Republican or democratic, what I really want is a president who knows the value of surrounding him or herself with the most intelligent people who dissent from the president's opinion, versus a president who thinks God has told him the "Right" answer to there's no need to question and probe.
Unless Romney has been lying, which is possible (he seems to be a VERY political animal, saying whatever people want to hear), I would say that he's less prone to follow God's inspiration and ignore smart folks who happen to disagree with what God just whispered in his ear than Huckabee. But I'm banking on Romney being a somewhat liberal Mormon as some of his comments make him seem.
This is what scares me; people who get their views of politics from MoveOn.org and the mainstream media Sunday talking head shows.
Frankly, I'd much rather have a President who can and does seek God's counsel in serious matters.
The "smart folks"? May God help us...
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Quote: Republican or democratic, what I really want is a president who knows the value of surrounding him or herself with the most intelligent people who dissent from the president's opinion, versus a president who thinks God has told him the "Right" answer to there's no need to question and probe.
Unless Romney has been lying, which is possible (he seems to be a VERY political animal, saying whatever people want to hear), I would say that he's less prone to follow God's inspiration and ignore smart folks who happen to disagree with what God just whispered in his ear than Huckabee. But I'm banking on Romney being a somewhat liberal Mormon as some of his comments make him seem.
This is what scares me; people who get their views of politics from MoveOn.org and the mainstream media Sunday talking head shows. Frankly, I'd much rather have a President who can and does seek God's counsel in serious matters.
The "smart folks"? May God help us...
In the world according to coggins there are two options:
1 - a president who is advised by moveon.org and "mainstream media" Sunday talking head shows and
2- A president that seeks God's counsel.
God can't even speak clearly enough to lead his "own" church, for heaven's sake, much less whisper in the ear of some politician.
Like it or not, there are very intelligent folks on EITHER side of the aisle who can provide insight and probing to a president A president who surrounds himself with yes men is a bad leader. Period. But a president who surrounds himself with yes men AND is dead certain that God told him what to do is even worse.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
In the world according to coggins there are two options:
1 - a president who is advised by moveon.org and "mainstream media" Sunday talking head shows and
2- A president that seeks God's counsel.
God can't even speak clearly enough to lead his "own" church, for heaven's sake, much less whisper in the ear of some politician.
Like it or not, there are very intelligent folks on EITHER side of the aisle who can provide insight and probing to a president A president who surrounds himself with yes men is a bad leader. Period. But a president who surrounds himself with yes men AND is dead certain that God told him what to do is even worse.
Since I see not a shred of evidence that George Bush is that kind of individual, or his advisors those kinds of individuals, your criticism is a vacuous waste of breath. This idea comes to us straight from groups like MoveOn.org, Democratic Underground, the Kos kids, and other assorted fringe groups that have become the base of the Democratic Party.
Like it or not, you are known by the company you keep.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Since I see not a shred of evidence that George Bush is that kind of individual, or his advisors those kinds of individuals, your criticism is a vacuous waste of breath. This idea comes to us straight from groups like MoveOn.org, Democratic Underground, the Kos kids, and other assorted fringe groups that have become the base of the Democratic Party.
Like it or not, you are known by the company you keep.
Then I fervently hope that no one has seen me talking to you.
by the way, I don't visit any of the sites you referred to, but one doesn't have to to learn that, for one example, Bush decided to go to war with Iraq probably even before his election, and didn't seem to seek out contrary opinions on that particular matter.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Coggins7 wrote:Since I see not a shred of evidence that George Bush is that kind of individual, or his advisors those kinds of individuals, your criticism is a vacuous waste of breath.
Big deal. Who the hell cares what you see? Your opinion is as useless as anyone else's (that means your opinion is a vacuous waste of breath, to quote your favorite person).
by the way, I don't visit any of the sites you referred to, but one doesn't have to to learn that, for one example, Bush decided to go to war with Iraq probably even before his election, and didn't seem to seek out contrary opinions on that particular matter.
If you'd like to substantiate that with some documentation or evidence, then we can talk about it. Even if true (which is odd as he couldn't have known he was going to win), the argument is moot, since we had already been in a continuous state of open warfare with Saddam since 1990. Bill Clinton was ready, at at least according to his rhetoric, to go in the late 1990s, as was much of the Democratic leadership. Then Bush became President, and suddenly, it became a really bad idea.
Isn't it strange how these things work?
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
If you'd like to substantiate that with some documentation or evidence, then we can talk about it. Even if true (which is odd as he couldn't have known he was going to win), the argument is moot, since we had already been in a continuous state of open warfare with Saddam since 1990. Bill Clinton was ready, at at least according to his rhetoric, to go in the late 1990s, as was much of the Democratic leadership. Then Bush became President, and suddenly, it became a really bad idea.
Isn't it strange how these things work?
No, it isn't strange at all that you challenge me for documentation, and then in the next breath, insist it wouldn't even matter at all.
And no, I wasn't seriously wanting to "talk" to you about it. "Talking" to you about it would be akin to trying to "talk" to a blaring radio, permanently stuck on rush limbaugh, or some such right winger polemist. Not interested.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Coggins7 wrote: Bill Clinton was ready, at at least according to his rhetoric, to go in the late 1990s, as was much of the Democratic leadership. Then Bush became President, and suddenly, it became a really bad idea.
Isn't it strange how these things work?
And yet who routinely criticized Clinton and railed on him with the Powell Doctrine? Oooo, those wascally Republicans and their adherence to that doctrine sure did float outta the window when their man entered the picture, eh? Recall wag the dog? Clinton was put on a tight leash and all military action was condemned on a routine basis by Republicans. Such double standards.