In his snarky attempt to rebut my hypothetical question from yesterday…
I’m personally curious which happened more often in the past 4 years of Guerriero’s Reign: President Bush saying the word “gay” publicly … or Patrick publicly supporting the President on any issue.
…BoiFromTroy actually proved my point! LOL
It is routinely stated by the Gay Left that Bush only said “gay” once during the 2004 campaign. (Bush Score – 1)
And, in the five throughouly researched examples stated by BFT, Patrick Guerriero only praised President Bush himself one time. (Guerriero Score – 1)
BFT Example One – LCR praises Andy Card….not President Bush
BFT Example Two – LCR praises its own member…not President Bush
BFT Example Three – LCR applauds Sen. Coburn…not President Bush
BFT Example Four – Score One! LCR commends President Bush
BFT Example Five – President Bush never mentioned at all, so very odd example to use.
I was curious if Bush said “gay” more than Patrick publicly supported the President. BFT proves it was a tie! Thank goodness for those Guerriero supporters doing my research!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Oh, for Pete’s sake.
Bruce, this is your blog and you are free to do with it as you will.
But I will not in any way support you in this back-and-forth with BfT.
I do not think it was appropriate for you to call BfT an “apologist”. I do not think it was appropriate for him to retaliate. I especially do not think it’s appropriate for you to retaliate for his retaliation.
It looks like clean fun to me. I mean, I sure HOPE it’s not being done with hard feelings on either side…
BTW NDT, “apologist” is a neutral term to my ears – where it only means the person sometimes defends X (whatever X is).
No comment on most of the above, but I did read BFT’s post and I did think the same thing about the items he posted, i.e., that none of them were specifically praising Bush.
Bruce, you’re sounding downright petty. And your pettiness is beginning to undermine your arguments on a lot of topics.
For those interested, a bit about the word “apologist” –
It means, per 2002 Oxford English Dictionary, “a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial”.
Whether it’s a slam depends on:
(1) accuracy – i.e., DOES the person offer arguments defending X?
(2) one’s personal view of X, the thing the person allegedly defends.
So – “Saddam apologist” is a slam, if we agree Saddam is bad. But “Christian apologist”, meaning C.S. Lewis, is not.
NDT-
I had planned to do a follow-up on my theoretical question anyway. BFT just saved me the trouble.
He has a history of baseless attacks against this blog including alleging I was bribing people…and I’m not putting up with it anymore.
Sorry if I ruffled feathers, but so be it.
#5 Calarato — May 24, 2006 @ 9:54 pm – May 24, 2006
So – “Saddam apologist” is a slam, if we agree Saddam is bad. But “Christian apologist”, meaning C.S. Lewis, is not.
Just to point out, your comparison is inapposite. “Saddam” has a particular connotation. “Christian” is an adjective of indeterminate meaning.
No, it does have a meaning: a Christian is someone who believes Jesus was the son of God. I, however, am not one.
raj baby writes: ““Christian” is an adjective of indeterminate meaning.”
Now THAT’s stretching an opinion beyond all bounds of reason or rationality. However, someone who actually thinks that is, frankly, a religious bigot.
And, raj baby, that’s a phrase which has clear meaning to all honest people.
On the one hand I can’t believe you bother to read him Matt; but on the other hand, I’m glad you do it so I don’t have to. Reading your stuff is always a pleasure 🙂
Bribe me!
Hmm, Bruce bought me a Frappucino a few weeks back. Would that count? (thanks again man!)
On the other hand, I’ve been a commentor here 12-18 months before that.
Ah-HAH! I knew it! You are bought and paid for shill of the GOP. (Yes, another one).
Personally, I think the only way Patrick G. could ever have been “Republican enough” for Bruce would be if he knelt on the national convention stage during Bush’s acceptance speech and gave him a blow-job.
Well, he’s certainly done it to Tim Gill.
(correction: strike adverb ‘certainly’; replace with ‘metaphorically’)
GrampaGryph writes: “…knelt on the national convention stage during Bush’s acceptance speech and gave him a blow-job”.
GrampaGryph, hope as you may for the best… George Bush isn’t gay. A blow job, proverbial or literal, would not happen in THIS White House… now, your guy –Slick Willie– I think was impeached on a perjury charge having something to with… oh, let me see, a blow job?
Nice try –but raj baby eclipsed you this day for outrageousness already. The queue is filled; move back over with the leacherous old fat men at OutSports, will ya?
#8 Attmay — May 25, 2006 @ 3:06 am – May 25, 2006
No, it does have a meaning: a Christian is someone who believes Jesus was the son of God.
Not necessarily. Some people call themselves christians because they believe that they are living in a manner that Christ taught, whether or not they believe that he was the son of a Skye Pixie.
#9 Michigan-Matt — May 25, 2006 @ 9:20 am – May 25, 2006
And, raj baby, that’s a phrase which has clear meaning to all honest people.
Given the number of various sects, denominations, cults and the like–more than a few of which have tenets that are mutually exclusive–that call themselves “christian,” the term is, in fact, of indeterminate meaning.
Given that nobody owns the trademark on the term “christian,” who is to say that all of those who claim to be christian are, in fact, not christian?
raj baby, religious bigotry is going to be your hallmark for the 21st C I see. Aside from that, you have a unique talent for taking the obvious and making it difficult to discern… no raj, Christian is a term that doesn’t need a trademark or a patent –even in Massachusetts or Germany.
Nothing indeterminate there. The key in my statement was “honest people” wouldn’t disagree about it –you’ve already failed that basic test here enough tmes to fill a dung cart with your opinions.