George W. Bush Justifies Off-The-Cuff Bigotry

[taks]

'official obsidian forum bush spin doctor'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

an insult indeed...

oh, and by the way, you still haven't shown how i've spun anything, the quote from your "respected" resource is:

 

The term "promote" in Governor Bush's response might be confusing. He is an Evangelical Christian. Religious conservatives commonly use the term "promote" where others might use the term "permit," or "allow." For example, conservative Christians often refer to human sexuality courses which discuss sexual orientation in public schools as courses which promote homosexuality.

 

this statement is untrue or at least too general to be applied directly to bush's statement. the term "promote" does NOT simply mean permit. period.

 

you're obviously PO'd because bush doesn't accept your belief system as valid. big freaking deal. get over it. 95% of the country doesn't. nothing unusual.

 

just because you don't understand his religious beliefs does not make my comments spin...

 

taks

[Rhomal]

to yale? no, not really.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes, really. his SAT scores alone qualified him... he was in the lower half, however. that is true.

 

and commissar, i never said he didn't get any help from his parents getting into yale, i just said he qualified without it. it is not uncommon. even mr. clinton had a shady "get out of vietnam free" past...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Typical.. whenever the water starts getting a little to hot republicans bring out the 'ol smoke and mirrors in the form of 'well clinton did this (insert unrelated actions here)'

[taks]

The editor clearly marked his own view of the matter at hand. He did not present his comments as fact just informed opinion. I see no issue with that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so how exactly is it spinning on my part when i point out that his "opinion" is incorrect? the author clearly meant for readers to infer that bush was referring to tolerance, which the statement clearly was not meant to imply.

 

taks

[taks]

Typical.. whenever the water starts getting a little to hot republicans bring out the 'ol smoke and mirrors in the form of 'well clinton did this (insert unrelated actions here)'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

a) prove that i'm a republican, or conservative for that matter.

 

b) just pointing out an obvious parallel that folks such as you overlook when criticizing anything that's not liberal. i make no bones about the probability that both bush and clinton had "favors" done for them. it is not unusual for people of privelege to get treated differently, particularly 30 years ago (they're better at hiding it now...). i agree that it is not correct, but it is also not correct to make a point out of something that applied broadly to all of our big-wig politicians, not just bush.

 

taks

[Rhomal]

> an insult indeed...

 

If the shoe fits.. and in this case I feel it does. Dont like it? Tough.

 

> oh, and by the way, you still haven't shown how i've spun anything, the quote from your "respected" resource is:

 

If you want to dispute his obvious take on the matter thats fine. Go right ahead. But dont make a broad statement coloring the entire site as biased because one editior does not kiss his arse as you do. People are allowed to disgaree with you oh so shining view of bush. Deal.

 

> you're obviously PO'd because bush doesn't accept your belief system as valid. big freaking deal. get over it. 95% of the country doesn't. nothing unusual.

 

And you have some links to back up that statistic? I think your more ignorant on the topic then you think.

 

> just because you don't understand his religious beliefs does not make my comments spin...

 

How many times do I need to drill this into your head? As a former CATHOLIC I am well aware of his beleifs. What I was taught was christianity was about acceptance and tolorance and love. Sadly those ideals in some xian circles are being replaced by just the opposite. Makes me glad I got out when I did.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Commissar]

i wasn't knocking the fact that you posted the data... just mentioned that the question was actually rhetorical... tonal intent cannot be conveyed via message board posts.

 

sorry, you have zero proof that bush is an idiot other than ideological bias.  you can believe what you want, even dislike his policies, but that doesn't make him an idiot.

 

btw... you said "but I do make generalizations about people who I find to be stupid "

 

ad-hominem attacks... of course, most of such threads have since been yanked.  not surprising as phosphor doesn't screw around with moderating

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Incorrect. What I meant by that was, I tend to say things like, "People who drool on their shirts are stupid," or "People who genuinely believe the earth is less than ten thousand years old are idiots." I make statements about ideas and actions; if you happen to hold to those ideas or take those actions, well, sorry, but you fall under the auspices of intellectual inadequacy, in my mind. And yes, that preceeding sentence was intentionally pretentious.

 

By the way, good go at shifting the blame of thread closing to poor lil' ol' me, but as I recall, you've been involved in some of those, too. Not saying I'm a saint by any means, but an argument is a lot like the tango; you can't do it by yourself.

 

As far as the rhetorical question went...I didn't get rhetorical out of it at all. When you use a phrase like, "Exactly how well did you do X," I tend to associate that with a request for specific information.

 

And alright, I'll grant you that Bush may not be an idiot. His style of speaking is idiotic. His policies are idiotic. His attitudes on faith and the law are idiotic. His view of the world is extraordinarily idiotic. But the man himself? True, utter genius.

[Rhomal]

> a) prove that i'm a republican, or conservative for that matter.

 

I dont think the forum would allow me to quote the vast majoity of your posts defending bush in all the polititcal threads into a single msg.

 

> b) just pointing out an obvious parallel that folks such as you overlook when criticizing anything that's not liberal. i make no bones about the probability that both bush and clinton had "favors" done for them. it is not unusual for people of privelege to get treated differently, particularly 30 years ago (they're better at hiding it now...). i agree that it is not correct, but it is also not correct to make a point out of something that applied broadly to all of our big-wig politicians, not just bush.

 

On that level we shall agree. I have no bones with that.

[newc0253]

yes, really.  his SAT scores alone qualified him.  he was in the lower half, however.  that is true.

a good prep school can get the dullest student an adequate SAT score. hell, most intelligent republicans acknowledge that bush is dumb. you'd have to be a real stooge to claim he's otherwise.

 

and commissar, i never said he didn't get any help from his parents getting into yale, i just said he qualified without it.  it is not uncommon.  even mr. clinton had a shady "get out of vietnam free" past...

yeah bill clinton got a lot of connections from growing up in that trailer park in arkansas...

[Commissar]

b) just pointing out an obvious parallel that folks such as you overlook when criticizing anything that's not liberal.  i make no bones about the probability that both bush and clinton had "favors" done for them.  it is not unusual for people of privelege to get treated differently, particularly 30 years ago (they're better at hiding it now...).  i agree that it is not correct, but it is also not correct to make a point out of something that applied broadly to all of our big-wig politicians, not just bush.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think anyone would suggest that Clinton didn't have some shady stuff done for him, or do some shady stuff. Clinton very clearly ran to Canada during Vietnam. On the other hand, he didn't choose to paint himself as some kind of gunslinging president, as Bush has done. Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, for Christ's sake. And people still buy the whole warrior image with him. Karl Rove is the real genius in that building.

 

Bush ran from Vietnam just as quickly as Clinton did. Kerry and McCain, two guys who went and (McCain especially) served their country well, both got painted by Bush as lesser men. I still don't know how the American public allowed that to happen. McCain spent the better part of a decade as a prisoner of war, refusing to come home when offered the opportunity, preferring to stay until the others with him were released. But Bush is the war hero? I don't get it.

 

But that's not what the thread is about; it's about Bush and religion. I do believe he has something of a bias towards people of other faiths, and especially towards those with no faith. I don't like that, at all. You can make the point that I've been quite vitriolic towards religion on this board, and that'd be true, but in all actuality I'm quite happy to let people worship as they choose, so long as it doesn't bleed into my life. I argue against the nutters handing out flyers and inviting me to church, but the average Christian who knows that personal, inner faith is far more important than a brazen and pitiful outward display gets nothing but respect from me. Just don't expect me to argue that religion should be in government, or that some religions are lesser than others. They're all equally superstitious to me, and I think for a president running a diverse country, they ought to all be equally important.

[taks]

If the shoe fits.. and in this case I feel it does. Dont like it? Tough.

oh, so it's OK to insult somebody when they disagree? ad hominems, btw, are usually the result of a weak argument.

 

If you want to dispute his obvious take on the matter thats fine. Go right ahead. But dont make a broad statement coloring the entire site as biased because one editior does not kiss his arse as you do. People are allowed to disgaree with you oh so shining view of bush. Deal.

excuse me, but YOUR LINK had the obvious spin in it. YOU used it as evidence and i clearly stated why YOUR EVIDENCE was flawed.

 

And you have some links to back up that statistic? I think your more ignorant on the topic then you think.

how many wiccans are there? half a million in the US? ok, sorry, i was wrong, 500,000/280,000,000 = 1/560 so MUCH less than 1% believe in your religion. i should have said "better than 99%".

 

How many times do I need to drill this into your head? As a former CATHOLIC I am well aware of his beleifs. What I was taught was christianity was about acceptance and tolorance and love. Sadly those ideals in some xian circles

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

are being replaced by just the opposite. Makes me glad I got out when I did.

yet STILL you manage to fail to understand his inability to ACCEPT your beliefs. go to the dam*ed dictionary for god's sake. LOOK IT UP. acceptance is NOT equal to tolerance. how many times do i have to drill that into YOUR head?

 

that's what you don't understand, and that's what i continue to point out.

 

taks

[taks]

Incorrect.  What I meant by that was, I tend to say things like, "People who drool on their shirts are stupid," or "People who genuinely believe the earth is less than ten thousand years old are idiots."

no, actually, you directly insulted engineers in the thread that got yanked. rather than criticize my argument, in the same thread, you chose to make a failed attack on my grammar, of all things. irrelevant at best, completely laughable at worst.

 

  I make statements about ideas and actions; if you happen to hold to those ideas or take those actions, well, sorry, but you fall under the auspices of intellectual inadequacy, in my mind.  And yes, that preceeding sentence was intentionally pretentious.

so, let me get this straight, ideas and actions that YOU determine are superior? you wonder why some of us call yahoos like you "elitists"

 

and why is it that i'm "under the auspices of intellectual inadequacy"? because a) i understand how to make a logical argument, b) don't commit logical errors in my arugments such as you or c) just because i disagree with your obvious "intellectual superiority"?

 

 

By the way, good go at shifting the blame of thread closing to poor lil' ol' me, but as I recall, you've been involved in some of those, too.  Not saying I'm a saint by any means, but an argument is a lot like the tango; you can't do it by yourself.

i've never attacked you with an ad-hominem.

 

As far as the rhetorical question went...I didn't get rhetorical out of it at all.  When you use a phrase like, "Exactly how well did you do X," I tend to associate that with a request for specific information.

still rhetorical... like i said, it's impossible to tell via the web interface we have. the fact that you were willing to try out an "intelligence pissing contest" is a bit telling, actually. bragging on the web is like running in the special olympics...

 

And alright, I'll grant you that Bush may not be an idiot.  His style of speaking is idiotic.

maybe... opinion, of course. he certainly has a "smug" look, but that's just how he looks.

 

  His policies are idiotic.

some, yes, others, no. opinion again.

 

His attitudes on faith and the law are idiotic.

no different than the rest of the christian faith. get over it. they are a majority. he's just in a position where his view gets heard.

 

His view of the world is extraordinarily idiotic.

opinion again. maybe he's not "enlightened" like you, but views such as yours have brought down more socieities than bush's. go figure...

 

But the man himself?  True, utter genius.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i never said that... for rhomal's benefit, clinton is a genius, btw...

 

taks

[taks]

I do believe he has something of a bias towards people of other faiths, and especially towards those with no faith.  I don't like that, at all.

why do you believe this? because he said he didn't think witchcraft was a religion? my major beef with his religious policy is his "faith based" initiatives... but they aren't favoring any one religion. of course, the most represented will be christian, but there's also more of them to boot... not unusual.

 

You can make the point that I've been quite vitriolic towards religion on this board, and that'd be true, but in all actuality I'm quite happy to let people worship as they choose, so long as it doesn't bleed into my life.  I argue against the nutters handing out flyers and inviting me to church, but the average Christian who knows that personal, inner faith is far more important than a brazen and pitiful outward display gets nothing but respect from me.  Just don't expect me to argue that religion should be in government, or that some religions are lesser than others.  They're all equally superstitious to me, and I think for a president running a diverse country, they ought to all be equally important.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

not sure if you've ever noticed, but i pretty much think all religion is a joke. but that's just me. i'm also insensitive to people ranting about the pledge and other related issues. big freaking deal. nowhere in the constitution does it say people in the gov't can't be religious nor does it say they can't express their religion... as a matter of fact, it doesn't even say they can't use religion as a guide. the religion argument is so overused it's sickening. the minority secularists want to impose their view on everybody else, IMO.

 

btw, nice job at another ad-hominem on your part in the previous post. you just can't get by without saying someone is less intelligent than you. you need that superiority, don't you? good for you. go boy!

 

 

taks

[Commissar]

no, actually, you directly insulted engineers in the thread that got yanked.  rather than criticize my argument, in the same thread, you chose to make a failed attack on my grammar, of all things.  irrelevant at best, completely laughable at worst.

I did make that attack on engineers. And I still think it's pretty damn funny. But I also did attack your logic, as impregnable as you may believe it to be.

 

so, let me get this straight, ideas and actions that YOU determine are superior?  you wonder why some of us call yahoos like you "elitists"

 

and why is it that i'm "under the auspices of intellectual inadequacy"?  because a) i understand how to make a logical argument, b) don't commit logical errors in my arugments such as you or c) just because i disagree with your obvious "intellectual superiority"?

 

I don't wonder why you consider yahoos like me elitist; I just really don't care. And you may well know how to craft a logical argument; I hope we'll see you do so, someday. In the meantime, just because you run down your cute little checklist of fallacies before posting doesn't prevent your logic from being flawed. You can avoid an ad hominem, a red herring, a paper tiger, and a plucked chicken and still manage to be wrong.

 

i've never attacked you with an ad-hominem.

 

You just called me a yahoo and an elitist. All in one fell swoop. I've managed to avoid weeping thus far, but I'm sure it's not long in coming.

 

still rhetorical... like i said, it's impossible to tell via the web interface we have.  the fact that you were willing to try out an  "intelligence pissing contest" is a bit telling, actually.  bragging on the web is like running in the special olympics...

 

The quote, actually, is arguing on the Web, not bragging. Though both apply. And as I said, I wasn't bragging; I was responding to your request for information. If you really want to know, I'll happily get into an intelligence pissing contest, just as I'll get into any sort of pissing contest. There are two main reasons for this: A) I'm sure I'll win, and B) They're so pointless they're amusing. Kind of like most of the arguments on here. Y'all can take them as seriously as you like, and believe you're making profound, significant statements, but I have yet to see anyone on this board be convinced away from their initial point, no matter what kind of facts and logic are put against them. So I do my best to have some fun, especially with those who are getting far too self-righteous.

 

maybe... opinion, of course.  he certainly has a "smug" look, but that's just how he looks.

Oh, I didn't even mention that he looks like an idiot. I thought that was a given. I was referring more to his complete lack of vocabulary and his inability to think on his feet.

 

some, yes, others, no.  opinion again.

And it's your opinion that others are not. What's your point?

 

opinion again.  maybe he's not "enlightened" like you, but views such as yours have brought down more socieities than bush's.  go figure...

Not sure to what societies you're making reference...

 

But I am sure that you're cute when your mad. All of this "my logic is better than your logic" stuff just slays me.

[Commissar]

why do you believe this?  because he said he didn't think witchcraft was a religion?  my major beef with his religious policy is his "faith based" initiatives... but they aren't favoring any one religion.  of course, the most represented will be christian, but there's also more of them to boot... not unusual.

 

He's an evangelical. Have you ever met one of those nutjobs?

 

****. I'm going to get to read more Latin for that, aren't I?

 

btw, nice job at another ad-hominem on your part in the previous post.  you just can't get by without saying someone is less intelligent than you.  you need that superiority, don't you?  good for you.  go boy!

 

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you. Though you really sound like you should be wearing something pink whenever you say "Go boy!"

 

Oh, and you're less intelligent than me.

[Pyronius]

Taks, considering your views, it seems like you'd also be against the gov't, that is supposed to be separate from satate BTW, calling religions invalid and backing another religion.

 

That crap has no place in politics. I am a christian, but I think people that use that as a political crutch and even people that need religion to validate their moral vaues are pathetic.

 

And BTW, your comments about RHomal are all utterly wrong and you are ridiculously out of line putting words in his mouth.

 

What you said to him on the 1st page is like me saying that you are a devout christian. SOuthern baptist. You go to church down the road from here. And I know your mother. You defended Bush, YOU MUST BE A CHRISTIAN!!!! You keep on bashing Rhomal, a witch... YOU MUST BE A CHRISTIAN!!! How ridiculous can you get?

 

But whatever.

 

People can think what they want... people choose bush as their leader thats their perogative. Their views have to be respected. Bush is more like a didtator every day, not that he acts any different, but people treat him like royalty and he is not to be questioned. Now its bad when the judicial system tells everyone that his holding "terrorists" without judicial review is unconstitutional? It IS unconstitutional, its a lack of due process. The judicial system is losing its check on the executive branch. Its there for a reason. But people just want his will be done no questions asked. That ruffles a lot of feathers, but then, the opposite ppl would be mad if bush was more socialistic, for example.

[Dakoth]

that is supposed to be separate from satate BTW, calling religions invalid and backing another religion.

 

The only thing protected by the constitution is that there will be no laws made governing what is a religion and what is not. Bush is still entitled to his opinion it only becomes wrong if he tries to act on it.

 

Comissar can you ever have a debate without insulting someone, or telling everyone how intelligent you are?

 

I feel it is funny that The military was brought up again. Why are people who believe religion has no part in our governmetn even supporing it in our military, after all no relgion belongs there it being a part of our government and all.

[Judge Hades]

In my humble opinion there needs to be a constitutional amendment that Religion, and I do mean all religion and religious doctrines and phrases, needs to removed from government. We need a secular state that does not bias against or for someone in which those biases originate from religious doctrine.

[Dakoth]

In my humble opinion there needs to be a constitutional amendment that Religion, and I do mean all religion and religious doctrines and phrases, needs to removed from government. We need a secular state that does not bias against or for someone in which those biases originate from religious doctrine

 

No amount of laws will stop these things from happening because you can not seperate a person from their beliefs, or are you under the belief no one that has religion should be allowed to run for office?

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

'As a pagan witch'

 

Sorry, but due to some bad experiances I stopped reading at that point, and that may be unfair or biggoted of me but once again the majority has a fanatical minoritiy of rabbid teenyboppers to blame.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What the hell LOL

 

If I said for example... That all Jews are greedy money hungry pigs I wonder if I'd get into trouble off the mods.

[Judge Hades]

No amount of laws will stop these things from happening because you can not seperate a person from their beliefs, or are you under the belief no one that has religion should be allowed to run for office?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If a person cannot separate his own religious beliefs from objective policy making so all people within the country be treated fairly he or she should not hold a public office.

[Dakoth]

You are one of those people Hades does that mean you should not be allowed to run for office? Sorry to say but there is no one on this earth that can separate themselves from their beliefs (beliefs period, no adjective need be applied.) it is one of the things that make us different from one another. The important thing is that people are tolerent of others point of view.

[Judge Hades]

I am quite tolerant. What they do in the privacy of their home and church is their business, but the moment that their beliefs have an impact on me and the laws I have to obey my tolerance ends.

 

I expect lawmakers and politicians to be fair and objective over the people they rule. If they cannot they are not fit to rule.

[Dakoth]

I am quite tolerant. What they do in the privacy of their home and church is their business, but the moment that their beliefs have an impact on me and the laws I have to obey my tolerance ends.

 

I expect lawmakers and politicians to be fair and objective over the people they rule. If they cannot they are not fit to rule.

 

As usual tolerance with exceptions, I am tolerant unless. How has the majority of the christian law makers not been? I have not even seen paganism out lawed, the native Americans are still free to worship their gods, muslims can still worship Allah. Your problem is that Bush spoke his mind and it differs from what you think, he is just as entitled to his opinion as you are yours. Now if he acts on that opinion then that is where the problem comes in.

[Archmonarch]

I have not even seen paganism out lawed, the native Americans are still free to worship their gods, muslims can still worship Allah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you trying to say Islam is paganistic in nature?

 

 

Also, I think the problem lies in the term witch. Id say when most hear that word they either think of the evil Halloween version or devil-worshippers. Wicca would not be the first thought of many.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Allah... Yahweh, and Jahomo are all the same.