Bush's speech...

POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Saturday, February 3, 2007 22:04
VIEWED: 12155
PAGE 6 of 11

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, January 25, 2007 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Many of the contests in the November congressional elections in the U.S. were very close. And even though the Democrats took both houses, they only have a one-seat majority in the Senate, and nothing anyone would consider major in the House.

Yes, the midterm elections did have many close races. Many Republican Representatives held on to their seats only by a slim margin. As far as only a one-seat majority in the Senate, go back and read the pundits from before the election. Very few, if any, gave the Democratic Party a shot at the Senate. Logistically, based on the number of seats the Democratic Party had to defend and where the opportunity for Republican pick-ups were located, it was an amazingly long shot. And calling the majority in the House "nothing anyone would consider major" makes the Republican majorities of the past 12 years look positively miniscule. The Democratic Party now has a bigger margin in the House than the Republican Party ever did following the Gingrich Revolution. So I guess we can start calling this the Pelosi Revolution.

Quote:

Be that as it may, all I've heard in the media since the day after the election is "Democrat mandate!" Interestingly, when the Republicans actually gained seats for their majority in the 2002 Congressional election, none of the liberal media pundits were crying "Republican mandate!" So, one wonders how they interpret this similar gain (but for a different party) in an entirely different manner?

That's funny because we remember things quite differently. I remember reading many stories in 2002 about the historic wins the Republican Party made during the midterm elections. How no President since FDR had seen his party actually gain seats during the first midterm after his election. And, if you want to read an overuse of the word mandate, just read articles after the 2004 election.

(snark dialed up)
My conclusion is that you think there is some vast liberal media conspiracy that picks on the Republican Party, who are your hope for an American Theocracy that will prevent access to birth control and teach all students in science classes that the Earth was created in six days less than ten thousand years ago.
(snark dialed back down)

CARTOON

Thursday, January 25, 2007 6:43 PM

Quote:
Studies which will meet the only criteria accepted by this group -- from atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American sources? No. I imagine that even if one could produce a speaking, fully-educated fetus who solemnly swore that it felt "pain", there would still be those in this forum who would claim that the fetus was biased, and summarily dismiss its testimony. Given the apparent, omniscient attributes of many of the posters in this group, it seems rather pointless to even try.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How do I classify THAT response?

Name-calling? Misintrepretation? Lies?

Under which (or any) of those three do you think the quoted response would fall? I don't see it falling under any of those categories.

Unless, ofcourse you consider "atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American" to be name-calling? Particularly, as there are many in this group who readily identify themselves as such.

Regarding "omniscient" -- how is that derogatory? (I never said I was above sarcasm or hyperbole -- see last paragraph, below.)

BTW, while you and I disagree on virtually everything... (i.e. Car: "The sky is blue." Sig: "No, it's red." Car: "You're right, it's red." Sig: "No, it's blue."), you are one of (many) who is civil with your disagreements.

However, I do think it's fruitless debating with people who will never believe any source produced which contradicts their opinion, and I thought my response adequately addressed that -- without name-calling, misinterpretation or lies.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chrisisall:
Sincere admiration....?

Yes, exactly!!

Chrisisall understands me perfectly.

STORYMARK

Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Unless, ofcourse you consider "atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American" to be name-calling?

The anti-American part, yes. I do consider that insulting. I'm fed up with people saying it's anti-American to disagree with this administration, or to want the war to end.

How about we start calling everyone pro-war anti-American? Seems more logical to me. After all, they're the ones sending our troops off to die for a war started on a lie, with a strategy that all of the Joint Cheifs have said will not work.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:19 PM

Quote:
Under which (or any) of those three (name-calling, misinterpretations, and outright lies) do you think the quoted response would fall? I don't see it falling under any of those categories. Unless, of course you consider "atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American" to be name-calling? Particularly, as there are many in this group who readily identify themselves as such.

First of all, it wasn't "the group" who asked a question, it was ME. And since I asked a topical question in a polite manner, I believe that I am owed a direct reply- which BTW I still haven't gotten- not splattering at a whole group.

Secondly, you're making an awful lot of assumptions not only about me but about a whole group of people. There are MANY people who don't want the government in their business who are neither liberals nor atheists, and there is NOBODY in the group who would characterize themselves as "pro-abortion" or "anti-American". So, yes, it IS name-calling, just as it would be if I were to call you an inhumane fundamentalist weasel who doesn't have the courage of his convictions to even take responsibility for his tone.

Quote:
Regarding "omniscient" -- how is that derogatory? (I never said I was above sarcasm or hyperbole -- see last paragraph, below.)

Well if it's derogatory and untrue, it's name -calling.

Quote:
BTW, while you and I disagree on virtually everything... (i.e. Car: "The sky is blue." Sig: "No, it's red." Car: "You're right, it's red." Sig: "No, it's blue.")

Misrepresentation

Quote:
you are one of (many) who is civil with your disagreements.

Wish I could say the same for you.
Quote:
However, I do think it's fruitless debating with people who will never believe any source produced which contradicts their opinion.
You tossed up one source for each of your points. There were valid reasons to question both sources' methods and conclusions. I asked you to cite further. That hardly classifies as rejecting "every" source.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

KANEMAN

Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:46 PM

"there is NOBODY in the group who would characterize themselves as "pro-abortion" or "anti-American"

Yeah..okay!.......Citz comes to mind. As far as the US having a two party system(another jack-assed assertion by Citz), we do have more than two options. Sorry we don't have 25 different parties like Great ole England. Why have that many options and still vote 3 parties to 97% of the seats? I say cheers to the strawman... these asses need to eat.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:56 PM

Put the Kool-aid down for a minute, lunatic.

Quote:
so ALL OF A SUDDEN the election process WORKS GREAT?????

Works great, my ass - were it not for the tremendous amount of slimy doings by the party you favor, proven fact this, it would have been a landslide for the dems and you'd be lookin down the barrel of a real mandate.

Problem at that point, the dems themselves are as hypocritical and untrustworthy as the Rethugs - don't let partisan bickering blind you into thinking the folks yer defendin ain't evil just cause ya hate the other side more.

The current crop of Rethugs is incompetent and the current crop of Dimocrats have no balls, I fail to see exactly where we've significantly benefitted in the process here.

And I highly doubt the screwed up and easily-exploited flaws in the elections process will be fixed cause no doubt the Dimocrats wanna exploit it to THEIR advantage in the future.

Me, i'm still pushing for Ron Paul, not that he'll be able to sort this mess out, that being generations worth of work now, but at least he'd get started on it.

-Frem

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/16536269.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-22.htm
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2007/1481
http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?s=5646333
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rob_kall_061117_clear_evidence
_2006_.htm

P.S. - And if you wanna get real snippy about it, start by explaining to me why in a dimocrat 'stronghold' we get hi-profile Rethugs winning key positions by 18,111 votes exactly - every single year for the past six.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Yeah..okay!.......Citz comes to mind.

Anti-Citizen, huh? Well, he's British, so you must be anti-British too. And The UK is an ally on the holy fight against terror, so you must logically be against US, TOO!!!
Kaneman, YOU ANTI-AMERICAN!!!! Burn the flag and go to HELL, bitch!!!!! Piss on our Constitution, will ya? *loud smack sound* Take THAT, you pro-terrorist pinko!!!!!

Here's to the colours that never run Chrisisall

KANEMAN

Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Yeah..okay!.......Citz comes to mind.
Anti-Citizen, huh? Well, he's British, so you must be anti-British too. And The UK is an ally on the holy fight against terror, so you must logically be against US, TOO!!!
Kaneman, YOU ANTI-AMERICAN!!!! Burn the flag and go to HELL, bitch!!!!! Piss on our Constitution, will ya? *loud smack sound* Take THAT, you pro-terrorist pinko!!!!!

Here's to the colours that never run Chrisisall

*BIG YAWN*
Whatever shitlips.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

*BIG YAWN*

And why do you copy so much when what I posted is right above?
Only COMMIES post that way, you REDman. Hammer and sickle all the way for you, you waster of space. Why don't you post a big picture of Stallin and stretch out the thread? It would be your way. Say, what was your favourite line in Our Man Flint? Oh yeah, "An anti-American eagle. It's diabolical."

Who's yawning now? Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
The anti-American part, yes. I do consider that insulting. I'm fed up with people saying it's anti-American to disagree with this administration, or to want the war to end.

Yeah, I can see that. But there’s a distinction to be made here. I don’t consider equating Bush to Hussein or similar kinds of comments to be merely disagreement or war-weariness. These kinds of statement, which occur far too frequently on this board, could rightly be called anti-American. In fact, even though I generally don’t say it, that’s exactly what I think they are in many cases.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE