Poor George

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 17:28

Im as anti-Bush as you can get, and i certainly dont think this way.


For example:

If he was man enough to even admit that he made a mistake on the WMD issue and apologise to the families of the dead, then i would accept that as a positive.

Rat-

You certainly bear no resemblance to those SJ and I refer to when we rail against "liberals".

Agree with us or not, if you could spend a wee bit of time witnessing what we see, you would be constantly scratching your head in wonder.

BTW-

If Dubya granted your request, he still wouldn't get your vote, so, in an election year, he (regrettfully) has no use for you; rest assured Kerry would look at things the same way.

The one difference would be that Kerry (being a liberal) would probably comment on your stupidity before leaving you to your "ignorance".

[Rat Faced]

Im not a Liberal now?

That must mean im a pinko commie....


Does that mean i have to start hiding under peoples beds now?

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 23:18
Im not a Liberal now?

That must mean im a pinko commie....


Does that mean i have to start hiding under peoples beds now?

RF

"in" not "under"

It is much more fun.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 18:18
Im not a Liberal now?

That must mean im a pinko commie....


Does that mean i have to start hiding under peoples beds now?

Nah.

You're just a horse of a different color.

Quite honestly (tell me if I'm wrong), I feel you could field a decent debate perched on a barstool next to a barsteward like me.

Stateside Libs wouldn't even consent to drink with me (even if I were buying).

[Rat Faced]

Biggles,

....that depends who else is in the bed


J2K4,

I cant believe that. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and no one will agree with everything someone else thinks.

I'll drink with anyone, and enjoy any debate that presents itself










...... erm, Hank and Shocks' hero worship of Mr Bush seems to point out the error of that 1st statement to J2

[SuperJude™]

RF- here unfortunately people o the left leaning ilk really do act like anybody who may not agree with them is wrong, uneducated and a horrible person. The personal examples I could give are endless, but suffice it to say I now have a "Do not discuss todays headlines with me while I am working" rule in effect. Too many times early in the morning people have made comments about things in a very leftist bent and I have then been insulted for differing in opinion. My favorite is that I don't REALLy know what is going on.

Make me mad, yes, get to me, no. But j2k4 is absolutely right, there is a breed of "liberal" here that will not have a drink with you, that will insult you, and in the case of one woman actually call your job and try to get you fired because they didn't like that you said "Hey if you are against the oil industry don't drive an S.U.V."

It sucks, it shocked me, and sometimes I wonder where the hell I am living. Saddens me that I cannot discuss this stuff with people who are educated because they either insult me or dismiss my thoughts (which is why I also have the standard 'I am entitled to my opinions too right' comment handy).

Which is why irl I say things like 'I would never vote for Kerry cause he is a Red Sox fan and they are losers!' At least then, they leave me alone and never bother me with their stupid comments at work. For all the education some of these people have it amazes me they get all their info from about 3 sources:

CNN
NY Times
NPR

-SJ™

[ahctlucabbuS]

For all the education some of these people have it amazes me they get all their info from about 3 sources:

CNN
NY Times
NPR

As for the average republican the list would be:

Fox News
Washington post
etc

Apart from the education, of course.

[hobbes]

The issue J2 points out is far larger than Bush, it is about honesty.

Do you carry a personal agenda that supercedes reality. Does the agenda drive you to interpret square pegs as round holes.

As an individual, that is all I ask of myself. When I leave the forum and I am snuggled in bed, listening to the whir of the ceiling fan, do I believe what I have posted on the forum to be as honest and fair as I can. Or do I know that I am twisting facts and massaging events for my "cause".

I cannot stand deceit, and self-deceit is the most rancid, and unfortunately the most rampant form out there.

I sleep soundly, hope you all do too.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 18:32
J2K4,

I cant believe that. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and no one will agree with everything someone else thinks.

I'll drink with anyone, and enjoy any debate that presents itself

No-

What I meant was that some people (alot of people, actually) find the idea of having to defend cockeyed ideas too much for them.

Some will not.

Some cannot.

It amounts to the same thing, you see?

Fear of Debate!

I'll spot you the drink and hope we get to rub elbows one day.

I'm sure we won't lack for a topic.



BTW-Rest assured I am not blinded by Mr. Bush's splendor; he has made a hash of much of what passes for his domestic agenda-prescription drugs, education; his continued mangling of the word nuclear; many other things.

The difficulty is also being aware of how much worse Kerry would be.

[Alex H]

j2k4 - Crap. Bush could do many things right (never running for office in the first place would have been a good start, but we'll leave that as a cynical and jaded comment from an Australian who has nothing to do with US domestic politics anyway).

What if Bush said, "This administration is going to provide free health care of a world class standard to every person in this country, citizen or not".

And then actually did it.

Why not have actual goals to achieve, instead of blanket statements like "The United States is now more secure." ?

An interesting idea would be "failure criteria" - every policy has criteria, such as if it costs more than X, or doesn't achieve X% reduction in (something bad) or doesn't achieve X% increase in (something good), or fails to meet preset performance standards, and make a named person, politician or official, responsible.

Many people will say, "But if they don't do a good job, we'll just vote for someone else". Does any one have true confidence in this approach that we currently use, or would the addition of failure criteria help bring some accountablity to western democracies?

Originally posted by SuperJude™
"Hey if you are against the oil industry don't drive an S.U.V."

Hahaha - Why don't more people think that logically?