Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That's nice but none of that makes you an independent.
No child, I am an independent because I have consistently voted for candidates of both major parties as well as many third-parties throughout my entire voting "career". I have been quite open here about being driven farther from the Republican party over the last few years, primarily due to the unholy influence of religious extremists and the so-called neo-conservatives. Nonetheless, I am not a Democrat. For example, as I've mentioned here before, I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary. There are a fair number of Republicans who apparently think I am Republican since I'm on their mailing lists.
YOU may THINK you are but from what you post here it doesn't hold up. It seems that Liberals won't even admit they are such anymore so they think they are "independents" now all of a sudden. I understand the need to feel like you are a sought after political commodity,
Wow, you are clueless. I don't give a rat's ass about being a "sought-after political commodity." Who cares?
but atleast be truthful about where your ideology lies. Maybe you were "independent" once but it is clear from your posts on this forum that are on the left side of the spectrum - not just a "tad" either.
Sorry, this is where your partisan blindness does you in. You insist that not-Bush means liberal. It doesn't. I make no secret of my disdain for King George. That doesn't make me a liberal. It just makes me someone who abhors slimeballs who lack integrity and screw this country for the benefit of his imperialist agenda and his wealthy supporters. Ignoring Bush himself, I'm liberal on some issues, conservative on others, mostly in the middle, with a modest touch of Libertarianism.
Your incessant attempts at trying to blame Bush or Conservative has blown your "cover" - you are not the objective or "open-minded" person you claim to be.
You again suffer from partisan blindness. You insist that not-Bush means anti-conservative. Wrong again. More importantly, it's a ridiculous notion in the first place. Bush is so far removed from so many traditional conservative values it's completely irrational to try to tie the two together. As you well know, that's why I reject the label "neo-conservative". It sullies the meaning of conservative.
While I can't say I've never made a critical comment about "conservatives" here, I believe you will find they are few and far between. I will vocally attack several sub-groups of conservatives. I have no problems with conservatives in general. My biggest complaint is they've allowed the Republican Party to be hijacked by the aforementioned religious extremists and "neo-cons." (A complaint I've made several times here.)
And your accusation that others are "close-minded" goes hand in hand with that. Just because YOUR ideology isn't the same as mine doesn't make me close minded.
No, the fact you can't accept someone can dislike Bush without being a liberal is what makes you close-minded. You don't have to agree with others' ideas. You do have to listen to them, consider them, evaluate them.
Now as to your assertion that I worship a "cowboy god" - you can shove it. I worship only one God and despite your blathering - it isn't Bush.
To paraphrase you, maybe you didn't worship Bush once, but it is clear from your posts on this forum that you do now. Your incessant attempts at trying to excuse Bush has blown your "cover" - you are not the objective or "not worshipping" person you claim to be.
In all seriousness, all I can go by is what you post here. I believe you will find broad agreement from the regulars that you stand out as one of Bush's most strident and most persistent apologists, stretching and twisting arguments to absurd extremes to justify Bush's actions. While I'm sure you do not literally "worship" the man, your behavior closely resembles that of a religious fanatic defending his god.
Yes, someday I will see the epitome of truth and I will spend eternity bathed in that truth. I am not ashamed and will never be ashamed of that.
Ofcourse you were trying to say that in a political sense but it doesn't matter - you can't seem to see through your hate of Bush and Conservatives. Hopefully someday you will understand, but it seem that today you seem to wish to wallow in your self loathing and hatred. Yes, morally bankrupt seems to be a good description of a few people around here - and you seem to want to be included in that circle.
An empty attack. America is supposed to stand for something. I want America to be the greatest country it can be. Bush is hurting America. Bush's apologists are helping him. I am sorry you cannot tell the difference between patriotism and self-loathing. I think that says something about you. (Hint: Bush is NOT America.)
Now the only thing you *may* have gotten right is the statement that we come from different worlds. I l come from a world where morality and Godliness matters. I come from a world that accepts the fact that there are differing ideologies. I come from a world where there can be a right and wrong. I come from a world that holds personal accountability and self reliance in high regard.
And yet you accept Bush's immorality without blinking an eye. You applaud his un-Christian, even blasphemous behavior. You twist right and wrong to fit his agenda. You refuse to accept other's ideologies as having worth. You yap about personal accountability, but you support the man who refuses to be accountable for anything.
I am sure you disagree with everything I said in the paragraph above, yet that is exactly how you appear based on your posts here. There is a massive disconnect between those things you say you value and those things you actually endorse. How many people have nailed you about living in Bizarro World, or deluding yourself, or something similar? That's why.
Good day.
Now back to the serious WMD issue.
CkG
LOL, case in point. We know Iraq had WMDs. For multiple reasons, it appers likely
most of these WMDs were destroyed by some combination of U.N. inspectors, Clinton's 1998 bombings, and Iraq itself. We know that this destruction was disorganized and often undocumented. Therefore, it should be absolutely no surprise to any rational person that some remnants of these WMDs, some left-overs, would still exist. The fact we found one dusty shell is unremarkable, yet the Bush apologists act like they found the mother lode.
It is totally absurd behavior, it does not begin to match the pre-war claims of the Bush administration, and not even the Bush administration itself is making a big deal of it, yet here you all are, bleating and yapping and carrying on. Like I said earlier, you're like a pack of starving wolves jumping on a lone mouse as if it is significant. Give it a rest already. We all know Iraq had WMDs in the past. The only relevant question is whether Iraq had the "massive stockpiles", etc. Bush claimed they had before his invasion. Maybe so, but this one shell doesn't even begin to support those grandiose claims.
Oh well, sleep well Cad. Glad to hear you finally have something to do at work. It's not a good time for employees to have too little to do (but yes, it looks like we're getting better).