So....
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
How can you prove that the left made no efforts to attack Osama?
Why would I need to prove that? It's a statement of my observations. If you disagree, it's your responsibility to prove me wrong.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Bush is an idiot who should not be President, but he's not an enemy. It's not a black and white thing.
So you're saying that we should not have Democracy in the US? I disagree that the left sees Bush as anything other than an enemy. Here's my proof: http://www.moveon.org/[^]. There isn't anything that Bush does that isn't met with irrational contempt and attack from the left. That goes beyond disagreement and becomes pure hatred.
espeir wrote:
Why would I need to prove that? It's a statement of my observations. If you disagree, it's your responsibility to prove me wrong.
I can reply by saying, "I am also stating my observations and it's your responsibility to prove me wrong," but when does that end? You made a statement that the left has made no effort to attack Osama without backing it up. I'm suggesting that you back it up.
espeir wrote:
So you're saying that we should not have Democracy in the US?
I think the US should have a democracy and I understand that Bush was elected, though the elections were not a clear victory. (edit: I'm referring to Florida in the 2000 election and the 'irregularities' in the 2004 election.)
espeir wrote:
there isn't anything that Bush does that isn't met with irrational contempt and attack from the left.
I don't generally agree with Republican presidents in general, but Bush is far, far worse and there's a lot of people who think that way both outside and inside the US.
espeir wrote:
That goes beyond disagreement and becomes pure hatred.
There are wacky extremists on both sides. Try to ignore them.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-- modified at 15:39 Wednesday 1st March, 2006
-
link[^] Why do liberals think it's patriotic to feed Osama Bin Laden with such precious lines like "Bush Lied", but they think it's criminal to protest abortion? Am I misinterpreting the constitution? Should "freedom of speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" actually be read as "freedom of liberal speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for liberal causes"?
(1) I can't see in the article linked where "liberals" [quote]think it's criminal to protest abortion[/quote] (trying to block a legal business on moral grounds might be considered Anti-American, though) (2)
espeir wrote:
Why do liberals think it's patriotic to feed Osama Bin Laden with such precious lines like "Bush Lied"
Because "Truth" is a USAmerican value, but "Bush" is not?
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
espeir wrote:
Why would I need to prove that? It's a statement of my observations. If you disagree, it's your responsibility to prove me wrong.
I can reply by saying, "I am also stating my observations and it's your responsibility to prove me wrong," but when does that end? You made a statement that the left has made no effort to attack Osama without backing it up. I'm suggesting that you back it up.
espeir wrote:
So you're saying that we should not have Democracy in the US?
I think the US should have a democracy and I understand that Bush was elected, though the elections were not a clear victory. (edit: I'm referring to Florida in the 2000 election and the 'irregularities' in the 2004 election.)
espeir wrote:
there isn't anything that Bush does that isn't met with irrational contempt and attack from the left.
I don't generally agree with Republican presidents in general, but Bush is far, far worse and there's a lot of people who think that way both outside and inside the US.
espeir wrote:
That goes beyond disagreement and becomes pure hatred.
There are wacky extremists on both sides. Try to ignore them.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-- modified at 15:39 Wednesday 1st March, 2006
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
I can reply by saying, "I am also stating my observations and it's your responsibility to prove me wrong," but when does that end? You made a statement that the left has made no effort to attack Osama without backing it up. I'm suggesting that you back it up.
uhhh...It's a discussion. How do I prove that the Democrats have done nothing? Ummm...By...uhhh... That's why I told you that you have to prove that they have done something because, if they have, then it is provable while the opposite is not. Of course, the fact that you refused to offer any evidence says a lot.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
I think the US should have a democracy and I understand that Bush was elected, though the elections were not a clear victory. (edit: I'm referring to Florida in the 2000 election and the 'irregularities' in the 2004 election.)
The elections were a very clear victory both times. The 2000 election was very close, but every legal recount before and after the supreme court disallowed the Democrats' attempt at a travesty of justice clearly showed Bush a winner. As for 2004 voting irregularities, the only evidence occurred in Ohio and was on the Democrat side of the aisle. Because Republicans won so big, though, there wasn't much hullaballoo made about it.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
I don't generally agree with Republican presidents in general, but Bush is far, far worse and there's a lot of people who think that way both outside and inside the US.
It doesn't matter if you agree or not. He was voted in by his constituents. He is definately not perfect, but I and most Republicans know when to assign blame and praise. Democrats are nearly universally maligned in their irrational hatred for him. They treat him as an enemy and call him a terrorist and compare him to Hitler. That's just ridiculous, but I would expect no less out of the left. They tend to be of pretty low character.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
There are wacky extremists on both sides. Try to ignore them.
That is true...Except Republicans managed to suppress the extremist voice in their party decades ago so that they do not have power within the ideology. Democrats recently failed in that regard and they are now very polarized. I mean they voted Howard Dean as their chairman...what does that say?
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
How can you prove that the left made no efforts to attack Osama?
Why would I need to prove that? It's a statement of my observations. If you disagree, it's your responsibility to prove me wrong.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Bush is an idiot who should not be President, but he's not an enemy. It's not a black and white thing.
So you're saying that we should not have Democracy in the US? I disagree that the left sees Bush as anything other than an enemy. Here's my proof: http://www.moveon.org/[^]. There isn't anything that Bush does that isn't met with irrational contempt and attack from the left. That goes beyond disagreement and becomes pure hatred.
espeir wrote:
There isn't anything that Bush does that isn't met with irrational contempt and attack
There are few things Bush does that don't deserve rational contempt and attack.
-
espeir wrote:
If a basketball is round and a baseball is round, does that make a basketball a baseball? I'm not saying one IS the other in entirety, but there is apparently a significant overlap in ideology.
I'm beginning to understand your logic[^]. Alvaro
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
How does that logic apply more to one side than the other? "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
The reason it's OK to say "Bush Lied" is because, in fact, he did.
Fact? Ok, what did he lie about? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
Try # 2 :) Either because I'm a glutton for punishment or I like throwing gasoline on a fire.... or maybe both. http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060301/D8G31KPG2.html[^] Specifically the last paragraph: Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility - and Bush was worried too. <Edit> I'm not looking for this stuff, I just happened across it on my home page. </Edit> -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect -- modified at 17:40 Wednesday 1st March, 2006
-
Christians tend to shy away from mass murder. That whole religion thing gets in the way. Atheists and Muslims on the other hand...
espeir wrote:
Christians tend to shy away from mass murder.
The only reason why that hasn't happened in quite some time, is the secularisation of society. Before people gradually woke up and stood up against the oppresion from the christian leaders, people with different beliefs were executed like cattle. Hell, even christians with a bit too liberal beliefs were persecuted and killed. All in the name of god.
espeir wrote:
That whole religion thing gets in the way.
No. Secularised society got in the way.
