Italgato
I dont think you understand. Setanta did not call Bush a dog. I merely stated that Timber's call for hard evidence was somewhat hypocritical as he provided a link which was nothing more than an opinion on an opinion.
Woof Woof...and try to keep up
Why would we have another revolution,. Setanta. ?What will you say when President Bush is re-elected in November? That you and your left wing atheist( dog?) buddies are the only ones who know what is good for America?
What another revolution??
I am very much afraid that you, Setanta, are long on rhetoric and short on facts-facts- facts.
Or perhaps you can explain( in the light of your comment concerning another revolution) why there has been no revolution or at least, no backlash.
Are you up to the task or will you be content with tossing off a pithy and unsupported- Another revolution.
Can you explain why, if the country is on the verge of a revoution, Schwartzenegger and McClintock received 61 % per cent of the vote in California. They are Republicans, you know. The vote totals exceeded the number that came out to vote for Davis in 2000?
Can you explain why Mississippi and Kentucky now have Republican Governors. These elections were held this month. Where is the backlash? The revolution? Only in your imagination?
And please do not try to say that the candidates running do not prosper or suffer according to national trends. The election of 1994, where the Democrats lost the House and Senate show that position clearly not to be true.
Where is the revolution, Santana?
Why aren't the members of the Democratic Party chomping at the bit to get power again???
Why, they are jumping ship all over. Edwards, the ambulance chaser, is not running in 2004( unless he wins the Democratic Primary- fat chance)
Hollings from South Carolina is not running. Graham from Florida is not running---I understand that Harris- the bete Noire of the Democrats in Florida is positioning herself to run for that seat- she will win- of course.
Miller from Georgia is not running. I hope that you understand, Setanta, that when a post does not have an incumbent it is much more likely to fall into the hands of the opposition.
So, are you the only one who thinks there will be a revolution against George W. Bush???????
I would respectfully suggest that you make available to yourself the latest editions of knowledgeable sources such as Roll Call from DC.
They see no such revolution against George W. Bush. In fact, they see a revolution against left wing Liberalism.
you and your left wing atheist( dog?) buddies
Wunderbar. Do we get to sniff each others bums?
I understand Steve. I am glad that you have let me know that an opinion on an opinion is worthless.
I can therefore jettison the crap from the articles of the idiotic Al Franken(stein) and the obese limousine liberal M. Moore as worthless.
I appreciate your insights. Thank you.
It is you who does not now understand, Steve. To underscore the use of dog by( atheists, I assume) I am utilizing it with scorn.
I would never call left wing atheists dogs. My dog would be offended.
You are a very strange man/person ital
But you posts go a long way to enlighten discussion here, so thank you!
and Steve, if an opinion on an opinion is worthless( perhaps) what do you call Setanta's unsourced throw away comment about a revolution- an opinion on an opinion on an opinion?
Ultra worthless.
and, Steve, for all of the brilliance of the left wing and their assurance that they are correct and the the conservatives are losing and dimwitted- no one has either the integrity or the ability to challenge my observations that the victories of the Republicans in the governorships this month and the retirement of four key Democratic Senators are a sign of Republican strength.
Instead we get voodoo proclamations from Setanta about revolution!!!!!
strange to you- Steve but not strange to my son who was a key person in the Federalist Society in the Law School from which he graduated. He thinks that the left wing is doomed.
There are others who think so also.
If I may Steve.
quote from Irving Kristol-
"The most important political event of the twenthieth century is not the crisis of capitalism but the death of Socialism"
"Aux Barricades!" met by "Cry 'Havoc', and let slip the dogs of war!".
Amusing ... in a sort of revolutionary canine fashion. I guess this qualifies as "Dogging the question"
I'll let Setanta express his opinion on whether an opinion on an opinion on an opinion, or indeed a revolution, is worthless. Regarding recent victories of the Republicans, I am far too diplomatic to comment on the internal politics of the USA. Just don't give us another like GWB ok?
Don't worry, Steve ... the one we've got will do for a good while yet. We have no immediate need for another, though I'm sure when that need arises we'll be equal to the task.
"The most important political event of the twenthieth century is not the crisis of capitalism but the death of Socialism"
1. I don't care if it is dead
2. I don't think it is.
Man is distinguished from all other creatures by the faculty of laughter.
Joseph Addison (1672 - 1719)
I'm a man. Thanks, Italgato!
"the one we've got will do for a good while yet".
its less than a year and he has to face ELECTION, n.b. not re election.
Walter, regarding mankind's capacity for laughter, whatever did they do before emoticons?
Well, IG, you have once again demonstrated the degree of your reading comprehension expertise. I'll go slowly:
Someone else referred to the current Prez as George II. This is referential to his father, who would therefore be considered George I. By the logic, a son of the incumbent, were there a son, and were he elected, would be George III. When our revolution occurred, King George III was the monarch. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to make a wry comment, for the purposes of humor only, about another George III and another revolution. Those who lack a sense of humor might easily misconstrue this, but to have done so to the degree which you have exhibited requires very poor reading skills indeed.
Nothing in my original post constitutes a call to revolution. Nothing in that post asserts either directly or inferentially that there would or should be a revolution against the current George in the White House. On that basis, your recitation of putative "facts" is meaningless. On the basis of you having completely failed to take my meaning in that post, completely failed to comprehend what i wrote, all that follows in your rant is nonsense.
But, as i noted to Timber, it is quite entertaining, so, by all means, rant on . . .
Let's not forget ... Bush is the incumberance!
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Walter, regarding mankind's capacity for laughter, whatever did they do before emoticons?
Read such things, like Joseph Addison wrote in The Spectator, I suppose.
Which reminds me of Dean Swift. I rather suspect that had IG lived in Queen Anne's England, he would have been one of those who took A Modest Proposal as a serious essay . . .
