Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

cjhsa - so the quote is trash talk? What part about it do you mean?
Are you aware of the fact that many of the survivor groups feel they are being exploited, and have been stiffed by Washington?
That the NY firemen and police no longer feel as rah rah about Bush because they feel they too have been stiffed? Are you aware of the fact that many New Yorkers do not like the idea of the repubs coming here? And many are planning protests? And part of several articles have suggested a possible backlash because of the exploitative aspects of this whole thing? In New Yor, as I'm sure you're aware, Senator Clinton and President Clinton are much admired and respected people. And Hillary won that contest against Giuliani - she didn't have to buy it.

What's that nasty crack about "your bitch got impeachd?" That's little kid talk. In that manner, your bitch got selected because he couldn't win. So what?

If you choose to impugn legitimate news reports coming from respected newspapers as trash, then perhaps the Murdoch reading and listening is where it is for you.

Sofia - I do not see the "obvious venom." And yes, a quote usually brings some credibility. And a quote from the NY Times is far more credible than a quote from Limbaugh, who only rants the party line. A "fringe left" betrays you. It seems that the repubs are beginning to put up more of a bravado front now. Could it be that there's more negatives coming the way of the rabid right? That the vaunted tx cut plan has been knocked down to half, and they can't get the republican senators to budge on that? That the holes in the economy are beginning to show more and more?

Tell you what, cjhsa - instead of sticking your tongue out and going yah yah, why not find some credible facts and quotes, and present them?

0 Replies

Poke at the issues, not at one another ... c'mon now, you folks know better.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

It seems that people who go to the trouble of bringing in an article may want it to have some credibility. The obvious venom keeps the article from being taken seriously, except by the fringe left audience.

It's the left's attempt at Limbaugh. If you don't find him a credible source, you can understand why most people think that article is trash.

Certainly not attempting to impinge on anyone's right to post whatever they please-- just trying to explain cj's comment, and my sentiments, as well.

Well, far be it from me to try to "impinge" on anyone either. But it does bear comment that the article does address the main thrust of this whole thread. We can get into p_ssing contests about "credibility", we can talk about the issues raised, we can do both, or neither. But it makes no sense at all to try to dismiss substantive pieces introcuced here as "trash talk", and expect that dismissive comment to be treated as conducive to anything but trash talk. Address the issue. We're talking about replacing Bush in 2004. The piece was a New York times editorial.

0 Replies

I think it's a-okay to tag any article as "trash talk," but one must be ready to defend why it's trash talk. c.i.

0 Replies

Excellent point, snood. It was an editorial, a statement of opinion, by definition. Opinions are known to differ. That one agrees or disagrees with an opinion is irrellevant to the validity or lack thereof of any opinion, except so far as that opinion may or may not fit with one's own opinions. Credibility too is somewhat subjective, and often itself a matter of opinion. One may consider the intent, the effect, and the substance of an editorial comment, and form one's own opinion of the material. What is at issue is the issue, just as you point out, not the personalities or other personal attributes of either proponents or opponents of the opinion at hand. "Trash Talk" isn't very productive, and inter-personal squabbles aren't much benefit to the advancement of discussion. I appreciate and admire your effort to bring the thread back on focus. I hope some other folks do, too.

0 Replies

Hey, everybody! What did y'all talk about while I was gone? Laughing

Quote:

"Did you know that Bush's economic plan will create 1.4 million jobs? Oh, and did I mention that the plan will create 1.4 million jobs? And don't forget, the plan will create 1.4 million jobs. Republican politicians are obviously under instructions to push that job number. On the Sunday talk shows some of them said "1.4 million jobs" so often that it sounded like an embarrassing nervous tic. Of course, there's no reason to take that number seriously. Basically, the job-creation estimate came from the same place where Joseph McCarthy learned that there were 57 card-carrying Communists in the State Department."

New York Times

0 Replies

and Smokin' Joe produced zero commie pinkos, which would equate to ZERO jobs produced. On the other hand billions would be pocketed by those already with billions. This seems to be the Bush version of FDR's "new deal."

0 Replies

If Bush was able to create 1.4 million jobs, he'd still be behind, because we've lost over 2 million jobs since he took over. I guess Bush figures the other 600,000 don't count. Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

Quote:

Arianna Huffington

Good point, Arianna.

Bush said we couldn't wait another 30 days.

We had to invade RIGHT NOW because every second counted.

The warmongers say there was no rush to war, but Bush wanted to invade so bad he was squirming like a little boy who had to potty. Bush enraged every other country in the world because it was SO IMPORTANT that we bomb Iraq today and tomorrow couldn't wait.

Bottom line? He loves death. We've never had a president who loved death so much, and this president (sic) loves death so much he smirks and makes jokes about people he's killed or is preparing to kill.

It's sickening to have this man running the planet.

0 Replies

PDid, Doesn't it make you wonder why so many Americans are so misguided by this president? Over 70 percent support him. I'm happy to be amongst the minority on this one in more ways than one. c.i.

0 Replies

I can't refute that he loves death, but to believe that, I'd have to give him credit for a certant malevolent quality that would require more sentience I can imagine him possessing.

It's easier for me to believe he's power-crazy. Even a stupid little boy can be obsessed by having the biggest muscles and shiniest toys.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

PDid, Doesn't it make you wonder why so many Americans are so misguided by this president? Over 70 percent support him. I'm happy to be amongst the minority on this one in more ways than one. c.i.

I still think a big part of that 70% was simply cowed into believing it was Bush's insane way or the highway, after he got the war he so badly craved.

0 Replies

snood i think you may very well be right. i would add that i think a lot of people (30%-40%) think that Bush is the president and if he says something it must be true, regardless of their own ideas.

0 Replies

Well, far be it from me to try to "impinge" on anyone either.
Impinge must be a new word for you. It means to strike, to encroach upon. Feel free to use it. Cool

But it does bear comment that the article does address the main thrust of this whole thread. We can get into p_ssing contests about "credibility", we can talk about the issues raised, we can do both, or neither. But it makes no sense at all to try to dismiss substantive pieces introcuced here as "trash talk", and expect that dismissive comment to be treated as conducive to anything but trash talk.
I understood Johnny Depp's comment, and tried to politely explain. I'm too embarrassed to use agenda-bound articles as source material, and saw the one-sided article as agenda-bound. As I said, I wasn't attempting to "impinge", merely trying to explain.
Address the issue....
Just wanted you to take note of your comment above. You'll be hearing it again. :wink:

0 Replies

gosh and i read it as imbinge, thinking it was the new euphemism for two martini lunches. Wink

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Well, far be it from me to try to "impinge" on anyone either.
Impinge must be a new word for you. It means to strike, to encroach upon. Feel free to use it.
But it does bear comment that the article does address the main thrust of this whole thread. We can get into p_ssing contests about "credibility", we can talk about the issues raised, we can do both, or neither. But it makes no sense at all to try to dismiss substantive pieces introcuced here as "trash talk", and expect that dismissive comment to be treated as conducive to anything but trash talk.
I understood Johnny Depp's comment, and tried to politely explain. I'm too embarrassed to use agenda-bound articles as source material, and saw the one-sided article as agenda-bound. As I said, I wasn't attempting to "impinge", merely trying to explain.
Address the issue....
Just wanted you to take note of your comment above. You'll be hearing it again. :wink:

Glad you're not trying to make things personal... Confused

No the word wasn't new to me dearheart. I simply thought there were several others which would have been better.

0 Replies

Now, isn't this special...

Quote:

'No Fly' List Is Challenged in a Lawsuit
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

0 Replies

we are simply protecting ourselves from democrats OOPS i mean terrorists. well they looked French to me. OOPs i mean they looked like terrorists. they talked funny using big words i didn't undersand OOPS i mean the sounded like terrorists.

0 Replies

who's they?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

we are simply protecting ourselves from democrats OOPS i mean terrorists. well they looked French to me. OOPs i mean they looked like terrorists. they talked funny using big words i didn't undersand OOPS i mean the sounded like terrorists.

yer a nutboy!

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know