gnjsdad:
I believe the Presidency has become too powerful and that ‘smacks of anti-Americanism’?
If someone takes a critical and unsupported pot shot at the presidency and the president, then yes, that is just unthinking anti-Americanism.
gnjsdad:
I also believe the judiciary, most recently by virtue of its actions in the Terri Schiavo case, is out of control. Does this also ‘smack of anti-Americanism’?
Apples and oranges (but nice try). Clearly the Judiciary has long wandered into the legislative function (since the mid-20th century). A logical (and I think obvious) case can be made that the judiciary needs reined in. You even reference a recent example to support your premise. (You’re learning!) But your sole basis for deriding Bush is that he occupies the presidency. What incisive analysis.
gnjsdad:
Backed into a corner, the liberal reaches for his handy quip and imagines himself dancing lithely out of harm’s way . . .
While marginally engaging, your quip is pointless. You are the one who claimed to have seen a “mere politician” being elevated to a level “comparable to the Holy Father.” Asked to prove your claim, you try to avoid an answer by directing a smirking comment at me. Just answer the question: Who claimed GWB was “comparable” to the Holy Father?
gnjsdad:
Near as I can tell, someone offers the least bit of criticism of GWB, and the Bush Curia here declares that person anathema. It’s tragic.
Offer critism where criticism is warranted and people will listen. Take drive-by pot shots, and you’ll be identified as a drive-by shooter. The concept is not difficult to grasp.
gnjsdad:
I partly agree. **If *Newsweek ***did that, that would be morally offensive.
Sheesh. The
only party that might be guilty here is Newsweek. But your Bush hatred is so consuming that the only outrage you can muster for Newsweek is a “partly” followed by a mushy “if” qualifier. I offer you a clear way out, and your response merely underscores your BITAC membership credentials. Your outrage is reserved solely for Bush and his supporters as your next sentences demonstrate:
gnjsdad:
But my belief here is that a great many posters regard Bush as not only a political leader, but a spiritual one as well, judging from the passion with which some of his arguably morally questionable actions are defended. Expressing opposition to the war in Iraq seems like expressing opposition to transsubstantiation or some other Church doctrine.
Nobody on this thread suggested that Bush was a spiritual leader. But the BITAC Sewing Bee immeditately and uniformly expressed offense at something that didn’t exist. When the obvious is pointed out, the unseen VCCC (vast conservative Catholic cabal?
) is invoked. I’m hard pressed to see the BITAC Sewing Bee comments as anything other than knee-jerk reactionism. It’s reflexive, not thoughful.
gnjsdad:
Let me close by saying I’ve developed a healthy respect for you as a debater. You’re a challenge, and I hope there will be times we’re on the same side. I suspect we are more often than not; the opportunity just hasn’t presented itself yet.
You failed to notice my thumbs up to your comment re: Clinton? I’m deeply offended.
Peace,
