[Buffy]

Originally Posted by jackson33

i will say, the few ladies i know, who have aborted life, did so for the would be father who did not want the responsibility.

So you've never known anyone who was facing the threat of severe medical complications with a post-first-trimester pregnancy. The recent Supreme Court decision barring what the anti-abortion crowd inflamatorily calls "partial birth" abortions eliminates the only safe alternative that many women will have in specific medical circumstances. Illogically, women will be forced by law to use different methods which may cause them to lose their ability to ever have children in the future. And being against "partial-birth" abortion is supported by every Republican *except* Rudy Giuliani. Go Rudy! Change that platform!

Now this is just a great example, and thanks jackson for delivering it in two consecutive paragraphs:

Originally Posted by jackson33

when i speak of "financial disaster" i am talking as an market investor and/or adviser, not necessarily personal. seethe all you want, the general consensus of those well above my level, fear Universal Health Care, Tax Policy and the effects she would have on securities....

Bill, was not material to the Technology Boom of the nineties and in my opinion was material to the collapse or the bubble pop of 2000 and the small recession that followed.

Okay, so Hillary would cause a huge "financial disaster" and Bill--who by omission you indicate had no influence on the boom of the late 1990s--was only responsible for a "small recession" (oh and you're saying that Alan Greenspan (who by the way as Chairman of the Federal Reserve is independent of the Executive Branch) "quit for reasons of not addressing the problem that we all knew was coming" is a joke: it was "those well above my level" that you are refering to in the first paragraph who *ignored* signs that should have been obvious and Greenspan who *did* warn--albeit not forcefully enough--about "irrational exuberance", a term he first used in 1996!

Analysis of political history demands a willingness to recognize contributions of *all* parties, and this sort of complete denial of what is going on is exactly what I'm talking about. Whatever example is brought up, *everything* done by a person of the opposite party is wortheless or dangerous or treasonous. That's a great definition of irrational hate.

Originally Posted by jackson33

you can justify radicals of either side who are not elected citizens and have the right, but not the elected folks who have limited rights in such affairs. i would certainly suggest any person in congress under the conditions witness, during WW II, WW I, and especially the Civil and War for Independence would have been imprisoned, shot or hung with in hours.

So you'll support the death penalty for Republican Congressmen Frank Wolf (R-VA), Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA) and Robert Aderholt (R-AL) who visited Syria the week before Pelosi, as well as David Hobson (R-OH) who traveled with Pelosi? Similarly going back to December you'd agree that along with putting Democratic Sens. Nelson, Kerry, and Dodd in front of a firing squad for meeting with Assad that Republican Sen. Specter who met with Assad later that month should be shot too? Or are you going to be as hypocritical as the White House and the right-wing press on this topic too? This makes no sense unless you have blind fealty to the party. Again, this is not good for America, its finding enemies where none exist simply for the "benefit" of your party. And that in my mind, is *really* treasonous.

Glad the American Voter is smarter than their Parties,
Buffy

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

I don't know that I would call George Bush a traitor Incompetent, allowing money/power to cloud his judgement. His stretching of the presidential powers MIGHT be treason, but I don't know that they have gone quite that far yet.

my point was to Polosi and Reid and a few others in Congress, which on several occasions have gone to far...IMO.

the President (all), also IMO, is privy to much information which for reasons he cannot pass on. i have accepted this reading history, as many decisions seem to be overboard, have proved over time to be the reason, some act was later justified. i will not go so far to place them above the law, but during war time or under some threat they should not be restrained. even Mr. Clinton's inaction on many occasions which may have prevented many of todays problems, may have been justified for information he held. history will sort this stuff out.

President Bush, is anything but incompetent and i doubt he has ever concerned himself with wealth. surely he lacks some communication skills, is opinionated and a little less sophisticated than many who have held the office. he has followed his agenda to a fault on the conservative/compassionate principles he ran on, and someplace left the Republican platform in some dust pile. however, he was and remains the right person for the times he is and has served.....IMO.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by jackson33

President Bush, is anything but incompetent and i doubt he has ever concerned himself with wealth.

One would hope that, when he served as a board member of Harken Energy (1986-1990), George W Bush concerned himself with wealth. Although an SEC investigation alleged Bush was more concerned with his personal wealth than that of Harken shareholders, the investigation concluded that his conduct did not warrant civil or legal enforcement action.

surely he lacks some communication skills, is opinionated and a little less sophisticated than many who have held the office.

I disagree.

Like many US Presidents, Bush appears to have excellent communication skills. He attended and graduated from Andover, Harvard, and Yale, who’s alumni are not known for a lack of communication skills or sophistication.

IMHO, Bush’s apparent lack of communication skills and sophistication are purposefully affected. People that contend that he is of below average intelligence, “getting by on love of God and goodness of heart”, are, I believe data indicates, mistaken. Bush’s pre-1974 SAT scores were 566 verbal + 640 math = 1206 combined, which equates to an Otis IQ of about 130, a Stanford-Binet of about 126. By this measure, G.W. Bush is more intelligent than 97% of the measured world populationn, almost eligible for membership in MENSA, which requires one test into the 98 percentile, equating to a pre-1974 SAT combined score of 1250. (sources: numerous, including Google Answers: George W Bush's ACTUAL IQ).

[jackson33]

Craig; i accept the fact, you disagree with my opinions.

on communication skills; this of course has nothing to do with education, which by all standards is very well educated. Reagan, much lower on the academic scale, however was trained and was in fact very articulate.

on wealth; taking his word for belief in his god, tells me he could not. his meaner and lifestyle, also reflects some humble over all attitude.

[jackson33]

Buffy, i have read your reply, but have already answered most in previous post. as for treason; if any one mentioned delivered unauthorized US proposals from one government to another, then they are subject to discipline. the leaders of the house or senate are not authorized to give US foreign policy or give orders to field commanders even by implication. on abortion; guess your telling me 30,000,000+ ladies have faced death or complications if they proceed to a delivery. i have no conceivable reply to that notion...

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by jackson33

on wealth; taking his [George W Bush’s] word for belief in his god, tells me he could not. his meaner and lifestyle, also reflects some humble over all attitude.

According to this 2004 Slate article, George W Bush has a net worth between $6 and $27 million. While not unusually high or low for a national politician, it’s clear evidence that he has not followed Biblical admonitions to renounce wealth, such as Matthew 19:21-30.

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by CraigD

According to this 2004 Slate article, George W Bush has a net worth between $6 and $27 million. While not unusually high or low for a national politician, it’s clear evidence that he has not followed Biblical admonitions to renounce wealth, such as Matthew 19:21-30.

GWB, became part owner in a losing *Texas Ranger*, baseball organization which he paid about 600k for his share. worked hard and the organization thrived which he later sold for 15 million. i don't know the statistics for his little ranch, but property values in the Waco area have done nothing but go up for 20 years.

to my knowledge most church's request and their bibles expect a 10% tiding on earned income. i do not understand the principle of renouncing wealth, other than what come from direct service in some religions. a good many and well known church heads are very wealthy people....

using you own profile of GWB's education and qualifications, i suggest service to his country, was in fact a pay reduction. additionally, since religion goes to the family, his wife has worked in the educational field and maintains this interest to this day. she and/or he could have either done much better on the backs of the families they came from, but preferred serving first their state and now their country in such service.

you might want to argue with him or any number of other people, but giving me quotes from ancient writings, will get no response from me. my opinions of people are lined toward character as i perceive them. with this in mind and toward all that serve or participate in government at any level, regardless of party will receive a good many points.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by jackson33

my opinions of people are lined toward character as i perceive them. with this in mind and toward all that serve or participate in government at any level, regardless of party will receive a good many points.

After those two sentences, I would have to question your criteria for evaluating character.
To bring this back on topic, how would you rank the character of the three creationist Republican candidates, jackson?

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by freeztar

After those two sentences, I would have to question your criteria for evaluating character.
To bring this back on topic, how would you rank the character of the three creationist Republican candidates, jackson?

the point; to serve in the operation of government, is worthy of many points. for some reason, i have always been grateful to all that take the time. for a final decision or current, probably based on many things any other person does and agree in advance, based on my own....

i don't judge a person on being religious or not. how folks act, play the rules or in short be good social creatures are good things which do not require any particular or any religious foundation. even family or good parenting sometimes fails and often just plain life experiences cause problems. truly what we do not know of people, are foundations for or against their character. its a gut feeling call for any one to judge another's and i just have that gut feeling toward Mr. Bush.

so for all the R or D candidates, their view on creation means nothing to me, but to most in the US it has meaning. if i could know which are sincere, regardless of direction, i would value the most.

[freeztar]

fair enough...

Religion does not matter to me either. Evolution does though! Regardless of whether one dismisses evolution on religous grounds or otherwise, it lessens (if not obliterates) their credibility in my eyes. Likewise, I would be shocked if a politician openly dismissed gravity or cellular metabolism (they would not get my vote). It shows a sign of weakness imo.
Once beliefs are besieged by reason, then it is foolish to cling to such beliefs. I'd rather not have another fool heading up the country.