Look at you. Even when you attempt to address the issue, you can’t help but spend the bulk of your post saying “Bush is evil” over and over again. Your user name is absolutely perfect, all you ever do is spout “blah, blah, blah”. You really are a one trick moron. You’ve even got me pegged as a Bush supporter when I voted for Kerry! Jesus, you are setting new standards of stupidity here on these boards, and that’s saying something because these boards are regularly polluted by the likes of rjung, 'luce, Elvis and the other Bob amongst others. Now, because you seem to have real trouble even knowing what the debate is about, I’m gonna quote myself from my first post in this thread:
That’s a point that you have repeatedly failed to address. Now, would you care to provide any cites that dispute the above quote, or do you want to keep ranting and foaming at the mouth about George W Bush? If it’s the later that you chose, why don’t you repost your “proof” from that other thread that Bush is suffering dementia from cocaine abuse, that one is highly amusing. It’s an absolutely classic example of using circular logic and wild conclusions in an attempt to shift the burden of proof of your wild accusations from you (where it belongs) to the person you’ve accused. Brilliant stuff!
(And just in case you’re curious, I don’t think that troops would be that effective against Avian flu. It’s a dumb idea. That doesn’t mean there won’t be situations in the future where troops might be of use, and I’d rather have the conditions and parameters for their use discussed and agreed upon before these situations do arise, not in the midst of them.)
Why thank you.
Well, he and his policies can easily be summed up as evil, and why shouldn’t it be said? And said over and over. That we don’t include every detail, every time is called summarizing. Enough detail has been included in the thread to allow the viewers to understand the evidence referred to.
I did address the point that you raised that “he called for a debate”, go back and read it, and then address my response.
And you didn’t answer my questions: what is your motivation in keeping posting after you said you would not? Are you a paid shill? Are you obsessive compulsuve? Is there another reason? And all that you have done is pretend that people have not made any responses, when the record of printed responses is clear that they have. No one here disputes that they are not responses to your satisfaction, but you are not the judge of anyone else’s arguments or opinions ,only your own.
Next, you whine that I have provided no “proof” that Bush was a cocaine abuser, you ignore all the evidence I supplied and simply dismissed it as though I hadn’t posted it, undoubtedly hoping that your one supporter would have as poor a reading retention rate as you. I’ll argue that your failure to address the evidence is a concession of the point: Bush is an admitted substance abuser, who has declined to specify the substances abused other than alcohol. He has never denied using cocaine, his sister-in-law has told a biographer and her editor that she saw him using cocaine knowing they would put it in a book. She only perfunctorily withdrew the statement after being paid by the Bush family for confidentiality. Nobody on Bush’s behalf has demanded a retraction or sued for libel based on the various books that have included the charge.
Next you concede that military powers won’t affect avain flu. Thank you. I never expected to get a Bushite to actually back down. If I’m keeping score correctly, of all your original contentions, the only one that you haven’t now conceded is that Cindy Sheehan has a screw loose. The rest of your posts are just turds you’ve flung about after the fact to raise a cloud of crap disguising that you attacked a grieving mother. Cindy Sheehan’s point was that Bush uses every situation to gather power and spread fear. There are ample arguments available to support this view out on the web.
You also claim that you voted for Kerry. So what? Even if it were true, what does that prove? That Bush isn’t generally a stupid, evil, moron because you, a supposed Kerry supporter, are defending him? I don’t follow the argument. Who you vote for on a secret ballot is your business alone, and none of my business. You are claiming to be misunderstood? Gee, that’s unsurprising as the sun rising in the East.
Can we stop this please? To the best of my knowledge, Weirddave is not a “bushite.” Thinking that Cindy Sheehan might be a bubble off plum does not make one a “bushite.” Thusfar the only proof that you have that Weirddave is a “bushite” is that he seems not to hate Bush as much as you do unless you are counting your not believing him as proof. Has he given you a reason not to believe him that you’re not telling us?
And here I thought that the “if you ain’t with us on everything, you’re against us on everything” mindset was supposed to be a hallmark of the right. My mistake.
I neither know nor care whether the poster is a Bushite, whether you know this from this thread, other threads, or he’s your kid brother. My characterizations about Bushites are intended to be general for people defending Bush. My disdain for Bush and his defenders is engendered by their own little disconnect from the reality that everyone else must operate by. They get to smear perfectly sincere people like Cindy Sheehan, and then they have the gall to say that people who see Bush as a former cocaine abuser cannot prove it beyond any possible doubt to the satisfaction of his most sycophantic supporter and therefore shouldn’t be so impolite as to raise his serious and long history of substance abuse, which he even admits, to suggest that he may be lacking character and an addled addict in the throes of his behavior.
Bush and his cronies and his defenders are sleaze and deserve no quarter. So why are you asking for it on their behalf? Why should I stop? Have they repented? Have they stopped? No.
Why are you begging for mercy on their behalf? Those prisoners at Abu Ghraib begged for mercy and were shown none, some were murdered while begging for the torture to stop. Here they are only shown for being arrogant fools.
The Bush Administration is just plain evil, to summarize 5 years of history. I’m not going to excuse it or pile onto the Bush Administration’s critics simply because I might not understand where a critic like Cindy Sheehan gets her information. The fact of the matter is that I do understand where Cindy Sheehan gets her information, and I think that she has interpreted it reasonably. The Bush Administration’s first response to any crisis is to try to increase their own power and call it a trifecta.
Do you want to climb off of your soapbox for a second? You know, get off the ole high horse? Hell, just stop turning every reply into a friggin’ speech.
You’re going to find it awfully hard to get people to listen to you if you label every person who kinda disagrees with you a “bushite” or a “crony.” I’m finding it awfully hard myself.
No, you started it, read your own posts in this thread. You are verbally abusive and vulgar to almost everyone who disagrees with you. That you dress it up in full sentences doesn’t change that. So a good “f*** you” was just what you had coming. I’m not going to take that kind of treatment and just sit quiet. And if you were waiting for a fancy three sentence insult, well, you were disappointed.
So if you don’t want people to insult you back, you might want to just mock their arguments, not them personally.
See your own post 47. I do not wear a beanie. If you sarcastically say I do, well, then expect to get flamed back. Clown. Then, in your own post 54 you insult my “reading comprehension”, misquote me, accuse me of throwing feces, etc.
I’m not having any trouble getting people to listen to me. So no, I’m not going to give up by soapbox. Bush lovers would like that. And what’s wrong with speeches? Isn’t that what this place is here for.
I’m an Indendent, and certainly no Bush lover. Never voted for him. But I must admit, that the frenzied hyperbole and lies coming from people like Michael Moore tempted me. I wound up voting for a third party. I think Haberwolf is exactly right, when you present this all-or-nothing Hate Bush attitude, it might not have the effect you want. It makes me wish I did vote for him. Looks like the religious right aren’t the only one’s with closed minds. Just thought you’d might like to know…
Bush lovers would like that? Who are you? The peoples poet? Nasty republicans plotting against you are they?
I’m not trying to defend Weirddave. He can do that himself. I’m pointing out an arrogant attitude that really pisses me off and has virtually no grounding in reality. The only proof that you have that he isn’t a moderate is that he doesn’t hate Bush as much as you do. That’s really fucking stupid.
By the way, the pit is not for getting on your soapbox. It’s for ranting, raving, swearing, and insulting. You want a soapbox, get a blog and preach to the converted. You won’t win any new supporters with the attitude you’re displaying here.
I’m beginning to think that message boards are a new media for you. you see, the wonderful thing about message boards is that what you say is set in stone (or at least typed on screen) for all to see. You can’t change what was said after the fact. This means that we can all go back and actually read what was posted, like my first post in this thread, reproduced in it’s entirety here to spare you the difficult task of looking it up.
There you go. A perfectly reasonable post, without a single bit of vulgarity or verbal abuse. Your response was loaded with invective, and didn’t address the actual issue at all. :dubious:
Dude, your “fuck you” is about the only thing in this thread that you’ve posted that is clear and makes sense. I wouldn’t want to take that away from you.
But Bob, you make it so easy! And I’ve never seen a post from you that wasn’t the same old tired invective that Bush sux, so as far as I can tell, that’s the sum total of who you are. Maybe if you stay around a little longer, you know, post in the cafe or MPSIMS, let us get to know you as a person, your likes and dislikes, what percentage of your brain has been destroyed due to lack of oxygen, who your favorite actors are, etc…, why, then I can react to you based upon all of those things, but right now, your obsession with Bush is all we’ve got.
Oh but you should! A multi-colored one. With a propeller. Then you could run around the sanatorium making helicopter noises while waving your arms and spinning the propeller and the other inmates could laugh and laugh and laugh. It would cheer everyone up.
uhhh…post #54 was a direct reply to mhendo, not you. Maybe I should have said something about your reading comprehension, it appears to be sorely lacking.
Why, no Bob, it’s not. I’ll tell you something else that adults don’t do. Adults don’t post speculation, deduction and flights of fancy as fact. Adults, at least on these boards, back up their statements with cites. Adults understand that if you do nothing but post variations on a single theme over and over and over, especially without cites to back you up, you become a joke and a one trick pony and people tend to tune you out or mock you. I’ve chosen to do the later. Mock, mock mock.
Whoa guys. I never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. You guys want to like Bush because I don’t and am intense about it, then that is up to you. You’ve got a right to your opinion. If someone wants to vote for Bush or someone else because of Michael Moore, than so be it. If they want to vote for Bush because of what I say, well, that’s their right. But if they think that they can convince me that I had anything to do with it, well, that’s laughable. I am not going to tone it down for anyone else, ever. And I have a very low opinion of any efforts to make me do so. I am going to say what I want, where I want, when I want and how I want. And if someone wants to support the fascists in charge because of it, then they and they alone are responsible for their fascism turn. Don’t try to pin it on me.
Now as to the people who claim that this forum is for insults, etc., well, I’m prepared to give out better than I get just so no one feels that they might get shortchanged. But I’m not going to start calling names unless someone does it to me first, like the fellow with the tin-foil hat and feces throwing stuff.
As for the claims of the various people that they don’t support Bush, well, good for them. I don’t share their opinion of their own politics, but so what? Why does what I think matter to these folks? Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that people who defend Bush against the cocaine charge, the torture charge, the war lies charge, the power grabbing charge, etc. are Bush supporters because the evidence on all of those issues is very strong on the side against Bush and non-existent on the other. Now, I’m not calling anyone here a tin-foil hat wearer, but to suggest that Bush hasn’t ever used cocaine is entirely without any evidence to support it. The same for the torture charges, the same for the war lies. The suggestion that Bush has no duty to come forward with his best evidence or a denial because he shouldn’t be bothered with such outrageous criticism is only operative if there is no evidence supporting the proposition. We are now two and a half years into the Iraq war without an explanation for going to war that hasn’t been fully refuted by the evidence. There are no WMDs and there never were and there never was any reason to believe there were.
Do I think that Bush has unexplained reasons for going to war? Yes, I do. And I think that it is related to why some in the Bush administration say publicly that the war is going well: because it is for them. They are achieving their goals. VP Cheney seems to think the war is a good thing and going well and has made many statements to that effect. Well gee, does this have something to do with the millions of dollars he is making from his Halliburton stock and stock options? Yeah, I think it does. The stockholders of these Iraq contractors are making tens of millions of dollars every day. Is it cynical to think that the most important reason the US went to war in Iraq was to get in charge of the world’s second largest proven reserves of oil. Yes. But that doesn’t make it not true. In fact I believe that it is the primary reason we went to war in Iraq. And the efforts in the first several months after the invasion bear this out: enormous efforts were made to get the oil fields up and running, with great success, yet electricity and water for civilians took months.
Weirddave, you are a liar. Why don’t you re-read your post 54. If you didn’t mean to insult me, than you can’t write. You used my username and insulted me. You may very well have been replying to mhendo, but you named me and insulted me.
Yes Bob, it’s all about you. Everything is about you. I’ve made no bones about insulting you, I’ve done so gleefully as your partisan screeds are worthy of insult. Whatsa matter, jealous that I took time away from you to address someone else?
Ya know, 98% of that post is completely off topic. You need to figure out what belongs in a post and what doesn’t. Ever thought about hiring an editor?
As for liking Bush, I didn’t say that. Weirddave never said that. I don’t know if anybody in this thread has said that. What we said was that it’s a good thing that he is putting up every option (even if we disagree with it) for consideration early. I know that such a ringing endorsement of our tyrannical overlord may seem shocking to you, but try to let it sink into your head instead of jerking your knee.
I really don’t care what you think of me. I don’t care what you think of Weirddave. What keeps me coming back is that you are a partisan hack, a shill, a knee jerk reflex run amock. You’re an intellectually dishonest political elitist whose only contribution to the discourse is the ability to spew speaking points rather than addressing any points brought up by anyone else. You’re a junior league liberal version of Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.
To be blunt, you’re a prime example of what is wrong with the political debate in this country. Have a nice day.
And you sir are the loathsome spittle of a yeast infection on the tongue of a foul mouth child that hasn’t brushed his teeth in three weeks. You are the political equivilent of Marshall Petain without any power or prestige, bemoaning that you have no one to betray. If Harriette Miers met you, you would not be the most brilliant person she ever met. You sir, like Christopher Hitchens, are a drink soaked Trotskite popinjay, except that you have no convictions, political or otherwise, are too dull to be any kind of bird and have spent your life stone cold sober. Your thought processes rival the stain in Rush Limbaugh’s silk shorts, and your personal bravery is enough to let freedom ring so loudly that you hide behind Alam Colmes’ dress shouting defiance. Your ability to insult is so lacking, that you should try to rhyme so that children think you are playing with them. You couldn’t fight your way out of a wet paper bag and need your big sister to wipe your nose for you while explaining to her friends that your were born with a tail and without gonads while she offers to show for a buck fifty. Your idea of a personal conviction is what the judge sentenced you to after you visited children in the park in your raincoat. Your idea of a good job is done for a Republican on your knees. You think that the mother of a dead soldier is a fair target and those attacking her heroes.
So is that the kind of insulting that the Pit is for?
That’s the spirit Bob, very nice! Bonus points for crafting all of your insults from your own political ideology. It reads like something Al Frankin would write while drunk.
I’m willing to give Sheehan the benefit of the doubt and propose that for every whacky thing she says, there are three or four sound, thoughtful points. Trouble is, the whacky stuff makes better press.
Thing is, though, I’ve read complete speeches she’s made at rallies. And the whole thing, even with the cherrypicked quotes placed in a very broad context, are far worse than those few sentences just on their own.
I don’t think Sheehan is crazy. I won’t insult her by characterizing her positions as such. However, they are without a doubt radical positions. And I believe, personally, they aren’t a reasonable reaction to the facts at hand.
Thenk ya Dave, that was what I was aiming fer. Next time I’ll try to channel a witty right winger. I’m going to start looking for one now, witty or sober. I’ll be out golfing with my friend Orenthal. He is always looking in the right place.
Ain’t you just the cutest little thing. Shor do use lotsa them pretty words. :rolleyes: That makes you a hack with a vocabulary. Whoopdedoo.
Sadly though, all of the carefully crafted insults you can lob my way won’t make anything that I said any less true. Feel free to keep making shit up though. You can go tell your friends how devastatingly clever you are.