How is this NOT being a jerk?
That’s pretty negative Zoe. I think milroyj’s achieved a stunningly catastrophic success here. 
Maybe a little in that one, but I was aiming for sarcasm, faux-pity, or snottiness. I apologize if you took it at outright jerkishness.
I really don’t care to accept your apology. Sorry.
Ahem…well, I’m pleased to learn you hold me and my posts to be so effective that you regard a mere observational post of mine, which was intended to point out an obvious flaw in the OP, as an attempt to “redirect” the thread. I wasn’t aware I held such awesome thread-controlling ability in my hands. I thank you.
But I see what you mean about **milroyj **and having my facts straight first. If there’s the tiniest little flaw in anything he says anywhere, you will all be on him like a pack of wolves.
And by the way, is it just me or are all the liberals in this thread mighty testy this evening? (With the exception of the fair and lovely Zoe, of course, who I will get to in a minute. )
Hey, don’t apologize! My apology wasn’t all that sincere, anyhow. 
Milroy, have you received the email from Lexis-Nexis? Do you accept it as a cite? If so, you should withdraw your pitting, ask for the thread to be closed and try not to be such a goddamn whiner in future.
It’s those two recent polls. Things look grim for their side.
Yeah, no shit it wasn’t.
Anyhoo, and to repeat Mr. Finch’s question, what did you think of the material Mr. Chitwood sent you? Or would you rather continue to quibble about minor details rather than the main thrust of this trainwreck you started?
So, millie, care to answer the question that’s on the tip of everybody’s tongue?
Namely, on your planet, does a cite count if it can’t be found, for free, on the Web?
Thanx.
Mr. Chitwood sent material that wasn’t asked for. Trainwreck yourself, bitch.
blink
Wasn’t asked for? Wasn’t asked for?! You REPEATEDLY requested proof from a “reputable” source, stating that the links offered weren’t good enough. Someone finally finds and takes the time to email what you repeatedly requested and now you say it wasn’t “asked for”? Why the hell did you start the thread in the first place? Hell, it’s right up there in your very OP:
And now you say you didn’t ASK for it?
Really? Hm… I could have sworn…
This must be some form of “unasked for” about which I was previously unaware. :dubious:
Gee, dude, she offered you a way out of this quagmire you stepped in and you refused it? Just admit you’re a drunk, whether it’s true or not, and let the nice liberals say, “Well, that explains everything!” It’s a great out you can use whenever your fingers type faster than your brain can think. Our condescension has to be better than our contempt.
I can see how you could come to this conclusion based upon her choice of words, but I really think that the conclusion to be derived based on what she said is one of those “eye of the beholder” kinds of things. You view it as you do (IMHO, that is ) because of the complex and myriad sentiments you hold toward her son and, most likely, Republicans and conservatives in general, and the way you perceive they think. So you are inclined to view her comments through that filter. I don’t think of her or her husband or her son in the same way you do, so it’s inconceivable to me that she meant her words the way they could be interpreted even if not taken out of context. To me, she had in mind that yes, people die in war and if we go to war people will surely die, but I don’t waste my time analyzing or worrying about what the media suppose or predict or agonize over in regard to it. I see nothing wrong with that, but it’s probably the “yes, people die in war and if there’s a war people will die” aspect of what she said that troubles you. The difference between us is that I feel she was just being matter-of-fact and pragmatic, whereas you see her as having been cold-hearted and uncaring about those who may die in the upcoming war.
And for what it’s worth, pretty much the same is true in reverse with me. During Clinton’s administration I don’t think I ever heard a word out of him or his wife or his spokespeople or any of his cabinet that I took positively. I was so anti-Clinton that I despised everything about him and distrusted everything he said or did. Now in retrospect, and due to the insight I’ve gained through my interactions with some of the more respectable liberals on this board, I’ve changed my view of both him and his accomplishments considerably. But it’s amazing how when you detest someone you see the most negative and awful intent in everything they say and do.
I think he was speaking from experience as to how her words and frankness would be played in the media (especially since she was minimizing the media in her comments) and in the minds of those who hear them, as I described above. I don’t think he meant her comments were cold-hearted and uncaring and that she should keep them under wraps.
I seem to remember the same thing. But I know I’ve also heard she is very close with the Kennedys and spends time socially with them and those in the Kennedy circle, and that she’s quite often to be found at dinner parties and otherwise socializing with the upper echelon Democrat and liberal movers and shakers in the country as well.
I agree with you 100%, and in light of subsequent events I’m sure that if she had it to do over again she would have chosen to express herself differently.
:: hangs head sheepishly, scrapes toe nervously across the floor ::
Aw, shucks…now you’ve gone and embarrassed me.
(Not really)
But thank you. You know you’re one of my favorites here, too. It’s funny that most of the friends I’ve made here on this board are of the liberal variety. But, it’s the same way in my offline life, too. Most of my friends are liberals. What can I say? They’re more interesting and more fun (as are my conservative cohorts on this board, of course. If offline conservatives were as outspoken and lively as the guys here, they would be a lot more fun too). Now, if only I could persuade these liberal friends of mine on just these few little matters…
Yes, I know. Thanks.
Two things occur to me regarding this. First, isn’t “cite” a contraction of the word “citation”? One of its definitions in Merriam-Webster is: "2 a : an act of quoting; especially : the citing of a previously settled case at law. I think it has probably morphed from there into referring to the citing of any fact or settled argument.
The second thing is, isn’t ours what I’ve been told is a “living language?” That it changes and morphs with the times? I’ve been told this teasingly by some of the aforementioned liberals with whom I’ve been known to hobnob whenever I tried to correct them on some currently fashionable misuse of a word.
millie…You really should take a break from the board. It’s clear you have lost it.
Just a bit of friendly advice.
Hee!
But then, they’d have to be, wouldn’t they? 
d&r
So let me get this straight… I called BS on your quote, and I’m a coward? Okaaay.
And how exactly does one go about proving that a quote is inaccurate? Am I supposed to quote every speech ever given by Bush and show that the quote is not there? I’m afraid that it is you, the poster, who most prove that the quote is accurate. Give us a cite of a primary source and you’re home free.
So an inaccurate quote is OK as long as you think it is representative of someone actions? Not on your ass. A quote is a quote, and if someone made up a quote from Kerry, you’d be all over them like a cheap suit claiming there were spreading Republican porn.
I have insuated nothing. I stated the fact that you posted an inaccurate quote. If you want to know my opinion about it, I don’t think you knew it was inaccurate (although I did link you to the thread where it was debunked), but that you are so unwaveringly biased against Bush that you readily believed something others have dishonestly posted on the internet. You were duped. Why don’t you tell us how much checking you did to see that the quote was in fact real?
Give us your cite or retract the quote.