or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Obama prays "a lot." Left slams him for....oh, wait, that was the last guy...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama prays "a lot." Left slams him for....oh, wait, that was the last guy... - Page 7

post #91 of 100
Quote:
Of course, I never said the article refers to anyone criticizing Bush for his religious beliefs. Yet another straw man. Oh, miloz, you're such a rascal.

So the article didn't refer to anyone criticizing Bush for his religious beliefs, but it was written "to examine the various charges in the MSM and liberal blogosphere concerning Dubya's personal religious beliefs."

How does one "examine the various charges" without ever specifying them?

Or, you know, referring to them?
post #92 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
I'd say Matt got you spot on more than me - of course I was going to respond with the difference - because whatever example you were going to drum up would have not been a criticism of Bush's religious beliefs at all (I'm guessing someone well outside the Democratic Party - perhaps a nice young bearded man from the ISO - arguing that Bush was abrogating church and state by doing <x>).


The simple fact is, there is no seething mass of anti-religious feeling out there. Most Americans, by a long shot, believe in God in some form or another. The minority voting blocs that Democrats rely on are even more religious than America as a whole.
Atheists are more prevalent on the far left, I'm sure, just as they're more common in right-libertarian circles than in the GOP. But the far left in the US is tiny and irrelevant. There is no atheist socialist vanguard waiting to spring into action and round up anyone who attended Christmas Mass this year.
Pio isn't immune to this, but it is the only sort of discussion you have, which makes you a poor participant. I am sure you have more to add, and you seem ok in other parts of sf, bit your all consuming interest in painting anything right wing as a strawman is boring, and it is based on nothing other than trying to apply a constantly changing standard of proof in a generally non rigorous environment. It doesn't take much smarts, it just takes single-mindedness. Not that I disagree with the distinction you draw in this instance.
post #93 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
So the article didn't refer to anyone criticizing Bush for his religious beliefs, but it was written "to examine the various charges in the MSM and liberal blogosphere concerning Dubya's personal religious beliefs."

How does one "examine the various charges" without ever specifying them?

Or, you know, referring to them?

Pretty easy. You do not have to refer to anyone specifically (your strawman) when the general tone of the public conversation happens to be, "Is Bush too religious."

For instance, if one were to write an article today concerning Obama and whether or not he's a Muslim, one would not have to level any particular charge but rather the reader (unless he was deficient or playing "miloz" on the Netwebs) would understand that within today's public conversation there are certain fringe elements making this accusation.

So now, let us go back to 2004. While you scoffed at that date for some reason, the date is important because at that time, part of the general public conversation were accusations that Bush was "too religious."

The only reason I took my time to give this a serious answer is because other people, people that actually think vs. try and score ideological points, might read this and see how correct I am.
post #94 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Pretty easy. You do not have to refer to anyone specifically (your strawman) when the general tone of the public conversation happens to be, "Is Bush too religious."

So, just to clarify, "the left" didn't "slam Bush for praying," the "general tone of the public conversation" concerned "Bush's religiosity"?

Quote:
For instance, if one were to write an article today concerning Obama and whether or not he's a Muslim, one would not have to level any particular charge but rather the reader (unless he was deficient or playing "miloz" on the Netwebs) would understand that within today's public conversation there are certain fringe elements making this accusation.
Okay, so slamming Bush for praying is the 'fringe equivalent' of arguing that Obama is a Muslim?
Why was "the left" accused of "slamming Bush" then, rather than a 'fringe element.' A fringe element can be accused of anything, so it's fairly irrelevant - there are fringe elements on the left who still think Mao had it right, and fringe elements on the right who think Hitler did.

But let's take your claim a step further - the 'fringe element' you're referring to actually comprises between a quarter and a third of Republicans (per Pew, etc.).

Rather than make weak references to the "liberal blogosphere" (of 2004 lol) and the "public conversation," find the equivalent number of Democrats who "slammed Bush for praying."

Quote:
So now, let us go back to 2004. While you scoffed at that date for some reason
Because the "liberal blogosphere" was irrelevant (in many cases, non-existent) in 2004. You had KOS. Wonkette was less than a year old and basically political gossip, HuffPo didn't even exist yet, media sources hadn't initiated blogs for their columnists and writers, yada yada yada.

Your reach to make accusations about the 'liberal blogosphere' just highlights the absurdity of your use of that article to defend your argument.

Quote:
the date is important because at that time, part of the general public conversation were accusations that Bush was "too religious."
Where are these accusations?

(ps, you realize The Economist isn't an American magazine, right?)
post #95 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
So, just to clarify, "the left" didn't "slam Bush for praying," the "general tone of the public conversation" concerned "Bush's religiosity"?

This is such an awesome example of you conflating something you and FLMM said, with something I said, to create a straw man that I just wanted to point it out. Excellent work!

Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
Okay, so slamming Bush for praying is the 'fringe equivalent' of arguing that Obama is a Muslim?
Why was "the left" accused of "slamming Bush" then, rather than a 'fringe element.' A fringe element can be accused of anything, so it's fairly irrelevant - there are fringe elements on the left who still think Mao had it right, and fringe elements on the right who think Hitler did.

See above. Just when I thought you couldn't get more assinine, you create a straw man on top of a straw man! Why don't you ask the person that said what you kept quoting vs. me, who has no idea the motivations and thoughts of FLMM. Q-fucking ED!

Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
Where are these accusations?

(ps, you realize The Economist isn't an American magazine, right?)

As I said, in the public discourse and yes.

Keep 'em rolling but don't be surprised if I just laugh at your antics.
post #96 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
This is such an awesome example of you conflating something you and FLMM said, with something I said, to create a straw man that I just wanted to point it out. Excellent work!
If you're not defending and/or agreeing with the thesis - why are you saying anything?

Quote:
As I said, in the public discourse and yes.
You find the 25-30% of Democrats who opposed Dubya's private religious beliefs?
post #97 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
If you're not defending and/or agreeing with the thesis - why are you saying anything

Why do I have to be arguing his thesis? That's the only thesis? Yet another fallacy.

Oh, and the answer in general is, because it bothers you and that makes me laugh.
post #98 of 100
I agree with Bill Maher: If Obama is a "secret" anything, he's probably a secret agnostic. I'm familiar with Jeremiah Wright's church, Trinity United Church of Christ, and I've know a couple of folks to attend services there on a regular basis. He has been a major religious figure in Chicago, and before the 2008 election his congregation and he were primarily renowned for their social activism, outreach and social service programs - yes, the Church leans left but no more than many (if not most) UCC congregations (e.g. a UCC church in lily-white Lincoln Park used to display a banner reading "This is a Nuclear-free Zone"). I suspect that the reason that the Obamas went to Trinity for so long is simple: It is probably difficult for a black politician to get elected in the predominantly African-American wards/legislative districts on the South of Chicago unless he or she is regarded as a church-goer. When Obama, who came from an Ivy League/U of Chicago/secular milieu sought office in Hyde Park, he probably felt the need to find a congregation in the community that was congruent with his own, progressive social views. He was undoubtedly turned off by some of the mega-churches on the South Side (e.g. Rev. James Meeks' Salem Baptist Church), which take a dim view of homosexuality. Trinity, by contrast, has always been "open and affirming" (liberal Protestant buzzwords) towards gays; Trinity's social philosophy in some ways has more in common with predominantly white Presbyterian, Episcopalian and Lutheran churches on Chicago North Side than many black South Side congregations. Yes, the YouTube clips show Rev. Wright at his most incendiary, but in reality he's more akin to Dr. Cornel West (a lefty but nevertheless a devoted integrationist) - or a lot of progressive white pastors in affluent communities, for that matter - then to "Calypso Louie" Farrakhan (to use the moniker coined by Chicago's own African-American/Jewish comedian Aaron Freeman).
post #99 of 100
''Lord, have that skirt get longer as she travels to that dance''

post #100 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaPro View Post
''Lord, have that skirt get longer as she travels to that dance''


New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Obama prays "a lot." Left slams him for....oh, wait, that was the last guy...