To all those who shoot the messengers;

The BBQ Pit
1

There is one thing that runs through the posts of those that have attacked my posting on Bush.

A singularly clear theme.

If you can not attack the message with anything resembling Facts , you attack the messenger. You can’t refute the facts so you ride the messenger in order to attempt to discredit the message. Be it the President (who is supported by a Majority of the American People regardless of the furious personal attacks levied by the Liberal Media, and countries making Billions of dollars from Iraq) to a simple person like myself.

The best you can do, is to try and change the subject, to anything that you can, in order to distract from the issue at hand. Sorry ya’all don’t like the message, but if you are so sure it is wrong, PROVE IT, instead of going all insane (defined as; lacking reasonable thought: showing a complete lack of reason or foresight) over GRAMMER! Or length!!! Haven’t you any idea just how transparent you are? There are a LOT of facts in that essay. Why aren’t you refuting the FACTS? Oh that’s right, you don’t want to read that much. No wonder so many of you are presenting yourselves as ignorant. You won’t make the effort to EDUCATE yourselves. What you think it happens by Osmosis??? Or are you looking for the 6 second Sound Bite??? The world doesn’t happen in 6 second Sound-bites. It has been said many times, “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink”. You are dying of thirst but too proud or perhaps too stupid to admit it.

Oops, I hate to tell you all, no I take that back, I don’t hate it at all.

I have to tell you that you are acting like shining examples of idiots, fools, and other morons that that simply can not see the Forest for the Trees. You attack The President because you can not attack his policies. You attack Bush’s vocabulary, his spelling, his accent, his hair, his suits, just about every single thing that you can think up that is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. You try to discredit him through personal attacks just like the Democratic Party in general. I have news for you… you are following a policy that was started by a Political Operative of the Democratic Party. James Carville. Read “Fighting Back” by Bill Sammon, He was present for James comments and published them, both on the very morning of 911, and about a year later. A good starting point, but just that, a starting point. Beware though, once you start getting some of the truth in your head, you might find yourselves compelled to learn more. You might just have to read some books. Printed ones that is. Don’t believe me? Go to: The Slate.com . That is a place to start reading about just EXACTLY what the Liberal Press is up to. Feel free to search at will.

Not only do you attack the President on a personal level, you can’t even offer up an alternative!!! You bash policies with out offering up SOLUTIONS that you think would work. If you are going to complain about something you think is wrong, then offer up a solution! Otherwise you look like a whiner. All bitch and moan.

As an aside, I was a registered Democrat until 1999, I did not vote for Clinton but I voted consistently Democrat for 13 years. What changed my mind? What made me start looking deeper into the Party and the Press that supports it?

“It depends of the definition of what the word “is” is.” – Bill Clinton.

Ultimately, George W. Bush is the President of the United States.
Your attacking him is dividing the country, the Democratic Party attacking him is dividing the Country, and ultimately on the World stage, this divisiveness is WEAKENING the Untied States. If nothing else, like your mama should have told you if she didn’t,

“If ya ain’t got nuthin nice ta say, don’t say nuthin”.

As much as you disagree with this that or the other thing, he is STILL the President. He is still OUR representative on the world stage. Just how much do you want to undermine this country? So much you will complain about Pronunciation?

shaking head in disbelief
Sincerely,
Danae

2

BANG

oopse, sorry

3

We should consider switching over to the Euro.

4

::sweeping up the remains of Bippy’s exploded head::

BANG

[SUB]DAMN!, IT GOT ME TOO[/SUB]

5

“If you are going to complain about something you think is wrong, then offer up a solution!”

Many of those who oppose Bush and his precious war already HAVE offered up solutions, but no one who’s pro war considers those acceptable. The anti-war people shouldn’t be silent to appease your sorry ass or those like you.
I’m not going to “unite” under a banner I think is wrong. Tough tit-mice.

6

Wow. 25 posts, all in the Pit, most some sort of polemic, and you’re telling us how we’ve failed to criticize Bush’s policies with “Facts”.

Thanks. If it weren’t for all the time I’ve spent dealing with others of your ilk lately, my head would probably explode als-- BANG

[sub]…ahh …shucks…[/sub]

7

::getting another broom and handing it to xenophon41::

8

Did you mean grammar?

And I assume you felt the same way over Republican’s attacks on Clinton and how they shouldn’t have objected to any of his policies because it would divide the country?

Schmuck.

9

Actually I did. Even after hearing NUMEROUS comments from Naval Acadmey Seniors threaten to skip their graduation ceromonys if Clinton was going to give the address. The Somalia Black Hawk fisasco had happened. My comment was, and they had to agree, he is still the Commader in Chief. I didn’t join in. I got educated.

How bout you? Schmuck?

10

Most of you have proven my point perfectly! I could not have scripted it any better for you! Thanks for saving me the effort and time!

Danae

11

I tell you what, Danae. If a messenger comes to me bringing bad news, I won’t shoot her.

But if she’s stopped off in a bar along the way and gotten schnockered, and when she shows up, she’s slurring her speech so badly that I can’t figure out what the hell the message is – well, I ain’t gonna take her seriously.

This post of yours, clocking in at just a page and a half of self-righteous drivel (compared to the eye-gouging five pages from the referenced thread), is easier to dissect, so I’ll do you a favor, just this once, and explain to you the difference between

SHOOTING THE MESSENGER

and

TELLING A SHITFACED MESSENGER TO SOBER UP

First, let’s take out the parenthetical comment from the second sentence, ignoring for the moment the fact that it’s a sentence fragment and not a sentence at all. “Be it the President to a simple person like myself.” What the hell does that mean?

Probably, it means, “You attack any messenger, from the President to a simple person like myself.” But since you didn’t say that, your reader has to go over your sentence several times to extract any meaning. Had you written clearly, no heads would be exploding.

Now let’s turn to the parenthetical comment: “(who is supported by a Majority of the American People regardless of the furious personal attacks levied by the Liberal Media, and countries making Billions of dollars from Iraq).” Why the inane capitalization? Any good book will tell you when to capitalize words. The way you do it disrupts the rhythm of the text, makes it read like an overlong book title, pounds words into the reader’s head like a funeral drum. It’s not only incorrect, it’s also headacheriffic.

But that’s not the main point. The main point is that you place three controversial statements and one snide innuendo in one parenthetical statement. “Supported by a Majority”? That’s hardly cut-and-dried; while some of Bush’s policies are supported by a majority, others are opposed by a majority. “Furious personal attacks”? Name some: from what I’ve seen, the media gives him a pretty free ride. “Liberal media”? Although I’m sure you’re unaware of this, this idea is hardly so accepted as you suggest. “Countries making billions from Iraq”? Just what is that supposed to mean – are you suggesting that France’s opposition to war is pecuniarily based? That snide innuendo should be tossed or fully explored, not thrown in a parenthetical comment.

Let’s recap this one sentence:

  1. It’s a fragment; extend it to a full sentence, in order to make its meaning clear.
  2. It’s nonsensical, due to missing words; add those words back in, so that the reader doesn’t need to guess at them.
  3. It includes lots of unwarranted assumptions in the parenthetical comment; remove those, or else expand them fully.

Onwards and upwards:

Good topic sentence. Learn to use commas: your incorrect usage slows down the reader and contributes to the growing headache.

This is missing the point. As I’ve told you countless times, I’m not sure the message is wrong; I’m just sure that you’re an incoherent gibbering baboon. And why did you define “insane”? You’re using it in a straightforward manner here; no one is confused what you mean when you call us insane.

Learn to use semicolons properly. The improper use of them gives this reader a headache, by upsetting my (entirely reasonable) expectations of what’s going to follow the semicolon.

Misspelling “grammar” is one of life’s great ironies. Learn to spell it properly.

A single exclamation point is rarely convincing. Multiple exclamation points, unless htey follow “I love you” and are dotted with herats and you’re thirteen years old, are never convincing. Cut it out.

As I said before: I can deal with facts, and if you’ll look around, you’ll see that I’ve got no problem arguing with people who can present their arguments clearly and cogently. But, just as I won’t go digging through hogshit to find a few pearls, I’m not going to read an incoherently written post to find the facts.

Asking a question and then answering it is rarely an effective rhetorical device. You come across as someone afraid to address the actual points of your opponents, so you construct artificial points to address instead.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you ten years old? Is this the playground? Sheesh!

Go to Great Debates, and you’ll see plenty of attacks on his policies. You staggered in to a thread in which folks can let their hair down about him and vomited everywhere.

Okay, now I’ve found a seed of a fact (although I’ve also got hogshit all over myself). This may or may not be a great book, but if you go to Great Debates, you can argue the points of the book, instead of just telling people to go read it. Of course, you’ll get further in arguing it if you drop the self-righteous, Let-me-educate-you-poor-deluded-fools attitude and recognize that you’re far from the smartest bird in the flock. But at least this was a good start.

And see, this is where I, who read two books over the weekend, just say, Fuck off, asshole. I lose more political savvy with each fart than you’ll ever have.

Once more: it’s not the message that’s the problem. It’s the messenger, direly in need of a twelve-step-for-gibbering-idiots program, that’s the problem.

Daniel

12

Me? Well, I attended and listened at my college graduation when Ashcroft spoke last May. And I don’t think you’ll find any posts from me making fun of Bush’s speaking style.

Second, no one has any idea what article or thread or whatever you are talking about since you failed to post a link.

Third, if you ever bothered to venture into Great Debates, you would see plenty of facts. The BBQ Pit is the place for invective and, apparently, intellectual lightweights posing as political martyrs such as yourself.

13

Wow.

Just, just… wow.

:smiley:

14

Grammer should be spelled grammar.
Ya’ll should be spelled Y’all.
And, well, I won’t even bother with The Untied States.

15

You are a fucking, fanatic, Danae. A useless ideologue. Not to be confused with an idealist.

Definition #2 fits you perfectly.

I, myself, have backed wars in the past, & the Presidents who waged them. But I don’t do it blindly.

And Clinton is gone, Danae. No more ranting, blaming the leaders of the past for our present lack of good solutions.

FUCK YOU, WHORE!!! I SHOULD SHUT UP TO PLEASE A WORM LIKE YOU?!?! People like you will someday run screaming through the street, looking for a Dictator, 'cause you’re too gutless to be free.
You are what they used to call a “Good German”.

Go crawl to Big Brother Bush. It’s what you’re good at. <sneer>

I will speak freely, & live freely 'tll I die.

Go kill yourself. :mad: :mad: :mad:

16

Hey Danae just a quick reminder, the Supreme Court merely appointed Shrub President, not Emperor. Stop hiding behind the flag

I don’t think Bush is an idiot, but a lot of his policies are idiotic:

-calling for tax cuts for the rich, while spending billions on an ill-advised war
-working day and night to make the air we breath, dirtier and the water we drink less pure
-appointing an Attorney General who cheerfully shreds the Bill of Rights
If Shrubs REAL lack of Leadership on the Economy continues
banks will be paying other banks to borrow from them

<<Bang, Bang, Bang!>>

17

Believe it or not Danae, many people, including myself, feel that a smart bomb driving straight up Saddam’s ass would be a glorious thing. What I dislike is the tactics Dubya is using. Tactics even his Father disagrees with. He is systematically alienating some of our most important alies at a time when we need them for the war on terrorism. He is playing fast and loose with the facts. He is constantly changing his story.

As an adult, I don’t appreciate being lied to.

And before you bring up the “12 year” mantra so popular with your ilk, may I point out that 8 of those years inspections weren’t happening. Yes, that is mostly Saddam’s fault. Yes he could have divulged before resolution 1441. What I call Bullshit on is Dubya banging the war drum before Blix even hit the ground. Understand this, I am happy that the pressure the U.S. is exerting is causing Saddam to divulge. Hell, it’s overdue, and I think the U.S. fucked up when we didn’t put pressure on when the inspectors first left. What I just don’t understand is why Dubya can’t let that continue further, pointing out loudly and clearly each and every denial and evasion Saddam attempts along the way.

Yes, I am not an idiot. I understand fully that Saddam is a lying, coniving, little bastard. I don’t appreciate being lied to by him either, and I CAN see through his lies, just as well as you.

In short, Diplomacy is making inroads, it is progressing, not digressing. I am happy to see progress made on a diplomatic front rather than a war front. I’m finicky that way. I think it’s wrong to send young Americans to die when progress is being made. I think it’s wrong for our leader to feel the lives of our soldiers are so disposable that he can choose to go to arms when diplomacy has made gains.

When it becomes clear that diplomacy has failed, I will jump off this fence I’m sitting on and give a hearty cheer to kicking Saddam’s ass. Until then, Danae, I will be left to fulfill the claims of your post.

Go pound sand up your ass.

18

hey Daniel - nice job! Didja wanna hang out w/me over here in the “liberal but not a fucking lunatic” section? we’ve got plenty of mango/baked brie and white wine. And I won’t even force you to drink something with an umbrella in it.

19

Hey ** wring**, just what is the “liberal but not a fucking lunatic” section of which you speak? The baked brie sounds nice, but you can keep your nassty mangosess.

20

wring, I brought some of the Best Dad In the World Made Cheesecake.