Ed,
it's not that you are dumb; you've accepted your side's arguments on faith, which is not to be denied, a sound basis to take a position on, except, you refuse to admit it (therefore, i conclude you believe that somehow faith < reason)
the republican party is not dumb, indeed very smart, since it relies on it's ability to fool a great number of people to take positions contrary to their own best interests.
i'd be much more interested in your positions, faith-, and/or reason-inspired, if you told me what it was _costing_ you to take that position.
what i'm trying to tell you is that you're endorsing the positions of power brokers, who are asking _our_ people, yours and mine, to do the dying and financial sacrificing. to the extent you refuse to consider that possibility you are not dumb, simply ignorEnt.
ignorent: (adj) willful disregard of facts.
from Marty McGowan's Dictionary of Political Observation.
i'm really only interested in what _you_ have to say, not some self-serving quote from anywhere. you are yet to take on my observation that wrt the mccain campaign:
and that somehow these facts = change. I don't think so.
Now as for Obama, let's try civility for a while, even though his positions may represent some tired old liberal themes, not all that new (or liberal, according to the ubiquitous "some") , _except_ they haven't been tried for 8, or 28 years, take your pick, so i call it "change".
to mis-quote someone, "it all depends on what your definition of ``change'' is"
http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com/
it's not that you are dumb; you've accepted your side's arguments on faith, which is not to be denied, a sound basis to take a position on, except, you refuse to admit it (therefore, i conclude you believe that somehow faith < reason)
the republican party is not dumb, indeed very smart, since it relies on it's ability to fool a great number of people to take positions contrary to their own best interests.
i'd be much more interested in your positions, faith-, and/or reason-inspired, if you told me what it was _costing_ you to take that position.
what i'm trying to tell you is that you're endorsing the positions of power brokers, who are asking _our_ people, yours and mine, to do the dying and financial sacrificing. to the extent you refuse to consider that possibility you are not dumb, simply ignorEnt.
ignorent: (adj) willful disregard of facts.
from Marty McGowan's Dictionary of Political Observation.
i'm really only interested in what _you_ have to say, not some self-serving quote from anywhere. you are yet to take on my observation that wrt the mccain campaign:
- the staff is Rove re-treads (lincoln missed this one: "you can fool enough of the people enough of the time" -- K Rove)
- the foreign policy is indistinguishable from the last 8 years,
- the tax policy is " " " (mega-dittos -- B. F. R. Limbaugh)
and that somehow these facts = change. I don't think so.
Now as for Obama, let's try civility for a while, even though his positions may represent some tired old liberal themes, not all that new (or liberal, according to the ubiquitous "some") , _except_ they haven't been tried for 8, or 28 years, take your pick, so i call it "change".
to mis-quote someone, "it all depends on what your definition of ``change'' is"
http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment