I’ve written this blog on and off for over a year now and I’ve gotten hundreds of hate mail responses to different posts. Usually I write the author back to explain my point-of-view a little more thoroughly however in this case this guy is begging to be made an example of.

Here are Bryan the moron’s comments:
Bryan { 04.24.09 at 3:00 pm }

I love it, this article says they were asked to cover up all signs and symbols there….true. This website does NOT tell you that it had nothing to do with religious symbols, they wanted ALL signs and symbols removed for his normal backdrop of flags and a black background, like he does all the time, no matter where he speaks. If that was not bad enough, the writer of this drivel only giving you half the story, then askes you to “put that aside for a moment” and goes on a rant about a visit to a mosque which has NOTHING to do with the story…and never does go back to the White House explanation that was brushed aside to consider the mosque story. Anyone, like Anna Maria, who sucked right up to the teet of this obviously slanted, right wing-nut fringe “article” really need to go back to skool. And Anna has the nerve to call Obama supporters ignorant…..err, scuze me ignorent….or is it ig-nant?? Jesus Christ and Holy Cow some Amerikans are so gullible. For those of you that need assistance, gullible means you are a “sucker” incapable of critical thinking, taking one source as gospel and running with it.

Let’s first start with the fact that he spells his name with that insufferable Y in Bryan. This immediately discredits his take. However, for shits and giggles, let’s continue to evaluate the content of his comments.

He says that, “they (the White House) wanted ALL signs and symbols removed for his normal backdrop of flags and a black background, like he does all the time, no matter where he speaks.” OK, let’s examine this claim. All one needs to do is a simple search under President Obama Speeches and Google turns up literally dozens of pictures, like the one below, that run counter to this Mensa winners claim and he’s only 100 days or so into office.

Obama does not have a standardized podium ESPECIALLY when he addresses private audiences and when he visits foreign countries like the picture shows below. Thus the relevancy of my comparison to Barack’s visit to the Mosque and his speech in front of a Catholic audience.

Continuing on his blog bash Bryan states that it’s a bad thing that I, “rant about a visit to a mosque which has NOTHING to do with the story.” As previously described there is an actual linkage between the two, as they are both non political events. The point here is he would have found this out or known if he wasn’t blindy biased one way or another.

This is actually a point I’ve been wanting to make for some time now. Essentially his intellectual dishonestly is the problem with true ideologues. My sense is that Byran is a liberal based simply on the fact that all comments on this article espouse a response from the far Right or Left and oh yes, his facts are wrong.

The only redeeming quality in his comments is at the end of his pissy diatribe. Here he salvages some grace by stating that, “gullible means you are a “sucker” incapable of critical thinking, taking one source as gospel and running with it.”

He’s actually unwittingly a man of similiar thought though no doubt poorer taste. What he’s trying to tell me, although making a half ass attempt at it, is that the essential problem with politics is the tendency towards two fringe points of view.

This isn’t surprising because understanding ONLY two sides of an issue is marketable and simple. We elect officials to represent us because we do not have time to study all the relevant issues, hold a job, and live a normal life. The media and political parties on both sides understand this and whittle down the arguments into two neat, polar opposites because we don’t have time to study the gray area (nor do most of us care). Thus political parties produce John Kerry’s and George Bush’s when it’s so obvious these are not qualified men and not the leaders when NEED.

My point is what if absolute consistency on any issue from the right or the left, Socialism to Capitalism, from the religiously devout to secular is an indication of mediocre intelligence and lack of intellectual purity? Then that would make Washington a den of mediocrity and Bryan incapable of intellectual honesty.

The Obama Administration allows different backgrounds based on where he’s speaking at hence my reasoning for questioning the physical covering of a religious symbol at a religious univeristy where he accepted the invitation to speak. Obama’s speech was not an address to Congress, the media, or the American people this was an address to a private, religious audience (or at least one can assume a highly religious audience) therefore IT IS surprising that his office has purposely chosen to cover the symbol for Christ.