I did not comment on anything in this article in relation to Bush. My comment on Osbourne was about some Christian family watching it.
My other question, and I have asked it many times, (with no answers) is what if Clinton had done this? No there is nothing wrong with what-iffing - it is a very good way to examine your actions or your stand on things. Are you treating President Bush with a double standard? It would be natural for most any Republican to give the President a little leeway - but for some - it is a mindless repetition of blind loyalty.
As I said there is a very good reason for what-iffing - it makes you take a good, hard look at your actions and thoughts. It might be quite painful - but it is a good thing. If it is possible for some to do it - it might open some eyes - I don't think it is possible.
It is simply saying am I judging President Bush by the same standard I did Clinton? For many, the answer is decidedly NO - that is scary - I don't understand it.
Obviously.
The article didn't question Bush's faith in Christ did it? Whether the article has any merit or not - before everyone gets to screaming and carrying on - read the article. It was asking why no one was questioning Bush. Why can there never be a discussion about Bush on this site.
I thought you wanted a discussion within the context of the Chuck Baldwin article, and in that context I still say there's no point in what-iffing something Bush has not in fact done. Because he hasn't done it.
But if you want to do an off-topic purely hypothetical "what if", I guess I'll play. I'll go back and see exactly what your question was.
I wasn't talking about the Osbornes either, in my last reply. It's a petty matter (like the world would really come to an end if either Clinton or Bush had invited him right into the White House, imagine) and my only point in discussing it previously, in the context of this article, was that I simply couldn't understand why Chuck Baldwin would devote two whole paragraphs out of eight - yes, a whopping 25% - to bemoaning an event that never happened. And the answer kept coming back "to inflame". That leads naturally to questions about the motive to inflame, and sure enough, the other comparisons drawn to Clinton are revealed to be false in some cases and a real stretch in others.
It's the other accusations that are more important, so it's even more puzzling why he chose the Ozzy thing as his "big finish" in the article. Unless, as I said earlier, Baldwin just wanted to leave an image with his reader of a tattooed, foulmouthed, drug-addled rock star from a band with a satanic name pissing all over the Lincoln bedroom, with Bush's approval. Whether it happened or not.
Once I noticed that I was being propagandized, it put everything else in question, and made it impossible to take any part of the article at face value. And equally impossible to take seriously. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Again, I have been addressing myself to the article itself up to now, so apologies if I misunderstood what you were after.