Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:41:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
775 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > ...My theory is that the Left hate
> > the fact that Bush won, that Bush is a Christian, and that they see American
> > values are swinging to the right.
> Are you saying that Gore isn't a Christian? Quick internet check: Southern
> Baptist. Oh hey, his favorite movie is Local Hero and TV show is Futurama.
> Well, alright! Oh, sorry for the digression. So, if what you say is true,
> then the Left hates Gore for being a Christian, also.
Not necessarily. If he believes like a good boy in global warming, abortion,
gun control, entitlements, etc,etc, and keeps his (misguided) religion to
himself he's okay. I wonder if Bush's favorite TV show is King of the Hill? :-)
> Bush lost the vote last I checked. Oh, you mean the electoral college is
> what he won.
No, actually I was referring to the 2000 election.
> Well, heck, that rotten left, how dare they hate that they won
> the vote and it was ignored. Tyranny of the minority does that. :-)
> American values are swinging to the right: If they were swinging that far to
> the right, you wouldn't need to constantly rail against the left, now would >you?
> > The Left is all for tolerance as long as you
> > tolerate what *they* tolerate-- anything else is met with the kind of vile
> > intolerance I see for the *person* of George Bush. It's as evident as them
> > not even being able to give him any form of respect. RM and other Lefties
> > can't even resist the disrespecting Bush's name. I can sense the hatred from
> > every "shrub". It's bigotry plain and simple.
> Politicians are born to be hated by somebody. What amuses me is that you
> seem to think it is only that vile left that are capable of hatred. Clinton
> was villified for years by the right. Bubba, Dubya? Bigotry? Maybe.
> Ironic hypocrisy on the part of some? Definitely.
You know, one thing that I dislike about conservative talk show hosts is their
penchant for creating clever pun names for people with whom they disagree
(can't think of any examples of names off of the top of my head). It only
detracts from their argument and makes them sound petty. Although I felt
Clinton brought disgrace and embarrassment to the American Presidency, calling
him "Bubba" was beneath contempt IMO. The Presidency of the United States
deserves better than that.
> > > > I don't think it can begin with the Israelis and here is why: if the
> > > > Israelis refuse to answer terrorist attacks, it merely emboldens the
> > > > terrorists. This is an undisputed fact. You simply cannot appease
> > > > terrorists, because they will always push for more and threaten more
> > > > violence if their demands aren't met.
> > > Wait a second there. Undisputed? You're just asserting that. What if I
> > > dispute it? Or did you mean undisputed by the people who agree with you?
> > No please, dispute it if you wish. When or where has appeasing terrorists
> > ever worked out?
> When Israel was formed? Oh wait, your right: they couldn't have been
> appeased 'cause their still at it.
So you *don't* dispute it.
> > > I fear when talking to people who sound like you do, that I'm talking to
> > > someone who belives that our president is without fault. Do you think it is
> > > possible that Bush and company might abuse their positions of power to
> > > increase their personal fortunes (like every other president has done...I'm
> > > not singling him out)?
> > Ahh, I think you have reached the *real* issue. I do believe Bush is a
> > sincere and honest man. I believe his intentions *are* pure. Now, is that
> > because I am a partisan? Has Bush given any indication that he is not to be
> > trusted?
> You do know that Bush pretends like he never heard of Enron when in fact he
> was in bed with them? Sincere? Honest? He's a politician!
Do you have evidence to support this bed theory?
> > What do people say about the man who actually know him, who knew him *before*
> > he became president? What is his character as the man he is today? Is it so
> > incontheivable that a president might actually respect his position of power
> > and wield it as honestly as he is able?
> Is it so inconceivable to you that no matter how much you may like a
> person's politics, they may still not qualify for your hope?
Not at all, but I'd like them to fail first before their tar and feathering:-)
> > Further, could all of the hatred and contempt for Bush be mere partisanship?
> Consider this: I don't think the right is always wrong or doesn't have
> legitimate points at times: you, on the other hand, are constantly trying to
> demonize the left. I find it difficult to respect your claims of
> partisanship against Bush when you are one of the most active at being
> blindly partisan.
I'm really not blindly partisan. I could list a number of issues with which I
disagree WRT the Republican platform. I'm not interested in demonizing the
Left so much as I am interested in debating the merits (or lack thereof) of
their views.
> > Is he being vilified *as a person* by the Left because he doesn't believe as
> > they do? Would a Democrat of equal character leading the US into war meet >>with
> > such opposition as we have witnessed for Bush?
>
> Johnson. Dang, maybe it's a Texan thing?
lol Where was the moral outcry when Clinton bombed in '98 (Oh, wait, I said
"equal character";-)
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
