First of all, I AMAZED at this thread!
When I visited this morning, it was just an itty bitty thing.
And I'm trying to catch up, but first I had to jump in and see what you and Robert were disagreeing with.

And I am no Bush supporter, but I do disagree with the options you gave Robert on how he should perceive Bush, who is only his President, and not his god, or his master.

>"It is OK to question the impact of their ideology on their interpretation of the facts. It is not OK to reject their conclusions because you reject their ideology."

Hold it!
I think I see what you're saying!
Let's insert the word "Dr. Laura" here, everyone's favorite morality doctor.
And use the phrase again: "It is OK to question the impact of Dr. Laura's ideology on the interpretation of her facts. It is not OK to reject her conclusions because you reject her ideology".

Damn right I can! (See his position any clearer now?)

>"Use your own brain to evaluate the situation, not reject their choice because you dislike them. That is not a logic based stance."

I think you are trying to say that YOUR logic sounds more reasonable to YOU, and you can't understand Robert's disagreement.
We could substitute Dr. Laura for anyone now, for any cause.
How about the right-to-lifers?
They have idealogies, they interpret their own facts. And I can't "reject their conclusions because I reject their idealogies?"

Oh yes I can! (See it yet?)