DIviders, not Uniters
Friday, June 24th, 2005 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
basildestinyYou all may recall last year about this time, I was gearing up for the 2004 election. I signed up on the John Kerry website and worked really hard to promote the man that I felt was best suited for the job. I have since changed my mind and gone from a staunch Democrat to not being one. It was brought to my attention that I wasn't voting with my morals and ethics. And when I looked at my reasons for wanting to be a Democrat, it wasn't because I felt that side was right. It was because I didn't like what the other side was doing. I had taken a "them vs us" attitude and was determined to bring about some change. So I re-evaluated what was important to me. When I did that, I realized that I sided with the President. I didn't think he was a saint, but I felt he was closer to what I believed than John Kerry. At the very least, he did what he said. I could count on him to say something and do it.
That being said, I got an email this morning from John Kerry. I'm still signed up through his website. I've heard that someone even called from his campaign thanking me for my support. I wasn't at home to receive this phone call. But back to my point, the email today was entitled "Dividers, not Uniters" and spoke about how this White House was dividing the nation. Today's division was being lead by Karl Rove who classified conservatives and liberals as such: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. This statement does not seem unfair or untrue to me today. I can understand what Karl Rove meant and true, he didn't use maybe the best phrasing. In honesty, as John Kerry says, we all united together after the attacks and were all Americans. However, 4 years later, this is what we have, exactly what Karl Rove said. And he said it nicely. He could have used harsher language to describe liberals if his goal was to divide the nation. Perhaps it was his goal, but John Kerry didn't quote the entire speech. Just quoted that part in particular to illustrate his point and I do not believe his point is illustrated.
But John Kerry takes it a step further. And says that our reaction to this should be a letter to the President requesting (if you really think that John Kerry would be satisfied with a no because it was only a request) that the President renounce Rove's claims. Then he took a step further by giving a speech in front of the Senate calling for Karl Rove's resignation. But that wasn't really what he said. He actually called for President Bush to fire Rove. Let me just ask the question that is the big pink elephant in the room for me. How is firing Rove going to unite the country? How is demanding the President renounce Rove's claims going to unite the country? Does John Kerry have any plans or ideas in mind that would unite the country?
The reasonable thing to do would be to say that Karl Rove may have used incorrect phrasing. Of course, he didn't mean ALL liberals and ALL conservatives see things this way. And it certainly wasn't anyone's initial reaction. But if you really don't think the nation is not divided something even vaguely along those lines, I challenge you to turn on the news or pick up a paper or go to a news website and see if you still feel that way.
The President certainly isn't a saint, but does he divide anymore than John Kerry?
~Bas
PS Was that any less of a collosal waste of time than Congressman Kurt Weldon's speech in front of Congress two days ago? Here is an excerpt. He was upset that he was banned from the Factor for life because he didn't call and let anyone know he wasn't going to make it and in fact the Factor had received an email saying he was 15 minutes away. It turns out that his staff had made a mistake. But instead leaving it at that, the people paid for this to be put on the Record.
Talk about spin, Mr. Speaker. So today, I sent a memo to Mr. O'Reilly explaining the facts. Now I would remind Mr. O'Reilly that the Secretary of Energy, an important meeting on nuclear issues in the former Soviet states, takes my top priority.
So Mr. Speaker, for the record, because I had some contacts from constituents or other members, I would put the summary of my statement to Mr. O'Reilly and the notes of my staff about their contact with Mr. O'Reilly's show in to the Congressional Record.
Such an over reaction.
That being said, I got an email this morning from John Kerry. I'm still signed up through his website. I've heard that someone even called from his campaign thanking me for my support. I wasn't at home to receive this phone call. But back to my point, the email today was entitled "Dividers, not Uniters" and spoke about how this White House was dividing the nation. Today's division was being lead by Karl Rove who classified conservatives and liberals as such: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. This statement does not seem unfair or untrue to me today. I can understand what Karl Rove meant and true, he didn't use maybe the best phrasing. In honesty, as John Kerry says, we all united together after the attacks and were all Americans. However, 4 years later, this is what we have, exactly what Karl Rove said. And he said it nicely. He could have used harsher language to describe liberals if his goal was to divide the nation. Perhaps it was his goal, but John Kerry didn't quote the entire speech. Just quoted that part in particular to illustrate his point and I do not believe his point is illustrated.
But John Kerry takes it a step further. And says that our reaction to this should be a letter to the President requesting (if you really think that John Kerry would be satisfied with a no because it was only a request) that the President renounce Rove's claims. Then he took a step further by giving a speech in front of the Senate calling for Karl Rove's resignation. But that wasn't really what he said. He actually called for President Bush to fire Rove. Let me just ask the question that is the big pink elephant in the room for me. How is firing Rove going to unite the country? How is demanding the President renounce Rove's claims going to unite the country? Does John Kerry have any plans or ideas in mind that would unite the country?
The reasonable thing to do would be to say that Karl Rove may have used incorrect phrasing. Of course, he didn't mean ALL liberals and ALL conservatives see things this way. And it certainly wasn't anyone's initial reaction. But if you really don't think the nation is not divided something even vaguely along those lines, I challenge you to turn on the news or pick up a paper or go to a news website and see if you still feel that way.
The President certainly isn't a saint, but does he divide anymore than John Kerry?
~Bas
PS Was that any less of a collosal waste of time than Congressman Kurt Weldon's speech in front of Congress two days ago? Here is an excerpt. He was upset that he was banned from the Factor for life because he didn't call and let anyone know he wasn't going to make it and in fact the Factor had received an email saying he was 15 minutes away. It turns out that his staff had made a mistake. But instead leaving it at that, the people paid for this to be put on the Record.
Talk about spin, Mr. Speaker. So today, I sent a memo to Mr. O'Reilly explaining the facts. Now I would remind Mr. O'Reilly that the Secretary of Energy, an important meeting on nuclear issues in the former Soviet states, takes my top priority.
So Mr. Speaker, for the record, because I had some contacts from constituents or other members, I would put the summary of my statement to Mr. O'Reilly and the notes of my staff about their contact with Mr. O'Reilly's show in to the Congressional Record.
Such an over reaction.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
Date: 2005-06-27 12:21 am (UTC)If our country wasn't founded on Christian beliefs, then why are we removing them?
As her soon to be husband it is my duty to defend her honor. When you speak about her in a disrespectful way be ready for me to be her "Official Spokesperson."
And as you saw from her other posts, she forms her own opinons about things. Thats why I love her, intelligent. She thinks and prays instead of blindly following worldly views. A strong Christian Women.
Also she has chosen to "parrot" God, not me.
Althought I don't agree with your stances I still value your opinion, specialy when the are not self indulgent.
I really hate that you could not still be friends with Janina, she is a wonderful person and a blessing to be around. I am really concerned about you, you seem to be very intolerent of Christian Beliefs. I am sorry if someone called themself a Christian and did something bad towards you. I feel allot of Hate coming from you. For that I also am sorry you were mistreated. I really hope you change for the better.
Thanks,
Matt
Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
Date: 2005-06-27 04:39 am (UTC)Thomas Paine, what role did he play as a founding father?
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/paine.html
After American independence had been won, Paine played no part in the establishment of the new republic. Instead, he busied himself trying to invent a smokeless candle and devising an iron bridge.
As for his book, Age of Reason. Its his explanation of worship and God. I would therefore point out that this gentlemen may had certian view points that initated people revolting the kings power in france, he did not have any role in establishing the United States, I would also point out that he isn't a founding father. Just another lost man trying to make his own rules.
And I do want to apologize for one thing I thought you were calling Janina a dog therefore I wasn't going to let that happen. She explained to me that its something she said about herself.
And one more thing, to be honest I don't trust your intentions that you had with Janina when you new her. I guess it could be that I am not sure of your moral basis on views like sex and the promise of marriage. I also apologize for calling you age 40, as I was guessing.
The reason its a problem is that she is going to look at you as a friend, but most men your age, that don't have any moral foundation are looking for more than just friendship. But then again I could be wrong. Although I already know the truth in this matter.
Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
Date: 2005-06-27 07:53 pm (UTC)http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm
The early founding fathers hated the Catholic Church. For good reason. I agree in our first amendment. To be Christian also meant to be Catholic before the US was made. Later on serveal of our founding fathers helped start and establish different types of christian churches thats where you have different denominations of Christians.
I really hope you will read that site above. Its really great because it shows you how much people change from baby Christians (founding fathers started out) to mature Christians (establishing the US).
I know years ago I could have been proubly been classified as a Deist. I was running from Jesus teachings. I know I would hate to be quoted and remebered for the stupid stuff I have said.
Oh and btw it really hurts me that you honestly believe Thomas Paine's quote "What is is the Bible teaches us?" - Honestly if he was so smart why would he say that. He knows that the bible is also a historcal document and that women were being raped, murdered before the bible was even written. Sounds to me like he really has a grudge.(btw he didn't help, to say because his book was published that he owned the idea is ridiculus and a stretch of the truth.)
In fact if it wasn't for the sins above.. why would we need a bible, we would still be in the Garden of Eden talking to God in person.
But hey thats why this country is still great, free speech. I may disagree with you, but we are both entitled.
Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
Date: 2005-06-27 08:05 pm (UTC)So Thomas Jefferson was a christian but I have no idea of the denomination.
"doctrines of Jesus are simple and tend all to the happiness of man." -Thomas Jefferson
I agree with is statment, I don't remember calling Thomas Jefferson sad, I did say he is misquoted all the time.
I am taking all the info , Deist, Christian, everything. And per the Declaration of Independence, our laws, they were all based on Judea Christian belief.
Only problem is if you weren't Catholic, then you were Deist.. there wasn't a Baptist or Methodist ect.
Orthodox Christians are catholic, and they have tons of dos and don'ts that not really biblical in nature.
I am pretty sure that you are not going to read my comments with an open mind, we are pretty hard headed.
Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
Date: 2005-06-27 08:15 pm (UTC)Thats what I am reading.. I hope that has your seal of approval, its the entire Jefferson Bible and its in its order. I would also ask you to read it also.
He may not have the exact Christian beliefs I have, but I think it would be a good book to read. If he truly is a Deist whats it going to hurt?
Re: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson
Date: 2005-06-30 11:44 am (UTC)