You might try some of that assailing stuff yourself sometime, in case you know the difference between assailing and whining, which is doubtful, given the rest of that childish rant. Would help your own credibility immensely to be recognized as occasionally thoughtful, ya know.
You most definitely need a refresher on your Venn diagrams, pal.
Regards,
ElvisL1ves
[evil gloating laughter]
My plan is WORKING!
Mad, am I? I’ll show them who’s mad!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Regards,
Shodan
You sling the “you” around way too freely. I think the OP is way off, but i want the topic debated on its substance (or lack of it) rather than being sneeringly dismissed out of hand.
More to the point, you seem to have me confused with leftists. As I have said I don’t how many timres–I’m not a leftist. In happier times, I’d be a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat. I’m very much pro many of positions you support–strong defense, balanced budget, decreased centralization of power with the federal branch. However, the current adminstration is not in any genuine sense Republican–good Republicans don’t spend many they don’t have. They use tax cuts as part of a sound fiscal strategy, not as largesses to their friends. They wage wars with strategic goals in mind and build up international alliances to coordinate anti-terrorist offensives.
Bush has done a bad job. He abandoned the hunt for bin Laden when it became too difficult and time-consuming for him. He started an unnecessary war that turned a vile dictatorship into an even viler breeding ground for terrorists. I give him points for apprehending Saddam, but I don’t think that exchanging tyranny for chaos can be called a success.
Bush has failed on both domestic and foreign policy. He does not deserve your vote. will Kerry be better? I hope so, but given that the choice is between demonstrated incompetence and an untried candidate with a respectable resume, I’m going to give the challenger a chance. If Kerry, fucks up, we’ll vote his ass out, too.
You want me to assail your positions sometime? Dear me, you haven’t read many of my posts, have you?
Somehow I doubt it.
I’m not talking about gobear here, but there are some folks whose good opinion I don’t actively seek. Pretty much the opposite, in fact.
Being thought of as a “thoughtful poster” by some people is like winning Employee of the Year at a Nevada whorehouse. It is not that much of an honor, and I don’t like to think about what I have to do to win it.
Good luck if you want to try, though.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, way too many. They’re virtually all simple vitriol, *not * facts ‘n’ reasoning. So, you acknowledge that you *don’t * know the difference, and don’t give a shit either. Pity. Most people get past that around the age of 13 or so.
One gets as much respect as one earns. You admit you don’t even want to try. So the question is why you even stick around among folks who, given the evidence you provide, generally consider you a hate-filled fool. A low-self-esteem complex, perhaps?
Way off…what? Since I didn’t explain myself, I will now. I just wanted to post 2 interesting links, both having to do with Bush, and both having to do with death.
In the first case, people who believe that abortion is murder believe that Bush is their guy, when, according to that link, abortions have gone up. Maybe it is crap, I don’t know. I just thought it was interesting. Note that I didn’t put it into Great Debates.
I thought some people would be interested in the 2nd link too, since the numbers we’ve heard so far have been far lower. Obviously the media is not telling us much of anything and they’re certainly not showing us any pictures. The link for this is sketchy, but the cite seems solid. Note that I didn’t put it into Great Debates.
Still mad about that? Honey, if you didn’t require the johns to sign loyalty oaths before you put out, maybe Candi wouldn’t have beat you for the last three years.
Sure, there’s no causal link between Bush and abortion rates. Doesn’t that maybe suggest that you shouldn’t vote for Bush because you want rates to go down? If I voted for candidates primarily based on their promises to clean up the nation’s water, and during my candidate’s four years the water pollution rates went up, I’d seriously consider whether that candidate had earned another vote from me.
Daniel
I have to admit, I don’t get this, myself.
Abortions supposedly went up during Bush’s administration, as did Iraqi child mortality, therefore… Bush hates children, or something?
Does not compute.
So you either haven’t read them, or (more likely) didn’t understand them.
This is why I think it more likely that you didn’t understand them.
What I meant was that I didn’t give a shit what you think. You, and others like you. Because, after all, you are stupid. And I don’t like the notion of stupid people agreeing with me, or thinking highly of my posts. That would worry me that perhaps my posts were stupid, since they appealed to intellectual floor sweepings like yourself.
But, fortunately for my peace of mind, my posts do not appeal to you. Possibly because you disagree with them, more likely because they are beyond your intellectual grasp. I suspect any concept more complicated than “four legs good, two legs bad” is going to be difficult for you, and I would rather address myself to those with an IQ at least in double digits.
See above. I don’t even want to try with you, for reasons already discussed.
Again, already covered. Those who consider me a hate-filled fool - like yourself - are generally not those whose opinions are worth very much. So their feelings don’t particularly bother me. If some poster of genuine intelligence hated me as much as a mouth-breather did, that might give me pause. But, as it is, I go serenely on, secure in the knowledge that most of my enemies come from a class of people for whom what might be termed “intellectual toilet-training” seems to have proved too much of a challenge.
[John Gielgood voice] Good luck in prison![/John Gielgood]
Regards,
Shodan
I just found the original link to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health article.
Maybe we should have seen it coming…
The “Clean Skies Initiative” made it easier to pollute the air.
The “Healthy Forests Initiative” made it easier to clearcut trees.
So, by that logic, “Operation Iraqi Freedom” made it easier for Iraqis to die…
Oh my God, Equipose. You’ve proved war is bad!!
WOW!!! MINE EYES HAVE SEEN THE GLORY!
It’s not the loyalty oath. The judges were biased against me because I can’t get it up unless I am looking at pictures of Ann Coulter performing unnatural acts with a rubber chicken.
This is a non sequitur, as I am sure you realize. If there’s no causal link, then abortion rates fluctuate regardless of who I vote for.
Regards,
Shodan
Which is precisely the point. If candidate A can’t affect the abortion rates, then I shouldn’t be using abortion as a litmus test for voting for candidate A, should I?
Not a non sequitur at all. I’m thinking of folks who would vote for Kerry except for the abortion issue, and saying that this seems to be a poor decision, unless they have reason to believe that the rates would have risen even more under a Kerry administration.
Daniel
Unnecessary wars based on lies and misrepresentations are even worse.
More over, it seems Bush might not be a very good president! Why am I only hearing about this now?!
[sub]Standard disclaimer about Equipose not representing all liberals/democrats, in case that wasn’t already abundantly clear to anyone.[/sub]
Gee, Shodan, you’re spending an awful lot of time replying to people whose views mean nothing to you, aren’t you? You’re more under our power than you dare to admit.
Sweet Jebus. Every time you post Equipoise, you continue to prove Weirddave to be correct. Why don’t you adopt his analysis for a sigline?
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that the 100,000 figure was old news and not important.
No, thus the OP is stupid.
Not unless you can demonstrate a causal link with Kerry that you can’t with Bush.
If the abortion rate is independent of who is President, then it is not a reason to vote for Bush, for Kerry, against Bush, or against Kerry. It has nothing to do with it at all. An analysis that doesn’t establish anything can’t be used to determine a vote.
IOW, the OP is stupid. So is anyone who would vote for Kerry because the abortion rate went up under Bush.
Not that the abortion article said anything about Kerry. It was, I am sure, aimed entirely at pro-life folks who were going to vote for Bush because he is pro-life. Stassen hoped that nobody would recognize what a piece of dung his “analysis” was, and think “Dear me - I better vote for that nice Mr. Kerry, because naughty Mr. Bush made people get abortions. Land sakes!”
Which is, as I suspect we agree, a dumb thing to say, since there is no causal relationship between Bush and a rise in the rate of abortions.
Regards,
Shodan