred at conception then you could say he didn't believe it murder of the unborn, Kerry also said he himself killed against the geneva convention)should Kerry be tried for war crimes, for violating the geneva convention and knowingly killing innocents, tried for perjury as a liar(for saying he was in cambodia on Christmas eve, witness the butchering this particular day seared in his memory, etc...)flip flops (admits he was never present in cambodia on christmas eve, meaning he lied, etc...), a thief(recieving a salary in the senate for time not present, on going) , murderer because he believes life begins at conception and he voted for murdering the unborn, traitor(aiding comfort to the enemy)(selling sensitive satellight technology to china, even today he continues his charade, by continually flip flopping, proving he is unstable in all his ways, unfit for command, GWB on the other hand has proven to be quite stable, as commander an chief, the terrorists bombed the pentagon itself, how quickly you all forget, what a remarkable job GWB has done to protect us and ours, if Kerry would of been president he would of wondered what the US had done wrong, rather than admit we were attacked on 911, etc...Personally this was likely what the terrorists thought our response would of been, never thought the US would have the backbone to stand against their believed right to destroy our country, you forget it was the terrorist that took out the twin towers, causing the stock market to crash, but GWB has brought back not only the stock market, but instilled patriotism within our military, proving once again he earned his wings as commander an chief, etc...

One word. Yes or No. Very simple. All the rest is propaganda.Does George Bush enforce the Laws of the Land.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

http://www.doctorsenator.com/GeorgeWashington.htmlMay 12, 1779, General George Washington was visited at his military encampment by some chiefs of the Delaware Indian tribe. They had brought three youths to be trained in the American schools. Washington assured them, commenting:Congress will look upon them as their own Children... You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.In his Inaugural Speech to Both Houses of Congress, April 30, 1789, George Washington proclaimed:...in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States...We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps finally, staked of the experiment...In addressing the General Committee representing the United Baptist Churches of Virginia on May 10, 1789, Washington stated:If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical Society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it; I beg you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against... every species of religious persecution.This message has been edited by whatever, 09-12-2004 07:22 PM

Obviously Congress will protect the rights of Christians; they're guaranteed their religious freedom under the same amendment that protects the Buddists, the Muslims, and everybody else.

Crash, Then your in agreement with kjv revelation 22:11&12, and perhaps why TJ was not against protecting the infidel, so they would be prevented from power to persecute the religion of Jesus Christ, and to protect the Religion of Jesus Christ from religion, but Congress was to protect these freedoms, even from the infidel, etc...P.S. You all seem to support my right to prevent a gay in the clergy, from being a boy scout camp leader because its against my religious belief, it seems revelation 22:11&12 supports me to allow you to be filthy, but not to bring your filthyness into the churches, or be forced to allow gays to take junior camping, meaning we shouldn't sanctify gay marriages, meaning force the churches to sanctify them, if they want to be filthy, just to let them be filthy still, and God will judge them, but they should respect my right to be righteous still or holy still, etc...It was all about having just laws, that all could obey(even the infidel should keep the laws of the land), without being in conflict with church and state(so the people of faith need not be oppressed by the infidels, and beable to live righteous lives, holy lives, etc...), etc...The problem is not all people share your belief, that the churches should be protected from the infidel, cause it took the supreme court to make the decision that Gays couldn't force the scouts leaders to allow those that are filthy, to take junior (our sons) camping, the point is the gay agenda took their filthy agenda all the way to the supreme court, so congress should address the sanctity of marriage, so to protect the church from the infidels, that want to force their abominations upon the churches(against the religion that has freedom from the infidel), to make it against the law to deny gays into the churches, when the righteous consider it a filthy lifestyle, for obvious reasons, you see the churches should be protected, however, the gay agenda doesn't agree with you, they want to force the churches to not beable to deny gays, lesbians into the ministry, into the boyscouts, and we at least agree this is forcing the infidel over the church, if the churches don't accept the gays marriage sanctified by God, then they should continue to be protected by the state, the laws should never be in conflict with religion, this is what the gays are trying to create (Conflict)(this is why GWB belief that Congress may need to address the sanctity of marriage), cause of the infidel hate of the (doctrines) of the Christian religion of Jesus Christ, etc...This message has been edited by whatever, 09-12-2004 08:17 PM

"Congress will look upon them as their own Children... You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention. "Interestingly enough the words "Jesus Christ" are not found in any of George's own writings. The speech in reference here was written by his aide; Washington signed it and read it. He himself, however, never wrote a thing mentioning Jesus. Members of his church openly questioned his piety (especially by his habits of leaving early, skipping sermons, and never discussing religion on his own). Close confidants expressed even more scepticism. He did write a number of times about an "almighty being" - of course, that's a standard belief for deism (see your other quotes, on things that Washington himself wrote - he does the same thing)."Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice."
-- Thomas Jefferson, quoted from Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572. (Asa Green "was probably the Reverend Ashbel Green, who was chaplain to congress during Washington's administration." )"[Washington was] a total stranger to religious prejudices, which have so often excited Christians of one denomination to cut the throats of those of another."
-- John Bell, in 1779, in Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion"I know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did."
-- Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, February, 1800, quoted from Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572"I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them."
-- Eleanor "Nellie" Parke Custis Lewis, Martha Washington's granddaughter from a previous marriage, quoted from Sparks' Washingon, also from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 22"Sir, Washington was a Deist."
-- The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie, rector of the church Washington had attended with his wife, to The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, upon Wilson's having inquired of Abercrombie regarding Washington's religious beliefs, quoted from John E. Remsberg, Six Historic Americans"With respect to the inquiry you make, I can only state the following facts: that as pastor of the Episcopal Church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays George Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation -- always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants -- she invariably being one -- I considered it my duty, in a sermon on public worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations, who uniformly turned their backs on the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it. A few days after, in conversation, I believe, with a Senator of the United States, he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who, in the course of conversation at the table, said that, on the previous Sunday, he had received a very just rebuke from the pulpit for always leaving the church before the administration of the sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candor; that he had never sufficiently considered the influence of his example, and that he would not again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal, arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he never afterwards came on the morning of sacrament Sunday, though at other times he was a constant attendant in the morning."
-- The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie, in a letter to a friend in 1833, Sprague's Annals of the American Pulpit, vol. 5, p. 394, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 25-26"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
-- The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831, which was publlshed in New York two weeks later, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 27"His behavior in church was always serious and attentive, but as your letter seems to intend an inquiry on the point of kneeling during the service, I owe it to the truth to declare that I never saw him in the said attitude.... Although I was often in the company of this great man, and had the honor of often dining at his table, I never heard anything from him which could manifest his opinions on the subject of religion.... Within a few days of his leaving the Presidential chair, our vestry waited on him with an address prepared and delivered by me. In his answer he was pleased to express himself gratified by what he had heard from our pulpit; but there was nothing that committed him relatively to religious theory."
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a letter to the Rev. B. C. C. Parker, dated November 28, 1832, from Wilson, Memoir of Bishop White, pp. 189-191, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 27

"Unlike Thomas Jefferson -- and Thomas Paine, for that matter -- Washington never even got around to recording his belief that Christ was a great ethical teacher. His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable. Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private correspondence. But the name of Christ, in any correspondence whatsoever, does not appear anywhere in his many letters to friends and associates throughout his life."
-- Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion (1963) pp. 74-75

"That he was not just striking a popular attitude as a politician is revealed by the absence of of the usual Christian terms: he did not mention Christ or even use the word 'God.' Following the phraseology of the philosophical Deism he professed, he referred to 'the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men,' to 'the benign parent of the human race.'"
-- James Thomas Flexner, describing Washington's first Inaugural Address, in George Washington and the New Nation (1783-1793) (1970) p. 184,I can give you quotes from Washington himself, if you'd like.Want to address other founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, author of what is referred to as the "Jefferson Bible"? Here's some quotes. Please comment - he's really harsh about Christianity. He viewed Jesus as a great moral teacher, but was himself a deist, and thought that Christianity has been a big detriment to the world.Care to comment about the Treaty of Tripoli?Care to comment about your view that anyone cares what you do in your church or what marriages your church recognises? Care to comment about your views of sodomy for straight couples and about gay couples who don't practice sodomy? Any of the other things discussed above?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

What about their religious beliefs? The ones that say that it's ok for a gay man to be a member of the clergy or a Boy Scout leader? You're absolutely right. No one should force you to have gay intercourse.Short of that, though, your religious beliefs are not being infringed.