Maybe your the one too dumb to grasp the situation. Someone posts something about Bush, all the liberals start shouting Rah Rah Bush sucks, they like to call us "LIBRUHLS HAR HAR". What I was pointing out was that instead of "logic and reason" you have a bunch of tards mocking a term THEY don't like in an effort to undermine it's significance. They want it to pass for a real argument but it's obvious they've got nothing to meaningful to say.
Maybe your the one too dumb to grasp the situation. Someone posts something about Bush, all the liberals start shouting Rah Rah Bush sucks, they like to call us "LIBRUHLS HAR HAR". What I was pointing out was that instead of "logic and reason" you have a bunch of tards mocking a term THEY don't like in an effort to undermine it's significance. They want it to pass for a real argument but it's obvious they've got nothing to meaningful to say.
Did you just use an appeal to logic and reason to defend a post that said there is no argument for liberal policies that provide positive results?
I changed my mind. Keep posting. This is getting better and better.
EDIT: Oh, and you might want to watch yourself when calling people stupid. Telling someone "your dumb" is probably not something you want to keep doing.
I didn't say you were "dumb". You insinuated MY post was stupid and i postulated that maybe your the dumb one. I can see how this is getting confusing though...
So you didn't say I was dumb, you just told me there was the possibility that I was stupid. That's totally different. This thread is getting more and more awesome.
By the way, what I was alluding to earlier was that you were typing "your", which is the possessive form of "you". So you should have said "maybe YOU'RE the dumb one" or whatever. You're (see?) calling me stupid but you are unable to construct a correct sentence to do so. See? Get the irony?
EDIT: Oh, and I stand by my previous statement that your post was stupid.
What was stupid about it? The timing? The premise? The gall I had to post my tripe in a thread that only meant for Bush bashing?
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,502
- 1
- 81
Sorry, you can no longer derail a discussion about Bush's performance by writing the word "Liberal".
This is about Mr Bush, yes George W Bush. You know the guy who has been in the White House for the last seven years.
Oh just stop it. I'm not going to give you the fight that you so desperately want. (as evidenced by your trolling post to begin with)
Saying that there is no argument for liberal policies that provide positive results is dumb. You know that it's dumb. You're spoiling for an argument, but the one you're trying to pull isn't even interesting because the premise is ludicrous. If you can come up with a better troll then this I would probably be willing to give you your fight, but I would be lowering my standards too much (which is saying a lot) to participate in this one.
Ok, in the name of Liberalism, God was kicked out of the schools. Kids are taught now that they are nothing but animals and that they should just act and do whatever feels good because God didn't make us, we evolved from a rock a million.. no 2 million.. no wait 5 million.... that's too hard to believe too ok 4.5 Billion years ago. Liberalism is killing our society from the ground up. It's destroying families as in the name of Liberalism more and more people are being born outside of a real family. Slowly but surely our society is drifting from the founding fathers who made our country and into a more crime filled, unsafe and unfriendly world. Is it any wonder that kids are acting out in violent ways when there is nothing to give them moral guidance?
In the name of Liberalism we should have let Saddam go on killing his people and torturing them, while evidence was mounting that a greater attack than 9/11 could happen on our own soil. He had invaded a neighbor (pre-emptivly) and a War ensued that was ended by a UN resolution with a bunch of stipulations. Saddam broke the stipulations during the Clinton years but all Clinton did was launch cruise missles here and there. Bush took over and 9/11 happened after the terrorists had been planning the attack for years. Saddam wasn't disclosing his WMD program (an acronym liberals like to mock as much as they can too) and Bush, along with a large number Democrats and Republicans agreed to end Saddam's rule. Now, Liberalism claims that the WMD threat was overblown and Saddam should still be in power today. Nevermind the better world without Saddam, any kind of moral duty to help your neighbor be damned, it's Liberalism's tenet that we can't interfere in any injustice, no matter how bad, unless they directly threaten us.
In the name of Liberalism, we murder unborn babies. Believe me, I don't want more liberals in this world but some things are just to horrific that no end justifies the crime involved. The ability to go into an abortion clinic to murder your child was recently called "health care" by someone on this forum. I can't imagine how selfish or just flat out evil one must be to have no moral objections to the destruction of unborn babies.
Bush stands for none of these things and that's why I and millions of other Americans still support him. Not all of his policies, but when it comes to some of the major issues, he's dead on right.
I hope this fulfills your wet dream of "sit back and watch". I know i'm basically a juicy steak in a lions den posting this but so be it.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
This post is comedy gold. It's strange you took all that time to type it after I already told you I wasn't going to participate in this stupidity with you though. Did you do it just for me? If so, I can't thank you enough.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
Oh FFS... :roll:
Whatever you've been programmed to believe, this is liberalism.
When you find the parts that say you can force your religion on other peoples' children, wage undeclared foreign wars, and control women's bodies, get back to me.
Otherwise, love it or LEAVE IT.
The first paragraph was definitely my favorite. Especially the creationism stuff. You started strong, faded some in your second paragraph as you started to get a little frothy and unhinged, but came back pretty well in your 3rd with the half hearted desire to abort liberals.
Dude, honest advice for you: Don't post things like that. You make yourself look like an ass.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
Well... while we're on this subject... I want to understand the young earth creationist mindset. And I come from a different perspective than you might expect. I grew up in a rather devout religious household (Mormon), where they really cling to that belief. I read a lot of doctrine on the subject, etc etc., but when I eventually studied the sciences of cosmology and evolution, I found that -- from a religious perspective -- these modern understandings only magnify the glory of God. Especially Einsteinian physics combined with the Big Bang (a theory originally developed by Catholic priest BTW).
I haven't attended any church in years and years, and consider myself an agnostic, but I'd probably be a full-blown atheist without this scientific understanding.
So... why does it piss you off so much? I really don't get it.
Your other rants were just hypocritical delusions IMO. Ranting against murder on the one hand while arguing in favor of it on the other. Try putting Paul and the OT down someday and read what Jesus really said.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
In a sense, no people can really judge their own times. In a historical sense, that more sober judgment of historians can only be formed at least three or four decades later.
And some Presidents stand the test of time and others do not. And other Presidents can be seen as being victims of their own times.
In the latter sense, Hoover was that perfect victim, doomed by years of previous bad policy, and when he finally won the
Presidency, he was the unlucky smuck in charge when the butchers bill of bad policy finally came due. And is doubly doomed by history for being unable to see the cure was in questioning the very principles he stood for.
Other unpopular Presidents take positions that are later somewhat proved correct, Truman and Ford are now judged more kindly by history than their contemporaries judged them. And thus they are vindicated by history.
Let me advance the opinion that Reagan will later be judged less kindly by history than he is now.
But when it comes to GWB&co., its almost impossible to conceive of any later judgment of history being better than the sewer he now dwells in. We still do not now even a quarter of all of the skullduggery his administration was up to.
If nothing else, he will probably serve as a negative example and becomes a verb somewhat like fascism. Just being like GWB will become an insult for succeeding centuries. You can bet your bottom dollar on that if a dollar is worth anything after Bush?
And some Presidents stand the test of time and others do not. And other Presidents can be seen as being victims of their own times.
In the latter sense, Hoover was that perfect victim, doomed by years of previous bad policy, and when he finally won the
Presidency, he was the unlucky smuck in charge when the butchers bill of bad policy finally came due. And is doubly doomed by history for being unable to see the cure was in questioning the very principles he stood for.
Other unpopular Presidents take positions that are later somewhat proved correct, Truman and Ford are now judged more kindly by history than their contemporaries judged them. And thus they are vindicated by history.
Let me advance the opinion that Reagan will later be judged less kindly by history than he is now.
But when it comes to GWB&co., its almost impossible to conceive of any later judgment of history being better than the sewer he now dwells in. We still do not now even a quarter of all of the skullduggery his administration was up to.
If nothing else, he will probably serve as a negative example and becomes a verb somewhat like fascism. Just being like GWB will become an insult for succeeding centuries. You can bet your bottom dollar on that if a dollar is worth anything after Bush?
So flushing the country down the shitter is okay as long as it pisses off Democrats. You are a true patriot. :roll:
I'd love to debate you on this, but this thread ain't the best place. The only problem with evolution from a creationist perspective is that it puts death before sin.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
Ah I see.... Mormons (like many other Christians sects, I might add) don't believe in Original Sin, so I was never exposed to that. And... quite frankly, I've never been able to accept the concept (especially not the horrific Augustinian doctrine of infant damnation). It's not in the Bible, and is IMO not necessary to appreciate Jesus' teachings.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter