Wow, I’ve lurked here for quite awhile, and can’t really think of a moment where someone has labled themselves as a gobsmacked idiot quite as well as milroyj has done in this thread.
Frankly, I’m impressed.
You might see if you can find some other threads where milroyj has participated. If you read a few of those, you’ll see that this is just the latest iteration in a long line of moronic behavior.
I swear I stepped through the looking glass, right? Right?
Is it me or is the upcoming election turing Dopers into partisan, frothing at-the-mouth lunatics? Not that some haven’t acting like lunatics to begin with. I hope things around here go back to what passes for normal by March.
That worked against december once. Of course, in that instance the book in question was biased toward his position.
Okay, it’s not just me. 
OK, you guys win.
RESOLVED,
Barbara Bush is an evil harridan.
Her son, the President, is the Anti-Christ.
Commondreams.org is a legitimate cite (but drudgereport.com is not)
milroyj is a drunk, or an asshole, or both.
Have I missed anything? :rolleyes:
I’m going on vacation, assuming I can fit one in between Frances and Ivan. 
So see y’all on the other side.
Warmest personal regards,
milroyj
I agree with that assessment. My own bitterly cynical opinion regarding a return to normal is that it isn’t likely, but I’d happily eat crow if that turned out not to be the case. If past Pit cycles have indicated anything, it’s that we’re due one or two more really ugly pit threads followed by a “Now everyone let’s not be total fuckwads!” thread that will be stickied, at which point the pit becomes something of a huggy-bear convention for a week or so. Then, timidly at first, the pitizens resume their invocations of goat felching and self-love at the expense of other activities (IOW, go fuck yourself;)).
Well I guess this should teach me a lesson.
I clear the matter up in the fourth post in the thread; yes she said, but it’s been taken out of context. But does it make the slightest difference to the jerkoids spoiling for an argument, or the surrounding peanut gallery? Not in the slightest.
Ah well, please do carry on, don’t let me get in the way.
Oh, well…at least you tried.
You know it’s a knockout blow when the loser (milroyj in this case) concedes points that weren’t even brought up for debate.
At least you’re living up to your screen name.
Yes, but not the actual point of the thread. What milroyj said was out of frustration with those unwilling to buy his load of BS. What milroyj did not say was what pretty much everyone else in this thread knows by now (and I suspect he knows, too, but doesn’t want to admit).
[sub]milly: good luck, stay safe and when come back, bring pie:)[/sub]
I’m surprised it took three pages to established the gobsmacked idiotcy of milroyj, Brutus, et al – that stuff’s evident to anyone who’s read more than two messages, tops, from any of 'em.
My apologies. I got into this thread rather late. I don’t usually bother to post to them. I was SO upset that the OP wasn’t correct, that I didn’t read posts such as yours. Big mistake on my part.
But, as Miller brought up, --hey! you chose your name. Perhaps a name change to something along the line of “Hey you *ucking idiot!” would alert me to your message. 
Doesn’t seem to me that he’s conceding, even now, that lots of legitimate cites were offered other than commondreams.org - his post came across more as ‘I’m going off in a huff now, but I was still right’. 
You’ve missed the point again.
Both of the above are legitimate cites. Such as “I read this in…XXX”
That doesn’t make them correct in their assertions. That’s where the harder work begins.
But, if posters to the board can find other cites that can confirm the sometimes gossipy words of those sites, then you have to sit up an take notice. If sites that produce cites are major, fact-checking, reliable, players in the world of news, then you can probably trust them. That doen’t mean they don’t make a mistake now and then. Anyone can be misled by sources they trust.
Dammit, mhendo, it’s not utter irrationality – it’s great faith.
You know the definition of a person of great faith?
It means the person will believe fucking anything.
See, it’s obvious that you have some problem differentiating between reporting and editorial.
Personally, i would generally be willing to believe Drudge regarding the factual content of a particular statement. Where i might start taking issue with him is when he tries to place his own interpretation on what the statement means.
For the most part, Drudge’s reports are factually correct. It’s his politics, the spin he puts on interpreting his sources, that are the problem.
For a leftist like me, the Wall Street Journal is an excellent example of what i’m talking about. That newspaper has on its staff some of the best, most rigorous reporters in the United States, and their work is constantly professional, incisive, topical, and well-written. It’s a great paper to read if you want to find out what’s really going on.
But turn to their op-ed pages, and you’ll generally find little more than a bunch of right wing blowhards for whom professional journalistic ethics and integrity take a distant back seat to pushing for the interests of the wealthy.
Show me a cite from a story in the Wall Street Journal, and chances are i’ll take it seriously. Try to convince me about a position using an argument from one of the op-ed columns, and i’ll probably laugh in your face.
Umm, no. I am saying that you have been provided with numerous links to the exact quote by Barbara Bush, and you still refuse to accept that the old biddy might have actually said it. Remember, our side doesn’t make shit like that up. Only your side does.
I’m sorry, but I’m experiencing a major logic disconnect here. The actual quotes which have been posted numerous times to this thread clearly show that she did not speak the words in the OP in the she was alleged to have spoken them in the OP. A cut-and-paste job was done to make it look like she said what was quoted in the OP, yet you appear to continue to believe that her words as quoted in the OP are correct and I’m refusing to acknowledge it. Is this correct, or am I somehow misunderstanding what you’re driving at?
Au contraire. Your side is so bad about this kind of thing a slogan has even evolved to explain it: i.e., “To tell the truth is self-defeating, if you’re a liberal.”
(With apologies to the more scrupulous and honest among you. ETF, Zoe, et. al, you know who you are. )
To those on my side of the aisle, this speaks volumes.