|
GWB reaches new lows. | by Peace_man | 2007-07-03 10:39:27 |
|
Come on, Peace_man. | by hadji | 2007-07-03 11:19:23 |
|
I only go where my perusal of the current news | by Peace_man | 2007-07-03 11:28:27 |
|
Except that your ire is conditional and there's no | by subbywan | 2007-07-03 11:29:20 |
|
Fair and balanced? When could you ever accuse | by Peace_man | 2007-07-03 11:33:58 |
|
Fear-mongers | by subbywan | 2007-07-03 11:36:18 |
|
That's right. | by Peace_man | 2007-07-03 11:38:54 |
| Dude, you're not far behind them. |
by subbywan |
2007-07-03 11:42:33 |
"rah rah rah! here's why bush is bad and you're all losing your freedoms" doesn't mean much when 1) you've admitted you don't know much about the US political system and documents (meaning you're relying on the current media, which as we've hashed out before is largely motivated by sensationalism and not accurate journalism), 2) you've admitted you don't like Bush, and never will, meaning you cannot be an unbiased source/voice, and 3) You've admitted that you have no interest or desire to learn about the stuff you don't know about (particularly re: 1).
To give an OPINION is fine. but if you want us to consider it with any validity and not poke large gaping holes in it, you're going to have to do a LOT of legwork to show that it's an opinion with merit and not just wild accusation/speculation.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
I take issue with your second point. | by hadji | 2007-07-03 11:44:45 |
|
And that is why #2 will not apply to you. (n/t) | by krikkert | 2007-07-03 11:51:05 |
|
He seemed to be talking to PeaceMan, not you. (n/t | by quilting_kitty | 2007-07-03 12:05:57 |
|
Yeah, but the statement seemed universal. | by hadji | 2007-07-03 12:08:42 |
|
I didn't read it that way at all. | by quilting_kitty | 2007-07-03 12:27:32 |
|
Fair enough. I was just saying how I first read i | by hadji | 2007-07-03 12:36:38 |
|
You may see me as fear-mongering. | by Peace_man | 2007-07-03 11:57:03 |
|
I've already stated the reason. | by hadji | 2007-07-03 12:14:14 |
|
Peace_man is, as I see it, | by krikkert | 2007-07-03 12:15:55 |
|
I think the seriousness argument fails | by hadji | 2007-07-03 12:22:11 |
|
The man is still convicted | by MatthewDBA | 2007-07-03 12:24:07 |
|
The courts' function in maintaining this | by Peace_man | 2007-07-03 12:30:38 |
|
That might be true: | by MatthewDBA | 2007-07-03 12:36:36 |
|
True. It was clemency, not a pardon. (n/t) | by krikkert | 2007-07-03 12:44:15 |
|
And one the Executive branches functions | by lheggland | 2007-07-03 12:41:51 |
|
Which makes this a matter of opinion, as to | by Peace_man | 2007-07-03 13:05:52 |
|
How many past presidents have used it | by Peace_man | 2007-07-03 12:22:39 |
|
Isolating that one point is irrelevant. | by hadji | 2007-07-03 12:28:12 |
|
Hadji, I must give you a compliment | by Classic_jon | 2007-07-03 12:31:16 |
|
I despise being partisan just for the sake of | by hadji | 2007-07-03 12:39:34 |
|
I must agree. | by Classic_jon | 2007-07-03 12:56:44 |
|
Politics. | by Peace_man | 2007-07-03 12:39:59 |
|
If GWB was concerned about opinions, | by hadji | 2007-07-03 12:44:08 |
|
Possibly. I expect that it is not the opinions of | by Peace_man | 2007-07-03 13:09:30 |
|
Others have claimed | by MatthewDBA | 2007-07-03 12:28:55 |
|
Educate thyself | by DesertRat66 | 2007-07-03 13:09:19 |
|
So Clinton enforced 18 months in jail, | by Peace_man | 2007-07-03 13:24:25 |
|
Based on opinion polls | by DesertRat66 | 2007-07-03 14:26:38 |
|
Yup. I love your posts. | by subbywan | 2007-07-03 13:35:16 |
|
Always happy to be of service:-P | by Peace_man | 2007-07-03 13:43:37 |
|
They do refute some. Just not on issues | by subbywan | 2007-07-03 13:53:05 |
|
Don't most of these things devolve into | by Peace_man | 2007-07-03 13:59:52 |
|
Generally only on the "agree to disagree" items | by subbywan | 2007-07-03 14:11:38 |
