Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
User Journal

Journal dmorin's Journal: Bush and the Almighty 5

So yesterday on this conservative republican radio show I hear a bumper of Bush saying that "Freedom is not the United States' gift to the world, it's the Almighty's, and it's our job to see it accomplished" (although I am likely misquoting that last part).

Ummmm.....HOLY SHIT? How does that *not* make him a religious fucking psycho who is basically sending our troops to die in his own personal crusade?

It's one thing to not be a fan of Bush and look for reasons to slam him. But somebody dissect what exactly he meant by that sentence and how it could be anything other than bad? We don't have a single government mandated religion in this country. Therefore he can only possibly be speaking about his own interpretation according to his own belief in what God wants. If I grabbed 100 random people said "Excuse me, but does God want Iraq to be a democracy?" I'm sure I would not get 100 "Absolutely!" answers.

Bush then admits to taking the country in a direction based on that.

Isn't our government supposed to follow the will of the people, rather than the will of the voices in the president's head?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bush and the Almighty

Comments Filter:
  • Isn't our government supposed to follow the will of the people, rather than the will of the voices in the president's head?

    Out of a hundred people, how many need to feel that democracy is the right thing to do before it is right for Bush to create a democracy in Iraq? 100? 0? maybe 95? or how about 75? 60? of maybe 51?

    I get this feeling that liberals feel that if even 1 person disagrees with Bush it's wrong for Bush to make decisions. But if only a few people agree with a liberals position, then

    • This being a democracy, and Bush having been elected, I feel that is enough to say that Bush has the authority to run the country in the way that he believes he was elected to.

      Sure, fine, as long as it does not fundamentally contradict what the country is supposed to be based upon. Freedom of religion? Separation of church and state? I fully believe that plenty of leaders in the past have done what they do because of their religious beliefs. But what he comes right out and *says* that he is willing to

      • And by the way, I feel quite confident in saying that if a democrat had managed to win by the margin that Bush did, that every conservative in the country would be screaming that barely squeaking by does not constitute being representative of the whole.

        On the contrary, Clinton was elected both times with much less then 50% of the popular vote. I never heard liberals saying that he didn't have a right to make decisions on how he wanted to run the country, and also, I never ever heard conservatives questio

DISCLAIMER: Use of this advanced computing technology does not imply an endorsement of Western industrial civilization.