I guess that would be my main point. That he is capable of paying his respect. I can't say I know his reasons for it, but I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt in cases like that.

Maybe I am wrong but I believe in people. I can't read peoples mind. If someone makes a mistake I would like to believe they really made a mistake and didn't plan it. [/b]
and my main point is that he is NOT capable of paying his respect as he is now. if he respected ghandi, he would respect the ideal which defined ghandi-non-violence. and thus cease using violence himself.
however, he respects his ideal more than he respects ghandi's.

to me using violence is "evil". thus, bush is evil. ghandi sought peace in non-violence, and thus is "good".

to respect is to honour. to feel a kinship. to recognize a quality in another that we believe is better than that quality's opposite.


if ghandi was alive and opposed the war in iraq (which he certainly would) bush would not 'pay his respects'.

ghandi would be included in this statement bush made concerning the (violent) war on terror..."whoever is not with us, is against us".

i guess you have a pretty loose definition of 'paying one's respects'. i do not. and i do not pretend to respect bush, or yourself for trying to 'rationally' argue that bush is presently someone other than a violent (evil) killer. i do respect you for believing he can potentially become a non-violent human being.

semantics are really insurmountable in conversations at points such as this.

nothing you can say will change my mind, and i can say nothing more to prompt you to examine your own opinion in this matter. we should both spend our time doing somethig besides banging our heads against the wall?