Is George Bush a fundamentalist christian?

And using your definition LW, I would guess that GWB is not a relativist so far as limits imposed by the mind is concerned. I think he is quite visionary and open to possibilities yet unseen and unknown. And I think he thinks ethical truths are eternal though we continue to improve our understanding about them.

Secularist and even theists can have constricted conservative viewpoints depending on the subject.
To absorb is not to deny -- it's how we each process knowledge. I don't believe GWB is very adept at processing knowledge other than some basic business dogma.

And I think that image is pervasive mostly due to GWB's rather inept public speaking style. In person he is personable, quick, and gives no impression that he is inept at anything.

I recommend Bill Sammon's book Misunderestimated.

He probably is careful in person not to impress anyone as to how inept he really is.

I just haven't gotten that impression. I get the distinct impression that GWB is simply who he is. He doesn't put on airs. He doesn't pretend to be something he is not. What you see is what you get.

I do understand those who dislike, distrust, etc. him and each one can no doubt find much to fuel that impression.

I felt the same way about Bill Clinton. I thought he was such a national disgrace, he literally turned my stomach.

At the same time I did not disrespect him when talking to others in person or on the message boards or anywhere else. He was President of the United States. And I respect those, you included LW, who criticize but do not disrespect GWB now.

Do we see another Reagan-style mythology in the offing?

Bush's 'inept speaking style' seems likely to be a consequence of a disability, but it is consistent with someone who has never read very much. And he hasn't, which is obvious, and it is something he himself has admitted. His knowledge of world history, US history, political theory (even the structure of his own nation's government), when he decided he was up to running for President, was more meagre than many on this board. His knowledge of other subject areas...say, anthropology, sociology, literature, music, etc hasn't made any appearance at all. Theology? What do you suppose he might respond if we asked him to speak for a minute on the Irenaean Theodicy? Inept public speaking style isn't the problem.

fox

Have you considered putting any of Elaine Pagel's books on your reading list?

He is a salesman with limited product knowledge and really only limited closing technique skills. With the American public that isn't exactly a detriment -- they like someone who falters on selling them something and will often buy it out of pity.

I don't judge people by their literary quotes or the big words they use, Blatham. Bill Clinton was long touted as a Rhodes scholar but I doubt he had a clue who Irenaeus is much less could he speak for a minute of Irenaean theology. Could you without looking it up first?

I judge a president by his moral center, his vision, and his courage and I judge his competency by the people with whom he surrounds himself and I judge his politics by the votes he supports.

LOL I like that analogy, LW. I think you sell him a bit short on his skill level, but I don't entirely disagree with you there.

John Kerry will lose thousands of votes of the millions of people in the USA who still consider themselves true believers in the Roman Catholic Religion.

It might be best for Kerry if he renounced his religion. He doesn't appear to have any really strong beliefs. In fact, he flip-flops.

Here is what he said with relation to the bombing of Bosnia in April 1999. "One of the lessons of Vietnam is, If your are going to send American forces in harm's way, you don't do it in a limited way. You don't do it by tying your hands behind your back ahead of time."

It is interesting that Kerry, even in his race against governor Weld for the Senate in 1996 got only 56% of the Catholic vote against Weld( a Protestant) who got 40%. As the Almanac of American Politics says:

"these are numbers worlds apart from what exit polls would have shown when John Kennedy beat Henry Cabot Lodge in 1952."

Maybe the Roman Catholic vote in Massachusetts has Kerry's number.

Mr. Blatham may be correct in his put-down of the use of the term "Sodomist".

However, the definition of Sodomite is
"a person who practices sodomy"

and "Sodomy" is defined as:
"unnatural, esp. anal copulation"

For goodness sakes, fox. I don't think I've seen anyone jump through hoops like you do in aid of excusing this man.

It isn't a matter of literary quotes or big words, it is a matter of being even slightly curious about the world. It's a matter of intellectual humility and assuming that there is much to be learned and that learning is a good thing. It is a matter of the value of education. And he's the 'education president'????

Clinton very likely would know exactly who Irenaeus was, and likely what a theodicy is, and very possibly what Irenaeus held on this matter. And yes, I could speak long enough to bore you on the subject.

The claim that Bush has a moral center is not compelling either, if even definable, any more than to say that Franklin Graham or a fellow kneeling in a mosque has a moral center. What they do have is a set of moral ideas as a consequence of social indoctrination, often not informed by critical study or reflection, and the certainty that often attends such indoctrination. I think it just happens that his ideas match yours, so you describe him as having a moral center. I don't think a moral center makes any sense at all as a concept where serious reflection and study are absent.

Well I can't very well judge Kerry on his devotion or lack thereof to Catholicism as I think that has little or no importance to the kind of president he would make. I think most Roman Catholics don't much care what religion a president is and are much more interested in whether the presidency will increase or cut their taxes or make their personal livelihoods more or less secure.

Blatham, I actually comment on Elaine Pagel in one of my chapters along with the core thesis of her views. Personally I think she's a blooming fruitcake, but I don't judge the sources I cite in the lessons themselves and I do no indoctrination. My theory is, true education comes more from exposure to different points of view subjected to critical analysis resulting in an informed personal conclusion.

Relativism 101: his moral center is based on what he believes his constituents believe is a moral center. Please refer to my signature.

A Bush aide just phone Bush to inform him that "Farenheit 9/11" just won the Palm D'or to which Bush replied, "What's a Palm Door?"

Yes, those corn holing heterosexuals should never be allowed to get married, mporter.

Mr. Blatham excoriates President Bush because his knowledge of US History, World History, Political Theory, was more meager than any on this board.

Mr. Blatham also says that his knowledge of any subject areas hasn't made any appearance at all.

Really?

Can you prove that Mr. Blatham?

Can you prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt?

You can't and you know you can't.

You apparently do not know that President Bush graduated from Yale University.

Many say he was a "C" student at Yale. He was.
There is a great deal of empirical evidence to show that a "C" in President Bush's day is equivalent to a B or perhaps an A- in today's Ivy League schools.

Would you like to see some evidence on that, Mr. Blatham?

You present none!!

Do you know who else graduated) strike that- was unceremoniously tossed out of Harvard for cheating in the early fifties? The spokesman for the American Liberal Left- The Chappaquidick kid- the alcoholic philander-Ted Kennedy>

Do you know that George W. Bush graduated from the premier program in Business?

George W. Bush graduated from Harvard Business School which was at that time, the premier school for MBA's.

Please do not descend to the idiocy mouthed by some that he used clout to get in. If Ted Kennedy could not use clout to keep from getting bounced from Harvard, it is highly unlikely that Bush could use clout to get it.

Those who denigrate the Harvard Business School program know nothing about the difficulties involved in finishing the program.

I have given two of President Bush's scholarly qualifications.
Mr. Blatham has( as usual) given generalizations attached to no emprical facts.

Liberals are quick to make generalizations when it is to thier profit but they demand proof when statemetns are made that demean their own heroes.

I will state that President Clinton did indeed commit perjury and, for that fact alone, should have been found guilty by the Senate.

Mr. Blatham makes statements. He cannot prove those statements.

LightWizard- What is it about Dictionary definitions that bother you?

Do you doubt that my quotes come from a reputable dictionary? "The Random House Dictionary of the English Language"?

And on that note I will respectfully disagree with LW and Blatham on the sort of person that GWB is. I like him. He infuriates me with some stuff that I think is quite ill advised and I have written everybody but Santa Claus protesting those things. And I think his heart is in the right place and I think he is quite visionary and I think his moral center is just fine. And I suggest any more "he is not" and "he is too" won't change any of our minds on that.

And Blatham, I would bet a week's pay that Bill Clinton couldn't tell you who Irenaeus is without looking it up.

It is apparent that Mr. Blatham has bougbht into the liberal nonsense concerning who "knows" what.

It was a liberal shibboleth for years that Hillary Rodham Clinton was the "smartest woman in the world" while Clarence Thomas was someone who just barely got through law school.

Ideologues like Mr. Blatham( he may read, but he reads nothing that does not agree with his prejudices) do not know that in the biography of Clarence Thomas. written by a man named Thomas( no relation), the august former dean of the Yale Law School. Professor Calabrese , stated that Hillary Rodham and Clarence Thomas were very good students and considered by the faculty as being ON PAR. Furthermore, Professor Calabrese stated that Hillary Clinton was not even the best student in her class from Wellesly.

Thus are liberal generalizations skewed.

Mr. Blatham knows nothing about the Iran and its religion. He just throws some words in his posts to try to impress the gullible. If he does really know something about Iran, he can add to our knowledge by telling us about its religion. We can learn from Mr. Blatham, the expert in all things.

But, as I have shown on Friday May 14th 2004, I showed that he made an "egregious" error by pompously informing me that I "referenced a Time issue that does not exist." It did exist and he has so little self-esteem and is fearful of his image that he has not acknowldged the fact.



Mr. Blatham knows everything. Except that he doesn't and it is demonstrated by his careful avoidance of facts and documentation and his reliance of meaningless puffery.