And I'm sorry you make me the issue instead of dealing with my opinions in my posts. Difference in debate style I guess.
Since your opinions seem to be predicated upon the matters we have been discussing, I would venture that you have no real desire to discuss anything with anyone who disagrees with you. To be honest, I expect such intellectual dishonesty from those on the far right.
warning: in the words of Craven:
"Intellectual honesty has to do with the means by which someone reaches a conclusion and not a decree on what conclusion should be reached.
Example of intellectual dishonesty:
Spinning data to reflect a desired conclusion.
Determining that a conclusion must be reached to exhibit intellectual honesty is the anti-thesis to intellectual honesty and flies in the face of scientific method.
If you want to make the case for intellectual dishonesty you must do so using as the basis the dishonest ratiocination and not the conclusion.
The use of tactics such as the emperor's new clothes ploy is intellectual dishonesty."
Hmmmm...foxy, it does look cheesy, in that context.
The point is, you can quote directly from a speech or a press conference. Let's call this Source A: the big cheese himself.
Or, you can quote what Source B, ie enemy of Source A, says that Source A said. I quoted strictly from Source A in cases of both Clinton and Bush.
Hobit quotes sources that purport to repeat what they heard Bush say, but with no visual or tape or transcript to back it up: Source B.
I prefer to go with Source A in things that Clinton said related to his religious beliefs. I prefer to go with Source A in things that Bush said related to his religious beliefs. In these Hobitbob and I have a difference of opinion about which is 'worse' and that cannot be resolved since it is a difference of opinion.
That I must accept his view that Source B is accurate and reliable in order to be 'intellectually honest' flies in the face of everything I understand about intellectual honesty.
Foxy, the links (which you apparently didn't use, big surprise, because they might have challenged your comfortable little fantasy world) have refences to, and in many cases links to the original sources. So your little tantrum above merely reinforces my assertion that you are afraid to actually investigate anything on your own.
The post
Going back to the original concept of the post. I agree with the premise. As has been intensly posted by Fox, many Right Wingers don't understand and are seemingly hurt by remarks from non Right Wingers regarding W's religious fervor. Attacking W in this regard does polarize the issues.
I don't believe that there is a god that has anything to do with anything on this planet. Even if there was, according to the Judeo/Christian bible, this god is far from a freedom loving one.
Read the 1st 3 commandments and that should suffice for evidence.
As for any Pres. or politician envoking god, I feel that they have a right to do so but I cringe everytime I read or hear those remarks.
It also seems real evident to me that W utilizes the almighty in justifying his political stands. In doing so one feels that if one disagrees with those political stands that one is going not only against "democracy" but against the wishes of god. This is the framework of W's political issues. It's as if god were a Repub or Neocon. If there is a god, this god is more in the line of a monarch according to the bible. God and Jesus seem to have contradictory issues in my reading of the bible. The bible is rife with contradictions and many things in the bible are adverse to the "freedoms" that exist in The Constitution of the USA.
Right Wingers that espouse Christianity are a paradox because it is obvious to me that the Jesus presented in the bible was a Socialist.
Quote:It also seems real evident to me that W utilizes the almighty in justifying his political stands. In doing so one feels that if one disagrees with those political stands that one is going not only against "democracy" but against the wishes of god.
If ever we meet, Pist,I owe you a pitcher of Guiness (or Oatmeal Stout if they have it) for this. This is simple summation of the Bush adminsitration's use of religion.
I actually did use the links Hobitbob. They took me to sites that collected the most negative and inflammatory material, all out of context of course, and presented it as facts. I'm sorry. I didn't go in for that kind of trashing on Clinton bashing sites and I won't accept that as credible evidence against Bush or Kerry now.
Foxy, your opinion oif the sites shows you to be eitehr exceptionally naive, or exceptionally stupid. Pick one.
I am amused to see once again that any criticism of Bush draws fire against Clinton. It seems the many supporters of Bush see the world in black and white, left and right terms only--as though all criticism of Bush were only motivated by an adherence to partisanship which mirrors their own. Personally, i never voted for Clinton. Quite apart from that, the mess which Bush has gotten us into is all of his own creation--and the sort of schoolyard, "oh yeah, well what about your guy" rhetoric simply demonstrates a narrow view. Clinton is not "my guy," and whether or not he was a "moral" person, whether or not he touted his religion, has no bearing on a discussion of Bush, and his loopy dedication to a dimly seem christian agenda, which is costing the world thousands of lives, needlessly lost.
But Set, theys'a'dyin' fer the glory of Jeeeaaayyyzusss!
I'm simply suprised that any one should become upset over a politician professing his religion. Why shouldn't he? After all, isn't even the President allowed the right of freedom of speach?
Now, I am not religious in any way. Which helps me to look at things with a less of a bias. But as long as a politician doesn't continuesly bring the subject up, and noticably support his religion in governmental decisions, its all fine by me.
Unknown, It's not about "professing his religion." It's about how his religion affects this countries laws. His claim that what he has done was directed by his god goes beyond profession of religion.
Quote:But as long as a politician doesn't continuesly bring the subject up, and noticably support his religion in governmental decisions, its all fine by me.
Which is exactly what Bush does.
Ahh...
my mistake, I spoke to soon.
I don't support Bush's religion affecting his political decisions. But I do not mind if he openly says he is Christian.
I also support things such as the question of whether it is constitutional to include "Under God" in the Pledge. I don't think it should be in there, because even if children are not forced to say it, their peers around them saying it does affect them greatly, and no matter what their parents say, they will still go along with what the others are doing.
Thanks Bob
If it would OK with you order me up that Mexican dark beer, can't spell it.
