On Friday, I hinted to you that if you were going to object to one president (Obama) being a bit too cozy with what you consider a bad clergyunit (Wallis), you needed to generalize your objection, be consistent, and object to ALL presidents (such as GW Bush) being too cozy with bad clergyunits. Because I could not produce the name of Bush's clergyunit advisor at the moment, you decided the conversation was over. You knew which clergyunit I was referring to, but you pretended not to because it would've been better for you if the subject died on Friday.
No such luck.
This was the exact interchange:
Me: "Did it bother you that GWB had a close association with some right wing loony clergyunit whose name I don't recall at the moment?"
You: "No more than it bothered me that you have an association with a child molester whose name I don't recall at the moment."
******* The bad clergyunit with whom Bush was too cozy was Ted Haggard.
*******
In the sentence above, enclosed in asterisks, there are two claims being made:
1) Bush was closely associated with Haggard.
2) Haggard was a bad clergyunit.
Which of the two would you like to debate (unsuccessfully for you) first?