Despite the fact that his successor has attacked him repeatedly, former president George W. Bush refuses to respond in kind. Read Ed Morrisey’s commentary to see how W “actually knows how and when to play rope-a-dope.”
The Internet home for American gay conservatives.
The man has more class than just about anyone I know.
I disagreed with him on everything that involved money, but he had the unshakable courage of his convictions.
The pictures of him and Laura at the airport welcoming back the troops is one I will always remember.
My boyfriend has promised me W’s book for Christmas. I really can’t wait to devour it. đ
He’s looking older. Just a minor observation; I don’t blame him.
ILC: so, you’re the same spring chicken you were back during Jan 2001-Jan 2009? Pot, meet Kettle. . .
JD: Kindly work on that reading comprehension.
There will be a day when GW is revered as much as REAGAN is now in the Republican Party if the party STILL exists in the future. Or if like Glenn Beck said the other day it becomes like the WHIG party.
Jesse, not that I agree 100%, but I do think there will be a day when people will be aghast to remember some of the nonsense-masquerading-as-criticism that Bush was put through. (As I always have been.)
Oh Christ, how gullible can you people be? George Bush isn’t saying anything negative about Barack Obama, or any other Democrat, or anything even slightly controversial because he’s a retired politician, and a loathed one at that. He doesn’t have anything to gain from criticizing anyone and he only stands to look petty and vindictive. There are hundreds of clips of Bush ‘attacking’ his critics when he was the President, when he still had political obligations and ambitions, when he was still on the line in an upcoming election or popularity poll. He’s no longer fighting political battles so he doesn’t bring out the guns anymore, how does that not occur to you?
Do you know why Bill Clinton gets away with making political statements to the press and going around campaigning for Democrats? Because people like him. That’s not true for George Bush – and he’s horribly inarticulate to boot. As much as he would like to imagine himself as staying above the fray, and as much as he would like to pretend that he isn’t involved in political commentary or campaigning because it’s some kind of principled decision he’s arrived at, it should be plainly obvious to anyone with two neurons to rub together that his is a forced exile brought about by his severe unpopularity.
The lengths you people will go to excuse and boost George W. Bush is astounding. This is a guy that ruined your party with incompetence and stupidity, and here he’s still got you wrapped around his finger. You should be embarrassed, but that’s true of 99% of these posts.
Loathed one, Levi? Loathed? Some polls are showing him now to be more well-liked than the incumbent.
I’m not praising his presidential record here, only the class with which he treats his successor who has bashed him repeatedly. If you read the post and those to whom I think, you might understand that.
OK, Jimmy Carter was/is incompetent and stupid, and he has nothing good to say as a retired politician, but he does it anyway. So does he get a pass because he does open his mouth? Levi, your BDS has gotten the best of you. How about Bush just is has more class and is a gentleman?
I think Levi should be impeached!
Funny, Levi, our “ruined” party just gave your pathetic party the biggest ass-kicking any party has gotten in three quarters of a century.
But its little wonder you dont recognize class and grace when you see them, your entire party together has absolutely none.
#11: “But its little wonder you dont recognize class and grace when you see them, your entire party together has absolutely none.”
AE, for once I have to disagree with you. The Democrats actually do have a lot of class. It’s just all low.
đ
So many you can’t find just one to prove your point, right?
The more ethically challenged and criminal, the better eh?
I guess it hasn’t occurred to you that he can outdraw Chairman Obama and Joe Bigot. They must REALLY suck ass, by your standard, right? Not to mention Bush has a book which ranks #1 on Amazon and has been in the top 100 for 68 days, even though it won’t be released for three days.
Exile indeed. You’re rubbing something, but it sure as hell ain’t neurons, Levi.
Dan, the problem is that asking George Bush this question is going to illicit the most George Bush-friendly answer. Bush isn’t going to be objective and honest, and describe how his unpopularity prevented every Republican in this election avoided any association with him. He’s going to pretend like his laying low is some virtuous, respectful course of action that he willingly chose to take. The Republican Party begged Bush to delay the release of his book until after the election because they didn’t want him on the television or in the news – why do you think that is?
As far as Obama ‘bashing’ Bush goes, you just have ridiculous and hypocritical standards on that front. You get upset when Obama refers to ‘the failed policies of the last 8 years’ and complain that he ‘inherited a mess,’ which are completely non-controversial statements and mirror things that George Bush said when he took office. Remember how George Bush avoided all responsibility for 9-11 and blamed the previous administration? Remember when Republicans justified their initial spending bills by talking about how they inherited a recession? Do you really think Obama is going a bridge to far when he makes these routine and predictable kinds of political statements? I’d also remind you that every Republican that just won election campaigned on ‘the failed policies of the last 2-4 years’ and that ‘they’re inheriting a mess.’ Are those Republicans ‘repeatedly bashing’ Obama in an unfair and dishonorable way?
I think, Levi, is what people are trying to say is that with all that has been said about George Bush; he hasn’t responded in kind. You have to admit it was pretty vicious for him, and thats not to say it hasn’t also been vicious for Obama either. Bush is no longer office and could really just vent it all out if he wanted, which is basically what Carter did.
As much as people like to turn him into a monster, Bush has never acted that way. I definitely have issues with his policies, especially what he did to the dollar. I will give him credit for being a gentleman at least and a good human being.
Yes Bill Clinton has more credibility for the years of prosperity under his administration but that doesn’t mean he has good character. I mean I think he is also a good person, just misguided and probably lacking self control. If Obama was riding high right now, Clinton would not need to be on the campaign trail. Clinton was pretty much pushed into the background after his meltdown in the primary, its Obama’s failing that opened the door for him.
Agreed. In the Bush-Greenspan years, the dollar lost:
– Around 25% of its value against other major currencies. (From around 115 to around 86, on the USD Index).
– Around 54% of its value against wheat. (From around 265 on an index, I’m not sure of what quantity, to around 575.)
– Around 55% of its value against oil. (From around $23/barrel to $53/barrel.)
– Around 68% of its value against gold. (From around $270/oz to around $850/oz.)
Measuring from Feb 2001 – Feb 2009.
For the record, Obama-Bernanke’s record is equally impressive. So far, the dollar has lost:
– Around 12% of its value against other major currencies. (From around 86 to 76, on the USD Index.)
– Around 18% of its value against wheat. (From 575 on the index, to 700-ish.)
– Around 39% of its value against oil. (From around $53/barrel to this week’s closing WTIC price of $87.)
– Around 39% of its value against gold. (From around $850/oz to this week’s closing price of $1394.)
Measuring since Feb 2009, i.e. the damage of *less than two* years. And in all likelihood, much greater losses to come.
(continued) And some people today still fear “deflation”. I can’t believe it. What deflation? Looks to me like 10 years of inflation, under-reported in the CPI. (Better inflation stats to be found here: http://www.shadowstats.com/ )
Deflation of housing prices, OK; but housing prices were a bubble that should never have gone up in the first place. Caused by Clinton’s determination to expand bank lending to people with bad credit, Bush-Greenspan’s excessively easy money / dollar destruction, and Chris Dodd’s / Barney Frank’s refusal to regulate Freddie and Fannie, the government’s mortgage-buying agencies.
But I digress.
Reagan didn’t throw Border Patrol agents in prison for guarding the borders. (I still don’t forgive Bush for that.)
There’s a lot to blame Bush for, as we have done, during his administration to start. (Insert Levi lies here)
But the damage is not nearly as bad as that done by the current President, in half the time.
Of course the volume of those clips of President Bush attacking his critics are carefully stored in the ‘many successful socialist countries” Levi was on about.
Oh yes! So much so, that when the previous administration sent Sandy Burglar to the National Archives to steal and destroy the documents that proved their guilt, documents that belong to the American people, to prevent the American people from knowing the truth, Bush let him off with a slap on the wrist instead of trying and executing him for treason as he should have done.
I think given time Bush will probably not be regarded as one of the greats but I definitely think much of the vitriole will in the end proved to be smoke and mirrors without much substance.
Bush was a far better president than he is currently given credit for.
As for Bush and Obama-I have long said it-the one thing Bush has the Obama doesn’t is humility. Obama is arrogant and tends to blame others for his own mistakes and faults.
The difference between Bush and Obama is the difference between an accident and a catastrophe.
Wow.
Everytime the Secular Savoiur blames the lack of progress in the country on what he âinherited from the previous administration,â he looks more and more petulant, petty, and quite fanlkly, childish.
Talk about Class vs. Crass!
[Credible Citation Needed]
Levi’s responses are hilariously predictable.
1) He blames Bush for everything.
2) He holds Obama and the Obama Party accountable for nothing.
3) He insists that everything Obama and the Obama Party do is right
4) He ties himself into screaming little rhetorical knots as he tries to reconcile 2) and 3) with clear examples of Obama doing everything for which he attacked Bush.
And then he runs away.
#7 Levi curses:
Levi, you are yellow, callow, grasping and a walking, talking anal sphincter.
If you had a lick of courage you would assault Islam rather than choose the embodiment of love and forgiveness for your bravado and scorn.
What power do you gain from coldly assaulting the one held dear by others? Would you consider opening one of your unimaginative, logic challenged hallucinations with these words: Oh f*ggot n*gger !!! ?
We all well know your disdain for religion and your superior satisfaction with moral relevancy which you conjure up on the spot according to your needs and by any means necessary in order to justify your conclusions. Ergo, “Oh, Christ” is as meaningless to you as saying “Oh Levi,” except you would not do the latter because it does not insult anyone.
I am telling you this because when you get to middle school, somebody is likely to beat the snot out of you. And considering how much snot you seem to have in you, there may not be enough left of you to coat a Ritz Cracker.
The tribe of priests called. They want you to stop using their name.
For centuries it has been a mark of class, proper upbringing and political and personal respectfulness, as well as reverence to the office, that a prior serving executive in many governments around the world not speak in open opposition or criticism to their successor.
I don’t recall Pres. Bush ever publicly and openly blaming Mr. Clinton’s government for defunding and neutering our CIA, FBI, NSA prior to 9/11; nor do I remember him doing so for Clinton’s failure to act against the prior attacks on our soil, sovereignty and even our servicemen. I do know that others in his government brought this to light and that it was confirmed by several investigative reports made by a Democrat-controlled Congress. These facts exist today, yet I have yet to see him on the ‘money trail’ hawking 9-11 shirts and correctly placing fault publicly.
It is the responsibility of any good previous executive of stature and statesmanship to assure the present leader has ample, unfettered opportunity and voice with which to govern.
Two perfect examples of this of ‘kings’ in the entertainment world: John Wayne and Johnny Carson. When those greats were done, they were done. Gone without a peep.
I view it like this.
– Bush was/is a sincere and gracious guy; decent (though not perfect) on security policy, weak on economics (though at least he cut taxes), a bit silly on certain things like the FMA. Overall, a “B-” President.
– Obama is a sincere and ungracious guy, weak on defense policy, just awful on economics, silly on many things. Overall, a “D” President.
Would I rather have the “B-” guy than the “D” guy? You betcha.
(Arguably I could have made those grades “C+” and “F”, respectively… chalk it up to grade inflation. Bush should never have signed Sarbanes-Oxley, the Prescription entitlement, No Child Left Undamaged, McCain-Feingold and other things.)
rodney –
This is exactly the course of action that President Obama is taking now. Conservatives should be eternally grateful that one of Obama’s favorite lines is that he wants to ‘look forward, not backward.’ The disasters in the Middle East that the Bush administration is directly responsible for are arguably war crimes, and Obama is picking up right where Bush left off, when he could have been launching investigations and appointing prosecutors. Are we living in an enduring society if poor people can be sent to jail for trace amounts of marijuana while political elites are getting away with implementing war and torture policies that kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people?
Was that Levi I saw driving by?
hehe
after Tuesday it is good to see one leftist not jump off a bridge. Keith Oldermann is no where to be seen.
And Chris Matthews is back on his meds.
‘arguably war crimes’
Only to Levi, only to Levi.
I guess trying to teach brown people democracy is a ‘war crime’ to Levi. Little racist socialist he is.
Back to bashing Michelle and Barack Obama,….
did you see how the foreign press is bashing our young inxperienced boob President for traveling like a Roman emperor or Pharaoh or worse?? I know our President has lost the American public but now he’s lost his beloved foreigners too! How sad. How many months left?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326962/Obamas-India-visit-security-erect-bomb-proof-tunnel-Gandhi-museum.html
So, could you explain how you’re rating Bush higher on national security? Shouldn’t he lose a letter grade for 9-11? And the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing little more than ruining our credibility, costing a lot of money for nothing, and ensuring that millions of people in the Middle East are going to be seriously pissed off at us for a few generations. What’s Obama done that justifies a worse grade?
Meanwhile, giving Bush points for cutting taxes that he didn’t pay for with spending cuts makes it look like you’re playing favorites. Bush avoided leadership on that front and went for the cheap political score – he cut taxes and was too scared to take responsibility for saying what had to be cut. If you cut taxes without cutting spending, you’re making the deficit problem exponentially worse – but this is supposed to be a feather in his cap?
It’s also worth remembering that Bush entered office with the government running a surplus, and as he handed the reigns over to Obama, the largest economic crisis in a century had just occured. This means that Obama is awful, and that Bush is just weak (but at least he cut taxes)? That doesn’t make any sense.
Leviâs responses are hilariously predictable.
1) He blames Bush for everything.
2) He holds Obama and the Obama Party accountable for nothing.
3) He insists that everything Obama and the Obama Party do is right
4) He ties himself into screaming little rhetorical knots as he tries to reconcile 2) and 3) with clear examples of Obama doing everything for which he attacked Bush.
And then he runs away.
Get a clue man. You’re suggesting that in this country, it takes more courage to beat up on Islam than it does to beat up on Christianity? That’s as laughable an assertion as I’ve ever seen made.
And for what it’s worth, I think Islam is just as stupid as Christianity. Religion is the problem – not the incredibly boring particulars.
Helio, I didn’t give any thought to it. I say “Jesus” and “God dammit” every day of my life, and I never intend it as an insult to anybody’s religion. That you’re taking such offense to my use of “Oh Christ” is just another case study on the authoritarian nature of religion. You don’t do it, and you don’t want anybody else to do it either. I honestly feel sorry for you if you really take offense to something so utterly insignificant. Shall we remember this little outburst the next time you dispense with a political correctness lecture whenever a conservative gets caught doing something blatantly racist? Seems your skin is pretty thin when you feel like you’re the one being slighted.
You think I deserve an ass-kicking because I may have absent-mindedly and completely inadvertendly offended your brand of insanely rigid, puritan Christianity? Yes, there’s nothing wrong with your morality! I mean, it’s not like I said ‘Jesus was a deadbeat’ or ‘Jesus deserved to be crucified’ or ‘anyone that believes Jesus was real and is going to come back and sweep them up to heaven is an everlasting moron’ …. I said ‘Oh Christ,’ and went on a completely non-religious political rant. Are you really so fanatically devout that you’d like me to experience bodily harm because I typed the name of your God? How does that make you any different from a Muslim who would like me to experience bodily harm if I were to draw a picture of his God?
Don’t worry, I’ll get mine, right? I have a trillion years of burning in hell to look forward to, and you and Sarah Palin will be up in heaven just laughing and laughing at stupid old Levi, who foolishly thought that people didn’t need to be trained from birth to live in fear of a cosmic law-giver in order to be a good person.
Gods, it’s funny watching Levi’s tirades. He’s convined he’s superior to religious people, to brown people, to conservative people…
He’s truly a legend in his own racist bigoted mind.
So you are blameless of insult because no insult is intended. Then you blame someone who takes offense at your self proclaimed non-insult that you do not intend as an insult and you call that person a practitioner of authoritarian religion and that is also not an insult because ………
I find that QUEER.
Yes, I think you’re an authoritarian. If you’re insulted by that, I don’t really care – it’s a fact as far as I’m concerned, and I think your hissy-fit over my use of one of your sacred words is a pretty good bit of evidence. Being as religious as you clearly are requires a pretty significant authoritarian streak – which should be obvious if you go around invoking an omnipresent and omnipotent imaginary friend in your daily life.
Could you explain to me what exactly is so insulting about my original remark? I know that taking the Lord’s name in vain is one of the ten commandments, but I wasn’t using the word wrongly, was I? Or am I inherently using the word wrongly regardless of context because I’m an atheist? Either way, I don’t understand why you are required to take offense to it, isn’t my violation of the ten commandments a personal matter? As long as you’re not breaking this little rule, you should be okay, right? Why does it matter if it has nothing to do with you and your relationship with God?
Oh right, it’s because you’re an authoritarian!
Oh, wait, this is a little thing you’re doing, isn’t it? I was supposed to take offense at this, wasn’t I? Too bad I’m not gay, so I’m not insulted (I wouldn’t be insulted even if I was.) I’ve told you this before on more than one occasion, by the way.
Levi’s also told us, frequently, in the past that he doesn’t believe in the Republic, or in the right of the people to ammend the constitution or in the ability fo brown people to comprehend democracy.
If only he didn’t believe in spreading his racial bile on the internet.
Yes.
How about “fiddlesticks” or “gosh” or “golly?”
George Allen got stripped and flailed for saying “macaca.” Why do you choose to use “Jesus” and “Christ” and “Goddamn” for your opening blast? Why, for attention, that’s why. It gives you swagger. It is the swastika tattoo on your forehead.
I am a rotten Christian. I needle you and I insult you and I try to belittle you in the eyes of others. That is a long, long string of sins. I have no explanation, except to say that I fully understood Cheney’s inner peace when he flipped off Senator Leahy (a “devout” Catholic) and told him to preform an impossible sexual act upon himself.
Am I an authoritarian? Yes. I would throw you out of my house in a heartbeat is you elected to talk the way you talk here. Do I want your mouth sealed? Not at all. I am an authoritarian believer in the First Amendment. I would stand guard for you while you delivered your claptrap to your adoring public or those who would pelt you. No “fairness” doctrine for me. You see, I know what the likes of you little fascists would do with your fairness doctrine and I oppose that with every authoritarian bone in my body.
You want nationalized health care? I don’t. So come out in the open and win it in the light of day with full public debate and disclosure. You want and end to DADT, persuade the TEA Party that it is profound good for America and our defense. Naw, you would rather have a judge order it through some arcane reading of the Constitution’s aura emanating from last week’s tea leaves.
Man up, Levi. Bring one gripe here in one well thought out comment and leave out the theatrics and see if you don’t garner a bit of respect.
How about you get over yourself and stop whining like a child about nothing?
I’m still unclear on how posting the words “Oh Christ” to an internet message board is an insult. If not saying that is a rule that you live by, what does that have to do with my saying it? Can’t you see how ridiculous you’re being? If I were to take the position that I considered it an insult to have someone tell me that the theory of evolution was not ironclad, would that stop you from saying it?
Just because you’ve chosen to live your life according to a series of arbitrary, pointless, and stupid guidelines, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to live by them, it doesn’t mean we have to walk on eggshells to avoid hurting your little feelings.
Oh, I don’t care about any of that. I’m not needled or insulted by anything you’ve ever said, and I doubt there’s anything you could ever say to me that would upset me.
And I especially don’t feel belittled.
Oh please. I hardly have the worst language around here.
You know what would be an easier way to support freedom of speech than insisting you’d stand guard for me while a said my piece? Not having a fit over a single internet comment that no one can reasonably take offense to that wasn’t even addressed to you in the first place.
I don’t like Obama’s healthcare plan either – when have I said otherwise?
Wait, why do I have to persuade the tea party when the law is clearly on my side of the argument? That’s the nice thing about this secular society we live in – if the law is on your side you don’t have to suffer a bunch of fools that want to run things according to their ancient superstitions. The default position should be that anyone should be allowed to serve in the military. There are clearly certain groups that shouldn’t be allowed for practicality and ethical purposes; children and the sick should not be allowed to serve, nor should convicted felons or people that are physically incapable of certain kinds of activity, but is there a single reason that gays should not be allowed to serve? You’ve got it all backwards; even though this is the status quo, it should be up to the tea party to present a coherent argument that gays should continue to be denied the right to serve.
Uh, same to you buddy!
Funny how Levi argues the ‘law’ is on his side, when it clearly isn’t. Find for me the ‘right’ to serve in the military. Better still, find for me the right to have your marriage recognized by the government. Hint, if 9 supereme court justices couldn’t, Levi is making it up again.
Of course, he’s a whiny little racist socialist, who won’t reply to anything that proves him wrong.
Obvious. Your social skills are stunted.
H-m-m-m. I never thought of gratuitously using the heart of the worldwide religion of ironclad theory of evolution as an epithet. The parallel between saying “On, Darwin” and “Oh, Christ” as a sneer point escapes me. (By the by, I accept all of Christ. I accept much of Darwin. The existence or nonexistence of God and Heaven is not ironclad scientific fact. But, I guess you can not take the time or effort to prove how the theory of evolution is ironclad scientific fact in all of its claims. Oh, Darwin! This is not to make a monkey of you, since I understand that you are evolved from a monkey. Oh, Darwin! Is it possible for humans to evolve into monkeys?)
I am not exactly insulted by your ignorance or insensitivity. I am more curious why you wish to use a name that is sacred to so many as an attention getter which has not a bit to do with what then flows from your stream of consciousness babble. Rather than being insulting I would characterize you as crude, rude and juvenile.
There you have it. I am unreasonable. Using the name of Christ as an attention getter is entirely reasonable and unassailable, except by unreasonable people like myself and any other stupid Christian who is all mired down in a swamp of non-scientific hocus pocus. Right?
Ergo, you do not respect anything you have decreed as meaningless. So, is your “Oh, Christ” an outward manifestation of militant atheism?
For someone above being needled by me or even mildly annoyed, you certainly have babbled on and on.
As for my continuing to rebut you, I can sum it up to this: As a highly flawed Christian, I still think it is possible for you to absorb some small point of light that will help to open your mind. I also like to beat a dead horse. I want to see what it will evolve into.
That’s precisely my point. It doesn’t occur to you as an insult because it isn’t one, the only difference is that there isn’t a worldwide network of biologists and atheists waiting around every corner to claim how deeply offended they are. I understand that as a Christian, one of your rules is that you don’t take the Lord’s name in vain – but I know of nowhere in the Bible where it is said that as a Christian, you must be insulted by others doing so.
I also find it amusing that you attempted to diminish the theory of evolution by labeling it a religion. Shouldn’t that boost its credibility with you? If tomorrow, we all started saying we weren’t going to bother with evidence anymore and just accept evolution on blind faith, wouldn’t that be preferable to you?
You’ve told me that no amount of evidence would convince you, so why should I bother? I’ve described numerous examples like the e. coli experiment in Michigan that’s let humans monitor evolution on the scale of tens of thousands of generations, I’ve described the recurrent laryngal nerve which doesn’t make sense outside the context of evolution, I’ve talked about a closely studied group of lizards who have already undergone measurable physical changes in the span of decades in order to be better predators at their new island home, etc. In the 150 years since evolution was first put forward, human scientific knowledge has increased exponentially more than in the entire course of our previous 100,000 years, and across all scientific disciplines and fields, there has not been a single piece of evidence that contradicts evolution. The fossils are always in the right place, they’re always the appropriate age, anatomically similar species have similar DNA sequences, evolution can be seen by human eyes in the lab and in field experiments…. it’s the very definition of an ironclad scientific theory.
And you have what to say about that? To dig in your heels and say it isn’t? Very impressive, theists.
As I’ve already pointed out, I said what I said with no ill intent. That said, I think that religious types such as yourself try to intimidate people and end debates with absurd whines like, “You’re being so insulting!” It’s a sign of the times. Not only do your religious claims no longer have any scientific backing, but they don’t have the backing of the state any more, either. There was a few hundred years ago when you probably could have had me murdered by the government for saying such things. This was a great time to be religious, when nobody knew anything about the natural world and when being burned at the stake was only a neighborly grudge away.
You guys are finding it much tougher in modern times, when science has explanations for virtually every natural phenomena and when democracy and free speech prevent the kind of atrocities that the Catholic church traded in for centuries. You really have no options but to hide behind these petulant claims of being insulted. Which is a pretty effective tactic in most cases because there are still so many religious people in the world. I don’t have that burden and am going to confront your frivolous accusations.
You’d mentioned earlier how Muslims complain of being insulted when people draw Mohammed, how are you any different if you complain of being insulted when I say Christ?
No dude. It was a way to start a sentence. An expression of indignation and frustration. There was no religious component to it whatsoever. You need to do something about that persecution complex of yours – did you have a fit over the purple Teletubby?
Whatever dude. I come here to post and read messages, don’t try to conflate that with being annoyed by you.
Don’t you mean close my mind? You just want me to become another glazed over drone so that your religious life is that much easier. You want me to believe things on faith and you want me to do as I’m told – this is your definition of having an open mind?
Why do you refuse to have an open mind when it comes to the question of whether or not lephrecauns are riding around on invisible dinosaurs and are whose machinations are responsible for people spilling their beverages? Why do you refuse to have an open mind about this actually being a virtual reality invented by machines to keep us alive while they harvest our brain electricity? Maybe this is a program on the holodeck for Lt. Commander Data and Captain Picard? Why don’t you keep an open mind about Mormonism or Islam or Zeus or Atlantis or the Force?
You don’t know what having an open mind even means, and you think you have something to teach me about it? Yeah right, but let’s see what you’ve got. What’s your most compelling argument for Christianity? What do you think should convince me?