<p>Case illustrated. Point lost Dad.</p>
<p>Hey, what’s all this religion business? We’re talkin’ money here! ;)</p>
<p>If we want to talk about religion…</p>
<p>What about Clinton?</p>
<p>Um, WMD found and destroyed? Oh yeah…I read about that…where again? I think not…they found weapons, yes they did, but not WMDs…</p>
<p>And, where is the money going? Where?
To private contractors, to corporations, to oil companies, where is the money going</p>
<p>its not like we spent it on armor for our troops, or on protective gear, or on food (remember that), or on flying the dead home with dignity, or on helping our soldiers come home (pay for their own tickets) or on helping all the vets with no limbs (sure the budget for vets is greater, but there are a heck of a lot MORE VETS)…we are paying private “contractors” (thugs) almost 5 times what we are paying out soldiers and our national guard (and what about all the national guard people that are going to be declaring bankrupcty)…</p>
<p>What is the budget for our war in Afghanistan? How much is that war and gee, do we have what;s his face yet? </p>
<p>During a time of war, companies are making a mint, some patriots they are</p>
<p>exactly mini…leave religion and the Bible, or any other Holy Book out of it. Make the argument without those crutches.</p>
<p>Yes, like the president does.</p>
<p>How much to rebuild Iraq and how much to rebuild the South after the storms…wowzer…</p>
<p>Just so silly…by goodness, the President quotes the bible all the time, talks about religion all the time and suddenly we can’t </p>
<p>ah well</p>
<p>Talking about religion and being offensive are two different things. But I think there enough things about Bush to criticize without attacking his faith or being offensive to Christians (or anyone who chooses to be a part of any particular faith. )</p>
<p>No one is censoring here. But arguing the WMD point doesn’t require comments about Bible-thumping does it? If it does, it’s a weak argument.</p>
<p>Guess which President said this:</p>
<p>God save America!</p>
<p>Thats right, all of them and um, oh, yeah, Bush too. </p>
<p>Having said it, one can only wonder what it was they felt America was, on occasion, being threatened by, such that she needed the intervention of the deity to be safe.</p>
<p>When it comes to the good book,
Hilarys next up to thump
stiff-wristed woman by all accountshear she had to give Bill the back of the hand on more than one scurvy occasion.</p>
<p>Glad someone got back to discussing “religion”. When I think of religion, the first thing I think of is Hilary; WMD, too!</p>
<p>religion is to hilary as
religion is to WMD
Therefore, hilary = WMD.</p>
<p>“religion”</p>
<p>in qoutes…love the [“:postmodern:”] touch.</p>
<p>Ergo, two trillion dollars to find and destroy Hilary. (A bit more than the one-eyed mullah or the six-foot-five Arab with failing kidneys, but we haven’t succeeded at either of those yet.)</p>
<p>Hilary: the pro-war Democrat-- throwing money at money. 2 trillion, huh?</p>
<p>mini and SeaSong - You two are hilarious…you need to take it on the road. :-)</p>
<p>ldmom06–I have no beef with Bush’s religion itself; I’m a regular church-going Christian myself (same denomination, too.) I was replying to your comment that one should make the argument without getting into religion–plainly, Bush often uses religion to make the argument. As a follower of Christ, I find many of the things he justifies in His name deeply offensive.</p>
<p>garland - </p>
<p>Exactly what has Bush justified in the name of Christ? I don’t agree with Iraq, but I don’t think I ever heard him say once he was invading Iraq in the name of Christ. This is the disconnect that is so harmful to us all. Yes, disagree with him all you want… I do about a lot of things, just as I did with Clinton (inappropriate behavior with a very, very young woman)…and Reagan (Iran-Contra,)…and Carter (bought my first house at 19% interest rate, for pete’s sake), Nixon (yes, I’m old enough to remember Tricky Dick), etc… </p>
<p>But I refuse to embellish my reasons with false accusations against the man. Bush listened to the wrong people and made a very costly mistake. Presidents are supposed to be better than that. That’s bad enough. No need to froth it up into some religious crusade.</p>
<p>Curious absence of conservative voices on this thread. Is anybody willing to defend the cost of this war?</p>
<p>I think that most conservatives recognize a piece of speculative advocacy research when they see one. It’s just not worth the time to jump on it. Sorry.</p>
<p>Well…I’m not officially a conservative, but I will say this. Conservatives, and liberals both voted for this war. Everybody screwed up if you ask me. We ought to toss a bunch from both sides of the aisle out on their behinds.</p>
<p>spoonyj was talking about conservatives, driver. You’re not fiscally conservative so you weren’t expected to comment.</p>
<p>I am fiscally conservative and I think the 2 trillion dollar figure sucks and can not be defended by fiscally responsible people.</p>