Bush is a hero

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#80885 Jul 30, 2010
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
No way was I saying anything bad about Virginia. It's a beautiful state, and I really enjoyed the vacations I took in Williamsburg. I was home-ported in Norfolk for over four years.
I was just stating that okboston was speaking from the viewpoint of one that was nowhere near the spill problem.
OK, your post about collecting animals and having to choose their future makes you sound human.

Even when it is the right decision, I think your love for the person or animal is shown by the pain you feel making the decision. Having made the "decision" a few times over my life, I find it easier (not meaning sooner, but just knowing what to base the decision on) to make the decision, but just as painful.

While I may not be close to Florida now, I am a 5th generation Floridian and still have property and family there.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#80886 Jul 30, 2010
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>God's plan is for us to be STEWARDS of the earth. He Himself is the true Owner, because He gave us everything we have. Absolutely, we can be and should be better stewards than we have been.
Thank-you for your considerate reply, RG. I'd still like to har what CC has to say on this subject. Speaking of subjects, will tonight be the night? Whenever you're ready, please let me know.

:)

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#80887 Jul 30, 2010
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I can certainly agree that we should do a better job at being stewards. We have a tendency to think that everything here is for us and we don't seem to care what we leave for future generations.
Some of us less than others. IMO, the use of fossil fuels in this country precluded good stewardship for every generation which has done so, ours most of all so far. We are, as a species, the most destructive creatures on the planet. We're 'subduing' the earth alright, and with a vengeance. Seems to me we can't stand hard enough upon its neck, but we stomp down more firmly every day. The earth will not miss us when we blow ourselves to hell.(Or whatever other means we employ towards our own extinction.)
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>Cats seem to enjoy teasing people that do not like or care for them. My mother-in-law could not stand cats. Several of our cats over a period of years took delight in laying on whatever bed she was sleeping in, jumping into her chair when she got up and making her shoooo them out in order to sit down. We even had one cat drink out of her glass if she sat it down.
I've had many cats, and every one of them has had strong opinions. Just like me.
:)
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>Don't know if it is sinning or not, I think to sin you have to know it is wrong. Free-choice and knowing right from wrong are two different things.
I most definitely agree that knowing right from wrong is different from free will, but as a pagan, I don't believe in 'sin', original or otherwise. My personal opinion is, if you don't think it's right, don't do it. If you wouldn't want someone else to do it to you, don't do it.(Whatever 'it' may be.)

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#80889 Jul 30, 2010
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>You don't think maybe not inviting the current President and First Lady will keep the hoopla down some?
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
Dream on. Chelsea probably doesn't want all the uninvited party crashers and low-lifes that the President seems to draw.
Besides, Chelsea was only inviting 400 or 500 of their close friends and associates, and the Obamas don't come that close on the Clintons list.
Leslie Mako probably has a better chance of being invited than the Obamas.
When your daddy is a former President and your mommy is the Secretary of State, your wedding is more complicated than most.

Adding the current President of the United States will only make it worse. That's what I meant by hoopla.
You snort dream on, then say the same thing.

Hmmm. Perhaps the term isn't as clear as I thought, or ...

When your daddy is a former President and your mommy is the Secretary of State, a certain form of life will politicize your wedding.

Adding the current President of the United States will only increase the numbers.

Obviously, not adding the current President of the United States will not stop those at the very bottom of the life form list from trying.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#80890 Jul 30, 2010
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>You don't think maybe not inviting the current President and First Lady will keep the hoopla down some?
Nah ... you don't think that.
You can't.
That doesn't reflect negatively on Obama.
Willie, with the Clintons spending 2 million on the wedding I think they want some hoopla. Maybe not the competition for attention the Obama's might present.

Since: Nov 07

Hermosa Beach

#80891 Jul 30, 2010
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Foolish child. McCain was bringing up facts that I believe our president found embarrassing. However, I don't think that's why he said obama said what he did. It was planned, just like his other jabs were planned. He tauted the fact that he was president several times, I suppose to show strength, kind of like your Dad saying " because I said so" This is all to try to show the GOP as uncooperative and the party of "no" which they obviously are not, so he can go for reconciliation. It was the plan all along.
If McCain, or the Republicans had a brain, he (they) would have insisted the regulations bill McCain had been trying to get Congress to schedule for debate and vote on since 2005 added as an attachment to the VERY FIRST, or maybe even the second BAILOUT BILL; BEFORE he left the campaign trail to go to DC to vote for taxpayer bailouts of the unregulated corporations, as I urged in my calls, faxes, emails & even a telegraph to him on the campaign trail.

And then, this last few months, he and the party was again was against regulations. And that doesn't illustrate by the actions of their members, that the Republican party IS the party of no cooperation? Sure looks like if it isn't submitted by ME (or my party) or I won't be given MY CREDIT (or my party's president), NO NO NO to me!

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#80892 Jul 30, 2010
Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Was just talking to a coworker about something this morning. He is a new Christian and was asking me what I thought of animals. If they could sin. I know its a little off point in this forum but imo part of the people that care so much about the wetlands, the sea turtles, the spotted owl ect is because they see man and animals on the same level. Some may even see animals and nature above man. I do not. I think its wise to care for nature, wetlands ect, but not at the expense of man.
Yes, there are such people. I don't agree with them any more than you do.

You can agree that a snail or a slug or an owl is not equal to man and still disagree on what 'at the expense of man' means.

It's easier to trivialize the arguments of people you disagree with if you make them all whacked out extremists, however.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#80893 Jul 30, 2010
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Willie, with the Clintons spending 2 million on the wedding I think they want some hoopla. Maybe not the competition for attention the Obama's might present.
lisw, there is very little in the discussion of politics and current events that I think is more trivial and petty than making an issue of a politician's children in any way, shape, or form.

Weddings included.

That's been my opinion since Lynda & Luci & Tricia & Julie.

It's still my opinion.

That will be my opinion if ... actually, more like WHEN some spiteful lowbrow individual tries the same tacky, gossip column crap with the Bush twins.

I am capable of playing the game at that level, mind you.

I could, for example, observe that hoopla is what weddings are all about, but most hoopla doesn't involve consultations with the Secret Service.

I could then speculate that the Secret Service advised the Clintons that inviting the President increases the possibility that the wedding might attract the attention of self-professed defenders of life, liberty, European culture, and/or the 2nd amendment, with a library that consists of the complete works of Glen Beck.

I've got too much respect for myself to do that, however - and for all the accusations that I defend all things left, I wouldn't come to the defense of a left wing dingbat who went down this particular dead end path.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#80894 Jul 30, 2010
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>Hmmm. Perhaps the term isn't as clear as I thought, or ...
When your daddy is a former President and your mommy is the Secretary of State, a certain form of life will politicize your wedding.
Adding the current President of the United States will only increase the numbers.
I can't give you a better answer than lisw already gave you.

lisw said: "Willie, with the Clintons spending 2 million on the wedding I think they want some hoopla. Maybe not the competition for attention the Obama's might present."

I say again, the Clintons are giving the Obamas a "class A" snubbing.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#80895 Jul 30, 2010
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>So, just to be clear, if man usurps the wetlands to the point where the animals and other parts of that ecology disappear, in a quest for ever more area to populate, you're okay with that? I mean that doesn't sound selfish and short-sighted to you? You think this fulfills god's plan? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd really like to know.
No, not at all. My point is that some on the far fringe have done everything they can to stop many building projects in the name of saving wetlands, dauphins and such. Make no mistake, I think it is Gods will that we care for the earth, as another poster as said. What sounds selfish to me are people that make money telling others how to care for the environment and turn around a live in a way that waste energy and shows they really couldn't care less. In fact when I was in high school (1992) a friend of mine talked of how much he cared for these issues. His actions proved otherwise. He took off a catalytic converter to save gas, never mind that is isn't legal to drive a car like that. He also spent much time damning Rush and anyone that would question his actions. And so it goes.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#80896 Jul 30, 2010
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, there are such people. I don't agree with them any more than you do.
You can agree that a snail or a slug or an owl is not equal to man and still disagree on what 'at the expense of man' means.
It's easier to trivialize the arguments of people you disagree with if you make them all whacked out extremists, however.
True.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#80897 Jul 30, 2010
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>Thank-you for your considerate reply, RG. I'd still like to har what CC has to say on this subject. Speaking of subjects, will tonight be the night? Whenever you're ready, please let me know.
:)
Hope that did it. I have a cat that the wife brought home one day. It has been almost a year now, cat still knows I'm a dog guy but we seem to get along. She gives me a meow and I feed her. Otherwise she doesn't seem to see me? Never had a cat, but I guess this could work out.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#80898 Jul 30, 2010
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>The Lord did tell us to fill the earth and subdue it.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
I don't think most animals can sin, because God did not give them free will. But I think anyone who has had a dog knows that dogs can and will do things out of spite (I remember a dog we had many years ago ate a plant I'd given my stepmother, and there was absolutely no doubt he'd done it deliberately). So maybe it's possible for some of the higher animals to choose their behavior, at least sometimes. Whether or not that qualifies as SINFUL I don't know.
I also believe that our beloved pets will be with us in heaven :) I am looking forward to the day when I can scoop my Cleo or Callie or Fritz and my dog Minnie and hug them again :)
Very good, true. No animal can sin, only man. Hope you are right, like to see Pete, a pet bird I had years ago. Gods will be done.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#80899 Jul 30, 2010
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not at all. My point is that some on the far fringe have done everything they can to stop many building projects in the name of saving wetlands, dauphins and such. Make no mistake, I think it is Gods will that we care for the earth, as another poster as said. What sounds selfish to me are people that make money telling others how to care for the environment and turn around a live in a way that waste energy and shows they really couldn't care less. In fact when I was in high school (1992) a friend of mine talked of how much he cared for these issues. His actions proved otherwise. He took off a catalytic converter to save gas, never mind that is isn't legal to drive a car like that. He also spent much time damning Rush and anyone that would question his actions. And so it goes.
I don't know any environmentalists interested in saving the eldest son of the King of France.

I'm not sure precisely what the relevance of the hypocrite you knew in high school's dislike of Rush might be, but I'm sure you see one

Here's the deal - I've never found hypocrisy to be associated with a political ideology, let alone admiration for/dislike of a political shock jock entertainer.

I've met my share of hypocrites on my side, Chris. I know people who claim to be all about the environment that are too damned lazy to bother to recycle, for cryin' out loud.

Met some on your side too. Met a lot of folks who will repeat the lines of the spinmasters that this or that will not harm the environment as long as this or that is happening in somebody else's back yard or neighborhood or property or business.

That can change in a heartbeat when this or that looks like it's going to approach their back yard or neighborhood or property or business.

Some of the things that self-appointed protectors of the environment say about the people who disagree with them are nothing more than bald-faced liars.

Those people who have you convinced there are religious implications to this (and it's clearly implied if not fully stated) that everybody who disagrees with them on 'the environment' believes man is equal to the [insert endangered species here] lie just as much.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#80900 Jul 30, 2010
Doh!

"I don't know any environmentalists interested in saving the eldest son of the King of France." was supposed to be followed by a smiley.

It was intended as a joke, not criticism or ridicule or anything other than bad humor.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

#80901 Jul 30, 2010
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know any environmentalists interested in saving the eldest son of the King of France.
I'm not sure precisely what the relevance of the hypocrite you knew in high school's dislike of Rush might be, but I'm sure you see one
Here's the deal - I've never found hypocrisy to be associated with a political ideology, let alone admiration for/dislike of a political shock jock entertainer.
I've met my share of hypocrites on my side, Chris. I know people who claim to be all about the environment that are too damned lazy to bother to recycle, for cryin' out loud.
Met some on your side too. Met a lot of folks who will repeat the lines of the spinmasters that this or that will not harm the environment as long as this or that is happening in somebody else's back yard or neighborhood or property or business.
That can change in a heartbeat when this or that looks like it's going to approach their back yard or neighborhood or property or business.
Some of the things that self-appointed protectors of the environment say about the people who disagree with them are nothing more than bald-faced liars.
Those people who have you convinced there are religious implications to this (and it's clearly implied if not fully stated) that everybody who disagrees with them on 'the environment' believes man is equal to the [insert endangered species here] lie just as much.
Have to agree with all of this.:) Take care.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#80903 Jul 30, 2010
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not at all. My point is that some on the far fringe have done everything they can to stop many building projects in the name of saving wetlands, dauphins and such. Make no mistake, I think it is Gods will that we care for the earth, as another poster as said. What sounds selfish to me are people that make money telling others how to care for the environment and turn around a live in a way that waste energy and shows they really couldn't care less. In fact when I was in high school (1992) a friend of mine talked of how much he cared for these issues. His actions proved otherwise. He took off a catalytic converter to save gas, never mind that is isn't legal to drive a car like that. He also spent much time damning Rush and anyone that would question his actions. And so it goes.
Loathe Rush Limbaugh. Have never owned, or really even driven, a car. Use public transportation if I must, and ambulate everywhere else. Staunch and consistent recycler. However, since I rent, I have not put in central heat/air, and use 5 window units. Nobody's perfect.

:)

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#80904 Jul 30, 2010
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>lisw, there is very little in the discussion of politics and current events that I think is more trivial and petty than making an issue of a politician's children in any way, shape, or form.
Weddings included.
That's been my opinion since Lynda & Luci & Tricia & Julie.
It's still my opinion.
That will be my opinion if ... actually, more like WHEN some spiteful lowbrow individual tries the same tacky, gossip column crap with the Bush twins.
I am capable of playing the game at that level, mind you.
I could, for example, observe that hoopla is what weddings are all about, but most hoopla doesn't involve consultations with the Secret Service.
I could then speculate that the Secret Service advised the Clintons that inviting the President increases the possibility that the wedding might attract the attention of self-professed defenders of life, liberty, European culture, and/or the 2nd amendment, with a library that consists of the complete works of Glen Beck.
I've got too much respect for myself to do that, however - and for all the accusations that I defend all things left, I wouldn't come to the defense of a left wing dingbat who went down this particular dead end path.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
A bride is a bride is a bride. She deserves hoopla on that special day, and to be the center of attention.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#80905 Jul 30, 2010
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Have to agree with all of this.:) Take care.
I sometimes wish that we could live in a parallel universe with animals.(is that the right words?) meaning they don't bother us and we don't bother them. It does break my heart to see something like a mother bear fighting for her cubs against human encroachers. She has every right but we can't allow her to kill humans. I sometimes think environmentalists tend to upset the natural order of things. You can't reverse mother nature and always prevent the extinction of some animals unless it is clearly man who is causing the extinction.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#80906 Jul 30, 2010
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>Loathe Rush Limbaugh. Have never owned, or really even driven, a car. Use public transportation if I must, and ambulate everywhere else. Staunch and consistent recycler. However, since I rent, I have not put in central heat/air, and use 5 window units. Nobody's perfect.
:)
I think you more than make up for the 5 units by not owning a car. I would definitely walk if things were even within a few miles. I used to take just power walks, and need to get back to it. Halfway through there is such a rush of strength and well-being.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min Regina 600,143
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 10 min Great Day of Arma... 40,898
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 10 min Aura Mytha 865,734
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 20 min Great Day of Arma... 33,186
30+ ladies ka sex 25 min Aarav_dlycan 1
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 28 min Charlie Sheen 272,426
The Christian Atheist debate 33 min Rowan 2,052
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 22 hr Victoria Bologna 7,504
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 22 hr andy 45
More from around the web