What George Bush Taught Us

[Gary Freedman]

I have a Facebook friend who asked me for an argument to rebut Rebublican claims that "the government screws up everything it gets involved in." Here's what I wrote in response:

There's nothing you can say to a Republican to convince him or her of anything. I wouldn't try. My father used to say, "Never argue with a Communist. You'll never win. They have a prefabricated argument to rebut anything you say." I think the best argument against Communism is the Soviet regime in Russia, which constituted 70 wasted years. I think the best argument against Republicans is--and will always remain--the presidency of George W. Bush, which were eight wasted years. If the presidency of George Bush doesn't convince Republicans that their ideas are defective, what will?

[Judi]

Jean Cyr stated: "This presumes that a person with 'enough character and fortitude' would agree it is a nation worth preserving." That would be a correct statement.

Gary Freedman stated: "Ramming the words "one nation under God" down everybody's throats in the Pledge of Allegiance -- isn't that a case of government intervening in all aspects of our national life?" Well, Gary (remind me of the cookies I promised to bake for you after this, ok? lol), my belief is that if someone has the ability to shove, cram, push or pour anything into another person's mouth, then that mouth probably should have been shut, dontcha think? ;-)

Secondly, whether one believes in God or not, we are "one nation", correct? And God is sovereign, so that kind of puts Him over everything, whether one believes in Him or not. So, we are truly "one nation under God". I think it's the decline in "liberty and justice for all" that's at the heart of the citizens' ire being kindled. We tend to always focus on the wrong things in these discussions.

What did George Bush teach us? We generally don't have a good sense of humor, we are quick to judgment without all the facts, even idiots can become Presidents, and that we have very few conservative leaders left in our country (at least ones that can maintain integrity, truthfulness, and objectivity and still be in a political office).

Obama teaches us that we are ALL sheep and all capable of being hood-winked and manipulated. Oh, but this is another liberal thread about Bush . . . carry on, then . . .

[Gary Freedman]

"'one nation under GOD.' So, here we are again 233 years later at a point of "splitting" asunder the "bonds that have made us a nation" again along idealogical lines of the role of governance; which also are largely drawn along the lines of economic and social constructs. The real question now, that we have bannished GOD and have allowed government to gradually intervene in all aspects of economics"

Ramming the words "one nation under God" down everybody's throats in the Pledge of Allegiance -- isn't that a case of government intervening in all aspects of our national life?

[Gary Freedman]

I notice no Republicans are defending George Bush. I proved my point.

[Alendar]

The presidency of George Bush convinced me that George Bush had some issues. Obama is convincing me that Obama has some issues. Why must a president = a party?

[Sarge!]

I believe it was a liberal who stated, " anything repeated often enough over a period of time eventually is viewed as fact." Witness the Al Gore foolishness of global warming and his huge house that uses up vast quantities of energy. Yet it's the Republicans who are to blame for everything...? LOL that's laughable....

[Cocoandme]

I'm glad you think Republicans have a prefab argument for everything you say. I have thought the same looking in the other direction.

[Keith J. Oldknow]

Abraham Lincoln was known to say that, in regard to the "Civil" War (oxymoron), that "A house divided against itself can not stand". This reference was to point out that the two faction's in the country aligned against each other would not sustain the "United States of America" but present a very real threat that the nation would split against itself primarily along the economics institutions of the day, though the issue of slavery was the moral platform which divided the nation due to the consititutional proclaimation " all people are created equal endowed by it's creator by certain inalliable rights; amoung these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", though the original draft said the "right of property" which would create all kinds of proproblem's with the British claim to the U.S. as it's "property" and later on "slaves" as the property of the plantation owners. It was the role of economics and the moral conviction of individuals that eventually prevailed to keep this nation "one nation under GOD." So, here we are again 233 years later at a point of "splitting" asunder the "bonds that have made us a nation" again along idealogical lines of the role of governance; which also are largely drawn along the lines of economic and social constructs. The real question now, that we have bannished GOD and have allowed government to gradually intervene in all aspects of economics, is whether we, as a nation, have enough individual character and fortitude to draw upon to "bind us together to preserve us a nation".

[Slayer Dug]

!LOL!

[Slayer Dug]

"If the presidency of George Bush doesn't convince Republicans that their ideas are defective, what will?"

I venture a guess that the "collective" will of the Tee Bee Dee liberals will at least give it a try.