bullshit protectors

[madame_zora]

Pecker, by your own post, you explain why many are angry at bush and cheney. You post real issues like stolen votes, a war based on an inaccurate if not wholly contrived bit of misinformation, conflicts of interest concerning both of their private interests in oil companies. You rebuke these only by saying we're blind. Do you see why this is not a good enough answer?

Why do you support bush? What has he done that you think is good for our country as a whole? We all now know that the terrorists were mostly Saudi, so why are we in Iraq, whose government is no worse than many in the world if not for oil profits? If bush made an honest error based on bad info, why did we not pull out when the error was discovered?

 

[jonb]

Your side invented the sound bite.

With the stolen votes, Bush was caught in the act. Negative votes and more votes than actual voters.
With Iraq, Bush was also caught in the act, planning the war in 1999. Bush was also caught flubbing insurance. Notice the case of Valerie Plame.
Halliburton dealing with Saddam Hussein in the 90s is well-established. Halliburton's embezzlement is also established; the smoking gun was charging $45 per case of Pepsi.
I consider health insurance and the economy relevant issues. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by Pecker@Aug 26 2005, 12:57 AM
I support the president. You hate him, therefore you hate me for supporting him.

[post=338026]Quoted post[/post]​

oh, please. you honestly think I could give enough of a shit to HATE anyone on that basis? I don't even KNOW you or george bush. pointing out that he is, indeed, a moron and that it is, indeed, stupid by definition to identify onesself with morons is a looong way off qualifying as hate in my book.

I don't often jump into political discussions with long responses anymore because I know I won't change any minds, enlighten any souls or convert any voters in this atmosphere.

didn't ask you to. I asked you to provide some logical reason for your apparent support for a group of patently useless and incompetent politicians. I ask precisely because the present US government is directed by people who are scumbags even by regular politicians' standards; I'd seriously like to hear how their supporters excuse them, cos the whole thing just baffles me.

on the other hand, back to my original question: if, as you claim, you got nothing to say on the subject, what's with the pseudo-smartass one-liners and political soundbites? I'm sure you're not unaware that most people are gonna see those as challenges to argument. it's kind of the online equivalent of shouting "YOUR MOM YOUR MOM" at people.

 

[Pecker]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Aug 25 2005, 10:59 PM
back to my original question: if, as you claim, you got nothing to say on the subject, what's with the pseudo-smartass one-liners and political soundbites? I'm sure you're not unaware that most people are gonna see those as challenges to argument. it's kind of the online equivalent of shouting "YOUR MOM YOUR MOM" at people.

[post=338052]Quoted post[/post]​

My point, Doc, is that the left has no agenda except to point out the administration's 'shortcomings' without offering viable alternatives.

As for my pseudo-smartass one-liners, maybe I just don't take this crap as seriously as you do.

Or maybe I'm just not wearing blinders.

 

[madame_zora]

Okay, well MY viable alternatives would be NOT starting a war without getting the facts straight first, NOT rigging elections, NOT allowing politicians to make decisions where there is a clear conflict of interest (Martha Stewart went to jail for that, but she's not the pres.) and hey, while we're at it, how about NOT letting these men skate when they're caught red-handed, like Karl Rove and the Enron fiasco. These are realistic concerns, why is it not okay to expect satisfaction to these insults? These are legal crimes, punishable by the laws of our country, and yet if anyone says "Hey, I don't want my president or his "people" to be above the law", then WE'RE the bad guys. Sorry, no sale.

Smartass quips aside, your arguments on this thread have completely lacked content.

 

[Pecker]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Aug 26 2005, 05:46 AM
Okay, well MY viable alternatives would be NOT starting a war without getting the facts straight first, NOT rigging elections, NOT allowing politicians to make decisions where there is a clear conflict of interest (Martha Stewart went to jail for that, but she's not the pres.) and hey, while we're at it, how about NOT letting these men skate when they're caught red-handed, like Karl Rove and the Enron fiasco. These are realistic concerns, why is it not okay to expect satisfaction to these insults? These are legal crimes, punishable by the laws of our country, and yet if anyone says "Hey, I don't want my president or his "people" to be above the law", then WE'RE the bad guys. Sorry, no sale.

Smartass quips aside, your arguments on this thread have completely lacked content.

[post=338117]Quoted post[/post]​

You're proving my point again, Jana. You've responded with the continuing negatives.

Where are the positives? You can't just say "I wouldn't do it that way."

The fact remains that the left walks around with their heads on backwards, looking through those blinders at the past and tearing at their hair.

Act.

Amend the Constitution.

Re-elect King Clinton.

 

[Dr Rock]

okay, well with the points soaring high above the heads of their intended recipients, I think we can safely write off this discussion as a waste of time.