Bush endorses teaching "intelligent design."

[Cleon]

Man, look at all the Bush brainwashed Bush apologists coming out of the woodwork to defend him.-..... oops.... Too bad when that broadbrush doesn't work, huh? I guess you some of you will have to come up with a new way to summarily dismiss the viewpoints of people who don't necessarily agree with your latest reactionary diatribe.

This is blatant trolling--nobody in this thread has said or implied anything like that. Really, corplinx, I had thought better of you.

 

[Upchurch]

Too bad when that broadbrush doesn't work, huh?

Whaaa? Who is this in reference to?

 

[Tony]

The headline could be changed to "Bush admits his own stupidity and ignorance" and serve the same purpose.

 

[corplinx]

This is blatant trolling--nobody in this thread has said or implied anything like that. Really, corplinx, I had thought better of you.

People on this forum regularly accuse anyone who doesn't agree with some criticism of the administation or a policy an apologist. Frankly, I am sick of it this behavior.

By the logic the knee-jerk apologist accusers use, we should have people trying to defend Bush's thoughts. Yet there are none.

Don't tell me this is beneath me. Instead go after the people who use the apologist ad hom.

 

[Upchurch]

People on this forum regularly accuse anyone who doesn't agree with some criticism of the administation or a policy an apologist. Frankly, I am sick of it this behavior.

Forgive me, corp, but you slap more labels and strawmen on those you disagree with than most of the people I interact with in the Politics forum. Remember in the Rove/Plame threads when you labeled me anti-Rove after I had repeatedly pointed out that I was anti-partisanship?

You were the one who started with the broadbrush techniques by painting critics of the administration as irrationalists. Until your post, everyone in this thread was addressing specific individuals. (with the possible exception of Grammatron who referenced "all presidents")

 

[corplinx]

Whaaa? Who is this in reference to?

Upchurch, let me apologize to you and others for possibly derailing this thread. The "you're an apologist, no your an apologist" game has just been something I finally snapped about. I've been called an apologist for not agreeing with various viewpoints about the Bush admin. The problem with the people who call you this is they only count hits, never misses (like this thread).

Check this out:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/sear...d=443394&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

It looks like someone gets called an apologist for taking an opposing view of someone else on almost any issue but especially Bush or Israel. Can we raise the discourse on this forum above this?

Calling someone an apologist also reveals a lack of skepticism since it infers that you are summarily dismissing their viewpoint as inadequate or flawed.

Am I guilty? Probably. But as part of a unilateral disarming I pledge not to do it anymore.

Dawg's word.

 

[Cleon]

Don't tell me this is beneath me. Instead go after the people who use the apologist ad hom.

Well, apparently it isn't beneath you. Which is a shame, really.

If you have an issue with people, take it up in Community or Flame War. Don't troll and attempt to hijack a thread because you've got an issue with people who haven't even posted here.

 

[corplinx]

Forgive me, corp, but you slap more labels and strawmen on those you disagree with than most of the people I interact with in the Politics forum. Remember in the Rove/Plame threads when you labeled me anti-Rove after I had repeatedly pointed out that I was anti-partisanship?

I just say we should look at your words I was talking about. Your first post in the matter. Let them decide if you were being nonpartisan. It doesn't wash with me. It sounds like something right off DU.

Wait a minute. I'm confused.

Before it was publically known who the leak was, this issue was considered serious enough to warrent a Justice Department investigation. Now that it's been traced to Rove, who apparently perjured himself to the grand jury (an act considered worthy of impeachment by Republicans less than a decade ago), suddenly we're not even sure a crime has been committed?

It isn't that I'm surprised at the naked corruption in the administration or the gross complacency of the media who fail to report it. That doesn't surprise me at all.

I'm offended by it.

This isn't a cover up of one man's reprehensible person character to take advantage of an intern. This was a cover up of the outing of a CIA agent for the sole purpose of quieting political discent about the reasons for going to war that can't, apparently, stand on its own merits. The two situations aren't even remotely similar, save the purjury, and yet the worse one seems to be receiving mostly "oh well" shrugs.

 

[hgc]

People on this forum regularly accuse anyone who doesn't agree with some criticism of the administation or a policy an apologist. Frankly, I am sick of it this behavior.

By the logic the knee-jerk apologist accusers use, we should have people trying to defend Bush's thoughts. Yet there are none.

Don't tell me this is beneath me. Instead go after the people who use the apologist ad hom.

I've been watching, and you've fallen way behind on your Bush apologetics. I thought you'd gone Dem on us.

I have often attacked apologists here, but that is strictly for actively engaging in it, not as ad hom.

 

[Tony]

I just say we should look at your words I was talking about. Your first post in the matter. Let them decide if you were being nonpartisan. It doesn't wash with me. It sounds like something right off DU.

No, he wasn't. If you see partisanship it's because of where you're standing.

 

[Tony]

The problem with the people who call you this is they only count hits, never misses (like this thread).

Non sequitor. Just because someone doesn't apologize for the Bush admin 100% of the time doesn't mean they don't qualify as an apologist.

 

[Upchurch]

I just say we should look at your words I was talking about. Your first post in the matter. Let them decide if you were being nonpartisan. It doesn't wash with me. It sounds like something right off DU.

As I have pointed out twice now, you are ignoring the context. Yes, this specific example is a Republican demonstration of partisanship. But what else did I say later in that same thread, that you apparently put less significance on this the above portion?

You are trying to label me as something that I am not, which is an act you have just had an angry outburst concerning. Project much?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm glad I didn't vote for him, otherwise I'd be embarrassed.

 

[Ladewig]

I think we should all be tankful that Mr. Bush didn't make his announcement three weeks ago. His defending I.D. on the precise anniversary of the Scope Monkey Trial would have been so ironic as to produce physical pain.

 

[Upchurch]

His defending I.D. on the precise anniversary of the Scope Monkey Trial would have been so ironic as to produce physical pain.

Let's not forget that creationism/ID won that government endorcement, too.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What saddens me is the number of people that will support Bush on this ID crap in most political forums.

 

[Mark]

Just like every other president, so shocking!

Right. Bush's love affair with the Religious Right is no different from every other president. Keep telling yourself that; maybe you'll actually start to believe it.

 

[normdoering]

Right. Bush's love affair with the Religious Right is no different from every other president. Keep telling yourself that; maybe you'll actually start to believe it.

I'm not sure, but I'd guess he was about half right. Clinton probably wouldn't have endoresed ID, but Jimmy Carter and Reagan probably would endorse ID. Nixon probably would not have, nor Kennedy or Johnson. But Ike probably would have endorsed ID.

 

[Mark]

I'm not sure, but I'd guess he was about half right. Clinton probably wouldn't have endoresed ID, but Jimmy Carter and Reagan probably would endorse ID. Nixon probably would not have, nor Kennedy or Johnson. But Ike probably would have endorsed ID.

To be taught in our schools? Reagan, maybe. I rather doubt any of the others would have. Someone could ask Jimmy Carter, I suppose...

Bush is the only president I can think of who has fully endorsed the agenda of the Religious Right. Reagan paid them lip service, sorta...

 

[supercorgi]

I seem to recall Al Gore saying that he felt that creation could be taught in public schools. Just that it didn't belong in science class, but religion class.

When did public schools get a religion class?

Some schools have a Comparitive Religions class. When I was in highschool I had a great class taught jointly by a social sciences teacher and an english teacher. We studied anthropology, literature, culture, and a whole mess of different religions. I believe that class was the start of my journey towards atheism.