Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:33:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
883 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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? :-)
This is all a dodge: you stated that the left hates Bush because he is a
Christian, and yet they supported a Christian for president. The evidence
doesn't support your theory.
>
> > 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.
So was I.
>
> > > > > 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, you're right: they couldn't have been
> > appeased 'cause their still at it.
>
> So you *don't* dispute it.
Actually, they get what they want even if they continue to use violence, so
yes, I actually do 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?
His connections with Enron were well-documented in the newspapers. Just go
to Yahoo and type in "bush connections enron", I'm sure you'll find plenty
of reading material.
>
> > > 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:-)
Let the tarring and feathering commence, then!
>
> > > 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.
Notice the difference in our statements: (Bruce) I don't think the Right is
always wrong. (John) I don't think the Right is always right. It's harder
to demonize a side if you actually give them credit, thus, you never give
credit.
>
> > > 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";-)
Clinton gets in bed with a woman, Bush gets in bed with a corporation...
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
| (...) 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? :-) (...) No, (...) (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
