Bush wins the election

WCF:

And yet you live in America and you have the right to say these things. Well, tisk tisk. Darn you for not going along with my way of thinking. Gee, ya know what? You are going to be suppressed and insulted, because you’re being suppressed right now on the most liberal board on the internet... Wait, that’s Wes who’s being suppressed and insulted--not you.

If the secret police show up here in America, we'll know. Tiassa and you will be the first to disappear.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not saying we are that far yet, gees

As for secret police funny you mention one of the rumors that have been happening ever sense the patriot act was approved. Many reports of people being arrested without charges.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You smoke to much.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not at all.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

despite Hollywood's elite pacifists, despite Michael Moore's propaganda, despite George Soros's billions funding 527's, despite ANSWER and moveon.org, despite the has-been muscians with their cute little tours, despite a larger than usual black votes, despite Dan Rather and the liberal mainstream media's agenda, despite the Europeans bitching and moaning, despite China coming out publically against the "Bush doctorine", despite bin-Laden's tape on the day of the election threatening certain death to states that vote for Bush and bashing his decisions and his person, despite the enormous smear campaign by people comparing Bush to a nazi and The Guardian openly calling for the murder of the President, despite all that, Bush has prevailed

why? because people have brains. also because Kerry is no leader.

loony leftists, you tried hard... with your "Bush = Hitler" slogans, and the trendy Arab kafiya, and with your smear campaigns. but it was all for nothing. all you've done was associate yourself with Kerry which turned away decent people from voting for him. but this association is not wrong. after all, he was appealing to the fanatic anti-Bush crowd. in a way he got what he deserved.

i am happy the elections are over. finally Bush can start doing something now that the bullshit is done with.

oh by the way, those "Americans" who want to leave now that Bush won, good. only the good ones will stay. like someone here said: don't let the border hit you on your ass on your way out.

 

Yes, and one bushnation shall remain. A threat to the world. Don't let that international isolation, ridicule and anger hit your pockets. I'm fed up with your policies even more than with arab terrorists.

 

this so called isolation ridicule and anger only seem to be widespread by a media with its own agenda. when someone screams and everyone else is quiet, that one lone voice sounds pretty loud. you get what i'm saying?

Bush has (and has had all along) many supporters. Both in the US and outside of it.

by the way, i forgot to mention in my list in the other post about the media's and the lunatic pundits' ridicule of Bush-speak.

in Zel Miller's words, "he's not a slick talker, but he's a straight shooter". people often forget that it's the substance, not the presentation, that counts.

by the way, regarding the Bush nation, i really do hope that Moore leaves, and never comes back. the Hollywood elite can leave too. we need fresh talent anyway.

 

The left really pulled out all the stops this time, and still came up short. Maybe they'll really leave this time. Though I doubt it, these guys are all talk.

 

I won't answer. Time will tell.

 

i think time has already told. Bush won, didn't he?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

even in the pre-election op-ed in the Guardian, the one in which they called for the assassination of Bush, they knew he was going to win, thus conceding he was more popular than Kerry.

 

oh, I'm not talking about the USA. It's hopeless as it is. I'm more about the world's attitude. But international relations were never important in the USA I suppose, so it's the same for you. Happy 1984! Guess it sucks for a liberal to be in the USA these days.

 

No, it was you inability to comprehend anything that doesn't originate from within the smarmy confines of your skull.

As if you have a choice. Your cheap sarcasm isn't cute except to your sycophants.

Am I? How do you know? Perhaps I just don't want to discuss it with you because the result of most every conversation with you is the same: sanctimonious denial.

What's funny is the answer to your smarmy little question is a statement that you didn't list as an option. Let's give you a test. In all seriousness, do you know the correct answer to your questions? It's very simple. Probably too simple for you to see I'd guess.

Because it's really not relevant. You're so complicated that you can't see it.

Hatred cannot be baseless. You may not agree with the basis, but your opinion is likely irrelevant unless you strive to impart a positive understanding. Since you're ill-equipped, you're just pointless.

From reasoning parallel to your own, your hatred is just as baseless.

If you were a fair-minded individual, you'd strive not to presume anything. I realize for you, this is impossible.

LOL. There is? So you say, but your presumption, smarm, sanctimony and problems with reading comprehension demonstrate your lacking qualifications to make such an assertion. I see now why you relate to Mikey Moore. You're just like him. Take everything out of context, spin it to justify your hatred and call it a fact. Then of course, call everyone but your pathetic little self dishonest. Insanity is the only explanation. It's so, interesting though. You're quite a piece of work!

I don't care.

I still don't care. Wait!

Nope. Still nothing.

Slander now? Impressive. A "wellspring of ignorance" am I? Wow, remember, don't challenge Brian's bullshit or he'll say you're stupid. LOL. Put it back in your pants Bri, you're exposed.

Where are your facts? Can you show factually that I'm a well-spring of ignorance? You can't, but you make the claim. Isn't that dishonest by your own standard?

Now then:

Right so hate is okay as long as it's your brand of hate.

Ah, so since my interpretation of all the evidence I've encountered leads me to a different conclusion, my experience, thoughts and feelings on the issue are "vicious hyperbole" and I'm a liar and a jerk. It's my long-time grudge that brings on your retarded wrath? The fact is, that your post was a sanctimonious rejection of the will of the people because you find yourself superior to them. You're a smarmy asshat. I don't care if I just met you, or I've known you for years: what you said is a sanctimonious bag of shit. I simply applied noted my opinion. That's my perogative isn't it?

Your presumption gets you in so much trouble, but you're SO good at pretending it isn't happening. You go boy!

LOL. That FACT is, you stated clearly "I hate him" and "he is a scourge to humanity". In fact, the latter is your opinion rather than fact, yet you state is as substinative. From the perspective of a insane person such as yourself, that it appears I've "disregarded fact" and "equivocated like a madman" is par for the course. You cannot allow your glass house to shatter.

Wow how lenient of you. Doesn't your own standard require that you present facts? Can you show any of the above to be factual?

I honestly care nothing of your opinion of my sense of relativity if you can't say anything constructive. My perception is what it is. At least I'm honest about it. Though you're bound by your glass house to proclaim otherwise. Can't allow any smudges on that glass either.

I'm fascinated by your spin. I have dessimated you on a number of occasions, each of which you proclaim argumentative superiority without fail.

I've recieved completely unsolicited PMs from members with whom I'd never PM'ed commending me on the strength of the arguments I've put against yours. They commented on your blindness.

Regardless though, please feel free to demonstrate my inability to comprehend you. I hope you don't mind if I refute them. I don't care though I guess. I'll do it anyway if I feel like it.

You don't think "How many thousands of words would you have to delete from the record in order to erase that demonstration?" is pure hyperbole? Oh to be as honest as a pure-bread liar.

That you think there is a big difference is obvious. It's also obvious that I think you're full of shit and basically attempting to rationalize your hatred.

I understand your glass house requires rationalization to the extreme. You apparently do not.

And your denial of it is simply laughable.

As if your denial of it is supposed to somehow warp reality into making your statement true? You deny it, I deny your denial. Very very productive.

I trust my wisdom. If I go down the wrong street, I make a scratch on my map.

Your insanity is your responbility. Calling me a simpleton for pointing it out doesn't do much to make it better.

I mentioned that to illuminate your lies. You've referred to me as "brilliant" on occasion, but now call me "stupid". Perhaps you've changed your mind? If so, what does that say about you? Your denial of my intellect in no way dimishes it. It merely exposes your ass. (not to say much about my intellect besides that you can't relate to it and as such, demean it)

Pretty much yeah. Rather, I'm honest about who and what I am. IMO, that's character, but your opinion obviously differs. You drag this into every conversation. It was explained to you long ago, but you still miss the point. My point in the original assertion was this: the nominal common ground for reasonable debate is that both parties come into the debate with honest intentions. If you cannot credit me with the intention of trying to comprehend, with trying to be fair - even if you disagree with what I deem to be so - then there is little point it attempting a debate. In other words: If we're going to be friends, you can't question my character. It's pointless and leads to the circular horseshit you now spew incessantly. "you're a liar", "you're ignorant", "you're a poopy head". How many thousands of words have you wasted making such assertions, just at me, not to mention the myriad of others you berate regularly? You may eventually or in fact, immediately find it (my character) lacking - so we'll depart as, not friends. Get it?

If history serves, you don't.

One more time because I know this is tough for you:

Friends, "trust intentions".

Not friends "not trust intentions".

Thus, failure to credit a friend with character (which is in fact, a failure to relate) leads to - not friends. I would rather be your friend than alternatives, but you leave little room for it with your unwarranted, unrelenting, irrational mistrust. Who hurt you tiassa? Was it you?

You simply can't understand that your accusations of wrong-doing don't necessitate that wrong-doing occured. I think it's because you think you're so smart that you simply don't allow for the possibilty that you don't understand something. It's quite clear to many people that you don't understand many people. In fact, I'd call understanding (in the context of inter-personal communication) your complete failing. You only understand the mechanations inside your glass house (formally known as your cunt). They are often however, only connected to actual events in that they provided you stimulous, which is immediately sorted into the appropriate section of your managerie. Your response follows from the filing operation, but often isn't at all based in what you were told, but rather, how you filed it. Your filing system commands that its infallable, so instead of conversation, there is only sanctimony and you are the source regardless of the individual with which you interact (who may be just as fucked up as you).

Apparently, beyond you. I've tried to show you, but you don't get it. You're more comfortable in your wild, paranoid, ridiculous accusations. We apparently can't relate.

My character cannot be beyond reproach to someone who refuses it flatly. My character is beyond reproach to me, since I'm aware of what I'm thinking. Others agree with that assessment. You are one of few that I'm aware of that do not. I find that fascinating to some extent, since to me it's your paranoid dimensia/denial that fuels your inability to relate.

Telling me not to doesn't at all motivate me to honor your request. I won't be giving you anything but an ear-full which you're patently deny as you must by the mandate of your insanity.

It's funny that you think I'd presume you're as stupid as my argument. *snort* I only presume at this juncture, that my arguments and character are beyond your ability or willingness to relate. I often forget about that though, as I still have a habit of thinking highly of you. It's your insanity that's unappealing. Every once in a while I try to expose it to you in hopes you'll eventually see a glimpse of it.

Damnit you're right. I amstupid.

I'm sure you think you mean well, so more power to you - exposing charlitans like myself. It helps though, when you try it with actual charlitans. With me, you're simply talking to your unrestrained shrink.

You're a fascinating specimen, mostly due to the granduer to which you'll escalate your rationalizations to support your denial. Being as bright and creative as you are, you're able to take it far beyond what most people can do. I wonder if it's so good you'll never ever break it down. If so (and so far, it does so seem), that makes you a case study of great interest.

 

I saw a discussion of German politicians yesterday, they also hoped that Bush would change his behaviour. But the thought it unlikely...

 

No, the SELECTED NOT ELECTED crowd is full of loons, or people too fucking lazy to read the Constitution.

 

Oh come now, angry boy - if things had gone the exact opposite way in 2000 - with the recount in Florida being headed by a women who was on the Gore re-election committee, with Gore getting put in by the court instead of the Shrub. . . . you ''loons''/psycho-brains would have been out in the street with your assult weapons killing people. Come on now, think about it. Would the NASCAR/Rush Limbaugh crowd have just politely said "ok, thats fair - thats how it is" and we would have heard nothing more about it?

Of course not, so get off it!

And, in fact - I have a copy of the constitution that sits right by my desk. Too "fucking lazy to read the Constitution"? Heh! First off, haven't you ever looked at the average educational/literacy rates of social conservatives compared to others? They BARELY read *anything*, but don't take my word for it -- Google around on it.

 

Well, let's hop back to the summer, Wes.

In July, you messaged me to protest my refusal to accept Pangloss' depiction of himself as an undecided voter:

You even went on to throw another of your classic tantrums:

Despite your ridiculous rant, I tried to answer what issues could be extracted:

I went on to provide examples of what I was referring to, and pointed out the response I got:

I even asked you for advice:

And I even addressed your tone:

Your response was quite interesting, Wes.

I mean, comparing someone to Leone Helmsley? That's not an attack? And yet, you also note that he might be "quoting one side, like the GOP". It would have been possible to consider valid counterpoints if he had provided points in the first place, yet you didn't consider the whole of what I was telling you, but rather isolating each part. I've "convicted him of the attack without allowing for the possibility that it's my mistake"? Well, did you actually consider in there what I asked you about how a debate should go?

I know you saw certain parts of my message to you, because you quoted them. But your responses only begged the point:

"Tell me how she's not Leona Helmsley," he wrote. Careful phrasing, indeed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Look to the spirit of what was said? Poisonous.

Your idea of respect is dripping sarcasm? "(There's my hall pass for the week, Tiassa. Does that buy me a few more criticisms of the left?)" he wrote.

You never really did offer me any examples of the "earnest" "respect" I was overlooking.

I'll just quote you on this one:

That's twice. In one message.

And you even tried to respond to my invitation to clarify certain points:

If, if, if, if, if . . . .

And talk about a rush to convict. I mean, at the point you entered the argument with your messages, he had already refused to clarify his Leona Helmsley comparison.

You're perfectly willing to make excuses for him. I mean ... it goes on and on. How much would you like me to go through here? We've already covered the two places you admitted ignorance.

And remember, Wes, all of that was about my rejection of Pangloss' contention of himself as a swing vote that could be influenced.

Oh, yeah ... a third occasion:

Because I've convicted him, because I've convicted him. What's odd is that I asked you, "How should the debate go?" I even explained the question:

You never responded to that point, choosing instead to lecture me on my feelings about people's reading comprehension.

I even asked you:

You chose not to answer that one.

And all of that because I doubted Pangloss' depiction of himself as something more neutral than it was. And you convicted me of jumping to conclusions without giving two seconds' consideration to the facts.

And three times you admit your ignorance.

You do even attempt some conciliatory language, but your rants pretty much undermine them:

Now, again, this was about perceptions. I thought someone was pandering to the right, and you took issue with my rejection of his depiction of himself.

What did he write a mere week after your messages? Referring to the Swift Vets, he noted, "Frankly I'm downright embarassed to be a Bush supporter when I see crap like this." He would, later that day, actually call out Undecided and I to note the content of a specific response in the topic. And here's a part you might have forgotten about, or missed entirely perhaps: awarding him the credit of not being a GOP shill, I asked him what finally sold him on Bush. I still don't think he ever answered.

You start at an arbitrary point, and while that's generally how all stories start, you generally enter in media res, as you did this time, without giving much thought to what comes before the story you lay out. Of course, history isn't particularly relevant to you, is it?

And this is a pattern with you. Our recently-deleted exchange, for instance. Or our exchange over the Dennis Miller debacle. Between your need to construct windmills to tilt--in lieu of more legitimate discussions--combined with your acknowledgments of ignorance, your general tone, and your lack of facts pretty much makes the case. Especially those acknowledgments.

And as to whether it's dishonest by my own standard? Well, you've declared that history isn't relevant. What point is a long post like this that examines history? It takes up a lot more time and effort to write for you than it takes for you to ignore it. And you're very inefficient about ignoring me, too. You have so much to say, but you never really acknowledge the content of my posts insofar as you just keep up with the whining and sputtering. You equivocate in order to justify your attitude problem. And you're constantly ignoring rather simple points in order to keep your temper aflame.

If you're going to be an indignant prig about things, you might as well have a point relevant to what you're complaining about. Disagreement is expected; it would be creepy if nobody disagreed with me. But you're disrespectful about it. You put a lot of effort into being disrespectful, and that's where the problem arises. Disagree all you want. Get a clue, first. It's not too much to ask, Wes. We've been over this before.

I mean, look at the hostility bleeding out of your post, and you still can't present facts.

You know, eleven states just voted to challenge the U.S. Constitution because of irrational, religious-derived intolerance. They may hate, but I'm glad they voted. Some things are more important--that we can vote at all, for instance--and besides, these measures won't hold up because gender is not a suspect classification under Equal Protection. Life goes on, and all anyone has done in passing these measures is confess that the Constitutional foundation for equality in the United States is an intolerable state for the Union.

Answer the question, please, Wes: Would you prefer those new voters moved to vote by their perceptions of events around them should stay home and not vote?

Well, it's more a matter of method. You noted that you don't like having your words edited in quotes, yet you do it to others. In fact, you did it to me just recently, Counsler Coffee whipped out your version of simplification in your defense. You do it all the time, Wes.

That kind of dishonesty is part of the reason I consider you a liar and a jerk.

I mean, are you really so stupid as to actually believe it's about the fact that anyone disagrees with me? Hell, great. Now, give me some substance and do go out of your way to be a dishonest, self-righteous, hypocritical prig. You've been at it for quite a while, Wes. You want facts but history's irrelevant. Well, that's where the assertions of fact that we could otherwise be debating happen to be, Wes.

What the hell is your problem?

You admit your ignorance, you claim history irrelevant ... no wonder your head feels like it's going to explode. If everything in the Universe is so disconnected from everything else as such conflicts indicate, well, I would expect people's heads to hurt.

And your mistakes and omissions of fact wouldn't bother me so much if they weren't the basis of your personal crusade to pursue me through various topics demanding attention like a spoiled brat.

I can only work with what you show me, Wes.

It's what you choose.

Actually, if you didn't put so much effort into attracting my attention, I'd leave your petty charlatan ass to its own devices.

But hey, you asked for my attention and you have it. And all you have to say is what you think is wrong. If you put as much effort into explaining your complaint as you do on the actual whining, there might be something that can be discussed factually. But since you don't wish to bring those facts--they would take up too much space in your bag of hyperbole, perhaps--what else is there?

Didn't you just say history is not relevant?

And here you are, appealing to history?

Well, that's the thing, Wes. I try not to endorse wrongful behavior in my friends.

Knew a nice guy once. His girl accused him of rape. I asked him about it because the situation became unavoidable. He literally told me, "Well, you know how it goes. She wanted it. She just says she doesn't." Well, did she refuse you at the time? "But you know she wanted it anyway." I mean, regret for one's actions is one thing, but the guy was proud of it: he got some.

No, I couldn't trust that intention.

Turns out he wasn't such a nice guy.

Friends trust intentions because they can. Friendship is not blind faith. A friendship based on blind faith is unhealthy for either friend. For me to have accepted your offer, for me to have trusted your character--that would be to overlook your conduct. You know, history. The record you left. What you show of yourself.

This is a particular shallowness that plagues your argument. As with my dispute with Pangloss, the difficulties grew as time went on. You accuse a rush to judgment, while the record shows I asked and got no compelling response. This is related to your choice to leap in media res, and also to your stubborn grudge. You take a position without regard to history, and then attempt to justify yourself despite the facts you've chosen erroneously to hold irrelevant.

I just don't think it too much to ask that you should back your hyperbole with something resembling facts.

Oh, well. I'll even let you have the last word in this post:

 

If the Democrats want to seriously challenge in '08 they need to find a candidate that is closer to the political center. I think ultimately at the last minute many undecided Americans, when push came to shove, were in the end reluctant to make the change they really wanted to make. While they were not at all happy with the overall direction of the last 4 years under this administration, when they looked closely at the only alternative they were given, what they perceived as too far a swing on the political pendelum from Right to Left, most ended up voting for the encumbent. Kerry not distancing himself from the rabid liberalism of the Michael Moores, whom I think cost Kerry much of the 'just left of center' voters, likely hurt his campaign. Looking back at the Democrat's primary the best choice might have been Joe Lieberman. He would have still captured the 'Anybody But Bush' vote, but could have also garnered strong support from the 'just left of center' and the 'just right of center' who wanted change, but not what they perceived as Far left liberalism. It doesn't matter that the Kerry/Edwards ticket might not have been quite as Far left as portrayed by the Republicans, the fact was their Senate voting records left them vulnerable to that perception, and Rove & Co. successfully attacked it and managed to put that label on them. But IMO the Democrats have to get back closer to center to remain a legitimate party. They've completely lost the once Democratic Solid South, with every southern state in the Red now, and conservative Democrats are getting hard to come by.

 

I disagree with Spyke, the Dems cannot go any further right otherwise they will be the republican party. The Democrats have to come out swinging and show their true colours again. The reason why the Dems lost this election imo was because they did not rallly the base enough. The Democrats have to start dealing with social issues with a new zest, and with furious commitment. The reason why Dems are perceived as weak is because they aren't holding on to their democratic values. The Democrats have to centralize and co-ordinate like the Republicans, and the Dems have to create a new base that is truly democratic, and truly idealistic. The party needs to grow some balls not lose them.