President Bush on Christianity

That's not an attack. If I had said "you are foolish" or "you are a fool", that would have been an attack

Merely pointing out that it makes you appear foolish to make wild accusations that you can't back up is not an attack, it's an observation.

No, you didn't back them up. Your sources were biased.

Basically, you just backed up conjecture with more conjecture.

 

What I said was that your sources are biased and I asked you for a non-partisan source.

That they are biased and partisan are self evident.

This is stupid and it's only making me look foolish for being dumb enough to try to talk to you like you're an adult.

I'm out of here.

 

In regards to the first post on this thread, it really doesn't matter where Ken copied and pasted the information from, because it is a list of seven things that President Bush has either said or done that are all public information.

 

If they're public information, then it shouldn't be that hard for him to show sources for them now, should it?

 

First of all, the fact that you admit that these were conservative and liberal sources show that you know that your sources are biased.

Second, I don't need anyone to "point to a conclusion". Perhaps you do, but I'm smart enough to read a non-biased account and make up my own mind, thank you.

 

I have no way of knowing what I'll say until I see the sources.

If they're valid, then I'll admit such.

If they're as biased and shallow as the sources you've already posted, then I'll stand by my opinion that you should offer non-biased sources to back up your claims.

 

Not really. First of all, you didn't provide the date of the article or where it appeared. Given the first couple of sources you cited and the fact that you don't know what an unbiased source is, I would really prefer to check this out so I could see it in it's proper context.

Second, the article only says that the two men are gay.

If simply appointing a qualified applicant who happens to be gay is your idea of a "gay agenda", then your case is pretty weak and it's no wonder you don't want to cite a source.

Even further, it should be noted that his current appointee, according to the article you cite, is heterosexual so it would appear that, if President Bush really has a "gay agenda", he's taken a big step backward.

 

There is no such animal. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree but could you please show us where this was "Originally posted by Mike McK"?

 

I have no way of knowing what I'll say until I see the sources.

If they're valid, then I'll admit such.

If they're as biased and shallow as the sources you've already posted, then I'll stand by my opinion that you should offer non-biased sources to back up your claims. </font>[/QUOTE]The first one of course is a quote from President Bush from the New York Times

Here are some of the other sources for what was posted:

“Denouncing The President Bush’s Shinto Shrine Worship”, Christian Council of Korea, Korea Evangelical Fellowship, Christian Ethics Movement of Korea, http://www.worldevangelical.org/news_japan_22feb02.html, also http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20020219a4.htm

“Bush: Christians, Muslims Worship the Same God,” Maranatha Christian Journal, 11-21-03, http://www.mcjonline.com/news/03a/20031121a.shtml

“Bush Honors Islam Holy Month”, U.S. Dept. of State website, Nov.19, 2001, http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01111919.htm

M. Kilian, “Bush Approves 15 Percent Budget Increase for NEA,” Monterey Herald, Jan.29, 2004, http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/politics/7829557.htm

 

My frustration with this whole issue comes not form Mr Bush's comments themselves. He is after all, only a politician.

I am frustrated that Christians see him as something like the political messiah for Christian causes when he is nothing of the sort. I think Christians are just glad that "at least he's not Clinton" and get carried away with that.

 

I have no way of knowing what I'll say until I see the sources.

If they're valid, then I'll admit such.

If they're as biased and shallow as the sources you've already posted, then I'll stand by my opinion that you should offer non-biased sources to back up your claims. </font>[/QUOTE]I just went and checked out BushRevealed.com, and found that they don't write these articles about Bush, they are kinda like The Drudge Report and gather the articles from around the Internet, you will see source for every statement with a link to the source.

 

I brought it up. If you don't consider openly and unrepentantly living a life of perversion to be a moral disqualification for high office, simply based on the status of being an American citizen, I was wondering if you would also support high offices for habitual liars and adulterers...or if somehow you recognize some merit in homosexuality.

The topic was Bush's appointments to office.

Nobody has a "right" to a government office. They are awarded either through the elecoral process or the hiring process. High moral character should be a prime consideration, which eliminates openly unrepentant homosexuals.

 

Asking a question is not but the implication behind the question is.

And, as usual, you would be wrong. My conscience is clear. So long as someone is qualified and the best person for the job, I don't particularly care one way or the other what they do in their bedroom.

No. As I've pointed out to you several times now, you're the one who brought it up so it's you're responsibility to back up your claims.

It's not my responsibility, nor is it logically possible, to prove a negative.