For the love of GOD! Hire a Minister of Propaganda!

Oh, you big-government tax and spend liberals would just love that, wouldn’t you? You simply fail to see the genius of the Republican dynasty. You would have the Ministry of Truth be a government agency, a bloated beauracracy full of affirmatively actioned apparatichiks, all feeding greedily from the public trough!

The Ministry of Truth is privatized! Rupert Murdoch, Clear Channel, etc. perform the propaganda function entirely satisfactorily, and make a profit while so doing! Not a dime of public money is spent, all that is required is a bit of minor tinkering with anti-trust laws and an occassional generous interpretation of existing laws. No corrupt beauracracy could perform the task of misinforming the public with nearly the zeal and efficiency as it is done now!

I am undone! Curse you elucidator, you are too clever for us naughty people! :smiley:

“Truth is mighty, and will always prevail. And there’s nothing wrong with that, except that it just ain’t so.”

  • Mark Twain

Inigo, meet Scott McClellan. And if I may:

Disagreement is enough of a reason to lower your opinion of someone? Do your parents know you’re typing on their computer on a school night?

Aside from switching midstream from “you” to “his,” it’s at least honorable of you to have admitted that your problem isn’t that he’s trying to “impose” his morality on you (which is the job – in fact, is the purpose – of every law passed by every President and every Congressman), but that he’s . . . conservative (shudder).

Already been addressed by others.

I agree, and I commend you for throwing at least one non-partisan bone into the pile.

I’m confused by this one. Are you suggesting that Bush should have ordered the FBI and Justice Dept. to cease law enforcement efforts while we’re at war? I suspect that’s not it, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Please clarify.

He’s talking about the Defense of Some Marriages amendment and Bush’s support of same.

No, no, that’s tublear.

OK, so no it isn’t. I just wanted to see it spelled out. :cool:

I support gay marriage and think Bush is wrong on this point.

But Inigo criticized Bush for opposing gay marriage while we’re at war. Bush wasn’t responsible for the timing. He was forced to address the issue because of the Mass. Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage.

And for the record, Bush has always stated that he was opposed to gay marriage, even during his pre-election campaigning, and during his days as governor of Texas. It’s not like he just started alienating gay voters during the war.

So it’s fair to criticize Bush for things within his control – like his stance on gay marriage – but it’s unfair to criticize him for things beyond his control – like the timing of the Mass. Supreme Court’s decision.

At your service.

You are in error. Mere difference of opinion doesn’t much bother me. It keeps the world interesting. My disapointing experience with Texas was due in large part with hostility directed toward me by the majority of Texans I interacted with. This hostility was sharply contrasted with otherwise identical encounters anyplace else.

Whether or not this is an error is a matter of opinion, I think. I used “You” to qualify the target of my point as the target of the general rant. I selected “his” over “your” to clarify my perception that the subject was not unique in his determination. Others would change my morality, and the subject is one of them. Thus the backhanded transition to the 3rd person to emphasize my point that the subject is “common” and, by extension, less qualified to lead me with authority in this regard.

You are thinking sillily. And you have made me smile today.

Nope, if his own perspective were particularly relevant to me, except to illustrate one I didn’t agree with, I wouldn’t have added a subordinate clause to my point and the brief expression of my contempt for those who would impose morality on others. And before I am labeled hypocrite for perhaps attempting to impose my morality on the subject, please understand that while I may enter into ethical or moral debates from time to time, at no time have I ever supported or *introduced * legislation to oppress individuals whose actions affect only themselves. If gay marriages can be shown to have a greater adverse effect on society than “traditional” marriages, then I might be open to a prohibition of some kind.

Does The President *have *to comment on the ruling of a Supreme Court issued by a mere state?

As for, “Your politics and duplicity have divided this nation” I have gracefully accepted the opinions of others on that statement, but I feel the responses are incorrect. Our leader’s “With us or against us” attitude has crept into so many aspects of our interactions as a society. It does not allow for ‘shades of gray’ in opinions, and it is in this gray area that compromise is found. It is with compromise that the different cultures and creeds that make up this nation can successfully interact. We’ve always had different opinions, I just believe that as of late they have become destructively polarized.

**I’m ** confused by **this ** one. I was talkin’ bout homos. I think you’re talking about Gitmo detainees…but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Please clarify. :wink:

My apologies on behalf of all Texans if you were mistreated while here.

But isn’t it possible that you shouldn’t condemn everyone in an entire state because a few people were rude to you? Aren’t you generalizing a bit?

I realize this is the Pit, and such generalizations are often used to get a laugh, but as a Texan, it just seems silly to insinuate that you can judge a person based solely on what state he/she is from. Especially a state as big and diverse as Texas.


He doesn’t have to comment. But he was asked about his opinion – frequently – and everyone already knew where Bush stood. So merely saying, “No comment,” while preferable, wouldn’t have forestalled the conflict.

Plus, I don’t think there’s any reason one should forestall their opinions merely because we’re at war. If criticizing the war doesn’t necessarily harm the war effort, opposing gay marriage certainly doesn’t harm the war effort.

Thanks for the clarification. Obviously, I was confused. Hopefully, I’ve cleared up my stance somewhat.