Does anyone else see the similiarity between this discussion and the neo-con approach to quotes and comments?
Neo-con X says Y, something that hints or even outright states intolerance or a rigid position. Media report the moderate to extreme Z’s reaction/comment to statement Y.
Then the attack dogs come out. X comes in swinging, how dare you? How can you judge? The righteous indignation is thick on the ground.
And Z gets tied up in knots trying to defend their reaction. And sentences are parsed to oblivion.
End result: story becomes about Z and their foibles, rather than X’s intolerance/POV.
I am sick of this particular dog and pony show–it has gotten old.
IMO, W is throwing more reassurance to his base–and hey, he may well believe what he said. I can’t speak to his motive or sincerity here. I think his thought process is muddled, as is his speech.
But I can say that although I realize that some folks don’t need AA or substance abuse counselling to truly be dry/sober/clean for years, I can’t imagine how anyone could possibly do without…
Side note: it is my understanding that when evangelical Christians use the term “the Lord”–they are indeed referring to Jesus. To them, the two terms are synonymous. Given any EC use of “the Lord”–I would assume that Jesus is whom he meant.
Then you are not a passive-aggressive Minnesotan. Where I come from those statements are equivalent, though the more typical usage would be, “A lot of guys wouldn’t do this job without a safety helmet,” which means, “Only an idiot would do this job without a safety helmet.”
Let’s go down the check list, here. Username? Check! One-liner? Check! Content free slur on the integrity of one’s political opposition? Check! Yep, it’s a authentic Brutus.
Let’s go down the check list, here. Username? Check! One-liner? Check! Content free slur on one’s political opposition? Check! Yep, its an authentic ** elucidator **.
Here’s a hint, Brutus. That’s not the part we’re objecting to. If he had stopped right before the words “On the other hand” we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
But he didn’t, did he? He couldn’t let a basic statement in support of religious freedom stand. He had to qualify it. He had to hedge his bets. And not with a statement of his own faith, either. He didn’t just say “I don’t see how I could do this job without a connection to the Lord”, which would have been a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
Nope. He decided to tote out his faith as a requirement for his office. He said that he doesn’t see how I could hold his position if I don’t share his faith. That’s the stupid and condescending part. And the fact that Bush understands high school civics well enough to say that religious freedom is good doesn’t change that.
