Blocking Bolton.
By on Sep 5th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Blocking Bolton.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote Thursday on John Bolton’s nomination as U.N. Ambassador; the nomination then moves to the full senate. BoltonWatch contributor Scott Paul says the commitee vote “is up in the air,” but that Bolton opponents “have the votes to prolong debate and block Bolton’s confirmation” in the full senate.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Did anyone bother watching Katie Couric’s first night on the job? Well, like the ladies at Newshounds, I did so you don’t have to. I may be the first day in Left Blogostan to post something about this but I’m tying this in to a contest that I’m also running. So head on over to Pottersville and read Gravitas to get the details.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:37 pmDo you have anything to say about Bolton’s upcoming nomination? We tend to give a crap about real news here.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:44 pmJust remember, the Republicans can pull their “nuclear option” and do a procedural maneuver to bypass cloture. They have the votes for that.
In the buildup for a war against Iran, I wouldn’t put this past them.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:01 pmTo recap:
Bolton’s views on the UN are hostile. He is known as a short-tempered martinet. He got poor reviews for his last job as undersecretary of state for arms control. For instance, Bolton was a skeptic of a US joint program to keep Russian nuclear fuel from reaching terrorists. The effort was tied up in legal minutiae during Bolton’s tenure, but soon after Bolton’s departure early in 2005, the logjam was broken and agreement with Russia reached.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:05 pmThe Washington Post reported that our allies so distrust Bolton on the sensitive negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program that they made sure to exclude him from high-level meetings in Washington last January.
More ominously, Bolton is suspected of using ultra-secret National Security Agency wiretaps to snoop on rivals in the intelligence and defense community. Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee led by Senator Joe Biden of Delaware demanded to know the names of people on whom Bolton requested wiretapped information. For anything but legitimate national security purposes, this use would violate US law. But the White House has stonewalled this request.
OT — sorry
September 5th, 2006 at 8:10 pmCatch Keith Olbermann on the replay later.
Pakistan is making deals with Taliban and agreeing to leave OBL alone if he promises to be good. Compare this to Bush’s “if you harbor a terrorist…”
The news came from ABC Brian Ross.
Also, KO has a good editorial chastising Bush and his distortion of history in his speech today.
Fineman talks about the name calling.
Terrorism analyst talks about the fallacy of the Bush statements and strategy.
All this in the first 20 minutes.
Bones — Great recap of Bolton.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:11 pmBrief summaries like that trigger a flood of valuable recall.
Yeah good recap, wonder how long it will before the trolls and “I’m several different people, honest” psychos arrive to espouse how it makes perfect sense to make a U.N ambassador out of someone who hates the U.N.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:22 pmYeah, can’t wait for all of the ‘The UN is redundant and unnecessary’ claptrap.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:25 pmWhen the official envoy for the United States is a snarlin’, vindictive grouch with no understanding for other cultures and an itchy trigger finger,…well, then you can always claim that diplomacy doesn’t work. Neoconservative fascism at it’s unsensitive best. You can put all of the lipstick on that walrus all you want, but you’re still going to have an ugly viscious walrus.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:27 pmJust remember, the Republicans can pull their “nuclear option†and do a procedural maneuver to bypass cloture. They have the votes for that.
In the buildup for a war against Iran, I wouldn’t put this past them.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — September 5, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
Dammit! I forgot about that, popped my bubble.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:28 pmNo pictures of Bolton here, though I saw one recently somewhere, and Johnny did get his hair and stache trimmed, he looked a year younger.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:29 pmIs there something the Dems can do to counteract the “nuclear option?” Filibuster before the Repubs can pull off the option? There must be something. Thanks for any answer to my questions.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:33 pm#9~
September 5th, 2006 at 9:03 pmAmbassader Bolton, not an envoy. My bad-just failed to appreciate his high moral office in the Boo$h Fifedom…won’t happen again.
midwest,
no, the way I understand it, it works on the “because I said so” principle. Republicans have the majority in the Senate, and VP Cheney is the President of the Senate.
The Democrats don’t even have enough members in the Senate to prevent a quorum like they did in the Texas legislature.
The legality of such a proceedural move is questionable, but since each house of Congress gets to make its own proceedural rules, it seems quite unlikely that the Courts will hear a challenge.
The real question is, are there enough Republicans with the stomach for such a move?
This move, if enacted, will achieve a short-term gain for the Republicans. But think about this: a minority party, with just a handfull of Senators, will then wield a tremendous amount of power in the Senate. If each of the major parties has 49 Senators, a third party with just two Senators will be able to dictate the outcome in every vote.
So, For Truth, there’s your bubble back.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:12 pmYeehaw! Bolton will CRUSH the enemies of America! Yeehaw. Anyone gets in his way and he will SMASH them!
Bolton eats raq meat and doesn’t drink FRENCH wine! He and the Israeli Ambassador get togther and play rock, paper scissors until their wrists BLEED!
Yeah, they make fun the Ambassdor from Syria–they call him SYRIAN BREAD! Ha!!!!
Rush said that Iran is more powerful than HITLER and you gay liberals want to just hold their hands and play patty cakes? They will eat live babies and chant their Koran stuff if you let them! Listen to Glenn Blech you FOOLS! We have to NUKE THEM!
-Tooly McTroll
September 5th, 2006 at 9:48 pmLet’s hope this holds. This is the first test of discipline that leads to recess, it will be good to build on next year. It also may prove useful if GOP eunuchs get trixie before January.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:00 pmAn ambassador to the UN that dislikes the UN and all it stands for…that just boggles my mind. But then Again I here that this was the best place for Bolton because there are many other despots like him there that want to bang their shoe on the desk.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:06 pmBolton is also still in government because no one wanted him as a lobbyist.
Ya know Bolton is starting to remind me of Billy Beer. =)
September 5th, 2006 at 10:09 pmJohn Bolton, a UN ambassador who wanted to blow up the UN.
Sort of like a Secretary of Education that wanted to abolish the Department of Education…In the name ofa bloated and gluttonous degenerate gambler, Dollar Bill Bennett.
-GSD
September 5th, 2006 at 10:09 pmJust remember, the Republicans can pull their “nuclear option†and do a procedural maneuver to bypass cloture. They have the votes for that.
I hope they do.. After nov. that little ‘option’ will bite them in the ass everytime the thugs try to fillibuster something
September 5th, 2006 at 10:16 pmFor what reason would Dems block Bolton? He’s too pushy? He’s too direct?
He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for pushing the Iranian nuclear situation in the UN, so why would Dems block him? The only reason I can see is that Dems want to weaken the US on the world stage by hamstringing the Presidents foreign policy any way they can. I can only hope that Dems once again engage activities that Reps can use to tar Dems as weak on security.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:29 pmNo pictures of Bolton here, though I saw one recently somewhere, and Johnny did get his hair and stache trimmed, he looked a year younger.
Comment by For Truth
Please Truth, don’t encourage them to put up a picture…
September 5th, 2006 at 10:38 pmHe was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for pushing the Iranian nuclear situation in the UN
Where’s the link? I heard Cindy Sheehan was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Does that mean she meets the Hendler test for UN Ambassador?
Jason, for someone who protrays himself as a well-to-do capitalist, you sure are paranoid on security issues.
From what I’ve read in the media, Iran thus far is acting totally within its rights as a State Party to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. As I said on a different thread, the UN inspectors got it right in Iraq. We got it wrong. And somehow we have to reform the UN?
Most of the world thinks America is a greater terrorist threat than Osama bin Laden. With good reason. Bush has killed far more than bin Laden can ever hope to. And you support such a policy?
You claim to be a Christian, what did Christ teach you?
September 5th, 2006 at 11:26 pmIt would be a miracle if the Senate Democrats had the balls to block Bolton from keeping his position in the UN > one can hope, but I will not hold my breath in anticipation!
September 6th, 2006 at 12:23 amBolton (per Bushco) thinks he can run the entire UN just by himself, Security Council included. Right now he’s the only one calling for sanctions against Iran. Guess everybody isn’t as afraid as we should be.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:28 amThe nuclear option isn’t really a threat here — it was at least superficially premised on the idea that judicial nominations were different from other nominations because of their constitutional stature. It would entail Cheney declaring a filibuster of a judicial nominee an unconstitutional interpretation of the Senate’s advise and consent role. A non-judicial nominee would be an even bigger stretch.
You can’t put it past them, but they haven’t laid the groundwork and haven’t given any signals that they would pursue it. Besides, they didn’t invoke it last year, when Dems did successfully filibuster Bolton.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:28 amI feel like Austin Powers, when he stares at the agent and all he can say is “mmmmmole. ” His moustache is mezmerising…. it blocks out all other thought and reason…
September 6th, 2006 at 1:57 am#28- DM- Sep. 6, 1:57 am. I think you may be on to something here… His MOUSTACHE blocks out all thought and reason. Which would explain it’s size. ;)
September 6th, 2006 at 3:08 amThere is no way that the Republicans will pull this ‘nuclear option’ stunt. The very real chance that it could then be used against them, and maybe sooner than they think, will hold them back. The power they had when this issue first came up no longer exists for them, and they know it. They won’t risk it, not for John Bolton.
Here we have Bolton making a misleading statement.
This man should not be confirmed.
==
Neocons Discredit Intel in Haste to Attack Iran
by Gareth Porter
In the struggle over U.S. policy toward Iran, neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration spoiling for an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites have been seeking to convince the public that the United States must strike before an Iranian nuclear weapons capability becomes inevitable.
In order to do so, they must discredit the intelligence community’s conclusions that Iran is still as many as 10 years away from being able to build a nuclear weapon and that such a weapon is not an inevitable consequence of its present uranium enrichment program.
Those findings were first circulated in a top-secret National Intelligence Estimate on Iran completed in May or June 2005, and could be a rallying point for Democrats and dissident Republicans inclined to oppose an attack on Iran. It has also inhibited the neoconservatives from being able to launch the kind of propaganda campaign against Iran they would prefer.
Before the 2005 estimate, neoconservatives in the administration had been free to issue alarmist warnings about impending Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons. John R. Bolton, now Washington’s ambassador to the UN and then the administration’s point man on weapons of mass destruction, declared in April 2004, “If we permit Iran’s deception to go on much longer, it will be too late. Iran will have nuclear weapons.”
The pro-war camp quickly tried to cast doubt on the new estimate, which made it more difficult for them to make such lurid claims. Asked about the estimate soon after it was issued, Robert G. Joseph, Bolton’s successor as undersecretary of state for arms control, cleverly dismissed it by saying: “I don’t know quite how to answer that because we don’t have perfect information or perfect understanding.”
September 6th, 2006 at 3:45 amHeres a great source of Info – I get the email everyday
Wednesday on Antiwar.com
http://antiwar.com
- US Blunders Help Political Islam
September 6th, 2006 at 4:16 am- Poll: Europeans See US as Threat to Global Stability
- War Backfiring on US, Khatami Says
- US Losing Control of Anbar Province
- Iraqi Parliament to Debate Federal Break-Up
- Pakistan Signs Pact With Pro-Taliban Militants
- Report: Taliban Taking Over Again
- NATO Troops Kill Up to 60 Taliban in Afghanistan
- Olmert Rejects Calls for War Inquiry
- Hezbollah: We’re Keeping Our Rockets
- Justin Raimondo: Pawns of the War Party
- Jeremy Brecher & Brendan Smith: Bush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act
- Gareth Porter: Neocons Discredit Intel in Haste to Attack Iran
- Sibel Edmonds and William Weaver: The 9/11 Commission: A Play on
Nothing in Three Acts
- Terence Samuel: Think Bush Will Pipe Down About Iraq? Think Again
- Eugene Robinson: Who Set the Wayback Machine for 1939?
- Norman Solomon: Spinning the Troop Levels in Iraq
- Ashraf Fahim: Bush’s Hezbollah Hangover
and much more
Bush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act
The US War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a felony to commit grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Washington Post recently reported that the Bush administration is quietly circulating draft legislation to eliminate crucial parts of the War Crimes Act. Observers on The Hill say the Administration plans to slip it through Congress this fall while there still is a guaranteed Republican majority–perhaps as part of the military appropriations bill, the proposals for Guantánamo tribunals or a new catch-all “anti-terrorism” package. Why are they doing it, and how can they be stopped?
September 6th, 2006 at 4:45 am#32 Oh yes heard of this; that’s just great isn’t it? The criminals are trying to rewrite the law so they’re not branded criminals anymore. Terrific. Great. There’s really no other reason to do that.
September 6th, 2006 at 4:54 amThe latest Maureen Dowd has been up for almost eight hours now. What’s taking you so long? It’s about Katie Couric, among other things.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:55 amBoy bolton sucks.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:00 amWhen the US did nothing, Al Quieda was emboldened to attempt greater and greater attacks against US assets, so saying that we shouldn’t be taking military action against them has been demonstrated to be ineffective. Right now, we have Al Quieda hiding in caves, and struggling to execute their plans. Because of this, Israel was able to slam Hezbollah, and now Syria is cooperating to stop arms smuggling to terrorists. Our actions are working – sitting around receiving blowjobs like Clinton only made matters worse.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:14 amJust read Maureen Dowd’s comments about Katie Couric. I am stunned that such a strident feminist like Dowd would be so harsh on Katie, but women are like that to other women (so much for feminism). I think Maureen is jealous that Katie has children, and she doesn’t.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:28 amJason
Who is Al Quieda? Did Al Yankovick change his name?
Do you really believe that the Republicans in Congress would have given Clinton ANY support if he tried to use the military to go after terrorists? “Wag the Dog” was not just the name of a movie – it was the mantra of the Republicans in the late 90’s.
Your “John Bolton was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize” argument has gotten VERY stale. So what if some idiot neocon with power to nominate (and there are many) did nominate Bolton? He did not win and did not deserve to because he has done nothing constructive or productive toward bringing peace to the world.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:36 amJason
September 6th, 2006 at 8:42 amA feminist does not find fault only with men or give undeserving praise to woman. That only happens in your chauvinistic cartoon world. A feminist looks at MERIT, not gender. You don’t “think” that Dowd is jealous of Couric’s parenthood, you try to promote your chauvinistic belief in that to support the rest of your male supremacy philosophy.
Jason – taking a pass on the questions in #24?
September 6th, 2006 at 9:00 amJason – taking a pass on the questions in #24? Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Probably just waiting for the play to come in from the coach. Your question was not in the scouting book so he had no set play to respond with.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:08 amBris,
Which question, there are several, all of which I assumed were rhetorical?
#39, PLC,
NO
Feminists do not look at MERIT, they look at METRIC and QUOTAS. They want their slice of the pie, and couldn’t care less whether or not women have earned it on MERIT.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:16 amAnd Israel is being investigated for international war crimes. Tell me, how is Israel’s overreaction to the kidnapping of two soldiers a good thing? Better yet, tell that to the relatives of the thousand or so Lebanese men, women, and children killed. Tell that to the people of northern Lebanon who saw death and destruction miles from where Hezbollah’s area of operation.
For a self-avowed Christian, your approval of indiscriminate killing is unfathomable. It seems to be ok, as long as it is not happening to Americans nor on American soil. You’re coming across as an extreme nationalist, cloaked in Christianity.
In fact, it sounds like this definition of a philosophy could apply to your espoused beliefs: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Sound familiar? It should. It’s fascism. And you wrap it up in Christianity, just as Hitler did.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:19 amJason just used the old bait and switch tactic. Notice it had absolutely nothing to do with Bolton.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:22 am41, PLC, you may be right…check out Jason’s response in 42!
Jason, I’ll make it easier on you. Just answer one question: You claim to be a Christian, what did Christ teach you?
September 6th, 2006 at 9:31 am#45, Bris,
Christ never met Sun Tsu ….
September 6th, 2006 at 10:08 amFeminists do not look at MERIT, they look at METRIC and QUOTAS. They want their slice of the pie, and couldn’t care less whether or not women have earned it on MERIT. Comment by Jason M. Hendler —
Are you a feminist, Jason? I am, my wife is, and most of my friends are. So, which of us is most likely to have a clearer picture of what feminism is about? You, as usual, are painting the world with the colors of your limited palette, trying to demonize those who do not share your views or philosophy and doing so in a pseudointellectual, quasiscientific, and circular reasoning fashion.
Answer the question from Briseadh na Faire – MY Christ taught me humility, compassion, peacemaking, justice, concern for the oppressed, and equality despite whatever “pigeon-holes” of human traits you carry. In other words, love. The actions you promote are far from loving.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:12 amI think Maureen is jealous that Katie has children, and she doesn’t.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Cuz god only knows a woman can’t be happy or fulfilled without the “gifts” a man could give her, right Jason?
I guess you know all about how feminists think, and what we want, being the expert you are on everything.
Single, as well as self-employed, eh Jason? Lots of time to keep those hands busy…
September 6th, 2006 at 10:15 amHi, Zooey
I just had a thought – Jason’s mother probably is jealous that she did not have any children, either. OK, bad PLC, bad.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:18 amPLC,
Something occurred to me as I read your comment.
I’ve always wondered how one could be female, and yet not be a feminist.
Thanks for your comment, you are, as always, a gentleman.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:18 amI just had a thought – Jason’s mother probably is jealous that she did not have any children, either. OK, bad PLC, bad.
Comment by PLC (PatrioticLiberalChristian)
None that lived, anyway.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:19 am#49, zoo,
I drew my conclusion from having read Maureen Dowd’s own words in her book “Are Men Necessary?”. Her recounts her mother’s pleas to change her attitudes / behaviours towards men, so that she would receive what she craved, the adoration / attention of a man and the children such a relationship would produce. Unfortunately, feminism doesn’t teach a woman how to do that, so she came up empty.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:20 amHave a great day, all. I’m off to the salt mines…
September 6th, 2006 at 10:20 amZoo,
Why do you always have this obsession with my sex life? Certainly a modern woman like yourself can occupy your mind with other thoughts.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:21 amSo, am I to infer that you claim to be a Christian, yet follow Sun Tsu, author of “The Art of War?”
September 6th, 2006 at 10:22 am“Are Men Necessary?â€
What you are missing, Jason, what you always miss, is that the answer to the question Maureen Dowd posed, is YES.
Go buy yourself a small battery operated applicance, Jason, I heard from a friend they work wonders…
September 6th, 2006 at 10:22 amZooey
Not always a gentleman – see #49
Actually, I don’t really like the term “feminist” and prefer “equalitarian”. Although it sounds stuffy, equalitarian is more encompassing and recognizes that neither gender should be limited by stereotypes and gender bias. If you can and want to, do it. I think the woman who are not feminists are afraid of this freedom and the responsibility for choice that comes with it.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:23 am#56, Bris,
I am Christian, and face down disciples of Sun Tsu, so I believe God will forgive my need to adapt the faith to meet this challenge.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:24 am#56, Zoo,
Yes, at the end of her book, based on the context, she was in fact trying to state that yes, men are necessary – I did get that. Unfortunately, that menapausal epiphany doesn’t undo 40+ years of resentment fostered within women against men.
I watched an old episode of Friends the other day, and have decided to point out that series to younger woman as an example of how women used to disregard / mistreat men, when feminism was at its peak. Basically, the mantra was to just keep thinking of men as little boys – that way, women can pursue their own interests without having to assume the responsibilities of real women.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:29 amJason,
You still have not answered Briseadh na Faire’s question – just posting little ditties to give you time to find someone else’s views to copy??
BTW, Christ’s Great Commission does not require or even ask you to “face down” anyone. “Adapt the faith”??? – oh, that’s funny – the fundamentalists will disown you.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:31 am#57, PLC,
OMFG!
Stay at home mom’s are weak, afraid, cowering women? Quite the contrary, they are taking on their ultimate and greatest responsibility – bearing and raising children and providing a good home for their family. I will never understand why feminists are so resentful of that important responsibility.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:31 amBolton is a bully.
Bullies, by their very nature, tend to be short on diplomatic skills.
I suspect that the U.S. would be better served with an ambassador who knows how to negotiate instead of just trying to bully the world. People tend to dislike bullies and eventually gang up on them.
About that awful moustache – do you suppose he’s compensating for something?
September 6th, 2006 at 10:33 amBasically, the mantra was to just keep thinking of men as little boys – that way, women can pursue their own interests without having to assume the responsibilities of real women. Comment by Jason M. Hendler
You still can’t get a date with a real woman, huh? Tired of those plastic ones, right? You might try being less condescending, patronizing, and arrogant.
Jason, you aren’t OLD ENOUGH to know how “feminists at their peak” treated men. “Feminists” is not a homogeneous group as you try to portray.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:36 am#60, PLC,
Curious, from where do you think man’s need for liberity spring? Our founding fathers stated it came from God and these unalienable rights were therefore self evident. You cannot attain God’s gift of liberity without facing down those who would oppress you.
Disciples of Sun Tsu take advantage of Christian’s peaceful approach to conflict, and will press until you push back, which they then claim is un-Christian. Damn right it isn’t, but it is necessary to maintain my liberity, which our founding fathers reasoned came from God.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:37 am#63, PLC,
Both you and Zoo just can’t take your mind off my sex life – common response when feminists meet a real man.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:39 amI’d like to block him. Put us on opposite kickoff special teams in an NFL game and let it rip!
September 6th, 2006 at 10:41 am#57, PLC, OMFG! Stay at home mom’s are weak, afraid, cowering women? Quite the contrary, they are taking on their ultimate and greatest responsibility – bearing and raising children and providing a good home for their family. I will never understand why feminists are so resentful of that important responsibility. Comment by Jason M. Hendler
You lying, distorting, miserable piece of crap!!! Never have I said stay at home moms (no apostrophe, bright boy) are anything but honorable. Both parents, mother and father, have incredible responsibilities. Quit projecting onto me and others what you WANT us to appear as so you can play Don Quixote and look like a knight in shining armor!
I am done with you on this topic – you have nothing sensible to offer.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:42 amIf I understand you correctly, you’re saying you can ignore the teachings of Christ, say, the Sermon on the Mount, for example, and “adapt the faith” to meet…whatever challenge you feel you need to meet? That means, what? if you don’t agree with the teachings of Christ on a particular matter, you don’t have to apply His word…you can just make up your own faith and still call yourself a Christian?
In otherwords, all you have to do is give lip-service to being a Christian and God will forgive all else?
You’re telling me you can ignore Christ’s teachings and still claim to be a Christian. I would like to know just how you can do that? Where does Christ say that?
Your doctrine of Christianity sounds a lot more like the philosophy espoused by Anton LaVey.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:43 amJason
Regarding “inalienable rights” – the founding fathers never identified “God” as the Judeo-Christian one and the “divine right” of individual freedom was a direct counter to the “divine right” of the rule of kings, as in King George’s rule over the colonies. It was a pursuasive tool.
You, on the other hand, are a useless tool.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:46 am#68, Bris,
If God can forgive Christian soldiers for their actions during war, then He will forgive me.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:50 amYou’re telling me you can ignore Christ’s teachings and still claim to be a Christian. I would like to know just how you can do that? Where does Christ say that?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — September 6, 2006 @ 10:43 am
Actually, in my continued learning of Jesus Christ, He stated the opposite, to beware of false prophets, who “mend” the truth to fit their needs.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:50 amWe call them PseudoChristians
#69, PLC,
Excellent observation / comment about “divine right” debates between patriots and loyalist. None the less, our founding fathers bore arms against the King, which enforced their right to liberity from their God.
Hate to say, but I am pretty certain that the founding fathers were indeed referring to the Judeo-Christian God, since that was the predominant diety of their culture.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:53 amBefore you say something like that, you should study history. The founding fathers were students of The Enlightenment. Their beliefs were more Deists than Judeo Christian. Jefferson wrote of Natures God. Franklin refered to the Father of Lights. Washington was a Deist, as too were Thomas Paine and James Madison.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:09 amI guess we can just delete this passage from the Bible:
After all, Christ must not known what he was talking about. Surely the people of Israel in His day had secured God’s gift of liberty? No? They were oppressed by the Romans? Well, then, Christ should have preached facing down the Romans! Christ got it wrong, according to Jason.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:26 amBriseadh na Faire
It’s fascinating that the fundamentalists do not realize that Christ spent most of his ministry “facing down” the hypocritical members of his own faith, the Jewish Pharisees and Sadduces, with their distortions of God’s commandments. Further, for me, there is no true “liberty” (which includes a very important state of mind component) is “freedom” is gained through atrocities such as torture, indiscriminate bombing, and the like.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:35 amPLC, I agree. The one time Christ went on a rampage, it was against the money changers…those who were perverting faith to make a profit.
Jason must have a difficult time typing with his foot in his mouth, haven’t heard from him since I corrected his views on the founding fathers….
September 6th, 2006 at 11:51 amJason must have a difficult time typing with his foot in his mouth, haven’t heard from him since I corrected his views on the founding fathers….
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — September 6, 2006 @ 11:51 am
Ohhhhh, I think he is posting as Roger Roger on another thread
September 6th, 2006 at 12:14 pmBris,
As I stated before, Jesus never dealt with Sun Tsu, in which tactics are subtle. It is easy for those to understand that it was right for America to fight Japan in WWII after they bombed Pearl Harbour, but today’s enemies completely erode one’s ability to fight before they attack. This means that one must aggressively confront those who use these subtle tactics and vigorously destroy them by any and all means, because that is what they intend to do to you.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:56 pmJason
OK, you’ve convinced me. Especially with your unAmerican spelling of Pearl Harbor. I promise to “aggressively confront” you whenever you “use these subtle tactics” and to “vigorously destroy” you by any and all means, because that is what” you “intend to do to” us. You’ve been warned.
You blasphemous fool! You say “Jesus never dealt with Sun Tsu”, which certainly suggests that He wouldn’t know how to do so, but YOU do! Jesus dealt with very subtle Jewish Pharisees, who like their modern “Christian Pharisee” counterparts offered themselves as gates to heaven, which they shut to anyone outside their tight circle.
If we make pre-emptive strikes our foreign policy – what limits are there? Such a policy could be used against a country for simply disagreeing with U.S. policy. BushCo has already made it clear that they are willing to use pre-emptive verbal attacks against its “enemies”, even if they are fellow American citizens. What stops them from going from “defensive” pre-emption to “offensive pre-emption” (i.e. imperialism)? NOTHING – except the checks and balances of citizens, which they are already eroding.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:09 pmThe theological implications of your assertion are revolutionary! This means that God never dealt with Sun Tzu, one of His creatures who walked on this earth some 1,400 years before He sent His son to walk among us!
Jason, your God has limits! He is not omniscient! The very foundation of the Biblical understanding of God and Christ is wrong, according to you.
Have you read the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey? If not, you should give it a read. I think you’ll find the religion in its pages is far more like what you espouse than what is written in the New Testament.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:36 pmHe was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for pushing the Iranian nuclear situation in the UN,
==
Anybody can be nominated, just as Bush once was. He did not however win a Nobel Peace Prize. Today he is a cheerleader for war, and wants to blow up the UN.
How is that peaceful Jason Schindler?
September 6th, 2006 at 1:56 pmRight now, we have Al Quieda hiding in caves, and struggling to execute their plans
September 6th, 2006 at 1:59 pm==
Wrong again Jason Schindler, Osama has been offered a home in Pakistan, the very same people Bush agreed to sell missiles.
Bush Waives Nuclear-Related Sanctions on India, Pakistan
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_10/sanctionsoct01.asp
==
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/05/tracking.terror/
SLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) — We could have been anywhere when the latest al Qaeda video hit the Internet because it was available worldwide on dozens of Web sites.
But it was most likely made within 200 miles of where we were.
Five years after 9/11, Pakistan appears to have replaced Afghanistan as the group’s center of gravity.
Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are widely believed to be in the more remote parts of this country. Two of the London subway bombers planned and trained for their mission here.
And al Qaeda’s production company, As Sahab, also apparently does much of its work in Pakistan.
The Pakistani government has cut a deal with the Taliban in Waziristan province that essentially allows the group to run its own affairs as long as it promises not to export terror across the border to Afghanistan
September 6th, 2006 at 2:03 pm==
Jason don’t you get tired of being wrong?
Now, I think, the new target will not be Iran, the neo-cons will shift their focus onto Pakistan, another one of Bushco’s pet projects.
The pattern is clear, make friends with country, arm that country, then make war against it for having arms or nuclear technology sanctioned by U.S.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:08 pmRemember that lebanon was also one of Bush’s ‘Democracies’ in the middle east.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:10 pm==
A year ago the jewels of President Bush’s democracy policy were the Cedar and Orange revolutions of Lebanon and Ukraine, which had ousted autocratic regimes …
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/30/AR2006073000547.html