want to work for the Bush administration?

[Irvine511]

apply here!

http://www.cronyjobs.com/

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Harriet Miers already did.

 

[BVS]

Great website...

 

[Earnie Shavers]

There are some rough heads on there...

 

[deep]

posted by Macfistowannabe

your sig

looks like a casket

with an american flag on it

and "Welcome to America"

you friendly fellow

 

[deep]

Bush Defends Gulf Coast Trips
, the president denounces critics who accuse him of staging 'photo ops.'

By Warren Vieth, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — President Bush strapped on a tool belt Tuesday and pounded nails at a home-building project for Louisiana hurricane victims as his administration announced steps intended to improve the recovery effort.

Before starting his brief work shift, Bush denounced critics who have accused him of staging politically motivated "photo ops" in the hurricane zone instead of staying in Washington and drafting a comprehensive recovery plan.

"We've got people here who volunteered their time, from all over the country, and they didn't say … 'I'm a Democrat and I'm going to work here,' or 'I'm a Republican and I'm going to work here,' " Bush said in an NBC "Today" show interview broadcast from a Habitat for Humanity project in Covington, La.

"I think our job is to elevate this whole process out of normal politics," he said.

First Lady Laura Bush joined the president at the lots where two houses are being built for low-income Louisianans left homeless by Hurricane Katrina.

"This is really, really important," she said. "It's very American to step out and help."

Critics of Bush's travel to the Gulf Coast include Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), whose office issued a news release Tuesday accusing Bush of conducting a "photo-op presidency" while failing to plan for reconstruction of the devastated area.

After the TV interview, the president and first lady joined workers at the Habitat project. Bush donned a hard hat, work gloves and a leather tool belt that held a hammer. The first lady wore a cloth nail pouch around her waist. After hammering a few nails into a sheet of plywood, the Bushes chatted, signed autographs and posed for photos with Habitat volunteers.

 

[nbcrusader]

If GWB doesn't go, critics target him for "not caring enough".

Nice to have targets on both sides of the coin.

 

[U2democrat]

If GWB doesn't go, critics target him for "not caring enough".

Nice to have targets on both sides of the coin.

Personally I think it would be that way for any president of any party.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

lmao @ the references/relevant skills section

 

[nbcrusader]

Personally I think it would be that way for any president of any party.

Just good ol' fashion mud (or more toxic substance) slinging.

 

[Iskra]

Nepotism, cronyism, favoritism.
Just three more words Dubya can't spell.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I think I'd rather swim in quicklime than be his intern.

 

[sue4u2]

Personally I think it would be that way for any president of any party.

Personally I think your wrong on this... and it's only because I know people who have lost everything over the flood/hurricane insurance damage issue.
Instead of pretending to build houses, Bush should be working, or legislation or at the very least, putting pressure on the insurance companies ( yeah right) to have no distinction between the fact that without the hurricane(s) there would have been no flooding. So having flood insurance would not have to be mandatory. If you lost your home because of a flood by a hurricane...you should be covered.. right.. wrong
It's absurd.. Hurricanes push water, water floods. One in the same.
But then we are talking about insurance corporations..
Never mind.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

It's puzzling that the biggest Christophobes in the Democratic Party - especially Chuck Schumer - seem very happy with the pick of a rookie judge for the Supreme Court. John Roberts at least had experience under his belt - much more at age 50 than Miers had at 60. He just had to throw his personal lawyer on the bench. Tell me that isn't an act of affirmative action.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

"Christophobes?" I really have heard it all now -- there's just so much bigotry against you Christians isn't there? I mean they won't let you erect monuments to the Ten Commandments and they even expect you to provide scientific justification for the teaching of intelligent design in schools. It's so hard being a Christian, no? And there was silly old me thinking that people of other religious faiths, such as Islam, might be the ones facing real prejudice and bigotry, y'know like having their places of worship burned down or being assaulted in the street for wearing religious clothing or being called terrorists or terrorist sympathisers.

Christophobes, really? Really we need a word to describe whatever perceived prejudice Christians profess to encounter? Cause to me it sounds a bit like "anti-white racism" (copyright 2001 the BNP) or "anti-male sexism" -- ie phenomena which exist nowhere other than in the head of the people using the phrases and are used primarily to detract from and even to legitimise genuine examples of bigotry and prejudice faced by other communities.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Okay fine, let's just say "Democrats tend to be more hostile towards religion." Is that rhetoric politically correct enough for you now?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

What evidence do you have (other than your opinion) that Chuck Schumer is a "Christophobe" ?

I'm a Democrat who is not hostile toward religion, so there's one for you

 

[Irvine511]

I'm a Democrat who is not hostile toward religion, so there's one for you

but don't you see?

if you support the separation of church and state, you are hostile to religion and assaulting the religious freedoms of those who wish to live in a theocracy.

you've either accepted Christ -- and therefore vote republican, unless it's for that Giuliani -- or rejected Christ, and therefore are, by definition, a christophobe.

there is no in between.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Okay fine, let's just say "Democrats tend to be more hostile towards religion." Is that rhetoric politically correct enough for you now?

it's not about political correctness, it's about the fact that whatever level of persecution or prejudice christians may be convinced they encounter is absolutely nothing in comparison to the level of persecution faced by people of many other faiths. the idea that we need a special phrase to describe prejudice against christians just makes me laugh, and not for reasons of political correctness.

and as for being "hostile towards religion" i would say whether democrats or republicans are more hostile to religion depends on the religion in question. as a general rule, while both major parties have engaged in far too much islamophobic rhetoric, the republicans are generally more guilty of this than their democratic counterparts. i don't accept the premise that either main party is hostile to christianity though, you only have to look at the fact that almost every major political figure has a tendency to finish his or her speeches with "god bless america" to know that.

 

[nbcrusader]

"Christophobes?" I really have heard it all now -- there's just so much bigotry against you Christians isn't there? I mean they won't let you erect monuments to the Ten Commandments and they even expect you to provide scientific justification for the teaching of intelligent design in schools. It's so hard being a Christian, no? And there was silly old me thinking that people of other religious faiths, such as Islam, might be the ones facing real prejudice and bigotry, y'know like having their places of worship burned down or being assaulted in the street for wearing religious clothing or being called terrorists or terrorist sympathisers.

The use of the term "Christophobes" is too outrageous to promote civil discussion - and effectively negated anything else of substance in the post.

But, with respect to the concept of bigotry, who should be able to define if a group has or has not been the target of bigotry (or there affects thereof)? Is there an objective standard? Is it strictly defined by the targeted group?

How many posts here, for example, exclaiming hatred for [insert fundamentalist Christian] will occur before you could entertain the notion of bigotry?

 

[Irvine511]

How many posts here, for example, exclaiming hatred for [insert fundamentalist Christian] will occur before you could entertain the notion of bigotry?

bemoaning the excessive influence of "fundamentalist christians" in the political processes of a secular government is a looooong way from hatred.

in fact, the efforts to maintain the boundaries between church and state is an act of love for the religions -- for it is only in a secular society that one can become the fundamentalist christian or muslim or atheist that one wishes.

 

[nbcrusader]

bemoaning the excessive influence of "fundamentalist christians" in the political processes of a secular government is a looooong way from hatred.

I fully understand and agree with your statement. But, unlike your post (you argue with passion, but not hatred), not all posts deal with "what they do" and turn to "who they are".

 

[Irvine511]

I fully understand and agree with your statement. But, unlike your post (you argue with passion, but not hatred), not all posts deal with "what they do" and turn to "who they are".

fair distinction.

and i appreciate the nice words. thank you.

 

[deep]

It's puzzling that the biggest Christophobes in the Democratic Party - especially Chuck Schumer -

This almost sounds anti- Semitic?

It is very common for members of the Jewish faith to be concerned with overt Christianity applied in law.

This country does not have a good history with tolerance to Jewish Americans.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Where does

 

[financeguy]

Okay fine, let's just say "Democrats tend to be more hostile towards religion." Is that rhetoric politically correct enough for you now?

Religion appears to play a greater part in public life in recent years in America, this is not a trend seen in Europe. Blair is known to be a devout Christian but he is an exception.

I am reminded of the debate between the Vice President and Edwards - when Cheney mentioned that they had never met before the debate, Edwards reminded him that they had met a Senate prayer meeting.

Far from being hostile towards religion, or Christophobes, it appears that prominent Democrat politicians feel the need to prove they are as 'devout' as Republicans, by attending prayer meetings, Christian services, being respectful to Christianity (with the notable exception of the abortion issue) and the like. Maybe they have figured out that it is politically correct to get be seen to be observant. Oh I forgot, we can only use the 'politically correct' shiboleth when hectoring the left.

It would be difficult to see an atheist being elected US president any time soon, but this has already happened in some North European countries.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I would have no moral qualms about faking faith to get elected. Give the people what they want so to speak.

 

[financeguy]

I would have no moral qualms about faking faith to get elected.

And I am sure that many have done. To be fair to Blair, his religion seems genuine enough, as far from being a help to those seeking political office in the UK, wearing one's faith on one's sleeve is probably a drawback.

But watch out with that faking faith to get elected strategy, someone could dig out your previous posts on here when you run for Aussie PM... .

 

[A_Wanderer]

Hmm a foreign born PM

 

[Lila64]

just sneaking in here from other thread parts unknown

Loved the job application

have fun with this: http://www.yeeguy.com/freefall/