Is George Bush a fundamentalist christian?

Well there's no doubt in my mind both Bill and Hillary enjoy above-average intelligence. And there's no doubt in my mind that Hillary is the more intelligent of the two.

And there's no doubt in my mind that superior intelligence in no way equates with a sound moral center, good judgment, or common sense.

foxfyre- You are correct. Clinton would not know who Ireneaus was without looking it up.

I would like to see a comparison between Bush's Organizational Abilities and Clinton's method of running his office.

Of course, experts like Mr. Blatham who know everthing will pooh-pooh the source- Professor Fred I. Greenstein, the dean of Professors of Politics in the USA and the Director of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson's program in Leadership Studies, but it is good enough for most thinking people.

On P. 186 of his book, "The Presidential Difference" Professor Greenstein writes:

"The oxymoronic organization of the Clinton White House has been compared to a little boys's soccer team with no assigned positions and each player chasing th

It's Sunday and the ad hominem attacks are here to celebrate the Sabbath.

the ball. The conclusion of veteran Washington reporter Elizabeth Drew was that the Clinton White House did not fit the existing models of presidential organization. It followed neither the "spokes in the wheel" principle, in which the president coordinates his own advisory system, nor the hierarchical model in which the president employs a strong cheif of staff. Instead, Clinton's key aides moved freely from issue to issue, and Clinton spent most of his time in meetings in WHICH PARTICIPATION WAS A FUNCTION OF WHO SHOWED UP."

Could this oxymoronic organization have been the cause of the destruction of the Democratic Party in 1994 when the Democrats lost the House and the Senate and again 1in 1996 and again in 1998?

Maybe Clinton should have put his book on Ireneaus down and paid attention to organization?

LOL MPorter. Your scholarship is generally impeccable and I do learn from it.

Like LW however, while I understand the sentiment from time to time, I dislike the personally directed characterizations. I don't like it done to me and it bothers me when done to others.

You apparently don't know what "Adhominem means, LightWizard- Doyou have a dictionary?

Ad Hominem-"against an opponent instead of against his arguments"

It is not an "Ad hominem" to point out that your opponent called you a liar by stating that your source was non-existent. If you don' t realize that, I suggest you don't have enough "light"--wizard.

foxfyre- Dear lady--You are indeed correct. There should be no "personally directed characterizations"

I am merely waiting for Mr. Blatham for calling me a liar and stating that I "reference a Time Issue which apparently does not exist"

I never quote non-existent made up sources.

I am very careful to quote accurately and to give sources.

I will defend my credibility and, again, call on Mr. Blatham to apologize. Failing that, I must defend myself as best as I can.

Sometimes I wish A2K would allow a forum where two feuding members would just go at it toe to toe, no holds barred. Only the declared combatents could particpate--no kibitzing from the peanut gallery. I wonder if that would help to keep other forums more cordial? If not, it would nevertheless be entertaining.

I don't know what dictionary you use and I wouldn't ordinarily quote the dictionary for anyone except if they infer I don't have one:

1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

It's right here, Foxy:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=4

Or there are PM's where such things can be taken outside the bar.

Yeah, but I bet they wouldn't allow uncensored creative insults in the debate room. In PMs, the rest of us can't watch.

Dear Foxfyre:

I agree with your sentiment. I have an easier solution.

When someone wishes to say "George Bush has no curiosity" or "George Bush has very little knowledge of History" they should be required to give evidence. If they do not, they should say, CLEARLY, IT IS MY OPINION.

As I mentioned, I can cite and prove charge after charge concering Bill Clinton and his misdeeds but I would not do so unless I were able to give Proof, Documentation or Evidence.

I don't know, Foxfyre, why people on these posts think they can set themselves up as authorities on matters they apparently have no grounding in except their own opinion.

I think the best way to approach the discussions is:

quote

"I think that the clash in Iraq was almost entirely based on George W. Bush's desire to get revenge for the attempt on his father's life. THAT IS MY OPINION- Does anyone have evidence, documentation or quotes to prove that statement is incorrect or, on the other hand, it is correct."

If everyone did this, the statement, IT IS MY OPINION, would be presumed to ask for evidence pro or con.

It is the height of folly for someone to call George Bush a "fundamentalist Christian, for example, without offering EVIDENCE.

Don't you agree??

I haven't read the instructions in The Debate Room as I've never taken the time to use it. As a matter of fact, I should get my butt down to Newport Beach as a client is having a big Sunday party and I just installed fiberoptic lighting on Tuesday (want to make sure it all works okay). Bye.

Before I go, this forum isn't a news agency nor an academic classroom -- nearly everything here is opinion. If one has verfiable links to support that opinion, that's all the better. What's relied on far too much is borrowed opinion -- constantly posting someone else's opinion as gospel.

I'm thinking about your question Mporter.

I am one who assumes a statement is the opinion of the one making it unless an outside source is cited. And, as LW alluded, who is to say that a source is automatically any more knowledgeable or any better informed than A2K members are just because the source has something it has written posted on the internet?

(Personally, I think 90% of the media out there these days are woefully lacking in understanding of history, sociology, political science, logic, economics, and/or ethics.)

Having early on been severely chastised (with numerous uncomplimentary adjectives used) for expressing an opinion without identifying it as such and/or for citing a source without providing a link to that source, I learned that my preferred method of exchanging ideas, observations, etc. was not acceptable on A2K and I have attempted to conform to the rules of the road here.

I usually continue to assume a statement from another member is that member's opinion and overlook when that member fails to add the 'in my opinion' disclaimer. (If a statement is outrageously libelous, I will ask for a source.)

I usually find debate via copied and pasted sources or links tedious unless the source(s) are particularly pertinent to the discussion. Statistics, graphs, direct quotes are often useful. (I wish I knew how to post graphs, photos etc. That's something I need to learn.)

I figure if I put my opinion out there, it is fair game to be challenged, attacked, dissected, whatever. I resent very much when the thread is sidetracked to make me (or another member) the issue. The 'attack the messenger and not the message' method of debate is usually what causes tempers to flare so that things get ugly. Unfortunately, some don't seem to know how to avoid doing that or they just plain don't want to. I can't tell you how many times I've been called a liar here.

In this thread, the thesis is "Is GWB a fundamentalist Christian?" Those who see something sinister about fundamental Christianity and who dislike GWB generally say yes. That's their opinion.

Those of us who disagree with that opinion, will say no. He is not a fundamentalist Christian.

But you know what? Not one of us is able to get inside GWB's head to see what he sees, think what he thinks, know what he knows, or believe what he believes. It's all speculation. And we can post quotes from a bizillion other speculative sources and it will still be speculation just the same.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are...it's a duck.

Well if that's a fact Mesquite, I can say with a great deal of certainty that GWB is not a fundamentalist.

Do you have a rough working definition for fundamentalist?

Yeah.

What have we decided it is?

I would take that bet, giving myself odds of about 50/50. Some years ago in the NY Review of Books, a South American writer (I think it was Mario Vargas Llosa) wrote of a dinner with two other SA writers and Clinton. Clinton was familiar with all their work, plus much else from their country, and in several instances where someone was quoting, Clinton finished the quotes. In Clarke's recent book, he relates not only how much Clinton read, but tells of a particular case where Clarke asked for the name of author and title, and when he tried to get a copy himself, he discovered that Clinton was reading the galleys...it hadn't even been published yet. So, yeah, I'd take the bet.

As to Pagels...if you wish to begin a thread on the aspect of her work you take to task, I'd be happy to join in. I am presently travelling, so don't have access to my library, but I'll wing it.