Well sez Bush. Just listen to any of his speeches. He clearly thinks that Iraq is the center of the war on terror. Also sez Al Queda. The videos and messages we see from them also refer to Iraq as the center of the war on terror.
Both sides fighting in this war agree where the fight is. It’s just some posters on the SDMB who can’t seem to figure it out.
Post #58.
It’s not a big deal, but clearly you were calling me out. I usually know better than to argue with the mods. Can we just drop this?
Suffice it to say that I knew I was putting words in his mouth when I did it. It was deliberate on my part to mock him since he was doing it to me. I did it in a very obvious manner was so it would be clear what I was doing. I guess it wasn’t since you seemed to think we were both doing the same thing.
It is only “calling you out” in the sense that I was pointing out the basic similarity of your posts. I was willing to drop it as soon as I made my observation, but you keep coming back to talk about it.
Wrong.
Got it. I’ll leave the thread.
Hypothetically, if Iraq supported al Queda, and al Queda was responsible for 9/11, would that constitute a link in your mind?
Back on topic-
You have left out a critical faction of Bush supporters, one which I would gather nets a lot of “smart” people (probably including my father). Sometimes people are so used to being right and being smarter than their neighbors that they start to believe that they can’t be wrong, or hoodwinked (and if they had been they would have seen it right away, of course). If these folks were Bush backers in 2000, they could still be supporting Bush through selective ignorance and rationalization. I don’t consider these people to be stupid, only stubborn, so I don’t think they fit in category two. They are the ones keeping themselves from seeing opposing arguments, not some PR machine. What’s worse (in my mind) is that because they are so smart they rationalize very very well. Perhaps they even convince people who are having second thoughts about their support.
In other words, IOKIADDI.
On the other hand, she did believe her husband, so maybe gullibility is a reasonable excuse in Hilary’s case.
Regards,
Shodan
I will cut any politian some slack if they acknowledge they were deceived and recant their belief that AQ was in Iraq. Haven’t heard many Pubs do that, but my offer stands.
By Goddess, the boy is on to something! Gullibility ought not to be an excuse in such a desperately important moment as decisions to war, we should expect relentless pursuit of fact!
I quite agree. Let us purge Congress of all those who voted in favor of the various war resolutions, and leave the decisions to the pure, whose perspicacity and foresight are public record! People who are so easily deceived are unworthy of our trust. True, we will have to chuck out Kerry and Hillary. A bitter choice, to be sure, but if stern duty demands…
I wholeheartedly endorse the Shodan Doctrine: if they were dumb enough to believe Bush, they are too dumb to make their own oatmeal.
Nah, wouldn’t work. I’m sure Shodan uses instant. 
Well, at least in this thread you are being honest enough that all your posts are driven by nothing more than partisanship, regardless of facts.
So we’ll just mark you down as One Of The Usual Suspects (Rep.).
On the other hand, throwing out the insult “dumb” associated with a specific Username goes beyond a recognition opf partisanship into the realm of personal insult.
Back off and do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
You are in minor error.
The thrust of my post is that gullible representatives, those capable of believing extravagant and habitual liars (Hilary being the example offered), are not suitable for their office. Such persons are “too dumb to make their own oatmeal”: hence Shodan Doctrine. It is inspired by, and named for, the esteemed aforementioned.
Note, if you will, my use of the plural “they are too dumb…”. Shodan is singular. I cannot see how I might have made it clearer that I refer to those elected representatives, they are even named “Hillary, Kerry” etc. Make no mistake, my intent is to cause the reader to think about chucking out all the “dummies” without partisan preference. That such would be a wholesale massacre of Republicans did not escape my notice, indeed, rather the whole point, gleefully contemplated.
They/them, not he/him. Not guilty.
Guilty–and not sufficiently glib to escape judgement.
Naming the characteristic for Shodan associates his name with the bad traits–as you noted:
I realize that you are arguing that you (now) merely mean that he first enunciated the principle.
I am saying that there is enough hostility in this thread, already, and you can omit from future posts the associations of posters and a lack of intelligence regardless how you construct it.
I am calling for civility.
No one has been Warned–yet.
[ /Moderating ]
Thank you, tomndebb.
Regards,
Shodan
So what was Shodan saying, if not that Hillary Clinton was gullible in her belief of her husband, so she should be excused for being gullible when it comes to Bush? Sheesh. :rolleyes:
I don’t see how it could be interpreted other than saying he had nothing to say relevant to the OP, so instead he’d toss in some partisan nastiness. No need to miss the opportunity to try to redirect or deflect any discussion by a little ad hominem jab at one of the usual targets. Ho-hum.
Tom - why don’t you close this thread? Whatever purpose it may be serving certainly is not what I had originally intended. I really appreciate the responses from folk who responded to my original question.