good quote

George W. Bush on Drugs : Jun 1, 2003

Turned from alcoholism by power of prayer

In September 2002, Bush invited five religious leaders-three Christian, one Jewish, one Muslim-to meet with him in the Oval Office. "You know," he said, "I had a drinking problem. Right now I should be in a bar in Texas, not the Oval Office. There is only one reason that I am in the Oval Office and not in a bar. I found faith. I found God. I am here because of the power of prayer."

http://www.issues2000.org/News_School_Prayer.htm

he did sing the little anti-abortion thing

http://washington.news.designerz.com...ith-women.html

california voted yes for stem cell, the pres is against it, why again?

survey says,... religion.

his "faith-based initiatives" are religious in nature no?

http://pewforum.org/faith-based-initiatives/

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/002983.html

Bush Tries to Exempt Religious Groups From Discrimination Laws
Remember Bush's State of the Union speech in which he promised huge dollars for drug treatment -- provided by religious groups? Or his "faith-based" initiative in 2000 that mercifully died? Well, he's not giving up. But he's delusional if he thinks his new plan will get through Congress.

Bush is trying to get Congress to exempt religious groups from adhering to anti-discrimination laws on hiring policies. In other words, he is seeking to allow religious groups to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and religion when hiring.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/18/bush.faith/

"I welcome faith to help solve the nation's deepest problems," President Bush told a convention of religious broadcasters last week.


i am glad we will all be safe now.

Proposing a constitutional ban on gay marriage would certainly fit the bill, IMO.

Let me amend that a little. IF, let's say... HIV had been found to be 'Gay Only' and was an airborne disease, and was infecting non Gay individuals, and the Pres wanted to pass a law banning Gay Marriage as a health risk to the Nation - I might or might not be for it or against it. That would, at least, be approaching the purview of the government.

He, however, wants this done to preserve the 'sanctity of marriage' - by definition tied to religion, and simply not his job.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030522.html

There is no question that President Bush has placed religion front and center in his Administration. Recent press coverage would seem to indicate that this is a new approach - one that is specific to this Republican Administration, and that is part of a conspiracy of fundamentalists to gain political power. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Virtually all of President Bush's initiatives, when it comes to religion, were presaged by Clinton Administration policies and attitudes. Indeed, a strong case can be made that Clinton set the stage, and Bush is doing no more than following in his footsteps.

That shouldn't surprise anyone. It's very likely that Bush's successor will do the same. There is little in the culture to change this course - except the Constitution and its separation of church and state. But sadly, the Constitution alone is rarely enough to stop any politician from enacting his chosen agenda, religious or not.

not biased

;)

Very true and i can see your theory to a point, but look at those numbers , its like each and every one was the exact opposite, its almost as if the machines got the numbers backwards :)

As rousing as this has been (and it has been) I have to leave.

But in the spirit of keepings things light, I wanted to respond to the above.

:321GFY you vote stealing, gay hating fascist. :winkwink:

For the literal minded, yes, I am joking...

Later, all.

again we have the misguided extreme left grasping at straws.

you're talking about banning partial birth abortions. this is not a religious issue.
its whether you believe that you can pull a baby out of a woman feet first and kill it.

blah blah blah, label me this label me that,.

You ignore all the links and proof and grasp at straws yourself.

out of all the relighious based things he has done you choose that one?

anyway, i bet you voted Barry GOldwater in 1964, your party hasnt changed much.

you people were against civil rights in 64 and you are against gays having rights today.

I know, its shoking but remember.
the people who went out to poor areas and signed up democratic type voters were motivated to register everyone they could. those registered had no motivation to go to the polls and vote.

it does look bad, but if you look at how those counties voted in 2000 it was the same direction Bush over Gore.. So it seems in this example it actually is democrats voting for Bush (unless that computer fucked it up in 2000 also)..

Ashcroft spends 8k on cloth to cover statue

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...oft-breast.htm

surely this is not religious in any way

hahaha

http://christiansagainstbush.bravehost.com/

Christians Against Bush!

haha

I am glad that they aren't letting him back

banning partial birth abortion and faith based initiatives?
this is all you have?

this is exactly what I'm talking about. once you get past the liberal screaming and bore down to the facts, you don't have a case.
Thats why more people voted for Bush this election than for anyone else, ever.

oh, and you should check your civil rights facts before you embarrass yourself.

Bush is never wrong.

he claimed we were not going to have any casualties in Iraq

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, "We're not going to have any casualties."

Pat Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, said he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He described Bush in the meeting as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life."



:1orglaugh

It's also why more people voted against Bush than anyone esle, ever etc. blah, whatever.

My Russian friend said that he and other Russian programmers thank Diebold for providing the opportunity for some many Russians to vote for Bush in this election.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

forgot the link

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1020-05.htm

:glugglug

:) well it does seem awfully freaky coincidence that every registered democrat appeared to vote for a republican and every republican voted for a democrat :)

Nahhhhh nothing fishy about that. Especially since it's only one type of vote scanning system it happened on.

Wheeeeeeeee

Some would say Karl Rove & company perfected "look over there!" this year.:glugglug

hehe

No, those machines were the only ones that got it right, the rest are wrong.:winkwink:

http://www.shop4photos.net/graphics/183/18359.jpg
YOU BUSH BASHING GFY MORONS CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH