George W. Bush

[SR540Beaver 116]

Rooster,

 

I'd submit that almost any president (even Carter or Ford) would have similar polling numbers under the current circumstances. Look at what Bush's numbers were before 9/11. They would most likely be the same now except for current events. Yes, he polls high when it concerns terrorism and national security. He is getting failing marks in the polls over the economy. The presidency is multi-faceted and one category alone does not indicate the overall. Take Bush Sr. He had tremendous support in his war effort in Desert Storm. A year or so later he was soundly beaten in the election. Why? The economy. I see a replay coming if Bush doesn't pay more attention at home. All of those jobless people will be free to go to the polls and stand in line to cast their vote for someone else.

 

BTW guys, Bush did not win the majority popular vote. He won the electoral college vote. Yeah, it was fait and sqaure by the rules, but there were more average Joe's that voted against him than for him.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Hops,

 

Regardless of what you think of Clinton's personal morals, he would have easily won a third term if the consitution allowed it. His overall polling numbers remained high from beginning to end even in light of all the scandel and controversy. He was a very popular president and history will treat him well, much to the dismay of the Republicans.

[KoreaScouter 13]

I live by two oaths, the one we repeat every week (which includes "duty to country") and the one in which I've sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States -- and have done so under six Commanders-in-Chief (Presidents to the civilians in the crowd). I've defended that Constitution in some fabulous places and circumstances, and in some awful ones.

 

I've enjoyed serving under the leadership of some Commanders-in-Chief more than others. However, I would never refer to any of them in the terms used to frame the "poll" that begins this thread. I thought there were rules of decorum here?!

 

I don't know what Yoshimi's status in the movement is, but I would call his attention to a few things that may get his compass needle back on bearing:

 

Citizenship in the World MB Requirements 1B, 2A, 2B, 3B, and 5B(2).

 

Citizenship in the Nation MB Requirements 1C, 2.

 

Citizenship in the Community MB Requirement 10.

 

Call me old-fashioned if you will, but I submit that making disparaging personal remarks about the President is no way to "...demonstrate good citizenship...".

 

KS

 

 

[Eagledad 2783]

With all do respect Yoshimi, this is the most un-scout-like post I've read on this forum. Free speech not with-standing, the Scout Law should be a minimum standard. Would you like a reference?

 

Barry

[Rooster7 11]

He was a very popular president and history will treat him well, much to the dismay of the Republicans.

 

And much to the dismay of those folks who believe it was wrong for a President to...

 

fire people from low level federal jobs because he didn't like their politics.

 

take potential evidence from the office of a high level official who committed "suicide".

 

commit adultery.

 

use his position to hide from inquiries concerning his financial dealings.

 

use the Lincoln bedroom as a bribe.

 

lie to cover up his many "indiscretions".

 

smear the reputations of others to protect his own.

 

use the oval office for sexual encounters.

 

pardon criminals for a buck and/or because they were related to his wife.

 

steal costly furniture and other artifacts from the White House and Air Force One.

 

justify his lying by lamely redefining words like "is" and "sex".

 

send U.S. troops in harms way to distract the public from the national embarrassment he created.

 

I'm sure there are countless other shameful acts that he's guilty of, but my memory can no longer recall them all. Just imagine - if he's not a complete dunce, there's probably a few things he didn't get caught doing.

 

Despite Jimmy Carter's many failing as a President, I understand why liberals like him. His heart, if not his brain, was definitely Presidential. I'll never understand why any liberal continues to publicly support a cheesy, despicable, and self-absorbed person such as the likes of Bill Clinton.

 

Yeah, Bill Clinton was a real honorable guy. If American history does treat him well, shame on us.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[SR540Beaver 116]

KS,

 

Thank you! There is nothing that irked me more than going to church and being asked to pray for our Republican Presidents.....but not for our Democrat Presidents. I used to get a political speech each Sunday in Sunday School. I found a different class to go to. The President is the President regardless of his party affiliation and our personal views.

[Rooster7 11]

I use to pray for Clinton. Unfortunately, I never saw him repent publicly for his behavior (aside from what seemed to be a political maneuver to control damage caused by his affair with Monica). I'll probably pray for him again. Regardless, whether I pray for him or not, his deeds, his words, and his attitudes are what they arethey're not worth defending - they ARE condemnable.

 

The President is the President regardless of his party affiliation and our personal views.

 

This is true. He's also a man. I respect the office of the Presidency - I don't necessarily respect the man who fills that position. And since Clinton left office, I have no inspiration to defend him whatsoever.

 

BTW, politics and religion are not mutually exclusive. Homosexuality, abortion, welfare, justice, racial equality, war, etc. - These are some of the major issues of the day. They're also covered in the Bible and addressed by many other faiths. If your church doesn't challenge the way you think politically, then they probably are not challenging you at all.

 

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

Rooster,

 

I first attended a Southern Baptist church when I was 2 weeks old. I became a Christian when I was 7. I'm now 45 and have attended Southern Baptist churches all of my life. The Southern Baptists are not a wing of the Republican party. When my Sunday School teacher made each lesson into a bash the Democrats and rah rah for the Republicans, I moved. Teach me the Bible and I'll decide my own politics in light of how the Holy Spirit leads me. I don't need a lesson in ideology. Sunday School classes contain people from all walks of life and political stripe, not just conservative politics.

[Rooster7 11]

Sunday School classes contain people from all walks of life and political stripe...

 

Yes, but not all "walks of life" and/or "political stripes" are Christ-like. I'm not condemning Democrats or cheering for Republicans. I'm just saying - issues such as abortion can and should be discussed in Sunday school. Furthermore, it shouldn't be approached from - "What do you think?" The Bible has something to say about all of these things and a good church will teach those things unashamedly. Whether or not that was happening in your old Sunday school class, I couldn't say - I wasn't there.

 

But as always, I digress.

[acco40 95]

kwc57,

 

You are lucky. I got my Republican diatribe every day by my high school calculus teacher. I did not have the option of moving (being only 17).

 

Rooster,

 

Yes it is very difficult to separate politics from morals/ethics/religion. But when churches get tax exempt status from the government and then organize highly political efforts to influence legislation I get a little queasy.

[RobK 10]

In response to several issues raised:

 

Politics are the application of religion/morals/ethics. If your religous beliefs don't determine your political beliefs, then you're a hypocrite.

 

I would also remind those that point out that our president didn't receive a majority of the popular vote, neither did Bill Clinton. Bush got a larger percentage of the popular vote in the 2000 election than Clinton did in either of his elections. Clinton won both elections because the conservative vote was split, not because the majority of Americans wanted him.

 

acco40: But when churches get tax exempt status from the government and then organize highly political efforts to influence legislation I get a little queasy.

 

It's interesting to note that the only churches that get away with this advocate liberal positions.

 

As to this poll, it's rather like asking a woman if she's stopped beating her wife...

[SR540Beaver 116]

"Politics are the application of religion/morals/ethics. If your religous beliefs don't determine your political beliefs, then you're a hypocrite."

 

RobK, Correct, but I'll let my Bible study, my personal relationship with the Lord and the leading of His Holy Spirit guide me in determining my political views. I don't need a political speech in place of a Sunday School Bible lesson to do my critical thinking for me.

 

"It's interesting to note that the only churches that get away with this advocate liberal positions."

 

Hmmm, ever hear of the "Religious Right"? To my knowledge, there isn't a movement referred to as the "Religious Left" that is courted by apolitical party.

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

 

"send U.S. troops in harms way to distract the public from the national embarrassment he created."

 

Rooster,

 

You might want to read this article from a conservative website that supports your view.

 

American-Made Terrorists - October 12, 1998

 

The Presidents ill-advised missile strikes on supposed terrorist bases have inspired radical Islamic factions to a renewed and intense hatred of the United States.

 

http://thenewamerican.com/tna/1998/vo14no21/vo14no21_terrorists.htm

 

Seems that when Clinton took a hard stand against Iraq and Bin Laden back in 1998, the conservatives were howling that it was a diversion from his other problems and that his actions would incite further terrorism. Oddly enough, there is some deja vu going on here. Bush takes a hard stand against both and the liberals are howling that it is a diversion from his failing domestic policies and that he will just incite more terrorism.

 

It seems that what goes round, comes round.

 

Clinton was accused of putting our fighting boys in harms way to distract the public. Let's see, based on intelligence by the same agencies supplying Bush, he determined that Saddam was out of compliance with UN resolutions and that Bin Laden was training terrorists in Afganistan. He ordered military strikes against them. He was scoffed at and dismissed. He was told he would stir up more trouble and put our nation at risk. His justification was questioned. Perhaps old Bill was onto something that Bush had to learn the hard way. But of course, the conservatives were correct to question the President and be dismissive. Nowadays, that gets you labeled as unpatriotic and un-American.

 

Current events just prove that history is destined to repeat itself when you don't learn from it.

 

 

 

 

"lie to cover up his many "indiscretions"."

 

FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

 

Rooster,

 

Need I remind you of how the President of Presidents, Ronald Reagan and company lied, stole and cheated behind the nations back to further their own personal views. It is all in the official report listed above if you care to reread a little history.

 

Oliver North was a disgrace to his uniform and would have gone to prison if the government had'nt slipped up and gave him immunity for his testimony to Congress. He is still held up by conservatives as a paragon of virtue. Heck, FoxNews even gave him his own show.

 

You see Rooster, there is plenty of blame to go around......regardless of the political party or person involved.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. But don't pretend that it is all one sided.

[hops_scout 9]

You realize that Clinton could send troop into Somalia (Black Hawk Down) but the very next day pulled them right out? It was important enough for 12 or 19 men to be killed, at least one tortured there, but not important enough to finish the job. If Bush sends troops in, the job will be done with as little casualties as possible. Everybody knows that a war will have men killed, but they make a big deal out of it being the president's fault for sending them in. BTW, why are we discussing this??? What does this have to do with scouts????

[firstpusk 10]

hops_scout,

 

The name of this forum is Issues & Politics. Kind of a free for all for issues that may or may not be directly related to scouts. I would suggest that the strong emphasis on citizenship in scouting would provide more than enough justification for these discussions. If you don't approve of the discussion, don't get involved.