Yes, that’s part of my point - if you’re arguing how many times Dubya mentions God, what exactly is the point of limiting your search? I did not misrepresent the data in any way.
I don’t get your point there either, Walloon. It doesn’t count if he mentioned God at the end of the speech?
Even if you limit it to this year, 131 times in 7 1/2 months is still quite a bit, a far cry from the 4 times that you wanted us to believe.
Meanwhile, a reminder of Aldebaran’s account:
I would say that coming at the closing of a speech, in a phrase like “thank you and God bless” is a lot different than a mention of God during the body of the speech, or a mention of God that has a different context.
Putting it at the end sounds like a reflex rather than an intentional statement.
Almost like me saying “Bless you” when people sneeze.
Julie
If you wil look at my posts, every time I stated very clearly that I was drawing from his radio addresses and his press conferences.
Again, I’m not necessarily defending Aldebaran, but the example you quoted is obvious hyperbole - I don’t think he was contending that Bush literally said “Word word word God word word word sentence word God word word God word word God sentence God word word God…” However, your response was presented as supposed fact.
I never suggested otherwise. But Aldebaran very clearly stated that he was not limiting it to those sources. And I don’t see any reason why we should limit it to those sources.
I did not accuse you of lying; I merely suggested that it’s disingenous to only include sources that help your point, while leaving out those that hurt it. I already gave you the benefit of the doubt as to whether you did it on purpose, but maybe I should ask you - Did you omit speeches from your search inadvertently, or did you purposely do so?
My response was and is fact, clearly stated, and with citations.
May I also add that in the “speeches and remarks” database, the same speech often appears several times (I found one speech appearing four times), tagged with different headlines and photos according to different spins the White House press office was putting on the speech at different times. The 131 uses of God in his 2003 “speeches and remarks” is a gross total; if you weed out duplicates, the number is smaller.
Why the concentration on the president’s radio addresses and press conferences? Because those two bodies of addresses (with the scattered direct television addresses) are directed to the general public. Most “speeches and remarks”, on the other hand, are tailored for and made to specific groups of people, not to the general public.
When President Bush addresses the general public, as he does in his radio addresses and press conferences, he seldom uses religious terms.
But disingenous nontheless.
Wait a sec - after misleading us into thinking that Bush had only mentioned God 4 times in the last year, now you’re gonna nitpick the total? I don’t care how much you nitpick it, it’s still a far, far cry from 4 times.
And why would the question of whether it was made in an address to the general public or in a speech to a specific group of people be at issue?
Besides which, the OP clearly stated that he wasn’t just talking about press conferences and weekly radio addresses, so can you see how annoying it might be for El_Kabong to keep saying “He already told you”, when in fact your refutation was not for the same point that the OP was making?
Whether the OP was talking about press conferences and weekly radio addresses or something grander than that is moot.
Whether Bush has inserted the word God in some form or another, be it in the body of a statement or as a closing remark, every single day of his administration is also moot.
The OP contends that a significant enough proportion of American public officials are fanatics as to be worrisome. When Americans, who have far greater access to the positions and commentary of our own public officials have said, no, in fact very few of our officials are even staunchly religious, let alone fanatics the OP has argued that we are wrong, that his opinion on the matter is fact.
The OP also contends that he is well versed enough in both the American political and religious climate and the opinions of the “rest of the world” to speak with legitimacy and accuracy about both. However, the OP does not have a firm grasp on the American climate, as he admits that his knowledge is based primarily on news reports and anecdotal reports from friends. And, as I pointed out in a prior post, given that the “rest of the world” is comprised of more than 5.7 billion people, no individual has any capacity to make claims about the beliefs or perceptions of the “rest of the world.”
The OP’s entire argument in this thread is intellectually and generally dishonest; he is attempting to project his opinion onto a larger number of people to give it more importance than it has, he refuses to provide cites or any independent confirmation of his position, and even when he is unquestionably wrong his reponse is “I didn’t see that/missed that/didn’t understand that, but…”
In short, this isn’t (and never was) a debate. This has been another example of this particular OP using the wrong area of the board to post a rant, and the rest of us getting sucked into trying to have a dialogue with someone who isn’t open to outside perspectives, as shown rather clearly by both his tack in this thread and his history on the board in general.
We’re wasting our time.
If someone would like to start a legitimate Great Debate about the appropriateness of the frequency of mentions of God and various religious concepts by President Bush (Blowero, El_Kabong, Walloon?) I think that’d be an interesting issue to discuss.
It’s never acceptable in a debate to use misleading tactics to make your point appear stronger than it is, and disliking the OP’s style or attitude is certainly no excuse to use such tactics in refuting him. What you are saying in a nutshell is that it’s unimportant that people used misleading debating tactics against the OP, because the OP did it too. I disagree.
I think you’re right that this thread is a waste of time, but when I see not only Walloon insinuating that Bush only mentioned God 4 times, when I know for a fact that I’ve personally heard Bush mention God far more times than that, but also to have El_Kabong keep harping on the point, over and over, like a broken record, when the point is so obviously misleading, it requires a response. A misleading statement uttered in one thread often makes its way into other threads, and if left unchallenged, can be tacitly accepted as fact.
It may not be your point, but it is an important point that I think needed to be said.
Free speech isn’t the issue here. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals, not the rights of the state. An individual citizen of the United States who happens to be a U.S. congressman can make a profession of faith accepting the lordship of Jesus Christ; the United States Congress can’t. Citizen Roy Moore can proclaim the Ten Commandments to be his moral code. The Chief Justice of the State of Alabama cannot.
Oh, and while I don’t really see any problem with a “ban on the mention of God” by the government–just as the government has no business “mentioning” the nonexistence of God, either–I think a proclamation that the God of the Bible is the God, to be worshipped in a particular way and on a particular day, goes beyond just a “mention of God”.
Please explain what you mean by “insinuating”. I stated very clearly, not once but twice, that these numbers were from his weekly radio addresses in 2003 and from his press conferences in 2003.
Blowero, I’m fairly well convinced that this is a matter of interpretation. You believe that Walloon was being intentionally misleading; Walloon claims that his intent was to provide an illustration that the OP was less than accurate, which, in fact, he did.
Is there really a reason to argue about this?
Actually, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama can declare the Ten Commandments to be his moral code. What he cannot do is force that code on others.
Well no, it’s not a matter of interpretation. The OP said Bush refers to God “constantly”, which is a matter of interpretation. But I’M talking about the response that Walloon gave that was stated as a matter of fact, not of interpretation.
Well, you wouldn’t think so, but then you guys keep rehashing it. Seems to me that if you don’t want to argue about something, you should maybe stop arguing.
This is really pretty simple. The OP made a blithe reference to Bush mentioning God “constantly” IN HIS SPEECHES. IMO that’s an exaggeration, but it is true that Bush mentions God a lot. Walloon responded by pointing out that Bush only mentions God 4 times IN HIS RADIO ADDRESSES AND PRESS CONFERENCES. O.K., that’s not really sticking to the point, since the OP was talking about speeches, and Bush has mentioned God numerous times in his speeches. But at least Walloon was clear and documented what he said. So far no biggie. Although his reasoning seems somewhat Clinton-esque IMO: While it’s not technically a lie to leave out pertinant information, it does seem vaguely dishonest, in the same way that Clinton said he didn’t have “sex” with Monica Lewinsky, even though they had oral sex.
But the train really derailed when El_Kabong started insisting the the OP acknowledge that Walloon had proven his point, a point which was not even related to the OP’s original assertion.
Of course, Walloon’s post does not disprove the OPs point, because they are talking about different things.
And again:
What amazes me is that there is any argument about this at all. The point seems almost trivially obvious to me: You can’t refute the contention that Bush refers to God a lot IN HIS SPEECHES, by citing how many times he refers to God IN HIS RADIO ADDRESSES AND PRESS CONFERENCES. It doesn’t matter how well-documented or honest the argument is, it’s still comparing apples and oranges.
If you really want this argument to go away, simply concede my point and stop talking about it.
Yo, Blowero, it shows pretty bad faith on your part when I apologize and promise to depart the thread, then find that you are continuing to smack me around for whatever obsessive reasonyou may have. I’m guessing the reason you’re sounding like a broken record yourself is because you’re trying to make some sort of point about my posts to Aldebaran. Well, sorry, but you have completely misunderstood my intent; I tried to explain it to you but you haven’t listened; furthermore you are lowering yourself to what you my level, which you have already gone on record as saying was abhorrent to you.
If you please, from this point forward leave me out of this. I apologized for my behavior, said I would leave the thread, and nothing I have done in this thread is anything that the OP has not done himself, here and in many of his other postings.
I say again, leave me out of it, 'kay?
Hey, all I know is Aldebaran hasn’t responded to ** MY ** post. 
That’s twice on the same subject of fundamentalism.
I’m patient. Maybe he has something interesting.
I would say that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama can’t declare the Ten Commandments to be his moral code, although Roy Moore may. The only codes the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama is governed by are the constitutions and laws of the United States of America and the State of Alabama. Whatever person happens to currently hold the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama will naturally have his own personal moral code (which may be a religious one) which he lives his life by.
It’s not true that I haven’t “listened” to you. I read your posts and have noted everything you said. I’m sorry to bring it up again after you left the thread, but Walloon and tlw keep rehashing the matter, and claiming I am arguing a non-point when in fact I believe the point is far from trivial. Apparently several people seem to think that the difference between mentioning God 4 times and mentioning God hundreds of times is unimportant; I do not agree. I am only re-explaining my point to the extent that people continue to respond to me in an obtuse manner. It ends as soon as y’all concede the point.
So I apologize for bringing you back into it, but you can blame Walloon and tlw for that.