Bush is a what?

[sprucemoose3311]

Why is Bush a homophobe and a religious zealot?

First, the word homophode has such a loose meaning that almost anyone can be a homophobe by definition.

For example, I say that quotas to have a certain percent of workers in a workplace gay/of color/etc is wrong. I immediately I would be attacked as a racist and a homophobe. I am for gay marriage and most over civil liberties but the fact that i disagree with someone else on an issue makes me a homophobe in their eyes. At what point in time were we conditioned to think this way?

Second.
SHOW ME PROOF. GIVE ME A DIRECT QUOTE FROM BUSH THAT PROVES THAT HE IS A GAY BASHER, HOMOPHOBE OR WHATEVER LIBERAL INSPIRED/PHRASE WORD YOU WANT TO CHOOSE.

Onto religious zealot:

Hasnt every President mentioned god or quoted from the bible in the past? Why is it so wrong for a President to do so? Havent all of our Presidents, except for Kennedy (catholic), been white/male/Protestant. More important is the big issue... When did religion... i mean Christianity become a bad thing for politics. After all it is perfectly ok to be a Buddhist and in a government position because that promotes diversity.

Finally, the old definition of Zealot
noun any of the members of an extreme Jewish sect or political party that resisted all aspects of Roman rule in Palestine in the 1st century a.d. They would cut the throats of any Roman guard or wealthy traveler.

[SlowwHand]

Bush is a Christian, like there's anything wrong with that.

[David Floyd]

If Bush is a Christian, then maybe he should follow Biblical principles a little better.

[Elok]

I don't know about homophobic, but certainly he's not very religious. What most people mistake for his religion is in fact an appeal to the alienated protestant honky culture that sprang up after the civil rights movement made it admirable to be a victim of society. The beliefs of said group aren't really connected or relevant to the Christian faith, and don't really count as a philosophy because they reflect an obsession with an idealized golden age that never really existed. All persecuted victim groups are that way if you ask me, but that's another story. The point is that his remarks were chosen to cater to the general insecurities of people who subscribe to an irrational worldview very loosely based on religion in the same sense that science fiction is based on science.
This has been a ramen dragon rant.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If Bush is a Christian, then maybe he should follow Biblical principles a little better.

he's striking down the infadels good enough.

he's a fan of pre-covenant god. not that ***** neo-god.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Bush is a what?

Originally posted by sprucemoose3311
For example, I say that quotas to have a certain percent of workers in a workplace gay/of color/etc is wrong. I immediately I would be attacked as a racist and a homophobe.

Oh bull****. Who here has attacked anyone over not approving of quotas? News flash: most people, even blacks, don't approve of quotas. Show me some AA programs that rely on quotas. Oh, you can't, since quotas are illegal!

How this pertains to homosexuals I don't know, since the issue of "hiring quotas" for gays is nonexistant!

SHOW ME PROOF. GIVE ME A DIRECT QUOTE FROM SOMEONE THAT CALLS PEOPLE HOMOPHOBIC/RACIST FOR OPPOSING MANDATED HIRING QUOTAS!

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: Bush is a what?

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Show me some AA programs that rely on quotas.

The University of Michigan would do for a start.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: Bush is a what?

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The University of Michigan would do for a start.

It didn't rely on quotas, DD. The point system didn't entail quotas.

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush is a what?

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It didn't rely on quotas, DD. The point system didn't entail quotas.

"Critical mass" is little more than a mushy code word they used.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush is a what?

Originally posted by DinoDoc
"Critical mass" is little more than a mushy code word they used.

Did "Critical Mass" entail specific quotas? And just what did the SCOTUS say about that?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And just what did the SCOTUS say about that?

The difference between SCOTUS rulings and terms such as reality or common sense are sometimes quite vast. What's your point?

Edit: Damn you! You DanS'd me!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The difference between SCOTUS rulings and terms such as reality or common sense are sometimes quite vast. What's your point?

Would you, for once, actually say something instead of making obtuse comments?

Why don't you quote for us the relevant passages of the official U of Mich policy that you seem to think establishes a quota for admission of minorities? That would help bolster your case.

[Kropotkin]

When I was a little kid, bush was a plant that kind of looked like a small tree. Those where the days...

[Boris Godunov]

For DD:

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/idaa/rebush.html

"We do not have, and have never had, quotas or numerical targets in either the Undergraduate or Law School admissions program." University of Michigan President Mary Sue Colemam responded.

[Zkribbler]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush is a what?

Originally posted by DinoDoc
"Critical mass" is little more than a mushy code word they used.

The dissent jumped on this word, arguing that "critical mass" is just another word for "quota."

The majority opinion noted that the points given to minorities did not very from year-to-year but held stable, a practice approved of in Bakke.

I think if there'd have been evidence the law school tinkered each year with the amount of points given to minority studies in order to keep a certain "critical mass" (say 15%), the Court would have found it to be the functional equivalent of a quota and would have canned it.