Post Here To Show Support For Bush

[vroom]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And Vroom, let’s have a moment of realization - you are one of the most openly arrogant posters on this forum. Everyone knows it. And forget that I have said it - others have said so. If anyone on this board has an “I’m always right” attitude, it is you.[/quote]

Arrogant is probably not the word you want. While I am happy to be an ass and throw a lot of bullshit around, you’ll have to find another trait to chalk it up to.

[quote]Interesting. Does that include suggesting that telling someone it is frightening that someone is a school teacher based on their points of view?

Does it include berating posters about whether or not they actually lift weights in real life?[/quote]

LOL. Generally dude. Generally.

I’ve been slammed with the “weights in real life” plenty of times. That one is a no brainer given where we are and has very little to do with real life, per se.

The teacher one is certainly getting into the range of the topic though. However, you will perhaps see it is “theoretical” with respect to an ability to be problematic… as opposed to being specific and actual. Perhaps not.

[quote]Ordinarily, I would agree with you - I’d have to, I don’t even like most of the basic namecalling here, let alone going ‘outside the forum’. But, my point was to see how well you liked the other end of personal attacks.

Not all that well, from the looks.[/quote]

Dude, I’ve told you multiple times to bring it on. If you think I haven’t been on the receiving end of personal attacks before you’ve been pretty myopic.

I tend to think that you went apeshit and your character showed through. It will take some time for me to begin to think otherwise.

Nope - I have spent that time responding in kind. That is correct, Vroom - responding. Not initiating.

Does this sound at all similar to a child saying “he started it” to you?

Once you decided to step outside substantive arguments, I decided you needed a dose of your own medicine. I have no agenda to attack someone personally outright, unless they start the namecalling first.

LOL. Yeah, I’ve never been insulted around here… thanks for pointing out how that works. Loser.

Hypocrisy? No - I don’t care for personal attacks. It is not my usual tact to call anyone a “fucking idiot” or a “fucktard” as part of our discussion - unlike yourself.

I reserve those phrases for people that deserve them, you should feel special.

I had only one agenda with these recent posts - to provoke you and expose the fact that you love to dish, but you can’t take. It worked.

Not all all. Bring it on Nancy. Maybe you should bring back the tough talk too and call me a cupcake some more. I was oh so impressed when you did that.

You are still doing it. I wanted to provoke you and expose the fact you can’t take it… that’s laughable man. Declare yourself the imaginary victor much? There is no victory to be had here…

And, again, the tough talk is lost on you. You calling someone ‘Nancy’ is just not convincing.

Dude, I’m not “talking tough”, I’m making fun of you. When are going to stop interpreting my statements as they would be meant by you?

[quote]
LOL. Now, that was funny! Good job, there might be hope for your pompous holier than thou egotistical preening idiot self yet.

Wow, if imitation is the most sincerest form of flattery, then I am flattered. Once again, you merely grab something I wrote and try to insult me with it.[/quote]

Dude, that was funny! The insult there simply was not real. You miss too much to know what is going on.

As for contradicting myself, nope. Had you never initiated the insults, I never would have stated what I did. I said what I said expressly as a response to namecalling levied at me. No more, no less.

Blah blah blah. If you have to justify sinking lower than others with this, that’s cool, just as long as you realize what it is.

[GDollars37]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
sactown1 wrote:

I have heard some Bush supporters say that the President should ignore the Ruling because he has power to do so, I believe it was Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes.

That’s almost chilling, even if it’s coming from one of the usual TV assholes.

I don’t take anything Hannity says seriously and neither should you.

Bush is not going to ignore Supreme Court rulings.

He may try to stretch the law where he feels it is important but he isnot setting himself up as a dictator or any of that other nonsense.[/quote]

I have little doubt you’re right, but leaving aside Bush’s “stretching” of the law (which is a really nice way of putting it), it is slightly disturbing when the political culture is so polarized that one of the most prominent TV pundits/Bush cheerleaders is saying that the President should ignore a ruling of the Supreme Court, and therefore ignore the Constitution.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]vroom wrote:

Arrogant is probably not the word you want. While I am happy to be an ass and throw a lot of bullshit around, you’ll have to find another trait to chalk it up to.[/quote]

No, actually arrogant works just fine.

Dude, I’ve told you multiple times to bring it on. If you think I haven’t been on the receiving end of personal attacks before you’ve been pretty myopic.

Well, there is nothing to ‘bring on’ - my goal was to needle you with the same kind of personal attack you routinely make, and I did. Beyond seeing your response to that, there is little left to do in that regard.

I tend to think that you went apeshit and your character showed through. It will take some time for me to begin to think otherwise.

Well, you’d be wrong - my insults were deliberate, and from the looks of your constant responding, they hit a little too close to home. Insulting your writing was hardly going apeshit - and in fact it is quite relevant to the stuff we do around here.

And, to be frank, I am not really concerned about whether it will ‘take time for you to think otherwise’ - once you were an interesting guy to talk with, not so much anymore.

I reserve those phrases for people that deserve them, you should feel special.

If by ‘people who deserve them’, you mean ‘nearly everyone who disagrees with me’ and ‘I use this as a front when I won’t directly debate them’, then yes, I see where you are coming from.

Not all all. Bring it on Nancy. Maybe you should bring back the tough talk too and call me a cupcake some more. I was oh so impressed when you did that.

This is beyond comedy. What exactly do you want me to bring on? I realize your Internet honor is at stake and you can’t show yourself backing down on the forum, but this is over - give it up.

You are still doing it. I wanted to provoke you and expose the fact you can’t take it… that’s laughable man. Declare yourself the imaginary victor much? There is no victory to be had here…

Well, I accomplished what I wanted to do. I don’t deserve a trophy or anything, but you have been very predictable.

Blah blah blah. If you have to justify sinking lower than others with this, that’s cool, just as long as you realize what it is.

Poor Vroom. This is my last post on this thread, but in all seriousness, if you need to talk about this more, PM me. Seriously.

[ZEB]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
harris447 wrote:

And secondly, you are one of the dimmest trolls here - don’t you feel embarrassed lecturing people on how to think? You should, so stop doing it.[/quote]

And…I second that!

[ZEB]

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
sactown1 wrote:

I have heard some Bush supporters say that the President should ignore the Ruling because he has power to do so, I believe it was Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes.

That’s almost chilling, even if it’s coming from one of the usual TV assholes.

I don’t take anything Hannity says seriously and neither should you.

Bush is not going to ignore Supreme Court rulings.

He may try to stretch the law where he feels it is important but he isnot setting himself up as a dictator or any of that other nonsense.

I have little doubt you’re right, but leaving aside Bush’s “stretching” of the law (which is a really nice way of putting it), it is slightly disturbing when the political culture is so polarized that one of the most prominent TV pundits/Bush cheerleaders is saying that the President should ignore a ruling of the Supreme Court, and therefore ignore the Constitution.[/quote]

There is no question a Divisiveness that is present in Washington. But to blame this President for it is to neglect the real reasons for this great chasm between political interests.

[vroom]

Have we shown enough support for Bush yet or what?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, actually arrogant works just fine.
[/quote]

I checked the dictionary to be sure, since I don’t actually think I know everything, and nope, it won’t work.

Well, I accomplished what I wanted to do. I don’t deserve a trophy or anything, but you have been very predictable.

LOL. You haven’t… really!

[vroom]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
There is no question a Divisiveness that is present in Washington. But to blame this President for it is to neglect the real reasons for this great chasm between political interests.
[/quote]

Zeb,

It may not be his fault in origination, but didn’t he once campaign on the notion that he would do something to fix it?

[ZEB]

[quote]vroom wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There is no question a Divisiveness that is present in Washington. But to blame this President for it is to neglect the real reasons for this great chasm between political interests.

Zeb,

It may not be his fault in origination, but didn’t he once campaign on the notion that he would do something to fix it?[/quote]

Yes, but in all fairness it’s difficult to extend the olive branch of peace when you are being attacked. Petty politics on both sides has reached epidemic proportions.

[Marmadogg]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
‘Corporations’ aren’t inherently conservative, or I should say, non-lefty.[/quote]

Corporation are inherently conservative otherwise they end up losers like the Democrats and go BK.

[Marmadogg]

What happened to the ‘mandate’?

Was that a brokeback message?

[Headhunter]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

Don’t forget how you had to suppress votes AND cheat while counting to win.

RAPED DEMOCRACY TO GET SELECTED. That should be his motto. That’s how history will remember him.

Utter bullshit. Just what I expect from someone that has zero understanding.[/quote]

I think negative numbers apply here —negative transfinite integers.

HH

[vroom]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yes, but in all fairness it’s difficult to extend the olive branch of peace when you are being attacked. Petty politics on both sides has reached epidemic proportions.
[/quote]

That’s not “in all fairness”. That’s making excuses for the guy that ran on an issue and then did nothing about it. He’s the president, if he wants to change things, he could work to do so.

He hasn’t.

Again, because he ran on the issue, it is his responsibility to take some steps and try to curb the stone-throwing on his own side of the fence, but he didn’t do it.

[ZEB]

[quote]vroom wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Yes, but in all fairness it’s difficult to extend the olive branch of peace when you are being attacked. Petty politics on both sides has reached epidemic proportions.

That’s not “in all fairness”. That’s making excuses for the guy that ran on an issue and then did nothing about it. He’s the president, if he wants to change things, he could work to do so.

He hasn’t.

Again, because he ran on the issue, it is his responsibility to take some steps and try to curb the stone-throwing on his own side of the fence, but he didn’t do it.[/quote]

1. As I said it takes two sides to make peace.

2. President Bush does not control republican Senators.

3. It has become increasinly clear that whichever party occupies the White House the opposition party seems to want to make things difficult. I think that last President that had any sort of detente with the other party was Reagan. He was “the great communicator” after all.

[vroom]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

1. As I said it takes two sides to make peace.

2. President Bush does not control republican Senators.

3. It has become increasinly clear that whichever party occupies the White House the opposition party seems to want to make things difficult. I think that last President that had any sort of detente with the other party was Reagan. He was “the great communicator” after all.
   [/quote]

Maybe if he is powerless to achieve it then he shouldn’t use it as a deceptive election ploy?

[LNEX]

I love bush, He is proof that I ivy league edumakation can go bad

“The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And one such goal is a democracy in Germany.” ?George W. Bush, D.C., May 5, 2006

“People don’t need to worry about security. This deal wouldn’t go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America.” ?George W. Bush, on the deal to hand over U.S. port security to a company operated by the United Arab Emirates, Washington, D.C., Feb. 23, 2006

[harris447]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
harris447 wrote:

Ah, yes. when all else fails, just call someone a troll.

Well, Harris - you are a troll. Your posts are typically worthless, usually just some blathering about ‘neocons’ and how stupid Bush is.

Oh, and on that note, when all else fails, call someone a ‘neocon’?

Seriously - if you are gonna complain about cheap namecalling, then don’t throw stones when you live in the proverbial glass house.

Or attack them personally, and then (and this is my favorite part) whine for two pages that you hate making personal attacks and you wish the forum coud go back to the old days..

Poor Harris - sucks when the invective flies back on you, aye? Anyway, I never whined - and I still don’t like personal attacks. But call someone a dumbass and you will likely be called one back, and you really shouldn’t complain.

Do even you believe your own nonsense?

Heh. Be serious.[/quote]

Same bullshit, different page.

“Waaaaah, waaaah, you’re a troll. Waaah.”

You must be the biggest whiny bitch on this board!

I never complained about cheap namecalling; I think it’s fun.

You’re the one who wants people to think he’s above it all and full of pomp and seriousity, but you’re just another whiny little conservative.

Boring.

[harris447]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
harris447 wrote:

And secondly, you are one of the dimmest trolls here - don’t you feel embarrassed lecturing people on how to think? You should, so stop doing it.

And…I second that!
[/quote]

Shouldn’t you be gaybashing somewhere?

[jasonigor]

I just had to interject here.

I see a few things at work in these threads:

The first of these is whats known as Egocentric righteousness. Egocentric righteousness is the natural tendency to feel superior in the light of our confidence that we are in the possession of the truth. In a very basic example this could be someone who disagrees with homosexuality or rights for ethnic minorities for whatever reason.

The second, and its a good one is Egocentric hypocrisy, this is the natural tendency to ignore flagrant inconsistencies between what we profess to believe and the actual beliefs our behavior imply, or inconsistencies between the standards to which we hold ourselves and those to which we expect others to adhere.

The last one I want to bring up is
Egocentric blindness this is the natural tendency not to notice facts or evidence which contradict our favored beliefs or values.

So for homework, perhaps we can think about people who post threads here who come under any of these catagories ?!

Clue 1 : There are plenty, and some are in this thread.

[vroom]

[quote]jasonigor wrote:
So for homework, perhaps we can think about people who post threads here who come under any of these catagories ?!

Clue 1 : There are plenty, and some are in this thread.[/quote]

Good God man, are you trying to start a riot?

I’d insult you needlessly but you haven’t posted enough yet to provide any ammo…

[jasonigor]

[quote]vroom wrote:

I’d insult you needlessly but you haven’t posted enough yet to provide any ammo…[/quote]

I never reveal weaknesses.