Bush's Final Hour Means Destruction of Rights and Programs

---

PS December 1, 2008 8:45 am (Pacific time)

HR I respectfully disagree that Obama has a mandate, especially compared to past winning margins that included one president who won 49 states, whom I believe you do not feel he had a mandate, even with a winning margin nearly 5 times greater than Obama's. As far as this country not being ideologically center right, let's look at the black vote. They voted for Obama in excess of 94%, but in California they demonstrated quite clearly that they are "culturally conservative" by voting for Prop. 8 by a 70 to 30 margin. In addition approximately 60% of caucasians (whites account for around 70% of entire national vote) rejected Obama's candidacy. These two above stats tell us at least two things: 1)Obama has no clear mandate, and 2) these wide-ranging numbers are what we call "statistically significant", which also points out that any notion of an Obama mandate or that we are anything but a nation of cultural conservatives is nonsensical. Next spring we shall see how thing are developing, but by next year at this time we shall definitely be able to predict the 2010 election outcomes (minus fraud of course), in my opinion.

---

Kramer November 30, 2008 12:49 pm (Pacific time)

It was Schumer not Gramm who pushed for policies that has caused this financial mess. Just look at the people Clinton appointed to the boards of both Fannie and Freddie Mac (including Rahm Emannuel, Obama's Chief of Staff and former member of Israeli military). These were the organizations that kneeled to different community organizers and began the subprime loans under the threat of being called something rather negative if they didn't back up and purchase those loans. This is all public record and honest credible people who understand even elementary economic theory know that this fiasco began on Clinton's watch and was advanced by people like Schumer and Barney Frank, and they will continue to get us in deeper unless Obama let's some non-partisan professionals to take charge. The winning margin by Obama was really not that big compared to many elections since Nixon 1968 (approx. 59 million voted against Obama, approx. 65% were white), he hardly has a mandate. I would venture to say that if McCain got the same percentage of white votes that Obama got with black votes, would some of you call whites racist? If yes, then how about blacks who voted at approx. 95% for Obama ? The country is still center right as per our ideology. Many conservatives voted against McCain, so we shall see in the next election how this trend works. There have always been big swings between demos and repubs. I realize some people prefer to ignore the historical record, but it's there to the chagrin of it's detractors.

---

Henry Ruark November 29, 2008 2:02 pm (Pacific time)

To all: PS wrote: "I do not consider all of them bigots nor the caucasians and other racial/ethnic groups that voted against Obama...just more rational." Last four words clearly are only personal interpretation of statements here as negative and implying racism, when in fact they reported and repeated precise, accurate, principled information from national sources, making the point of huge mandate for Obama. Happens one quote-cited, very long and detailed, came from TIME, one of 23 sources checked prior to use of the description "mandate". That issue became such a bestseller TIME has reprinted many thousands more. None of that was sufficient to offset obvious bias and drive to political/pander by you SO here's another quote re mandate from another national source, this time THE NEW YORKER, noted writer Hendrik Herzberg, in 11/17/08 issue: "...Obama won, and won big. Democrats have now achieved pluralities in four of the last five Presidential elections. But Obama's popular vote was an outright majority--a little more than fifty-two percent...the largest share for a nominee of his party since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Obama made significant gains compared with John Kerry, four years ago,in nearly every category that exit polls record...His gains were especially striking among Latinos, the very poor and the very well-off, Catholics and the unchurched...young people and the parents of children living at home. Emphatically,comprehensively, the public has turned against conservatism at home and neoconservatism abroad. ----------- That, sir is A HUGE MANDATE. Any further denial, even without rebutting content analysis, is simply, surely, without further doubt, your denial-of-reality showing, no matter how wrapped in more irrelevancies re any group or any new theory re FDR-failing. Don't look now, too painful perhaps, but your credibility for truthful report here is in tatters, remnants, wrecked --precisely like the GOP via neocon nonentity and malign policy misbehaviors. Sorry, sir, but you shot off your own peccadillo or whatever you wish to label it.

---

Henry Ruark November 29, 2008 7:51 am (Pacific time)

To all: EOC wrote: "How or why you consider it a moral defect for a president's administration to take on a cause for several years is beyond me." That's what triggered mine re PNAC. Either he knows about that one OR he does NOT. IF he does, hypocrisy is then well demonstrated. IF he does NOT, then he surely speaketh from ignorance, which should drive stake through his ..er..."credibilities". Pervasive political pandering becomes addictive drug, leads too many to obsessive behavior with some even coding words to bring on violence, including that bad-word "assassination. History clearly shows that, too, is recurring pattern.

---

Henry Ruark November 29, 2008 7:44 am (Pacific time)

EOC: Why the continued impassioned defense of Bush, when you state "he is not my hero" ? Yours re other agencies and Bush "STARTED" your obsessed one reflects your wipe-out of Project For a New American Century by his colleages on cabal, which is root of Iraq War. How do you stand on PNAC leading to more than 4,000 dead and more dying, more than THREE TRILLION costs so far and rising ? Did you even know about that one ? If not, you are surely MISinformed. IF YES, you can answer your feelings re that desperately deadly design on U.S. democracy as huge builder of world hegemony. Then there's "the Washington consensus" and its impacts on globalization, too. How do you stand on that ? OR did you ever hear of it and learn what it has done ? If you did, how does it fit into your current obsession ? Help to hide it and create denial ? I.e., should such perps be allowed to fade into the easy life after allathat ? How do you stand on major issue of proper guilt and punishment findings, by Constitutional process ? (Impeachment, that is: NOW, later or NEVER ?) So obsession with minor and irrelevant point hides complicit guilt ? Causing more denial, burying unavoidable guilt for all concerned ? One issue/policy/problem surely tied tightly to the other --as any counsellor will inform you, if consulted. Best wishes for your recovery if it ever occurs, sir. Meanwhile let's skip more of the same hypocritical falsely high-minded arrogance, anger and attempted retaliation. Impossible to justify if you ARE informed; even less so if you are NOT, since these days any breathing citizen should surely know about these fatal matters. Content analysis signs off...

---

Anonymous November 29, 2008 12:05 am (Pacific time)

Abortion should be the persons choice. What kind of person tells someone that they cant do something with their body? This is why we live in America, so we can make our own choices. Some people argue, well, its murder, its killing a human being. It is not a human until the fetus is developed. I believe abortions should be used when needed such as a case where a woman was raped and would not like to bear the child as a memory or have to tell her son or daughter that her father is a rapist. Wouldnt that be nice? I dont think people should not practice birth control and go on rampant abortions either. If you need or want an abortion, its your choice.

---

Eastern Oregon Conservative November 28, 2008 8:59 pm (Pacific time)

Tim: "Tim King: I think anything is possible in life; people can find ways to do pretty much anything they set out to do if they have determination. The fact that Bush would end such a program (and yet still feature it on whitehouse.gov even though it is defunct) has made the whole war there into basically a loss when it comes to winning hearts and minds. "

Geeze, Tim. It WAS Bush that started it. And you don't know why the White House ended it. Nor do I. I do know that much of the funding went to three private organizations, one being the International Red Cross.

How or why you consider it a moral defect for a president's administration to take on a cause for several years is beyond me. There could be any number of reasons, the most likely being the fact that in '01, there was no large scale charitable work inside Afghanistan, and that after a relatively short period of time, other permanent organizations were able to ramp up and establish more permanent and maybe more effective means. That, at least, is what I would have done. It's sensible, smart, and makes reasonable use of the White House's influence, while not entrenching transient items into the permanent agenda. But that's just me.

If you're that concerned, why don't you find out what National Geographic's Afghan Children's Fund does? Or what the Red Cross did with the millions raised? Or who is continuing to conduct outreaches in Afghanistan? What's USAID doing lately? If it's anything like what they do in Iraq, then USAID has basically taken over the same type of work, but in a more mature form.

---

Henry Ruark November 28, 2008 8:53 pm (Pacific time)

EOC:
You wrote:"Congress picked the pockets of our banks and investment community to give to bad borrowers and look what happened."
Speaking of lies, sir, that's a considerable flat-out one. You distort known reality for your own peculiar purposes.

Congress was hoodwinked by Sen. Gramm --by now-proven parliamentary subterfuge-- into abandoning the New Deal-initiated law separating commercial from investment banks, slipped past members at vulnerable time, on public rec ord now openly acknowledged by authority and so reported nationally. (Here, too, in Op Ed and story AND other Comments.)
That deregulatory act then eventually allowed the entire financial sector to be seduced by greed and pursuit of fees, charges and high-profits on combining mortgage paper into dubious securitized bundles --starting with sub-prime, then rapidly escalating broadly-- sold to many naive national and also foreign investors.
"Everybody else was doing it" is quote in national report, by admitted participant. 
The pockets picked were of the naive homeowners seduced by heavy-handed real estaters working closely with both banks and shady financial finaglers, to produce the rotten paper then securitized.

Per standard neocon act you seek to turn reality upside down. To deny facts as per that well-reported sequence in standard national channels, as you did in the quoted words, is to distort AND also pervert purposely --that's "rambling definition" of flat-lie.

Here's another one, in your own words:
"Frankly, everything Bush is doing right now is wise and needed and good, as far as environmental laws, and labor laws and other release of burdens on our industries."
NO WAY anyone who reads, watches tv-news, listens to radio (or even talks at the tavern !) can believe that to
be truthful.
NO WAY that can be stated so flatly --UNLESS you wish to lie, flatly --no ramble !!
NOBODY (repeat NOBODY) can be that naive and out of touch with last four years of reality --unless they are in the throes of denial for the peculiar reasons so mirrored here by symptoms identified.

S-N channel provides us all with precisely that kind of "see with own eyes" survey of statements.
Yours here surely go just as far past any mark-chosen as do the words you call "a lie" by Tim, whose house you visit at low cost, with unavoidable responsibility for civil and openly honest dialog, with all points made so presented for all to see and understand. No jumble, no ramble nor angry rumble, just plain-English fact with reliable source. To do otherwise is to damage the S-N channel for all of us.

---

PS November 28, 2008 6:26 pm (Pacific time)

Tim I had earlier provided sources to different polls, some had samples in excess of 4000, that showed McCain had a nearly 3 to 1 margin ahead of Obama by both active duty and veterans. These were about the same numbers that Bush had over Kerry during the 2004 election. So as you stated below: " I know plenty of soldiers and Marines who were behind Obama 100%, lots of them." Then that was a statistical anomally that you experienced. If you want those sources cited again I will be happy to post, but the active military has always been a pretty conservative group as have most veterans. Note: Active duty African-americans did vote for Obama at approx. 90%, slightly below there civilian counterparts. I do not consider all of them bigots nor the caucasians and other racial/ethnic groups that voted against Obama...just more rational.

---

Eastern Oregon Conservative November 28, 2008 5:10 pm (Pacific time)

Tim, you made an affirmative statement, here in your own blog, quoted:

"All options for Americans to help those starving and underclothed little kids was cut off by your hero."

Now you backtrack and say:

"Maybe there are programs and I hope there are,..."

I point this out to your readers, because I want them to realize how fundamentally dishonest you are, and even 'ol Henry, and his incoherent ramblings.

It will take you twenty seconds with Google to find at least 3 direct to Afghanistan charities, ONE EVEN USING THE SAME EXACT NAME AS THE ONE STARTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE. Oh, and operates under the same premise - donations to children in Afghanistan.

It is amazing that it takes 4 posts to nail you down on just ONE simple statement you made, and even at that I soundly proved you dishonest (please don't insult all our intelligence by saying you're ignorant of any other means, that would mean you have made statements with absolutely NO effort to see if they're true) or completely ignorant.

I read through lots of everything else you post here, and it's all just as equally honesty-challenged.

I mean, seriously, you called Bush "your hero". If that's not an example of outlandish nonsense, I dunno what is. Why does my insistence on HONESTY on your part be conflated to me considering Bush a hero? He's not my hero. I do have a few heros, but they're all considered heros for having courage and absolutely uncompromising integrity, something you could not even recognize.

Don't want to be called "dishonest"? Don't say stuff that isn't. That's all that's required. We can disagree with policies, or even actions, and I won't call you dishonest. Make a statement like your above quoted bald faced lie, and I will. Censor it? Your prerogative, after all, it is your own little redoubt of liberal propaganda you hold here. However, you have no right to expect to not be called on the painfully obvious.

Tim King: I think anything is possible in life; people can find ways to do pretty much anything they set out to do if they have determination.  The fact that Bush would end such a program (and yet still feature it on whitehouse.gov even though it is defunct) has made the whole war there into basically a loss when it comes to winning hearts and minds. 

Yes, I do admit that if people have enough money and want to get it into Kabul, they could do that.  If that stretch of a possibility somehow equate to dishonesty, then let it be that way.   The thing is, that program gave us faith, and even if only for Bush's personal reputation, it made more sense to leave it in place.   In the end, Bush has driven our country into very dark waters, and issues like canceling the Afghan Children's Fund speak volumes about his character, and this is just one of hundreds of points where the President has failed us as a leader.  I really care a lot more about the kids of Afghanistan than I do about anyone's opinion.   

---

Henry Ruark November 28, 2008 1:54 pm (Pacific time)

Julie et all: Your good insights mirror the entire contents of MOTHER JONES issue I cited for EOC. You might enjoy and can surely appreciate differently than he may. Re impeachment question I posed for EOC, same question faces every one of us. We can never hope to set things on the remediation road until we settle the score with these perpetrators, and the Founders presciently gave us the proper method. I avoided use of "right"-there since it is, even in small-ltr form, still contagious and can be devastating if allowed to occur again. Many conservative MISinformed still thing Reagan was right as well as Right...

---

Julie November 28, 2008 11:44 am (Pacific time)

Bush is like a junior high child who never ascended to mature behavior. He is an ass. He is not smart. He is selfish. He is a chauvanist pig. And, he did more DRUGS than most anyone I know. He probably STILL DOES (coke is free when you/your dad is king of the world). Anything decent that came out of this horrible administration, he was not behind. LIVE WITH IT. We've had to!

---

Henry Ruark November 28, 2008 11:05 am (Pacific time)

To all: "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like the evil spirits at the dawn of day". -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Pierre S. du Pont de Nemours, 24 April 1816

---

Henry Ruark November 28, 2008 8:24 am (Pacific time)

EOC falls back on repeating meaningless inanities simply because he cannot prove a negative, one Tim never wrote at that. EOC interpretation(s) obvious in mirroring major method long used by neocons: Turn issue on its head, muck up what it really means, then beat on side issue for further full confusion.
If done by stupidity, easy to spot due to continued inane repetition.
If done malignly,to "political pander", see its further projection of detail, and always with charge of lying as final full-answer for whatever is under exam.
Lying demands attention, hides lack of integrity in neocon's own statements, distracts most readers from rational evaluation.
Here, check last several by EOC to see if symptoms of propaganda purveying fall into place for you as neatly as for me.

Also please note main thrust and major purpose of Tim's true report are untouched despite E)C drumbeat on edge of drum rather than payoff part --major points re Bush regime itself.

Key quuestion for EOC now: Where do you stand on rapid impreachment for these Bush cabal perpetrators ? NOW, soon, or NEVER ?

I challenge you to visit closely the entire issue of MOTHER JONES, SEPT./OCT. '08, and tell us honestly how you can make such outlandish defense of Bush policies in face of that demolishing portrayal of those policies and actions, entirely relevant to this thread.
SO, friend EOC, there's your real target, awaiting your impassioned defense of Bush.

Want to bet whether answer will ever arrive here ?  Allathis still solid symptom of denial as first stated.

Note: Don't know masked-man EOC from hole-in-wall, but do know Tim and his solid credibilities and background on public record for all here, as in any other civil, honest, open, democratic dialog.

SO, EOC, unmask self, show us any reason to believe your stuff over Tim's honest one. What qualifies you to charge a lie, when your own words are clear as to attitude and own intentions here ?

Content analysis sharp tool even when rapidly applied. I learned how from 4 "gentlemen from Virginia" in IUniversity special-group at Ernie Pyle School, following War II on GI Bill --benefit provided, you will note, by "big government" doing what only our system can do.

---

Eastern Oregon Conservative November 27, 2008 3:22 pm (Pacific time)

Tim, you are still unable to provide the slightest bit of evidence that no other means of transmitting charitable giving to Afghanistan exists. There are many reasons why programs are ended, whether they do or did good or not. But your lie is that you claimed that there now exists no means of giving to Afghanis. That is bald faced lie, and you know it. It took me 10 seconds with Google prove you lied.

Now, your implication that the REASON Bush ended it was to harm the people of Afghanistan is also completely and utterly absurd. It took no more than 30 seconds to find the names of a half dozen large and well funded charitable organizations that serve SPECIFICALLY Afghanistan.

Tim King: Well you and I stand at odds on this because an Afghan woman named Salma Seraj of Tomorrow's Women and Children of Afghanistan is who brought all of this frustration to me in Kabul.  Maybe there are programs and I hope there are, but the federal government program that Bush canceled was a streamlined way for people to make their dollars count.  I am working with a couple of groups that want to get involved in this; and I hope we can someday make it happen.  In the end I am not a liar and I am getting a little sick of you repeating that.   The biggest help any of the people there do receive generally comes from western military forces that take the time to raise the money privately, then use their one "low tempo" day a week to distribute what they collect.  I saw the same thing just this summer in Iraq where 101st Airborne soldiers are providing wheelchairs to the Iraqi people, and the U.S. government and your illustrious leader have not a single thing to do with it.   If nothing else, the symbolism of Bush canceling that program is very poor when it comes to cultivating the hearts and minds of these people.   

---

Henry Ruark November 27, 2008 3:03 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Have stayed the h...out of bit with EOC, but for the record EOC's comments contain a number of falsities made so by his own words rather than by the public record. For real rebuttal,as needed for details demanded, line for line comment required far too long for this space. His stuff simple rant from same silly assumptions and unprovable assertions as we hear allatime from similar uninformed or misinformed, OR perhaps malign-intended, who know not what they do not know and never will, since unable to fight way past demonstrated psychological denial tied too deeply into cognitive process. That too demands more space for proof than possible here, but check past Op Eds and see others on the way, written from both experience and very special study, in learning process AND cognitive needs AND propaganda processes,too. You can "see with own eyes" and then evaluate with own mind, too --special courtesy of this S-N channel, and made possible only by Tim's strong patience-value for needed contribution to democracy.

---

Eastern Oregon Conservative November 27, 2008 12:00 pm (Pacific time)

+++++++++
Tim, your comments:
Tim King: "Well friend, at least you can always resort to name calling, real classic Rush Limbaugh-inspired stuff without a doubt. You make no sense and guys like you won't give an inch anyway, I already know that much. You didn't answer or address anything at all. Yes, Bush did cut the Afghan Children's Fund and while it doesn't matter to you, it does matter to me. I just used that as a small, shining example of Bush at his best. You can rant all you want, I put myself right in the heart of it so that I can tell people the truth."

I didn't call ANYONE any names. Your sterotypical (and stupid) rhetorical invoking of Limbaugh is really the essence of intellectual might, right? Wrong.

Additionally, saying the Bush ending of the Afghan Children's Fund is his "finest hour" ignores the fact that he STARTED IT and it served its intended purpose. It was started when there was no other infrastructure to donate to Afghanistan's people. It ceased either to be needed in that role or became redundant and less effective than alternatives. The program ran for 4 years. It simply duplicated the efforts of many others and became redundant. It's a wise man to know when to do something, and when to let that mission go to someone else. Your rhetoric merely reinforces the observation that you are an opportunist, who uses trivia to attempt to mislead people's minds and create false impressions.

This is not necessary or even good.
You said "All options for Americans to help those starving and underclothed little kids was cut off by your hero."

Other than ending a program Bush STARTED due to it becoming redundant, the rest of that statement is a lie. A damnable lie. And it is sad that you pretend to define what a Christian is, when you have to make public lies to advance your political derangement. Either you prove that there was no way for Americans to help Afghanis in 2005 (you can't, even the effort would be a lie), or apologize to us all for your deliberate dishonesty.

Tim King: No sir, it is you who is placing lies on the table.  You betray any hope of sounding like you know what you are talking about by stating "The program ran for 4 years. It simply duplicated the efforts of many others and became redundant."  Man, you are full of it!  There is no replacement program and I know this.  I have worked with people in very high places on this as well, and it is a sad state of affairs.  I also suspect you are an armchair quarterback at best.  Well EOC, I walk the walk and talk the talk.  For those just tuning in, watch these videos if you want to know more about the Afghan's Childrens Fund's demise under Bush: 

 Americans Bring Medical Help to Afghanistan Families

American Quest: Learning to Live Like Honorable Men

Learning Not to be a Warmongering Nation

Bush Continues to Make All The Wrong Moves in Iraq

 

---

War Vet November 27, 2008 11:42 am (Pacific time)

Many if not most active duty soldiers in Iraq want to go home and are relieved that McCain was defeated. This article may be hard for people to take, a genuine bitter pill, but it is a matter of record. It is embarrassing to read what the conservatives actually write.

---

Vic November 27, 2008 11:24 am (Pacific time)

Mark P...If you are a Christian, then I am a cyborg from Mars. You sound more like the Christians that were in Silverton this week from Kansas with their messages of hatred and intolerance. You wanna-bes crack me up/ make me sick. Abortion is a sin, but once that child is born, it can be blown to bits by a missile or executed and that is fine with you. Most of the "Christians" I know do nothing for anyone unless they benefit. Most are arrogant, racist and look down their nose at everyone else. They support warmongers and war and still think they are following the teachings of Jesus. I know a few who walk the walk, but they are few and far between. People like you and Carla make real Christians look like fools and hypocrites. Im sorry, but it is true. You bloodthirsty "christians" love to quote the Old Testament with it's genocide, rape, incest, patricide and infanticide, while ignoring what Jesus (the guy you are supposed to be following) taught. Whatever makes you feel superior, I guess...

---

Is Bush back on the booze? November 27, 2008 11:08 am (Pacific time)

With the cares of office soon to be behind him, has George Bush started drinking again? The US President, who gave up alcohol 22 years ago, has been dogged by a recent spate of rumours that he has gone back on the sauce, and while attending the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in the Peruvian capital Lima at the weekend he was photographed downing a glass of Pisco Sour (pictured), a brandy-like alcoholic drink. It could be that Bush was unaware that Pisco Sour was alcoholic, or that he merely took a sip so as not offend his hosts – the beverage is the country's national drink – but drink it he did.

---

PS November 27, 2008 8:43 am (Pacific time)

Tim the vast majority of those on active duty, including those who served in both Afghanistan/Iraq and the majority of veterans do not agree with your assessment of Bush, and we also know that the vast majority of the above population groups did not vote for Obama (this has all be pointed out on this site before via sourced polls). So does that make them bigots? I believe the vast majority of Americans who did not vote for Obama did so for other reasons than his race, say unlike those who voted for DC mayor Marion Berry when he was a convicted criminal, and many others like Berry who are in elected office. But those approximately 95% of blacks who voted for Obama, I belive there was a larger percentage of that population that voted for him because of race than whites who voted against him. Would you call them bigots? I will add I also detest Bush, but for different reasons than you. Within a relatively brief period of time many of those who voted for Obama will come to realize that they made a mistake. Your article certainly displays how divided our country is, and from my personal observations from personal experience this rancor has been going on since at least 1968. My prayers today are that we can all pull together because there are some very hard times ahead, and the primary aim of our enemies, both foreign and domestic, is to keep us divided, distracted, and to promote hate between different (racial, social and economic) groups . Let's not let them succeed. On this Thanksgiving, count your blessings and tommorrow let's start to build bridges that go somewhere...

Tim King: PS, I don't know what qualification you really possess that allow you to know how the vast majority feel about it; I think it is the company you keep.  I know plenty of soldiers and Marines who were behind Obama 100%, lots of them.  

I do agree that getting into a more positive frame of mind is good, but Bush has beaten us down for so long in so many ways, that most of us don't know how to have a good attitude about it.  The bottom line is that we got control of our country back from this character and hopefully we will never slip back into the depths where we have been for the last 8 years.    

---

Mark P. November 27, 2008 7:10 am (Pacific time)

Tim King said: Well friend, at least you can always resort to name calling, real classic Rush Limbaugh-inspired stuff without a doubt. ------------------- Tim, I suppose you are OK with name calling by all ofyour liberal media friends? Or are you unaware of any of that? Can I enlighten your readers?

---

Mark P. November 27, 2008 7:07 am (Pacific time)

Tim King said: In my view, having an opinion is one thing, and that can include peaceful protest, but there are so many productive ways people can spend their time as Christians, and that means volunteering to help the poor. Most people I see in those roles are decidedly liberal or progressive.
--------------------

Tim, sorry to deliver the wake up call but the majority of Christians DO volunteer in some way to help the poor either directly or by supporting their church's activities.

At least that's what I see here in The South, as I don't see many liberals standing next to me. In other words, get out of your bubble dude. You are living in a liberal-media-defined sterotype world that is about as real as MTV.

-------------------

Tim King said: I sure hope that people who are vehemently anti-abortion are also anti-war and anti-capital punishment. If one type of killing is wrong then the rest certainly are also.

--------------------

How can you possibly compare those issues? Abortion is the life ending act (i.e. murder) of an INNOCENT unborn child.

War for free societies is self-defense...should we have opposed WWII? Not defended ourselves after 9/11? And don't waste our time talking about Iraq as your only example because that is a blip in the centuries of warfare no matter where anyone stands on support or not.

Capital punishment was also designed to protect innocent people in society from guilty murderers...hardly the same thing as snuffing an innocent life before they ave a chance.

Your arguements are not "fairly undeniable" but totally refutable. read The Bible to see where God instructed His people to vanquish their enemies...or are you a pick and choose Christian who knows more about what The Bible really means?

Tim King:  Wow, this is void of all logic at all.  You guys need to go read the bible and learn how Jesus told men to turn the other cheek and he deplored war.  I honestly don't think you have even read the book.  But you do get the Darwin Award, that's for sure.  Your point of view will drive more people away from Christianity, and that means that in regard to what Jesus sought, you are a total and complete failure.  

---

Mark P. November 27, 2008 6:54 am (Pacific time)

Tim King said: people who shoot abortion doctors and assault young confused women at clinics are in no possibly way living their life as Christians. ----------------- This arguement is a red herring as you are comparing a handful of individuals who ARE prosecuted for their crimes versus 40 million+ abortions under state sanctions. Virtually nobody agrees with or supports any violence such as the example you use. But if you truly believe in the principle of your arguement, then nobody should support environmental issues because of the radical extermists who burn houses and destroy public property in the name of "the environment". Not to mention murderers such as The Unibomber. -------------------- Tim King said: They tend to believe that the anti-abortion hysteria is the central message of Christianity as it gets so much media attention. ------------------ You are partly accurate but do not recognize or acknowledge why that is. Because the liberal main stream media's agenda is to portray Christians as 'radical' 'extreme right wing' 'abortion clinic bombers' and all 'followers of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson'. Virtually ZERO time is spent covering the billions of dollars raised in Christian churches that directly help people in need and also all of the volunteer individuals who give their time and money. None of that meets the template of the left's desire to re-arrange the foundations of this great nation anyway they can, and apparently that includes you.

---

Anonymous November 27, 2008 6:10 am (Pacific time)

If Salem-News.com truly is "the nation's only truly independent high traffic news Website," could Mr. King and the Salem News then please provide any specific information about the changes Bush is calimed to be making? For instance, a site called "Conscience Laws" actually includes links to draft proposals in United States Code 42/300/a/7 and quotes the Ninth Circuit Court's 1975 Taylor vs. St. Vincent's decision, using the Court's own words, stating the "need to protect the religious freedom of denominational hospitals with religious or moral scruples against sterilizations and abortions." Could you try something like that, King, with hyperlinks, Code/Regulation names or numbers? Are you a reporter, or just a very whiny, very liberal screamer?

---

Vic November 27, 2008 5:54 am (Pacific time)

Carla, what part of "thou shalt not kill" dont you get? There is no such creature as a pro-war Christian..there are people who are ignorant of the teachings of Christ who support war and killing and call themselves Christians, but they are NOT. It is IMPOSSIBLE...quit kdding yourself. Maybe you should read your Bible some. You obviously either havent, or havent for a very long time. So it is OK for war to kill children, pregnant women and babies, but just dont do abortions??? Incredible !!!

---

Eastern Oregon Conservative November 27, 2008 12:34 am (Pacific time)

++++++
Tim King: Is that really the same state? Sorry... just kidding.
+++++

Thanks for confirming the stupid arrogance of the west side.

+++++++++++
I have been investing large amounts of time researching TCE (tricholroetyelyne) contamination at my old Marine Corps base in recent months, the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, and learning why so many of us were sick and have had problems with our children's health. My sergeant has buried two children from cancer. There are thousands of sick Marines from El Toro, and yet Camp Lejeune is the only base making national news. Under Bush the EPA has been a dead weight. His further manipulating standards of toxicity at this point is completely inexcusable.
++++++++++++++

Oh, I see. You investigating toxic compounds on a military base in California opened in the 40's and closed almost a decade ago proves Bush is an evil monster wanting to poison us all..... You know, that's the most incoherent argument ever committed by a so-called journalist. Heck, that's just plain stupid. No, it's beyond stupid. It's utterly dishonest.

+++++++++++
The Family Medical Leave Act? So the CEO might have to buy last year's Cadillac SUV because employees are taking time off to bury family members?
+++++

Huh? Please approach reality here.

++++++++++++
Oh gee, I see, you're right. Better restrict those people a little more.
++++++++++++

RESTRICT whom? Are you so astoungingly arrogant that you think that you have some right to demand what benefits an employer gives an employee, regardless of agreement between them? Just for your information, the vast majority of people covered under the act work for small businesses that in NO WAY reflect your inspidly stupid comments. Rather, most of them are in a life and death struggle to survive right now. Oh, wait, you like employers bankrupted so you can gloat over your wonderful "caring".

+++++++++
What a load of BS, I'm sorry but that is all it is. The GOP has utterly and completely lost its way and Bush has not been a good leader. I have seen his handiwork overseas up close and trust me, he has few admirers in the world except the diehards who wouldn't admit fault or acknowledge how rotten Bush has been as a president if their life depended on it. I think there are a lot more in other states than here in Oregon, places like the deep south.
++++++++++++

Well, since most of that is just hallucinatory ramblings on your part, it really deserves no retort.
++++++++++

Sure, if you really get down and look at the details there are positive things Bush has done, but I honestly would have to work at it to know what that is. When I was in Afghanistan covering the war winter before last I became involved in a story about a women and children's hospital being restored by Oregon Guard soldiers in their off duty time. This is when I learned that Bush canceled the Afghan Children's Fund in 2005. All options for Americans to help those starving and underclothed little kids was cut off by your hero. Why don't you explain that one to me, would you? The man is absolutely and completely unaware of the struggle of the common man. He has no idea how hard life is for some people.
+++++++++++++++

Wow, you try, you put two sentences together, and then you lapse back into the most unimaginably crazy BDS ranting.

Oh, yes, Bush closed off ALL means of moving charity into Afghanistan, so he could make them suffer. Wow. Do you even listen to yourself? How does a person with an iota of self respect make up that kind of stuff and then attach their own name to it?

I can sincerely understand the appeal of having eastern Oregon divorce those 5 counties over there and send you off to some other state or country. I mean, seriously, you completely mindless idiots voted down Measure 63. Incomprehensibly stupid. Maybe I should not be surprised at your arguments. Clearly the I-5 corridor has become demented.

Tim King:  Well friend, at least you can always resort to name calling, real classic Rush Limbaugh-inspired stuff without a doubt.  You make no sense and guys like you won't give an inch anyway, I already know that much.  You didn't answer or address anything at all.  Yes, Bush did cut the Afghan Children's Fund and while it doesn't matter to you, it does matter to me.  I just used that as a small, shining example of Bush at his best.  You can rant all you want, I put myself right in the heart of it so that I can tell people the truth. 

---

Carla November 26, 2008 11:34 pm (Pacific time)

Forgot to add, Tim; I'm pro-war, and pro capital-punishment. :)

Tim King: Carla:  I think you know that I have spent time in both wars overseas as a reporter and photographer and the damage that war causes is so horrific and there are so many people suffering from it, the whole situation is incredible.  Then you have the other area I spend a lot of time researching and corresponding and writing about, which is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD.  There are so many young men and women who are damaged from their war experiences and they and their families will always have more challenges than they should have to bear.  I believe in fighting a war that has to be fought, and there is one in Afghanistan, but there was never sufficient reason to invade Iraq and completely destabilize the country, only to set them up for a major civil war when we pull out.  The civil war has been ongoing, but they are biding their time, waiting for us to leave.  That is when the minority Sunni's will face real peril.  And it is all because of a country, ours, that is "pro-War."  The last time I checked The Bible, there was not a word about taking up arms against other men.  It was more about turning the other cheek. 

In the end, it is one thing to be in a safe warm environment in the states knowing that each day brings love and warmth and a family is together.  People in the Mid-East live in terror and each day they don't know if their father, or son, or daughter will come home alive.  When Afghan or Iraqi families have members killed by U.S. forces, the family naturally turns against us, and often they weren't against us until that point.  These deaths leave countless unheeled wounds in whole cities and neighborhoods.  Families are large in these places, but not as large as they used to be beacuse of our policies. 

On Capital Punishment, I go back and forth.  So many convictions from the past have been overturned since DNA testing came onto the scene, that it leaves no doubt there are wrongly and falsely convicted people who could be put to death.  That is a hard subject to have a conclusive feeling about for me.  I really don't think God would approve of any war that was not fought out of dire necessity.    

---

Carla November 26, 2008 11:32 pm (Pacific time)

Hi Tim,

I appreciate your site, and your hard work to maintain it. However, I don't think we see eye to eye here.

I am indeed a Christian, and as you may have divined, strongly anti-abortion. I'm neither hysterical, nor condemning of women who have had abortions in the past. I think that they suffer incredible pain and remorse as a result, and would be the last person to want to burden them with additional pain.

Like most Christians, I know that I am not God, and am mighty grateful not to have the responsibility that goes along with with that title.

I do very much believe, however, that the murder of innocent, voiceless children is never, ever justifiable, regardless of circumstance of conception. There are so many loving families waiting to adopt a child, and I so fiercely adore my daughter that I can't imagine anyone's being able to look into the eyes of a child, and even for a moment, think of hurting, let alone killing, such an innocent.

It's been Christianity, and God's incredible sacrifice of his only Son, that have drawn me towards always being my kindest, best self. I think that Christianity (and Judaism) is a beacon of decency and humanity that guides me through the really depressing societal waters through which we're trying to navigate our daughter.

Tim King: Carla, thanks very much and you sound like a very nice person.  No, we don't see eye to eye but it is good to be able to converse politely about it.  You sound like you have very strong family values and I respect that very much.  I had a story last week about a Muslim woman in China's Xinjiang Province, a famous singer, who was going to be forced to have an abortion as she supposedly exceeded the limit.  Then we published a couple of days later reporting the fact that China decided to back off and she will have the child.  That is amazing to me that a country like China would have this policy, though I understand the population crisis is indeed that.  At any rate, it was a happy ending.  I will include the links below.  Again, thanks for the conversation.

Woman in China Faces Imminent Forced Abortion

Chinese Authorities Release Uyghur Woman Without Forced Abortion

 

---

Eastern Oregon Conservative November 26, 2008 10:50 pm (Pacific time)

It's hard to imagine that somewhere in my state is someone so removed from reality as you. Even more amazing, that you get published by someone.

And do you really think that employers and employees are not hurt by the medical leave act? Do you actually think there are NO consequences to Congress picking the pockets of employers and handing it to employees? I mean, Congress picked the pockets of our banks and investment community to give to bad borrowers and look what happened. Frankly, everything Bush is doing right now is wise and needed and good, as far as environmental laws, and labor laws and other release of burdens on our industries.

Maybe you get to work at some secure job where accomplishing something is irrelevant, and your paycheck is secure. But for the rest of us, who actually have to be productive, and are the ones who keep you fed, clothed, warm, safe and dry, these things are both good and needed

Tim King:  Is that really the same state?  Sorry... just kidding. 

I have been investing large amounts of time researching TCE (tricholroetyelyne) contamination at my old Marine Corps base in recent months, the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, and learning why so many of us were sick and have had problems with our children's health.  My sergeant has buried two children from cancer.  There are thousands of sick Marines from El Toro, and yet Camp Lejeune is the only base making national news.  Under Bush the EPA has been a dead weight.  His further manipulating standards of toxicity at this point is completely inexcusable. 

The Family Medical Leave Act?  So the CEO might have to buy last year's Cadillac SUV because employees are taking time off to bury family members?  Oh gee, I see, you're right.  Better restrict those people a little more.  What a load of BS, I'm sorry but that is all it is.  The GOP has utterly and completely lost its way and Bush has not been a good leader.  I have seen his handiwork overseas up close and trust me, he has few admirers in the world except the diehards who wouldn't admit fault or acknowledge how rotten Bush has been as a president if their life depended on it.  I think there are a lot more in other states than here in Oregon, places like the deep south.

Sure, if you really get down and look at the details there are positive things Bush has done, but I honestly would have to work at it to know what that is.  When I was in Afghanistan covering the war winter before last I became involved in a story about a women and children's hospital being restored by Oregon Guard soldiers in their off duty time.  This is when I learned that Bush canceled the Afghan Children's Fund in 2005.  All options for Americans to help those starving and underclothed little kids was cut off by your hero.  Why don't you explain that one to me, would you?  The man is absolutely and completely unaware of the struggle of the common man.  He has no idea how hard life is for some people.  

---

Doug November 26, 2008 10:38 pm (Pacific time)

Jesus. What a hateful person Tim King is. Get over it already. Bush did plenty of good during his 8 years and did plenty of bad as well...just like every single President before him. I just love this new tone Liberals want to take with Obama and start with a clean slate. Not one day from 2000 to 2009 have you given Bush credit for anything and have gone out of your way to smear him like a child does to a kid he doesn't like in junior high school.

Grow up and get over it. Last I checked 58,343,671 people did not vote for Obama and couldn't stand the guy on election day. 66, 882, 230 can. That still doesn't equate out to the sheer numbers of people who stayed home because they could care less or disliked both.

Get over yourself and your blind hatred for Bush. He made it further in life than you could ever try to get to and it pisses you off.

Tim King: Bush had his life handed to him on a sliver platter.  He did no good whatsoever for this country.  I love the accusations of "hate" when all this man has done is soil our reputation as a nation and send hundreds of thousands of my brother and sisters in arms to fight a war that he never had a plan to win.  I don't hate anyone, but I strongly abhor people who abuse the system of power and spy on Americans and ruin our finances while handing his upper crust buddies the tax breaks they so didn't need or deserve.  Now we've learned the truth about the GOP's 'trickle down economics' haven't we?  Our wealth as a nation goes from being a river to a drip.  As far as who has gone farther in life, it is a matter of who your daddy is and nothing else.

---

Alphabet Soup November 26, 2008 10:31 pm (Pacific time)

So who you gonna be hating on when GW is gone? How are you gonna feed your BDS?!

---

Pappy O'Daniel November 26, 2008 10:24 pm (Pacific time)

Run him out on a rail!

---

Carla November 26, 2008 9:50 pm (Pacific time)

I agree that George Bush has done grevious damage to our nation, however I continue to admire his dedication to the protection of the unborn child. Although I voted for Obama, it was through gritted teeth due to his support of partial-birth abortion, and other equally barbaric legislation. Innocent children, unborn or living, should not have to die due to a woman's selfishness. Even in cases of rape, why should an innocent child be murdered? Electing Bush was most decidedly a mistake; however, his one legacy will be his standing strong in his Christian principles.

Tim King: Carla, thanks for visiting and leaving a comment.  I would like to ask you a question about your position on abortion: I associate with many people and because I have several children, I am around a lot of kids and have been for many years.  My oldest sons are now in their mid-20's.  I try and have always tried to explain to young people that God is forgiving and does not expect perfection from a bunch of sinners like we humans, that is why he sent his son here, and that people who shoot abortion doctors and assault young confused women at clinics are in no possibly way living their life as Christians. 

I have met and know a large number of people who are not Christian because of this exact argument.  They tend to believe that the anti-abortion hysteria is the central message of Christianity as it gets so much media attention.

The Ten Commandments instantly state that it is wrong to kill, and even if that is what abortion equates to in your opinion, how can two wrongs make a right?  I am not actually posing that as a question, because I assume you do not in any way support actions like that; but there is a clear association that is fairly undeniable.  

The question is, is it better to rally against abortion than to bring people to Christianity? 

  In my view, having an opinion is one thing, and that can include peaceful protest, but there are so many productive ways people can spend their time as Christians, and that means volunteering to help the poor.  Most people I see in those roles are decidedly liberal or progressive.  Anyway, thanks for voting for Obama.  That tells me you obviously see the greater good.  

Finally, I sure hope that people who are vehemently anti-abortion are also anti-war and anti-capital punishment.  If one type of killing is wrong then the rest certainly are also.

 

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.