You are the guys who believed GeeDubya when he fed you a ton of bullshit. And we’re the ones who are gullible. The guys who didn’t.
OK. Clear on that.
Diogenes, I’ll donate $100 to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, if you’ll adopt a more balanced view about President Bush and refrain from criticising him on this board for 120 days.
No? I guess you care more about your ego than helping sick people, then.
elucidator:
Not me. I didn’t trust Bush when they said Saddam had WMDs. I was trusting Kerry and Clinton when they said it.
I notice you always seem to forget about that complexity. It’s why I think you’re so… special.
Why, you dirty rotten selfish son of a bitch! How are the rest of us supposed to make any money with you hogging the easiest marks? Just treat it like a 419 deal and let the rest of us try to sqeeze some easy cash out of him. :mad: 
Hey, better watch out. We keep this up, and no one’s going to believe Bricker when he complains about liberal pile-ons on the SDMB.
I wouldn’t bet on him taking up that offer, either.
Anyhow, since - I would assume - you care more about helping sick people than making a point on a message board, you’ll be sending that $100 off anyway.
I’m already a donor to the NMSS. Not a bad point, though. Nevertheless, I’ll wait for Dio’s reply to my offer before I decide on a response.
You guys sure you don’t want to make that bet in Euros?
Oh sure, you offer that now. Where were you when it could have saved me some cash? 
I didn’t tell anyone for fear of the measurement throwing off the measurement (IYKWIM), but back in August I made what might reasonably be called a vitriol-measurement spreadsheet to decide how much to donate to Republican causes. “Bushco” alone ended up costing me more than a grand, even at just five bucks a throw (though a lot of it went to defeat Tom Daschle, so it’s all good). Hell, if reeder hadn’t taken a suspension early in October I might have gone broke.
I think I like your approach better. U R SMRT. 
Well, Scylla (and the rest of you ignorant fools on preview), you’d have to forget your history:
-
in 1968, after a landslide victory over Goldwater, LBJ abdicated.
-
in 1974, a mere two years after an equally awesome landslide over Mcgovern, Nixon resigned.
This asshole didn’t even have a landslide. He’s won twice, both times by very slim margins in the electoral college. This second win was quite convincing in the popular vote, but nowhere near a landslide.
His margin of error is far narrower therefore, but he’s repeating every single mistake LBJ made, except from the right side of the aisle instead of the left. It’s almost eerie to watch.
Anyway, I’m quite comfortable with the bet and the odds on it. History, and Bush’s classically Texas-sized pride, is on my side. The bigger the pride, the bigger the fall that comes after it. No sweat.
Balance? Oh, OK. He’s the guy who seems determined to make America, once the light of hope for the world, into an international bully-boy. On the other hand, his policies will weaken us to the point of complete impotence.
There. Balance.
Well, she is hot, that’s for sure. But I’m sorry to tell you she’s straight, so she wouldn’t be interested in you.
Feeling comfortable and confident is one thing, giving even odds on a one in eight proposition is something else.
Your post is offensive, and similar statements by Kerry supporters are why you lost the election.
Your political opinions are not the One True Faith, and people who disagree with you are not ignorant, fascist bigots deserving of your arrogant scorn. Keep it up. You’ll offend more voters, and your (already remote) chances of winning your bet will decrease.
As some have said on this board, and as respected commentators have written in the national press in recent days, these kind of tactics are political suicide for the Democratic party.
To focus one one example, I support a change in the law to allow gay marriage. However, most voters don’t. Those who are more personally affected by the current state of the law (and the electorate’s reccent overwhelming rejection of their position) have a choice. They can yell even louder about the evil bigotry of their opponents and assert the absolutist all-or-nothing position you espouse, or they follow a more gradualist, politically palatable course.
One tactic gains nothing, although I suppose its supporters can congratulate each other on their intellectual purity. The other strategy might actually work. If I were the Karl Rove of GayPac, I’d talk about the American values of freedom, and fairness, and the inherent rightness of allowing people to live their personal lives without government interference. I’d fund ads telling stories like Chatelaine’s and those who have have kept from deathbed visits, or access to their partner’s health insurance. That might actually get some results.
But what do I know? The issue doesn’t affect me in any direct way. Maybe if it did, I’d value the purity of whining from the sidelines and a feeling of intellectual superiority over my opponents over actual, substantive political change.
If that’s what you got out of my post, you can certainly strike the third of those adjectives off the list. And I am beginning to suspect the others don’t apply either, for strong, secure individuals, don’t tend to act like pompous blowhards on an Internet board.
Anyway, it’s not all bad news. Here’s a story that no doubt will make your heart sing and your dick throb: Carnage in Falluja.
Enjoy.
**
If true, that’s a tragedy. Unfortunately, innocents die in wars, even if the combatants to everything possible to avoid it. It’s too bad his parents didn’t take their children out of the city before the fighting began, as it was obvious to everyone what was going to happen, and the authorities bombarded the city with leaflets warning civilians to evacuate.
BTW, that latter quote should have said “anonymous” as opposed to The Bard. It’s misattributed to him for some time – but no one, AFAIK, has been able to determine source with any degree of veracity.
The sentiments expressed therein however, stand stronger than ever.
I don’t get you, Random. You lay out the clear facts of the matter, several telling points why any human being with an ounce of empathy or compassion would stand in opposition. You know right from wrong.
And yet, knowing that, you choose to support those who are wrong because you don’t like how those who are right express themselves?
I really, really don’t get that.
Gosh, you’re right! How could I have been so blind? War is never justified, and leaders who rally the population in its favor are always evil.
I guess I’ll strike Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln off my list of heroes.