Subj : Um...no comment? To : Frank Reid From : Daemon Date : Fri Sep 02 2005 21:31:00 Re: Um...no comment? By: Frank Reid to Daemon on Fri Sep 02 2005 02:23 p m > > Excellent... I hit upon an article that covered almost exactly the sam > > points as this one literally as I was about to walk out the door to go to > > so never got the chance to cite it into here. > > > > Should Bush have known in advance there'd be a hurricane that caused so > > devistation? No, of course not. > > > > But imprudence is as imprudence does. Ditto incompetence, and boy does > > suck when they're one in the same with a healthy scattering of arrogant > > stupidity thrown on top of it. > > This is always such a curiosity to me. Do zealots awake each morning and ru > with bated breath to absorb any party propaganda that might denigrate the > "other" party? Do they consume as absolute the rants of party zealots like > Blumenthal, "the" liberal mouthpiece and Clinton senior advisor, and Limbaug > the rabid dog conservative? lol! I've never been called a "zealot" before. Thanks for being ignorant enough to make all kinds of (truly amazingly, staggeringly, and woefully obviously incorrect) assumptions and be the first to do so. Amazing. You've decided my entire political philosophy for me, because I dared to criticize the Republican Messiah. *drums fingers* Lessee... Where to start with this one? I mean, it's just riddled with dumb stuff, both explicitly expressed and strongly implied.. First of all, I'm not IN the '"other" party', nor do I support any brand of political organization that stands upon beaurocratic patronage. I assume the rather large number of political posts I type into the network are too full of words that are too big for you? I'll make an attempt to follow each lengthy one with a concise one of mono-syllabic nature just for you. Frankly, Frank, I've gone (and continue to go) further politically than you'll ever go in two lifetimes, and none of that distance has been travelled on any vehicle other than knowing what I'm talking about at any given time and levying that knowledge objectively and honestly. Hell, I've put candidates on ballots and then, between that and the election, ended-up firmly believing another candidate is a better choice and SAYING so publicly. More than once. Know what? It made me stronger, every time, despite every other political club and organization (and even rival elements within my own) that jumped up and down screaming "ethics" as if "ethics" has nothing to do with honesty devoid of opportunistic political hand-job favors done back and forth. There's a simple truth to cooperative rule. Keep an open mind, keep opportunity open, and don't pre-make decisions of who the best candidate for ANYthing is before ANY candidate has made any kind of case for him/herself purely on the basis of party affiliation or political expedience. Walk that course, and you'll never hit a dead-end. Any OTHER course leads to stagnation and decay. Objectively speaking, GWB's a retard that is a tremendous offense to the office of the President. Which is why (1) his approval numbers are practically record-breakingly low as the majority of the country is (finally and belatedly) realizing what a useless monkey he is and (2) every time there's any kind of incident that happens where leadership is required, he trots out his dad and Clinton to do it. Because he's absolutely unequipped. But make no mistake - the Dems are no better. They're just the other major branch of the royal family tree that rules the country contrarily to the design of the system. > Did you actually put any *personal* thought into this allegation, like > determining the actual content and context of the bill? Perhaps it was amon Yep. But I'm not the one who cited this particular article. Go piss up HIS rope. He's more than capable of slapping you down intellectually for it all by himself. So have you done any actual reseach into your own point of view, or is this just what you happened to find stuck to your fingers when you pulled them out of your ass? > determining the actual content and context of the bill? Perhaps it was amon > the minutiae of a trillion-dollar omnibus budget legislation? And was the b You're guessing? But I thought you had the informative high-ground, Frank? You wouldn't be THAT full of crap on this one, now would you? > the minutiae of a trillion-dollar omnibus budget legislation? And was the b > riddled with countless "pork barrel" projects, like teaching fish to fly? W I take that back. Obviously, you ARE that full of crap and quite shamelessly. > riddled with countless "pork barrel" projects, like teaching fish to fly? W > this specific amendment actually introduced and co-sponsored by Democrats? Who cares? > Most importanty, were there any actual accomplishments by the grant recipien > that would warrant future funding? You mean ASIDE from 40 years of steadily improving the system of levies, pumps (whose capacity was doubled over the course of work done in that time), etc etc etc that came to a screaching halt when their funding was pulled-out from under them to pay for mucking-up and rebuilding Iraq instead? Oh... I see. You're just guessing again; trying to sound clever with rhetorical sleight-of-hand. *chuckle* Sorry. I'm used to discussing such things with people that aren't so obviously ignorant of all relevent facts as you are. It's not like they weren't vocal about it, either. The whole time. One would think the most inportant port on the East Coast would have rated a bit more favorably in the name of "homeland security", at least. > Do some homework, come back and let us know the real story. Bite me. You couldn't be more obviously ignorant here if you blamed the Democrats for the hurricane itself. But congratulations, 'cause you get today's "I'd give GWB a lube-job any day of the week" award. lmfao (And *I'm* the "zealot"... Priceless.) [daemon] In the shuffling madness... --- þ Synchronet þ necropolisbbs.darktech.org - Tonawanda, NY .