Re-elect bush, Terrorists hate him, so do most other people . Or Mccain, terrorists will run away scared when they see him coming .
More subversion of what is actually said, and ridiculous as always. Folks can read the thread, and make up their own mind, but bottom line, "Get er done" is laudable, if the "er" is an improvement to the world. Guerilla, across the board, thread to thread, you will misstate what is actually said in the hope it fools someone - and I'm sure it does. You can be annoyed all you want. Imagine, if you will, being continually misrepresented as to what I am actually saying, and you'll have something of my annoyance in place. I'm sure the gullible go "wow." Congrats on your achievement. So many places to respond, but as usual, it isn't worth it any longer. As with "Al-Qaeda is a CIA creation," or any other of a host of unsupportable points of view where you are shown the proverbial door, after making a strident statement of "principle" or "position," you will eventually resort to your irrationality or religiously construed viewpoint, and move on. Variants on: or But coming down to this, always. Resting on "belief" and irrationality - and thus, useless to engage in a good-faith discussion with you. You have continually in the past whined about not wanting to discourse with me, then proceed to do just that. The last time, you freaking PM'ed me - "I'm trying to stay away from you...but...." making a stupid attempt to entrap me in something, until you were shown that indeed my principles and philosophy are quite consistent, and were thus flatly shown the idiocy of the attempt there as well. Got kind of quiet - again. Hear this - I really don't want to do it any longer; I find nothing useful in our exchange. If you need a hanky, I'm sure Becky, or a few others, are there to help. Others, sorry for the rant. You may decide for yourselves what does, or doesn't, transpire. Paul
Well, I can't say this wasn't totally unexpected. 1) No direct answer to my questions 2) Personal attacks on me (and jibes at others) 3) Backtracking on the "moving on" sentiment of a few days ago 4) No acknowledgment of any responsibility on your part. 5) It's apparently my fault, for trying to be the bigger man. I'm going to move on now that it's become personal in the worst of ways. Best of luck Paul.
Oh, horseshit. You raised S. 1959, I addressed it. You raise a point of philosophy, I address it. You raise anything, I address it. In fact, Anywhere, anytime, despite crying: I address it. You cry about getting personal then say you're "annoyed" and "mad" at a freaking post. You repeatedly say you don't want to deal with me, then, when in response to something Debunked said, I made known my loathing of a politics of guilt by association, you, despite vigorously and frequently posting for public viewing here how much you want to "stay away" from discussing things with me, made clear that not only are you reading my posts, but your recent PM to me to was your usual attempt to twist something into a ridiculous dark alley - there you cried to me about my condemnation of the John Birch Society and your candidate's support of the society, until I indicated to you it is precisely because the John Birch Society is built on guilt by association - naming, to this day, President Eisenhower as a traitor and a communist, for instance - that I stand in vigorous condemnation of it, and all organizations and points of view that share its paranaoic vision. You then shut up. I did want to move on, and extended a hand in this way. But nothing's changed, and you resort to your usual - how many posts do I have to make to correct your misstatement of what I actually, literally wrote, much less argued? How many posts do you say you engage on substance, and "loathe" the smear tactics of Bogart and company, only to pander to those very folks with the same tactics when convenient? How many times do you play an unsupportable line - "Reagan the non-interventionist" to the recent "Bin Laden is an actor hired by the CIA"- only to abandon it under cover of "irrationality?" And so I've had it. Blecch. Go away. Others, again, sorry, but conclude what you will. Guerilla may be your cup of tea, and I'm not, but in Becky's deeply-conceived creed, I see you're replying. How about we do this - on the count of three, let's stop playing, for good, shall we? No PM's in private, etc.?. Ready? I'm hanging up the phone...
Paul, you're welcome to the last word. You've got a lot more to say about me than I do about you. ---- @Anyone and everyone, Someone care to explain what it is exactly that Obama stands for? Any insight into his voting record? Is there anyone out there with an answer for how he supports the Patriot Act when it violates 1st Amendment Free Speech? Is this a "compromise" that is in the best interest of citizens, and consistent with his oath of office to uphold the Constitution? Someone perhaps want to take a shot at how he sees our foreign policy approach as wrong-headed, and then proceeds to hand the President virtual authority to attack Iran by labeling the Iranian National Guard (official branch of the military) a terrorist organization? What I would really like to understand, is how an agent of change, who says he will fight lobbyists, has a lot of funding for his campaign from the same lobbyists that fund Clinton, Romney and Giuliani. The same Wall Street and Corporate interests are backing his campaign. Do you think he is strong enough to bite the hand that feeds him? It'd be nice to getting back to discussing the candidate instead of me or anyone else.
Damn, that's sad. It began interestingly enough. It ended like a soap opera. C'mon you guys, give us something to look up to
It's better it ended. I'm tired of always being the one under the microscope. Obama wants to be the most powerful man in the world, apparently since he was a child. It would be nice to keep the topic on the man who would be king and his support.
A Case for Barack Obama Barack Obama is better than Hillary Clinton & Insane Mccain. --- Obama is only 48 years old. He's been in th Political Arena since the last 11 years only, and we're witnessing a meteoric rise in his career, and he may become the next president. It is very clear that he has done his homework properly. he knows what the Party expects from him, what the people expect from him. Constitution or no constitution, it doesn't really matter until you're making the party bosses happy. It is clear from his voting records, that he is a "Compromiser", and that he does not vote according to his conscious, coz he has to go with the crowd. It was always his goad to reach the top, and you can't do that by going against the system. If he did that, and voted on the Principles of constitution, he'd end up just like Dr. Ron Paul, with a meagre 5% vote. He is intelligent, cunning and opportunistic. But I believe he is a lot better that Hillary Clinton or Insane McCain. Once he becomes the President, he would have more liberty to vote on the basis of principle. Don't forget, he is a socialist, and would follow his agenda, coz thats the platform he is running on, and people like it. People don't wanna hear the truth about the impending economic meltdown... They want more hand-outs, more social security, more taxes, Universal healthcare... Thats why people are voting for Obama. He has promised to deliver all these things to the people.