"To excite opposition and inflame malevolence is the unhappy privilege of courage made arrogant by consciousness of strength." ~ Samuel Johnson
Arrogance knows no bounds. President Bush has appointed Republican fundraiser Sam Fox as U.S. ambassador to Belgium over the objections of the Democratic party, and especially, John Kerry.
According to the Liberally biased AP, "Democrats had denounced Fox for his donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential campaign. The group's TV ads, which claimed that Sen. John Kerry exaggerated his military record in Vietnam, were viewed as a major factor in the Massachusetts Democrat's election loss."
"Fox, a 77-year-old St. Louis businessman, gave $50,000 to the Swift Boat group. He is national chairman of the Jewish Republican Coalition and was dubbed a "ranger" by Bush's 2004 campaign for raising at least $200,000. He is founder and chairman of the Clayton, Mo.-based Harbour Group, which specializes in the takeover of manufacturing companies.
Fox has donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates and causes since the 1990s."
They even said what the President did may be illegal. I don't believe it is. He used the same strategy to appoint John Bolton ambassador to the UN.
Oh, horror of horrors! Fox actually donated to a group that supported one candidate over another! For shame! for shame!
One would think that Fox is a Republican or something. Farbeit from a Democrat President to ever appoint a Democrat fundraiser to an important office.
Really, the thing that astounds me over this thing is the arrogance of both the Democrats and the President.
First, While I think it was brilliant of the President to make use of the recess appointment strategy, I also think it was an intentional slap in the face of the Democrats. I don't think it was necessary to appoint Fox, in particular. I think there are probably many less controversial and better qualified prospects. I think it was a move calculated to anger the Democrats.
If a Democratic President did the same thing, I am quite sure I would be as outraged as the Democrats are now.
But I'm not outraged now. I am, after all, a Republican.
On the other hand, how dare the Democrats object to this appointment just because he donated money to Bush's Presidential campaign! The reason they don't want him to be ambassador is because they are still angry that Kerry got caught being a phony, and Fox was one of many who helped catch him.
Go ahead, Democrats! Take your ball and go home! Geeez.
The real arrogance comes from John Kerry. He still insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that he is a genuine war hero. The Swift Boat Veterans brought forth overwhelming eye witness testimony (which is admissible in any court in the land, with the possible exception of California's 6th district court.) that John Kerry is a phony, but still the Democrats still insist he is a hero.
A hero that undermines the troops and the war effort? That isn't a hero as far as I'm concerned.
Then there's the arrogance of Nancy Pelosi. Despite the administration telling her explicitly not to go to Syria, she went anyway. And what did she do while over there comporting with one of the worlds worst terrorists and dictators? From another AP article, "After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said."
This, according to a Washington Compost editorial, is a misrepresentation.
Misrepresentation? Let's call it what it is:
A lie.
That's arrogance, too.
Arrogance is not necessarily a bad thing. It often helps sports teams get motivated to win. It helps businessmen convince their bosses that they have what it takes to be promoted. It can be healthy.
But not in this case. President Bush showed arrogance, absolutely.
But, in comparison to the Democrats, his is minimal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
The problem with the recess time appointments - sneakily squeezing an otherwise unplaceable candidate in - are:
1. It subverts our democracy. Appointees are supposed to be approved by the People, not slid in by a questionably trustworthy president.
2. What if the other party does it? Will Republicans rejoice when they don't get to vote on the appointees of the next Democratic president?
It's a piss-poor precedent to set. I, for one, don't want Democratic appointees (especially of the sort who buy their appointment) slipping past Republican oversight anymore than I want it the other way around.
And it WILL be a Democratic president in charge in a scant 655 days, 7 hours and 11 minutes. And probably it will be a Democrat-controlled congress in both houses, as well.
Do you really want all that concentrated power emulating what Bush is doing now?
Recess appointments are not new - Clinton did it, so no precedent was set. It is a perfectly legal tool to use. So I disagree that Bush was arrogant. The President has a right to choose who he wishes. Unless the appointee can be proven to be grossly incompetent or of a dubious moral background, any other reason for Congress to deny an appointment is purely political - and that goes for Dems & Repubs.
As far as Pelosi - well, she is a bad joke.
The real issue for most Vietnam Vets regarding John F. Kerry is not whether or not he padded his swiftboat resume, but rather that he comitted treason while a Naval Officer by negotiating with and becoming an agent for the enemy in Paris, an offence which is punishable by death under the UCMJ. We are still waiting for him to open up his military records for us to see the condition of his discharge, and some of us will unfortunately go to our graves awaiting his trial for treason.
Dan, there was nothing sneaky about what President Bush did here.
He nominated John Fox, the committee argued over him for a while, even though they knew he was qualified, and then they went on Vacation.
The Constitution provides the Recess Appointment Mechanism so that the President can fill vacancies in his Administration while the Legislative Branch is on Vacation.
He has proven before, on numerous occasions, that he will use this provision, so if you or anyone else is surprized about it, then, well...Surprize!
1. It does not subvert our Democracy. President Bush is an ELECTED OFFICIAL, and the people who ELECTED him did so precisely because they wanted HIM to be the one who filled these positions.
If they wanted John F. Kerry to decide who the Ambassador to Belgium was to be, they (WE) would have elected HIM to the office which would have given him the power to nominate Ambassadors.
And by the way, I know that you did not just call GWB "questionably trustworthy" because he made an end run around John F. Kerry, did you? Do you believe Kerry to be more trustworthy?
2. The other party is attempting to do PRECISELY what you percieve President Bush to have done here, and that is to usurp power which does not belong to them.
We Republicans are not rejoicing very much over the fact that the Democrats have made a practice of opposing each and every Presidential Nominee to any office, no matter how important, and no matter how qualified that Nominee might be.
The Filibustering of the President's Judicial Nominees was a piss-poor precedent to set.
The constant personal attacks against the President of the United States during War Time is a piss-poor precedent to set.
The constant attempt by the Democrats to undermine the War Effort and to portray the President and his entire cabinet as War Criminals is a piss-poor precedent to set.
The Speaker of the House attempting to implement her own Foriegn Policy and Shadow Presidency is a piss-poor precedent to set.
Keep counting the days and hours, big boy.
It's a much better use of your time than trying to make a case as weak as the one you just presented.
If the Democrats would at least pretend to follow the rules and at least act like they have a little respect for the office of the Presidency, then the President would not do things like this.
The very NERVE!
I hate to disagree with you, buddy, but Bush simply acted under the authority given him by the Constitution. A recess appointment is not evidence of "Arrogance". If anything, the arrogance lies squarely in the Democrats court. [I find it interesting that more than halfway through the Dem's first hundred days, they've accomplished nothing; succeeding instead in dividing this nation even further]
Ms. Pelosi on the other hand is a fine example of arrogance (flirting with treason) as she usurped the authority of the Executive branch. The Speaker of the House is NOT in charge of, nor does she get to engage in foreign policy... Not according to our Constitution. Foreign policy is the sole pervue of the President.
Dan's objections to your post amount to the whining of Constitutional idiots and sore losers. I'm no Constitutional scholar but even I know that Bush was well within his authority... and Ms. Pelosi was not.
Dan's second point is irrelevant... "What if" ??? Come on! What if the other party's President fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys (instead of just 8), would Republicans rejoice? No, but neither would they make much ado about nothing and lie about precedent and the 'supposed' scandalous nature of a non-issue. Clinton was within his right as President... So was Bush. How about a little honestly from my esteemed collegues on the other side of the aisle?
In summary, Dan's opinion on this is worthless except to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Left. I am similarly unimpressed by his oracular acumen. I fully expect the Senate to change hands in 655 days, 3 hours and "who cares how many" minutes.
The thing about rightwingers is that it's ok if it's a gopbut not a dem.
Dan Trabue: You said; "2. What if the other party does it? Will Republicans rejoice when they don't get to vote on the appointees of the next Democratic president?"
Have you forgotten that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did when he made the recess time appointment of the homo Hormell to be the U.S. Ambassadore to the Vatican? Hormell took his lover with him, that was a real slap in the face for the Vatican. Clinton did it because he knew that Congress would never have ok'd Hormell's appointment.
The Swift boaters are liars - plain and simple.
Do you want to go there?
With the low level of quality among the Dem leaders and candidates, I don't want to see even one of them changing the towels in the White House bathrooms.
Recess appointments are not an invention of this administration. They've been around for quite awhile. If it subverted our democracy, it wouldn't be legal. It serves a unique purpose in our democracy like getting a qualified appointee past a group of buffoons who think doing their job means obstructing the sitting president at every turn. These yahoos will complain if Bush lifts the wrong cheek off the chair when he breaks wind. The other party doesn't need prompting from Bush to do anything, and are likely to do more just because they are truly arrogant in a manner that is dangerous to the nation. They feel they DESERVE their stations as Senators, Congressmen or President. They deserve contempt.
"A recess appointment is not evidence of "Arrogance".
For those of you who disagree with me that Bush acted out of arrogance:
You are free to disagree with me, but I stand by my statement. Appointing a man who's only qualification is that he donated money to Bush's campaign, specifically, the Swift Boat veterans, was an intentional move to provoke outrage from Democrats.
You are right, Eric. A recess appointment in and of itself is not evidence of arrogance. This one is. I realize the word "Arrogance" has a negative connotation, but as I said, arrogance can be a good thing.
Bush could have appointed many others more qualified than Fox, but he chose to appoint Fox, and I'm sure he will do a fine job. But he was chosen just to irritate Democrats, in my opinion, and that is arrogant.
I didn't say that Bush invented recess-appointments. Just that I think it's a bad idea.
Regardless of who's in power.
Feel free to disagree.
"And it WILL be a Democratic president in charge in a scant 655 days, 7 hours and 11 minutes. And probably it will be a Democrat-controlled congress in both houses, as well."
God help us all!
I also hate to disagree with you, Mark, but I agree with Tugboatcapn and Elashley; arrogance lies squarely on the shoulders of the democrats. I also pray to God that Daddio is wrong; if we have a Democrat president in 2008 we may as well kiss our butts goodbye!
Also, what Pelosi did is outrageous. She should be impeached for it. She acts as though she is the President of the US!
I see you're posting more often than you used to. I guess I'll have to start checking you out more often. Have a great Easter weekend! :)
abouna said:
"Have you forgotten that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did when he made the recess time appointment of the homo Hormell to be the U.S. Ambassadore to the Vatican?"
Classy, abouna. Or should I call you big dummyhead abouna?
Grow up.
Why should God help us, Daddio? This nation has been trying to kick Him out for quite a while now.
I have to agree with Trader Rick... Kerry did meet with representatives of the NVA in Paris while an active duty low-ranking officer without authority to do so.
But how many know that all dishonorable discharges got a second review and ungrade circa 1980...ish. I'm wanting to say it was Carter, but it could have been Reagan. His military records would reflect such a boon, so it's not likely he'll ever release them. Not only because he'd be never be able to run for president again (not that he can now...), but that someone would have to explain how he was elected to the Senate in the first place, after performing that little act of treason in Paris-- the one that probably led to his original less-than-honorable discharge. That would certainly have disqualified him for ANY national office.
Anyone who's been in the military knows that when it comes to discipline, the military doesn't play around. And they wouldn't fudge the paperwork for a conceited, smarmy, traitorous jerk like Kerry. Thankfully for him, he CAN choose to keep those records sealed. He was truly "Unfit for Command" and the Dem's are simply pissed and astonished that someone had the gall to call a spade a spade in regard to Kerry's 'Heroic' service to this nation during a time of war. Dukakis has his 'Tank' moment while on campaign... Kerry had his 'Swift Boat' moment... and sadly, Bush had his 'Flight Suit' moment.
As to Dan the Prognosticator... I thinks it's more along the lines of wishful thinking... a 'name it, and claim it' kind a deal... say it often enough and just maybe it'll come true.
Keep clicking the heels of your ruby red slippers, Dorothy, and maybe Washington will go back to the way it's SUPPOSED to be.
you have a site, Mom?
mom2, the reason I chose a childish name to call abouna was to indicate the childishness of name-calling.
Kids were calling suspect boys "homos" when I was in grade school and it's a childish thing to do.
I was MOCKING name-calling, not engaging in name-calling. If I were name-calling, I'd choose something a bit more adult...
Dan, just for the record, I got it.
However, Calling a homosexual a homo, which is simply a contraction of the proper term, is really not childish. Now, if he had called them "light in the loafers" or "pansy" or "fairy" you might have an argument.
"As to Dan the Prognosticator... I thinks it's more along the lines of wishful thinking"
If I were engaging in wishful thinking, I'd be telling you that Kucinich will be our next president. He won't be, sadly.
No, I'm speaking to the reality that the Republicans have shot themselves in the feet so many times over the last seven years that they can't possibly win this next presidential race even against terribly flawed Democrat candidates. (Again, with the caveat of: UNLESS the Dems run Hillary and I'll add the caveat: Unless Diebold runs the election.)
Don't think it's true? Maybe not. I could be wrong. It's just that it looks pretty obvious from where I sit.
We'll have to wait and see to know for sure, won't we?
"Calling a homosexual a homo, which is simply a contraction of the proper term, is really not childish."
I think it's fairly universal (again, I could be wrong) but I know for sure that around my parts, "You Homos" (often spoken with a sneer or a curse word) is used as an epithet, and as a childish one. One I heard back when I was in school.
It was not used in my hearing as an abbreviation but as a term of disgust and bile.
Dan Trabue Call me anything you want, it doesn't change the fact that Hormell IS a homo and Clinton used the recess appointment to post him as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, knowing full well that Hormell would bring his lover with him and that they would attend Embassy parties and functions together. Congress, including many on the Democratic side were against Hormell's Vatican appointment, NOT his appointment as an ambassador, but his appointment as ambassador to the Vatican. You can be sure that this was done by Clinton to show his contempt for the Catholic Church.
So you ignorant twit, call me anything your little heart desires, the facts are facts.
The point friend, is not to debate the man is a homosexual. The point is that it is considered impolite - at least around my parts - to call people homos, queers, and various other names.
You could have said what you had to say without using an ugly name.
But you are all free to speak in as ugly manner as you want. Go ahead. I'd suggest it'll win more folk to "my side" of the argument than merely stating your point.
abouna, I just went to your website and saw that you're a priest?!! Using ugly words like "homo"?
sigh...
For the record, I don't have no damn problem with the use of curse words, that's not what I'm objecting to. It's the use of epithets such as this one that I find disgusting dripping like vomit from the lips of followers of our loving and gracious God.
I pray that you're using such an ugly word out of ignorance and not deliberately.
Dan said: "...it looks pretty obvious from where I sit."
Where's that? Somewhere between Munchkin Land and Emerald City?
And I agree with Mom. Democrats only scream about voter irregularities and demand investigations of such when Democrats lose. They tried to steal Florida in 2000 then made another feeble but doomed attempt in '04...
Dan Trabue:
Allow me to set the record straight for you. Just because I happen to be a priest, does not mean that I have to be "Politically Correct". I am not, have never been and NEVER will be. Thus, I have no problem what-so-ever with calling a spade a spade. I don't hide the truth out of fear of offending people, and I can guarentee that Jesus himself had no problem with offending folks either.
No, I did not use the word "homo" out of ignorance, I used it with all due deliberance. If you are offended, all I can say is that is too bad, because like it or not,homosexuality offends God far more than I could ever offend you. Read the Bible. As a priest, I have an obligation to speakout against sin, not to sugar coat it with sweet words of acceptance.
You see, Jesus tells us to love the sinner but hate the sin, He did not tell us to accept the sin and remain silent. Just because a lot of priests and ministers are supporting homosexuals and some are even performing same sex marriages and unions, that does not make it right in God's eyes.
Now if my using the word "Homo" upsets you so much, then you have a problem not me.
I don't prefer to use perfectly good words that have been appropriated by such a minute segment of the population when referring to them. Where do they get off redefining these fine words: gay, fairy, faggot, queer (which isn't really inappropriate). They ARE homosexuals, and "homo" is a perfectly acceptable abreviation. If somebody wants to use it as an epithet, shame on them. To have to spell out the full clinical term is a pain. Those who are offended need to stop being so arrogant as to believe we need to cowtow to their notions of what they think we should call them. They should seek help for their thin skins, if not their unfortunate predilictions.
(Hey Mark. Notice how I tied it to the topic? Pretty good, huh?)
Something called 'Mudkitty' said:
"The Swift boaters are liars - plain and simple.
Do you want to go there?"
No, I don't want to go there, once was enough. The Swiftboaters were there too, and I can assure you they are not liars. Of course, that's an easy 'argument' to make when you don't have a leg to stand on...
Abouna, speak out against homosexuality if you feel you must.
But why use hate words?
Would you use the N-word to talk about race relations? I'm telling you that refering to people as homos are fags or queers is as offensive as the N-word. If you sincerely love the sinner and only want honest debate, why resort to ugly name-calling?
I rebuke such ugliness in the Name of Christ who called us to love one another.
Trader...I wouldn't want to go there either, if I were defending the lying swiftboaters...
***** and it's simply unbelievable that grown het men, in this day and age, would still be upset gays. That is if they truly are het.
Get over it folks. Gay people exist. They always have, they always will, as long as there is a race called human. Grow up children.
And the debate rages one, with everyone nodding their head in agreement, except for one...or two...at this time of year...
Mudkitty has not one single piece of evidence proving the Swifties are liars, but her arrogance won't let that stop her.
And yes, gays exist. Good argument. Sinners of all kinds exist and many of them try to legitimize their sin. Should we get over them as well? It's arrogant to believe YOUR desires are not sinful because they are YOUR desires and somehow it's different for you. And THIS little shot---"That is if they truly are het."---means nothing, for if all here are homo, it just shows that we can separate our desires according to what's right and wrong. Do you think that there are none who oppose theft that might have the desire to steal? Do you think that among those of us who oppose killing or violence there are none who would like to throttle someone now and again?
Oh, and one more thing:
A Happy and Blessed Easter to all!
Speaking of lies, abouna and tug, get over the Sandy Burger thing. He destroyed no documents. He destroyed copies. Nothing was kept from the 9/11 commission. According to the Wall Street Journal:
"Justice says the picture that emerged is of a man who knowingly and recklessly violated the law in handling classified documents, but who was not trying to hide any evidence. Prosecutors believe Mr. Berger genuinely wanted to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission but felt he was somehow above having to spend numerous hours in the Archives as the rules required, and that he didn't exactly know how to return the documents once he'd taken them out... We called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. 'There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals,' said Mr. Hillman. 'There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission."
Dan Trabue; I don't need, nor do I want "honest debate" on homosexuality or any other sin. I know what Holy Scripture teaches and that is what I go by, plain and simple. I make no apologies when I speak out on sin, be it homosexuality, adultry, abortion or anything else. If I call a homosexual a homo or one who has an abortion a murderer, so what? You show me one place in the Bible where Christ teaches that His people are to remain silent on sin or where He teaches that we are to speak lovinly about sin to the sinners. He told the harlot to go and sin NO more. He did not say I love you so it is ok to continue in your sin.
And Mudkitty, yes there have been homos for eons, but there have also been pediphiles and murders and thieves, does that make it right and we should just get used to it and get over it?
Abouna, (and anyone else that might be interested) The topic of whether Homosexuality is genetic or not is addressed in depth over on my other blog, Gods way, My way. There is a rather long comment thread there already. Feel free to comment on homosexuality over there. You may find it linked in my blogroll on the left sidebar here.
Who cares if homosexuality is genetic or not? The fact is, this is America. And in America, people don't have to practice the Christian religion, or any religion. So, it follows, that homosexual, and bi-sexuals don't have to follow the Christian (or any other) religion, nor abide by it's practices.
Marriage in our society is a civil institution, and religion should have nothing to do with it, since in this Nation, we have freedom of religion.
Jim: If you honestly believe all of that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.
Berger NEVER took the lie detector test that he agreed to as part of his plea bargin, and to date, the Justice Department has refused to administer it.
There is no evidence that he destroyed only copies. The whole thing smells of a coverup and we have a right to know the truth and to have a full investigation of the whole affair.
There is no evidence that he destroyed only copies? What the heck does that mean? What evidence at all do you have that he DID destroy originals? The justice department says the originals exist and were available to the 9-11 Commission. What more do you want?
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department as said, "'There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals,' said Mr. Hillman. 'There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission.'"
With the exception of mudkitty, everyone who has posted here has been for the most part polite, coherent and intelligent in their comments and I applaud you, whatever positions you have taken. It is a delite to read this thread. That's why I like coming here.
Yes, Rick, I AM an exception.
"Get over it folks. Gay people exist. They always have, they always will, as long as there is a race called human."
And everyone of them a pervert!
I think President Bush is sending a clear message, every time Congress leaves without finishing thier work Bush will finish it for them lol.
When are they going to get the hint?
It's perverted to think that all gays are perverts. When someone is that uptight about gays, it makes me wonder what they are so insecure about.
Objectively speaking, they are perverting the function of their equipment. Their behavior is deviant, in that it deviates from the norm. It is an unnatural act when one considers that what is natural is for a male to unite with a female; it is what nature had intended. Though these terms have been used as eptithets and have been taken as offensive, they are indeed accurate in their usage by virtue of their actual definitions. The arrogance of insisting one's abnormal, perverse and unnatural behavior is as legitimate as the 97% of the population that is normal and natural in their behavior, leads to the use of the terms as epithets and the offense taken by those to whom the words are used.
Man, I'm 3 for 3 on the arrogance tie-in!
"mudkitty said...
It's perverted to think that all gays are perverts. When someone is that uptight about gays, it makes me wonder what they are so insecure about."
That's patently absurd. It's these types of man spirited silly statements that cause people to not take your ideas seriously...
By Marshall's reasoning then:
Objectively speaking, Left-handed people are outside the norm. Most of us are Right-handed and it is the right-hand we are supposed to use.
Therefore, Left-handed people are perverts. They're perverting the God-given design of the right hand as evidenced by the huge number of us who ARE right-handed.
We all know moral legitimacy is a matter of numbers, after all. Whoever has the majority of people committing an action, THAT's what we'll decide is moral.
Let's see, a huge majority of the nation and world are opposed to Bush's actions in Iraq. Therefore Bush - and all you perverted Bush-lovers out there...you know who you are, you sickos! -are clearly perverts. Deviants. You've deviated from the norm. You're supporting un-natural and sick, sick, SICK actions.
You weirdo-freak perverts.
[Says Marshall, not me.]
"Objectively speaking, Left-handed people are outside the norm. Most of us are Right-handed and it is the right-hand we are supposed to use."
There you go throwing your decietful distortions around, Dan, and comparing your precious apples with oranges.
It is natural for a human to develope skills in either hand. Natural. It is UNNATURAL for two individuals of the same sex to have intercourse.
UN-Natural! Despite what your agenda driven priests of modern "science" preach.
But we've been through this before with you defending perversion, haven't we?
Dan, you really shouldn't make more than a comment or two on a post...you render yourself irrelevant.
No Dan. A better analogy of perverse would be how your brain works. Does your church use peyote?
The left handed analogy is lame. First of all, it is abnormal in that most people are right-handed. But the actual use of the hand is for those things that hands are intended to do. To grab or hold things is the natural function of the hand, no matter which one is used. Of course, D.Daddio went over this already.
But as a Christian, you should know that morality is what God has mandated morality to be. Majorities determine acceptance or non-acceptance. The definition of the term "moral" has loosened over the years to mean other things.
But here we are off topic again and it's arrogant to think we can do that anytime we want.
BAM! 4/4!
Since when does Marshall get to mandate a god's will?
"Since when does Marshall get to mandate a god's will?"
You keep on saying this nonsense, Mud, and I keep responding that I only follow God's Will, which is easy to understand by those willing to read the Bible with an open and objective mind. It is not I who bends Him to MY religion. I simply state that which is knowable.
Post a Comment