A big eye roll for the New York Times

[Absolute]

From an editorial in today's edition (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/opinion/31wed1.html):

But this seems like the wrong moment to dwell on fault-finding, or even to point out that it took what may become the worst natural disaster in American history to pry President Bush out of his vacation. All the focus now must be on rescuing the survivors.

If it's the wrong moment to mention it, then why did you?

The hypocrisy is what bothers me, not the jab at Bush itself.

[ElvisL1ves]

They said it only seems like the wrong moment, not that it isn't the wrong moment. There's never a wrong moment to find facts and therefore find fault, or to point out flaws in the leadership performance of persons elected to be leaders.

[Earthworm Jim]

I'm with you on the hypocrisy, but I have to wonder - what other events did the author feel Bush should have returned from his vacation for? Or is he just mad that Bush was on vacation in principle?

Honestly, I'm no W fan; but I just don't get this "Bush was on vacation when the hurricane hit!" thing.

[FinnAgain]

It's not hypocrisy.
It's paralipsis.

Big difference.

[rjung]

Originally Posted by Absolute

If it's the wrong moment to mention it, then why did you?

I thought it was a Bush apologist's pre-emptive strike against George's critics, myself.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Earthworm Jim

I'm with you on the hypocrisy, but I have to wonder - what other events did the author feel Bush should have returned from his vacation for?

Anything. Everything. Nothing.

It is roughly similar to post-9/11. No matter what Bush did, someone was going to fault him for it. If he jumps up and runs from the class room, he is panicking. If he stays for seven minutes after hearing the news, he froze.

It might be interesting to hear what the NY Times editorial writer believes Bush could have done to prevent the disaster by not going on vacation. It's the Farenheit 9/11 school of criticism - "the President should have done something" where "something" is left undefined. Then, no matter what he does, it was wrong.

Regards,
Shodan

[ElvisL1ves]

Leaders are supposed to provide leadership. To most of us, that's obvious. To a reflexive apologist, obviously not :wally:

[DMark]

How dare the New York Times insinuate Bush isn't providing top notch leadership.

[MovieMogul]

Originally Posted by Shodan

It might be interesting to hear what the NY Times editorial writer believes Bush could have done to prevent the disaster by not going on vacation. It's the Farenheit 9/11 school of criticism - "the President should have done something" where "something" is left undefined.

It would be equally interesting to hear what Bush could do in Washington that he couldn't (according to the administration's previous claims) have done equally well in Crawford. From Salon:

So Bush heads back to Washington today -- and soon, to the scene of the disaster in Louisiana -- but for what? What can Bush do for the people of New Orleans that isn't being done already? What can he do that he couldn't do in Crawford? Scott McClellan didn't have much of an answer yesterday. Throughout the president's vacation -- as American soldiers were killed and the political progress faltered in Iraq -- the White House insisted that Bush had all the powers of the modern presidency in his command down in Crawford. So why does Bush have to go back to Washington now? Isn't it just symbolic, like standing on that fire truck and shouting in a bullhorn after 9/11?

"No, I think -- no, I disagree," McClellan said yesterday. "Like I said, this is one of the most devastating storms in our nation's history, and the president, after receiving a further update this morning, made the decision that he wanted to get back to D.C. and oversee the response efforts from there." Pressed on what Bush could do in Washington that he couldn't do in Crawford, McClellan said: "We'll talk to you all later. We've got to go. Thank you."

[THespos]

Reminds me of those people who start sentences with "I don't want to complain, but..." and then they proceed to complain.

That aside, I'm personally miffed that Shrub seems to have had another "My Pet Goat" moment when he should have been getting his butt back to Washington to show some leadership and help deal with this crisis. I'm not up in arms, but I think it's monumentally stupid to pick up a guitar when something this devastating happens.

[Necros]

As for what you can do from DC that he couldn't do from Crawford, the answer as I see it is: Keep up appearances. He can't actually perform any additional tasks in Washington, aside from maybe sitting down with FEMA officials as opposed to having a conference call with them, but it is, I think, important for him to be SEEN doing something.

Even if he was coordinating the Red Cross personally from his ranch, the hue and cry you would hear rising would go something like: "Bush is on vacation while New Orleans floods! On VACATION! Why doesn't he get to work while all these people are suffering?!"

I think most people in the country aren't used to the idea of telecommuting, let alone the idea of a president doing it.

[Jackmannii]

Not hypocrisy, just a cheap political shot clothed in false "we're above that sort of thing" language.

Obviously, Bush should have rushed to the spot before the storm hit to hold back the wind and waves by sheer force of personality.

This is good too:"People who think of that graceful city and the rest of the Mississippi Delta as tourist destinations must have been reminded, watching the rescue operations, that the real residents of this area are in the main poor and black. The only resources most of them will have to fall back on will need to come from the federal government."

Guess the local and state leaders didn't do more to ensure the city's ability to handle a category 4 hurricane (or have any interest in providing relief efforts) because they're elitist and racist. And if the Administration doesn't come through with the aid the Times feels is warranted, they're set up for similar charges.

[THespos]

Originally Posted by Necros

As for what you can do from DC that he couldn't do from Crawford, the answer as I see it is: Keep up appearances. He can't actually perform any additional tasks in Washington, aside from maybe sitting down with FEMA officials as opposed to having a conference call with them, but it is, I think, important for him to be SEEN doing something.

I think it's more than just keeping up appearances. It's just inappropriate to goof off when a major disaster like this hits.

[Maeglin]

Hypocrisy?

I think you misspelled "rhetoric".

[Necros]

Originally Posted by THespos

I think it's more than just keeping up appearances. It's just inappropriate to goof off when a major disaster like this hits.

Well, that was my point. He wasn't goofing off in Crawford, he was coordinating the administration response from there. It's just the people would perhaps perceive that, because he was in Crawford, he was goofing off.

That's why he went to Washington. He may be sitting in the Oval Office playing XBox, but because he's in Washington, people think he's Doing Something. even if what he's doing is nothing different than what he did in Crawford.

[THespos]

Originally Posted by Necros

That's why he went to Washington. He may be sitting in the Oval Office playing XBox, but because he's in Washington, people think he's Doing Something. even if what he's doing is nothing different than what he did in Crawford.

We're talking about two different things. When I said "goofing off" I was referring to him playing guitar with a country music artist in San Diego, not vacationing in Crawford.

[Necros]

Ahh, my bad.

[MaxTheVool]

I think the point they're trying to make is not "wow, the president was vacationing when a natural disaster happened to happen. How foolish of him." It was "ahh, so THAT's what it takes to make him stop vacationing... you might THINK that an ongoing war in Iraq, plus all the other crises going on right now, would keep him from vacationing. But they didn't. But New Orleans destroyed? THAT does it. Good to know that SOMETHING will."


Which is, while not necessarily a Provably Correct viewpoint, a lot less silly than "how DARE he be on vacation when a natural disaster occurs".

[THespos]

Originally Posted by Necros

Ahh, my bad.

No prob.

BTW, my office mates think I'm crazy because I'm giggling over here envisioning Dubya playing XBox.

[Absolute]

I think hypocrisy is the perfect word for it. From the OED: "hypocrisy: The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform."

They pretend that they are above pointing fingers and taking cheap political shots in a crisis like this, and then include a cheap political shot in the very same sentence.

[lorinada]

Originally Posted by Necros

aside from maybe sitting down with FEMA officials as opposed to having a conference call with them

Actually, Louisiana is covered by the Denton, TX FEMA office, which is a few hundred miles north of Crawford.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

This is good too:"People who think of that graceful city and the rest of the Mississippi Delta as tourist destinations must have been reminded, watching the rescue operations, that the real residents of this area are in the main poor and black. The only resources most of them will have to fall back on will need to come from the federal government."

Like the predicted NY Times headline for Armageddon:

World Ends!

Women, minorities hit hardest

Regards,
Shodan

[Long Time First Time]

The President's job in moments like this very much like the father's job in the delivery room. Sure, he can't really *do* anything to bring the baby into the world any faster - but his presence and reassurance mean a great deal. And the importance of being a strong, calming presence shouldn't be demeaned or written off.

Mayor Giuliani didn't rush up the steps of the Trade Center on 9/11 - when you stop to think about it, he didn't really do anything on that day. Except to step up and communicate what was know to the rest of the world. Bush might have been that person - but he was hiding at the time. The end result was Giuliani hailed as a great mayor and leader. Churchill didn't run around defusing unexploded bombs during WWI,I either. But you don't hear anyone now claiming was that all he did was blab some crap on the radio to his country men, he inspired his country in a very real way.

When it comes right down to it, presidents never get down and dirty in the trenches - but they should be able to give a voice to the people by telling others what's going on and then letting us know if and when and how much we should worry. The vast majority of presidents and other leaders (see Haig, Al) attempt to do this in these types of circumstances to varying effect. What I find most dissappointing about W is that he doesn't even take a stab at it.

[RyJae]

Oh the whining bitches. When will you learn whether your a Democrat or a Republican President they are still a piece of shit?
But blaming Bush for anything related to not jumping into "action" is not just silly, its spews of a one track mind. Some people must wake up every morning and think must find something to blame on Bush today, must find something to blame on Bush today, must find something to blame on Bush today. What a crock of shit. If I was on the rail between voting for a Republican or a Democrat that shit would push me to the Republican is that what your goals are? Push the independent thinkers into the camp you despise more then getting your scrotum tore off?

Because he didn't drop what he was doing, and come running to stick his finger in a leaky fucking levee. I don't need a puppet leader, that sits in Washington making me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I want my leader to get things done, I don't care if he is getting blow jobs, or fucking stringing a guitar, as long as what needs to get done, does get done.

Now if it was President Superman and his ass didn't come flying blowing the hurricane back to the ocean, I would be pissed. But a current President can authorize, and implement anything that needs to get done no matter where he is in the world.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

Some people must wake up every morning and think must find something to blame on Bush today, must find something to blame on Bush today, must find something to blame on Bush today. What a crock of shit. If I was on the rail between voting for a Republican or a Democrat that shit would push me to the Republican is that what your goals are?

So, people not running for elected office and with zero influence on policy will dictate your vote.

Rather than look at what actual candidates would do, you'd vote out of ignorance and spite because some of one candidate's supporters said some nasty stuff?

If that's the truth, you're both a failure as an American citizen and a political being. I hope you were just kidding.

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

Push the independent thinkers into the camp you despise more then getting your scrotum tore off?

Any "independent thinker" who can't think for himself and instead whines like a petulant two year old and votes for someone who he doesn't support because someone not running for office said something mean... well, let's just say he's not all the independent nor all that much of a thinker, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

Because he didn't drop what he was doing, and come running to stick his finger in a leaky fucking levee. I don't need a puppet leader, that sits in Washington making me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Making a public appearance, rallying people, providing a message of hope and national unity, those are all presidential duties. Not clearing brush, eating cake, and strumming a geetar.

Besides, you obviously do want someone who'll make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, because if someone's supporters hate their opponent, why, by gum, you'll shit on your responsibility as a citizen and throw a temper tantrum at the ballot box.

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

I want my leader to get things done, I don't care if he is getting blow jobs, or fucking stringing a guitar, as long as what needs to get done, does get done.

How many phone calls was he making while strumming on that guitar? How many radio addresses? The position of president is, among other things, one of pomp and circumstance. It sends a definite message when, in times of crisis, the president is on fucking vacation.

Think of morale at a company where the CEO is never in the office, but he can take cell phone calls while he's playing golf. I mean, this is the digital age, he can tellecommute, right? How about if his company is hemoraging money and all he says is "stay the course", over a cell phone, while people lose their jobs and the company goes further into the red? How about if the company building is on fire but the CEO is off at a drum circle? Still think he should be playing golf and taking those cell phone calls between swings?

[MilTan]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Like the predicted NY Times headline for Armageddon:

World Ends!

Women, minorities hit hardest

Regards,
Shodan

Wait - I'm confused. Are you denying that New Orleans, and the Mississippi delta counties are heavily black? According to this, New Orleans is 67.5 percent black. The minority population is a whopping 72%. Are you further denying that the people least able to evacuate the city (and hence the ones, in my opinion, who were clearly hit the hardest) are the poor? And that further there is a strong positive correlation between being poor and being a minority?

So what, exactly, did the Times do wrong by reminding its readers of the folks hit hardest by the hurricane? In fact, this runs nicely counter to Jack Shafer's criticism that the media is, for the most part, ignoring the fact that the victims of Katrina are disproportionately minorities and the poor.

Take a shot at the Times for the Bush jab, if you will. But there is no reason to get snippy about their simply calling your attention to the truth.

[RyJae]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

So, people not running for elected office and with zero influence on policy will dictate <snippie beast>

As talking any sense into you is about as easy as walking on water, I cannot reply in such a way as to make you see clearly through those "Bush Sucks" tinted glasses.

If you need someone to fucking tell you it will all be okay during a crisis, your a pathetic tool. Myself, I would prefer things getting done.

_{You mean it took him all of 1 minute to declare a State of Emergency, that son of a bitch}

Oh fuck you mean he did it before the storm hit, that ignorant bastard not wasting time.

The thing is Bush can do no right with you and others .

Breaking News: Moon Sized Asteroid Headed Toward Earth 5 Days Till Killer Impact!

That day in the pit.

Originally Posted by SomeDumbPoliticalLeaningSoFarAsToBeBlindStupidFuckingBastard

If Clinton was still President or them fucking losers didn't steal the 2000 election, and cause global warming and Hurricane Katrina, that asteroid would not be coming here. Its all because Bush went to war in Iraq and cut the budget on flying super doober futuristic stopping the asteroid space thingies that we are in this situation. Fucking Bush.

Such as it is, when you pick a fucking side and twist anything to suit your needs. No matter your fucking party, everyone is equally fucked up. The sooner you realize it the sooner we can change America to "For the people, by the people" "Not for my parties agenda, fuck the people"

[tnetennba]

The technical term is "apophasis," but I don't think the NYT is doing it. I think their passing mention is because people are expecting them to do it, and they're explaining that they won't.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by cricetus

The technical term is "apophasis," but I don't think the NYT is doing it. I think their passing mention is because people are expecting them to do it, and they're explaining that they won't.

Nope, it's paralipsis, 'least I think. Apophasis would involve listing a bunch of reasons and shooting down all but one of them.

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

As talking any sense into you is about as easy as walking on water,

Mmmmm hmmmm. You're the unamerican (and yes, I use the word with full knowledge) slacker who'd throw away his own voice in the government because some yahoos not even associated with a president's campaign said some mean stuff. In other words, you're a moron and a bratty child willing to shit on his responsibilities without a single pang of remorse. Good job!

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

I cannot reply in such a way as to make you see clearly through those "Bush Sucks" tinted glasses.

Oooh! Nice job! I see your whole entire month of membership has given you time to read through every mention I've ever made of Bush, including the generally exhaustive fact finding I do. Glad you've reduced my ability to, ya know, actually stay informed about the world around me to tinted glasses.
Schmuck.

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

If you need someone to fucking tell you it will all be okay during a crisis, your a pathetic tool. Myself, I would prefer things getting done.

Which person is a tool, the one who presents his argument clearly and without distortion and evasion... or the guy who can't even grasp that nobody said they needed any such thing, but that it was the job of a president to make symbolic gestures?

See, the hallmark of someone who's been soundly whipped in a debate and has nothing to stand on? They start throwing strawmen real quick, because only by inventing an argument to argue against do they stand a snowball's chance in hell.

Take your time with this whole 'thinking' thing, spunky, if you smell something burning that'll pro'ly be your synapses.

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

The thing is Bush can do no right with you and others .

"What, you want the President to act like a Leader? Are you crazy? The President? Lead???? When there's a national disaster and tragedy? LEAD??? Admit it, you just hate everything he ever does. Don't you? Don't you!?!"

Mmmm hmmmm. Spot on spunky, spot on.

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

Such as it is, when you pick a fucking side and twist anything to suit your needs

Good job spunky, you getting a bulk discount on straw?
In case you're wondering, I'm an actual independent, unlike some petulant little shit who'll throw away his vote if someone not running for office says something mean. Idiot.

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

No matter your fucking party, everyone is equally fucked up.

And none so much as the spoiled brats who will vote for someone who they don't even support because some non-entity said something mean. Take pride in being a recalcitrant, small minded, vicious, petty, asshole. Pride.

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

The sooner you realize it the sooner we can change America to "For the people, by the people" "Not for my parties agenda, fuck the people"

First, schmuck, try reading.
Start with cereal boxes, work your way up to laundry detergent, and then maybe in a decade or so you'll be able to read those strange things we like to call "newspapers". Yeah, I know, some day you'll be a big boy!

See, in case you've not been paying attention, the Bush Regime has a bloody history of placing not just 'party before country' but 'cronies before party'. Spew all the rhetoric about 'the people' you want, but as you're weilding it, the concept is a hobgoblin and no one party will ever, ever, ever represent 'the people', only those people who support them, and even then only to a certain degree.

You want to cast yourself as some wise outsider, when in reality you're just a spoiled whiney brat who'll abandon all convictions if someone not even running for office says something mean. You should be ashamed of yourself, but something tells me you don't have the integrity to do even that.

[RyJae]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

You want to cast yourself as some wise outsider, when in reality you're just a spoiled whiney brat who'll abandon all convictions if someone not even running for office says something mean. You should be ashamed of yourself, but something tells me you don't have the integrity to do even that.

You really



You seem to enjoy beating around a non-issue don't you? My oh my your a cunt. But your right I do throw away a vote for someone saying stupid shit. I cannot support someone that the fucking loons support, I would rather vote for the other person equally despicable just to piss off the loons. So that means even though I think HC is probably the best possible candidate to date, I will vote for Cheney is he runs just to watch you froth at the mouth and flap your arms like a two year old after being told no.

Lets see bitch boy, I have been here for about a month, and I have owned up to being wrong a few times, I have changed my opinion on something after being shown I was wrong more then once. Because I can see the whole fucking picture not a fucking Left/Right paint by numbers picture.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

You seem to enjoy beating around a non-issue don't you?

Hmmm. No, the fact that you're an unamerican petulant asshole is an issue, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

My oh my your a cunt.

My A cunt?!? Not my A cunt! Please oh please let it be my B cunt!

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

But your right I do throw away a vote for someone saying stupid shit.

My right, eh?
What is it, exactly, that's makin' me think you're just a dumb high schooler with a big yap?

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

I cannot support someone that the fucking loons support,

And that's why you're a moron.
It's kind of like a reverse bandwagon fallacy. It's still stupid, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Now write 1,000 times "I will not abandon my responsibility as a citizen just because I'm a whiney little brat."

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

I would rather vote for the other person equally despicable just to piss off the loons.

Oh boy! You'll vote for someone who might not be qualified, who might not do as good a job, who might not even support your most cherished ideals, who might fuck the country over, who might fuck the entire world over, but, hey, at least you showed those loons, eh?
Fucking petulant little shit.

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

So that means even though I think HC is probably the best possible candidate to date, I will vote for Cheney is he runs just to watch you froth at the mouth and flap your arms like a two year old after being told no.

You're not even ashamed are you? Good gods... Men and women, good men and women, have fought and died and killed for the freedom and the citizenship you're shitting all over. You're disgusting.

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

Because I can see the whole fucking picture not a fucking Left/Right paint by numbers picture.

Wow... you're one shitty little janus faced asshole, aintcha?
Let's go to the instant replay!

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

Because I can see the whole fucking picture not a fucking Left/Right paint by numbers picture.

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

So that means even though I think HC is probably the best possible candidate to date, I will vote for Cheney is he runs just to watch you froth at the mouth and flap your arms like a two year old after being told no.

[tnetennba]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Nope, it's paralipsis, 'least I think. Apophasis would involve listing a bunch of reasons and shooting down all but one of them.

Well, let's see...

http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/A0370700.html
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/d.../d0001290.html
http://education.yahoo.com/reference...ntry/apophasis
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/apophasis

But the Mormons seem to disagree...

http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/F.../apophasis.htm

Neither Lanham's "Handlist of Rhetorical Terms" or the OED has that definition, and I don't find any other websites with that definition. I didn't look that hard, though.

[D_Odds]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Leaders are supposed to provide leadership. To most of us, that's obvious. To a reflexive apologist, obviously not :wally:

Yeah, those reflexive apologists, they're as bad as the nimrods in the Bush = AntiChrist crowd. Most of us are sick of hearing from both poles.

[bluecanary]

You know, FinnAgain. If I was soon to vote and someone treated me the way you're treating Abbie, I might just do something to piss them off as well. So how about you quit being such a dick.

[Twin]

Originally Posted by MilTan

Wait - I'm confused. Are you denying that New Orleans, and the Mississippi delta counties are heavily black? According to this, New Orleans is 67.5 percent black. The minority population is a whopping 72%. Are you further denying that the people least able to evacuate the city (and hence the ones, in my opinion, who were clearly hit the hardest) are the poor? And that further there is a strong positive correlation between being poor and being a minority?

So what, exactly, did the Times do wrong by reminding its readers of the folks hit hardest by the hurricane? In fact, this runs nicely counter to Jack Shafer's criticism that the media is, for the most part, ignoring the fact that the victims of Katrina are disproportionately minorities and the poor.

Take a shot at the Times for the Bush jab, if you will. But there is no reason to get snippy about their simply calling your attention to the truth.

What is that loud wooshing sound?

[MilTan]

Originally Posted by Twin

What is that loud wooshing sound?

You know, I considered that possibility, but it's really hard to tell sometimes with Shodan. If I was, in fact, whooshed, Shodan, you have my apologies for getting snippy myself.

[FinnAgain]

cricetus very weird! There does seem to be some confusion, doesn't there?

I'm tempted to post a question in GQ now...

Originally Posted by bluecanary

You know, FinnAgain. If I was soon to vote and someone treated me the way you're treating Abbie, I might just do something to piss them off as well.

Then you too are a petulant brat who'd waste your one and only vote. Good for you! You'd subvert the entire political process just so you could act like a little shit throwing a temper tantrum. Oh boy, you'll sure show those people you don't like, you'll get someone who's bad for the country elected. Good going!

Oh, and, by the way, if you read through this thread you'll see Abbie being a first rate moron from the word go (and you two seem to think alike, too).
Sorry, I don't play with kid gloves in the Pit, even if that means whiney brats will vote for people they don't support.

[bluecanary]

FinnAgain: Alienating another swing voter with every post.

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Anything. Everything. Nothing.

It is roughly similar to post-9/11. No matter what Bush did, someone was going to fault him for it. If he jumps up and runs from the class room, he is panicking. If he stays for seven minutes after hearing the news, he froze.

It might be interesting to hear what the NY Times editorial writer believes Bush could have done to prevent the disaster by not going on vacation. It's the Farenheit 9/11 school of criticism - "the President should have done something" where "something" is left undefined. Then, no matter what he does, it was wrong.

And there it is. Well stated.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by bluecanary

FinnAgain: Alienating another swing voter with every post.

Another asshole petulant child who will waste his vote because someone not even associated with a campaign gives him a basic civics lesson.

You're a fool and a waste. Schmuck.

But please, keep up this bullshit of "I'll cut my nose off to spite my face!" Fucking moron. You have a responsibility to elect the best candidate, not act like an asshole brat. Fuck off asshole, fuck off.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Abbie Normal

You seem to enjoy beating around a non-issue don't you? My oh my your a cunt. But your right I do throw away a vote for someone saying stupid shit. I cannot support someone that the fucking loons support, I would rather vote for the other person equally despicable just to piss off the loons. So that means even though I think HC is probably the best possible candidate to date, I will vote for Cheney is he runs just to watch you froth at the mouth and flap your arms like a two year old after being told no.

Because, of course, no one who supports Republican candidates is ever insulting, partisan, libelous, or simply assholes.

Seriously, I don't get this. Why is it when liberals act like jerks, we always get told we're alienating swing voters and helping Republicans get elected. But when Republicans act like jerks... they get control of all three branches of government. Are they just better at it, or what?

[Weirddave]

FinnAgain, since you have been a card carrying member of the "anybody but Bush" faction since waaaaay before the Democrats even nominated Kerry, your admonishments in this thread about "civic responsibility" and "Choosing the best person for the job" etc.. are really, really funny. Tell me, are you too stupid to realize how much of a hypocrite you are, do you consider being a hypocrite acceptable, as long as it's in defense of a position you agree with, or is it that you just don't care?

[bluecanary]

First off, did you even bother looking at the location?

Honestly, man, I can just see you, sitting at the computer, arms flailing, foaming at the mouth because someone has the temerity to see things in a different way to you. To you, it seems, things are black and white. Bush bad, Democrat candidate good. To someone on the fence, someone who does not agree that one candidate is necessarily "bad for the country" and the other isn't, all that's become clear is that one side has a great flaming asshole as a supporter and the other doesn't.

[tnetennba]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

cricetus very weird! There does seem to be some confusion, doesn't there?

There's no arguing that your term is correct, too. Lanham's handlist lists like three others and essentially begs people to stop using some to simplify things.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by MilTan

You know, I considered that possibility, but it's really hard to tell sometimes with Shodan. If I was, in fact, whooshed, Shodan, you have my apologies for getting snippy myself.

Snippy - in the Pit?

I have to lie down with a cool cloth over my eyes.

No need to apologize. It's just a (really old) joke. And I hope nobody takes what is said in the Pit all that seriously.

Unless it is something nice like what Clothahump said, for which I thank him.

Regards,
Shodan

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Weirddave

FinnAgain, since you have been a card carrying member of the "anybody but Bush" faction since waaaaay before the Democrats even nominated Kerry, your admonishments in this thread about "civic responsibility" and "Choosing the best person for the job" etc.. are really, really funny.

Do tell Davey. Why exactly is opposing Bush funny? I'm real interested here.

Originally Posted by Weirddave

Tell me, are you too stupid to realize how much of a hypocrite you are, do you consider being a hypocrite acceptable, as long as it's in defense of a position you agree with, or is it that you just don't care?

Actually Davey, it seems you're the one being painfully stupid. How, exactly, is it hypocritical to not support Bush? Mmm? Take your time.

Originally Posted by bluecanary

First off, did you even bother looking at the location?

Yes, you're a British petulant brat instead of an American petulant brat. Congrats.

Originally Posted by bluecanary

Honestly, man, I can just see you, sitting at the computer, arms flailing, foaming at the mouth because someone has the temerity to see things in a different way to you.

Yeah, I know, you're pretty stupid. I'd feel sorry for you, except I find you aestheticaly unpleasant, like dogshit on clean shoes.

In case thinking hurts you too, I have no problem with people supporting their ideals. In fact, that's exactly what I've been saying people should do. What I do have a problem with is people opposing their own ideals in order to vote for someone they don't support in order to 'stick it to' someone not even running for government. It's an abrogation of civic responsibility and reminiscent of high school social politics.

Originally Posted by bluecanary

To you, it seems, things are black and white. Bush bad, Democrat candidate good.

Hey, moron? I said specifically that I'm an independent. I didn't vote for Kerry. I don't think the Dems have a lock on the truth any more than the Repubs. Fool.

Originally Posted by bluecanary

To someone on the fence, someone who does not agree that one candidate is necessarily "bad for the country" and the other isn't, all that's become clear is that one side has a great flaming asshole as a supporter and the other doesn't.

Well, they might also be painfully stupid like you, and not even realize that I don't and didn't support Kerry. Little hole in your strawman logic there, schmuck. Moreover, if someone can't be bothered to actually determine which candidate they prefer, and instead vote based on how many "flaming assholes" support one party or another they're, wait for it... wait for it... a fool, a petulant child, and yes, discarding their civic responsibility.

You're supposed to pick the best candidate, not run a popularity contest amongst the supporters.

[cainxinth]

Getting back OT, I can find fault with Bush even durring a natural disaster. It's not that I want to be petty, he's just that crap a president.

In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war.

What a douche.

[bluecanary]

Hold on.

In what way would my hypothetical vote for a candidate based on how many 'flaming assholes' support the party be any more wasted than yours for an independent candidate was in the 2004 Presidential Election?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by bluecanary

In what way would my hypothetical vote for a candidate based on how many 'flaming assholes' support the party be any more wasted than yours for an independent candidate was in the 2004 Presidential Election?

In what way would supporting your ideals with a vote be less of a waste than opposing your ideals with a vote? I dunno...

[Weirddave]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Do tell Davey. Why exactly is opposing Bush funny? I'm real interested here.



Actually Davey, it seems you're the one being painfully stupid. How, exactly, is it hypocritical to not support Bush? Mmm? Take your time.

Wow, you are stupid beyond belief. It has nothing to do with Bush, it has to do with the fact that YOU made up your mind to vote for anybody but Bush before you even knew who would be opposing him, and in this thread you are railing against someone making a knee jerk decision on weather or not to vote for someone because you are an asshole. Pot, kettle, black.