Dude, only 17 posts? Where ya been? 
Way to go, Stiletto! Welcome to the SDMB!
What offends me is the implication that 1) We should elect leaders based on who is/isn’t approved of by the terrorists - talk about letting them win!; and 2) Any Bush that runs for and accepts public office is deliberately and selfishly endangering the nation.
What a load of crap! Hell, I didn’t vote for Bush, but it was because I didn’t agree with some of his policies, not because I was worried that his election would inspire a terrorist attack!
If I’d thought this was the case, I’d probably have voted for Bush just to send the terrorists a message - “Fuck off! It’s MY goddamn country - we’ll elect the goddamn Energizer Bunny for president if that’s who we want.”
Well, unlike a few people around here, I try not to open my mouth just to verify my shoe size. And ya know, it’s been a BAD week. 
But I have to say, I’m really enjoying being here so far.
Thanks for the welcome, coosa. And I have to agree. On both counts. We absolutely CANNOT be worried about whether or not our candidate is or is not going to tick off the terrorists. That’s ridiculous. And I didn’t vote for George, either…for the same reasons. But President of the United States has got to be one of the toughest jobs on the planet. I can bitch about what he does and doesn’t do, but the man has my respect for stepping up to do it.
-Stil
For the record, I am NOT defending them, I am merely posting in the same threads as they are and disagreeing with some statements made. That is not defending someone else, even if you think that’s what I’m doing. BTW, I notice that not one of the other evil liberals named in this thread have appeared to make the slightest defense of their words. You should at least respect me for having the honor to defend my opinions, but also realize that they are OPINIONS, like yours. Just because you disagree with my political opinions, that does not mean I am evil, or even a jerk.
And this is the horror of this situation. Tonight, El Presidente said “You’re either with us, or against us.” Everything is pure black or white. You’re either a rabid hawk, or you’re as bad as the terrorists. This is sickening. America is a land of many people with many differing ideas, Bush is essentially declaring war on dissenters in the US. And so is most everyone on this board.
I am as anxious as anyone to get justice for the horrors of WTC. However, I am opposed to destroying the very principles that make this country great, in the process of seeking that justice. A tragedy has occurred, let us not compound the tragedy by abandoning our principles in a rush to “infinite justice.”
Wait wait… you said opinions don’t make people jerks?
Huh.
Uh… you do know the difference between hyperbole and actual policy, right?
It’s a good policy, and one I’ve been using myself this week. In trying times like this, I remind myself of what Mark Twain once said, “It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” But I like the way you said it better.
Welcome, Stiletto.
*Originally posted by Chas E. *
**
**
*Originally posted by SPOOFE ***
Uh… you do know the difference between hyperbole and actual policy, right? **
[/QUOTE]
Apparently not…
Isn’t it obvious? The Muslim terrorists, while training in Del Ray Beach, Florida, arranged to sabotage the Presidential election in that state, knowing well in advance that Florida would be the last state to report in. Then, they managed to buy off the Supreme Court so that any decision they made would be in Bush’s favor. It’s been a conspiracy between the terrorists and the Republicans all along!!
Hey, it’s at least as plausible as anything anyone else has said.
Perhaps Zenster might be added to the list. As evidence, I submit this thread…
I’ve been thinking back about the comments in this thread, and of all of them, this one bugs me the most. The situation you hypothesize is a 51/49 split on a declaration of war. This would mean the country as a whole was presumably bitterly divided over whether we should go to war, and the swing vote could have gone either way. You cannot attribute the defeat of the declaration to one single person, presumably since the votes represent the people, half of the US population would be opposed to the war in this circumstance.
Furthermore, failure to declare war is not equal to surrender. If the US hadn’t declared war after Pearl Harbor, they could have declared it later. It might have meant a tougher war, or perhaps even eventual defeat. But it is not tantamount to immediate surrender.
Anyway, I can see there is little point in continuing to participate in this thread. Not one single person came forward to accept my “mano a mano” challenge. Apparently I can only be shouted down, not defeated in a fair debate. You are all cowards, incapable of winning an argument by quality, only by quantity. I win by default.
…that you will have your opinions and points taken a little more seriously by others once you stop with the clearly partisan, irrational titles like “El Presidente”.
That’s like Gary Condit saying he passed a polygraph test administered by his own lawyer.
But who would judge that “quality”? Seriously? For nearly all people, the arguments they agree with are the ones of higher “quality”.
That said, contrary to your last sentence, quantity of opinion has considerable worth, I believe. In fact, very often in human society, the preponderance of opinion is de facto the truth. For better or worse, “truth” and “right” can be and have been properly and legitimately defined ad hoc by the prevailing opinions of given society at a given moment in time.
So it is also for a public forum such as this one. Therefore, it’s hard to claim victory in a public debate when very few people agree with you in the end. You’ve fought the good fight, but you haven’t convinced anyone to buy what you are selling – and our not buying your wares is a completely legitmate act (as opposed to any personal attacks, which ARE illegitimate) because there are hundreds of us thinking in hundreds of different ways, yet still disagreeing with you. What you’re up against is not sheep-like groupthink – it is the preponderence of individual, differing mindsets that all disagree with what you’ve put forth.
Chas, Chas, [sub]Chas…[/sub]
Okay. I realize I am probably wasting my time, but I’m going to try this once, and only once more.
**
I never, **ever, **said that you were not entitled to an opinion. I also never said that stating your opinion made you a jerk. What I did say was that the rest of us would like to see some supporting evidence that backs up your opinion, so that we don’t think you’re just a raving nutcase that likes blathering. SHOW US something to support the things you say. If you’re only here to find new and interesting ways to insult the President, the voters, the country, the SDMB-ers, and whoever else you feel like targetting, then may I recommend you direct your browser to Bored.com. We don’t need you here. Find something else to do.
**
You see, this is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. Find a paper from a social or political analyst that supports your view. If you’re going to say this kind of thing, show me some sort of evidence that if Pearl Harbor didn’t pull us into the war, anything else that happened would have.
No, Chas.E, I did not and will not accept that challenge. There is absolutely no honor in killing an unarmed opponent.
-Stil
hyperbole \Hyper"bole, n.
A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect.
What exactly are you proposing, Chas? That we all get together in the back room and assign one person to debate you? In case you haven’t noticed, it is not possible to shout you down, this is a message board, everyone gets to speak, speak carefully, thoughtfully, and be “heard” just fine, because we are * reading *. (Which is the absolute beauty of message boards!). It also doesn’t matter how many people are arguing with you in terms of your response. If you say: “The sky is green with shades of red around the edges”, and 50 other people tell you it’s blue, you don’t have to respond to all 50 of them separately, and you know that perfectly well.
Chas, you know I cut you a great deal of slack because of your willingness to go to the mat for Apple, but you really are not doing yourself any good with this. This is just silly, and we all know it, including you. And the only way you win is if you can come up with solid, irrefutable information OR you graciously admit that perhaps you allowed your emotion to rule your reason and said some stuff that wasn’t exactly scientficially proven. (I’m not paying close attention to details here). What you’ve done here is the equivalent of saying “You’re all mean! I’m going home and taking my ball with me, and that means I won the game!”
stoid
Sure, did you want the Spotted Owl Appetizers or the Condor Casserole?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chas.E *
**
Okay. You’re right, you win.
Will you please go away now?
After just reading this entire thread for the first time, all I can say is I agree with what coosa just said.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chas.E *
**
Hey - didn’t I see this posted over in Fenris’The Loser’s Handbook?