Some people

I've just read a large portion of an article that can be described as  nothing less than ludicrous. It is an article that links to other articles that are basically thesis statements of the extreme left. This is written by one of the most biased, and unintelligent, writers working for what would appear a legitimate paper. The article in question is called, Is Bush the AntiChrist?

Want to know the first tip off that it isn't written by someone who can actually objectively report on such a loaded topic? In the title, the author chooses to write "Bush," not President Bush. That is one of the first signs, semantically speaking, that illustrates the differences between the left and right. The left doesn't call him President Bush. Even journalists, who are supposed to be objective (not even going to go there), refer to him as Mr. Bush or just Bush. It's ridiculous. Even though the right was far less than thrilled with Clinton, we called him President Clinton because we respect the office. Not that there weren't exceptions to this; don't comment on this point guys, let's look at what I'm really writing about...for once.

Okay, enough of that rabbit trail.

Read the article. I still haven't gotten through all of it because it's late, and I've got the point. He has extreme contempt for Christians...that's original. Oh, and Zach, here's yet another example of someone other than you using "fascists" but this time in reference to the followers of Christ. Told you. :) You'll never win, I'm always right.

In other news: I love Keith Urban. That is all.

Posted by Portia at December 8, 2004 12:44 AM

While I'm sure the article is fascinating, I unfortunately don't have the time to read it right now. I do have a moment to say this, however...

Truly, not to comment on something you'd rather me not comment about, but I noticed that while you acknowledged there were exceptions to Republicans calling Bill Clinton "President Clinton" when he was President, you didn't say that there are MANY exceptions to Democrats not calling George Bush "President Bush." While I have just used "Bush" on this site many, many times, I have always tried to first establish it as "President Bush." For example, if I were to write an article with "Bush" in the title, I would always make it "President Bush."

Like it or not, I realize that he is my president, and I have respect for the office, if not the man. Though I do realize that many Democrats refused to call him "President Bush" after the 2000 Election, in protest to the fact that he was elected in a way that didn't follow the Constitution. I guess you could say they did it out of respect for the Constitution. :)

Just pointing out...

Posted by: Henry at December 8, 2004 01:49 PM


Anti-Christ.... Well briefly, let me just address the respect for the office issue. Most on the left don't believe that President Bush was legitimitly elected. Losing the popular vote, while it may be a small incidental for the right, was the moment of truth for many Americans about the state of democracy in this country, the true power of the vote and what politicol connections (Jeb and company) can get you. I won't go as far as saying President Bush is the Anti-Christ; I wouldn't give him the respect of associating him with religion period as he's decided to use the exploitation of religion to push his own politicol polices, but what's important to understand is that this adminstration has polarized this country more then ever before by making this "war on terror" a religious war (Jesus vs. Allah) and decided to skip any level of dialogue around the gripes of Islam. This administration believe it or not, is waging a war against the same people who we trained ourselves. Example, Osama Bin Laden, a CIA trained operative used to fight Soviets in Afghanistan during the cold war and Saddam Hussein, another leader established by the United States later demonized for the convenient move of reaffirming dominance in the middle east. Those who understand this, see the true intentions of this administration, are afraid and at times may reflect those fears in extremism..... Open your eyes, the truth is waiting for you.

Posted by: Zachary Kern-Schnall at December 8, 2004 10:20 PM

Did you just talk to your dad? :) I've never heard you mention the Soviet connection. You really have impressive posts, and if I were slightly weaker, I might buy all of it. But frankly, I enjoy frustrating you. It's good to be a constant topic of conversation. Over the break, I promise I'll educate myself on your claims; I just don't have the time right now...I know you understand. Oh, and I tried to come up with a catchy last line like yours, but I'm fresh out. You saw me today...too tired to think. Thanks again for posting! See you soon.

Posted by: Emily at December 8, 2004 11:45 PM

Congratulations to PRESIDENT George W. Bush on his righteous, Christian nominee to head the office of Homeland Security: "Bernard B. Kerik". Nice Christian fellow that one. Lots of values and morals at work in Mr. Kerik.

Oh I know, PRESIDENT George W. Bush had nothing to do with Bernard B. Kerik's nomination. Ex-President William Jefferson Clinton MUST be RESPONSIBLE.

Your typing and your blog are both self-indulgent jokes. You don't even make a good zealot, or an interesting read.

President George W. Bush is responsible for demonstrating more disrepect for the office of the President of the United States than any other President in the entire history of the United States. PRESIDENT George W. Bush is a flaming hypocrite. No doubt that history will record it that way.

Liberals & lefties might lie; the numbers don't. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH has cluster *^$#'d everything he's ever laid his hands on.

You don't have the nads to let my comments stand, coz you're all type, and no substance.

Cheers & Beers!

Posted by: Bolivar Shagnasty at December 15, 2004 01:11 AM

Let's get one thing straight, no one comes on my site accusing me of having no nads. Or maybe they do, because I DON"T HAVE ANY!! For a self-proclaimed intellectual, you sure don't have very good observation skills. I'm a girl.

Secondly, how can I respond to vague emotional statements? You made no specific assertions that I could respond to. You just said that you don't like President Bush. Wow. Deep. Original.

And as for him bringing shame to the White House. Give me a break. He's not hiding fat interns under his desk in the Oval Office. Don't start with me on that one.

Oh, one more thing, if my writing is so uninteresting, why have you read at least three posts? You must have been so bored, you poor man.

Tears and Fears!

Nice nom de plume, sir. Very intelligent. Got a real name?

Posted by: Emily at December 15, 2004 08:37 AM