Yanno, when it comes to these boards, I think the only way you can avoid getting down into the mud with them is to invoke Godwin's Law anytime someone like Spider mentions "The Left". He's a self-proclaimed religious fanatic, so you just know that if you don't largely agree with him or are critical of Bush, he'll term your arguments 'stupid' and you a 'liberal'. Your arguments will be 'spin'-- his, God Honest Truth. Yours, leftist lies--his, something any smart person would see as obvious. See, if you're not 100% for his position, you're against him.

It's that simple, and simply that useless to argue with extremists like him.

Ok Spider, now you can call me a 'jackass' again. :-P

-Kerry O.

Bush is a terrible public speaker.
Bush should have sent more soldiers to Iraq, the fact that he listened to his advisors who suggested a smaller force resulted in unnecessary deaths.
Bush is completely wrong with his immigration policy.
Bush was wrong to nominate Miers to the Supreme Court.
Bush was wrong to involve Kennedy in his education plan.
Bush is wrong to believe that we can work with Putin.

I could go on. I wish you guys would figure out that most conservatives criticize Bush. The guy isn't perfect, but he is better than any other candidate available in the past two elections.

For the record, my OP was correct, nobody has refuted it with anything better than "Spider is a liar, so there! And my daddy is bigger than your daddy!"

Come on 'kerryO',

You're not going to tell me that you don't enjoy playing with such a perfect 'bulk thinking' specimen as 'spider'!!!

Besides, the exorcism ritual I have initiated with him is progressing quite well. According to my read of his last post, his incoherence level is such, that I predict he is on the verge of vomiting anytime now!!!

I think we will free him up of all that venim and evil hiding deep inside him!!!

Voileazer writes:

" Come on 'kerryO',

You're not going to tell me that you don't enjoy playing with such a perfect 'bulk thinking' specimen as 'spider'!!!"

Enh, the charm of Dilbertizing wears off when it drags on and on and on and on...

Ever the software engineer, his responses are predictably couched in the binary language of a two dimensional man whose universe is based on a model lacking anything more complicated than integer math. Rather than ask, "Is this all that there is?", he finds comfort in responding "Yes, only this and nothing more." It's drawn from the stick man's perception that when the paper turns sideways, evil is afoot. Rather than realizing the Universe is not out to decieve him, but rather that it's more complicated than that, he and those like him cleave to the comforting thought that everything can be plotted on a moral Cartesian plane of their own limited design that _must_ never be subjected to the kind of falsification trials that Karl Popper suggested.

The software says the dome is designed correctly, so when it fails, there _had_ to be the same 'evil' responsible-- anything else is unthinkable. Alternative explanations are blasphemous.

Oh, and Spider? Remember this line in MST3k: The Movie, when they are approaching Earth on the way home? Crow: "Ahh, just like we left it, with the USA in charge! Woooohooo!"

:)

-Kerry O.

'spider',

You have mislead, mischaracterized, and in your own associative definition of it, lied in this post, by presenting your calumnous accusatory title, opening post premise, and W.P. article which supports in NO WAY your calumnous accusation.

Mislead, because you insist that this whole 'glass-water storm' is in some fashion pinnable on the 'left', based on some yet to be demonstrated lie.

Mischaracterized because you have not presented any proof for your claims, other than your insistence that repeating verbatim what someone writes in a book, constitutes, in a twisted and incomprehensible manner, a mischaracterization, thus lie. Bulk Thinking, resulting in Bulk Logic, only ends up creating confusion.

Anyone interested in a factual account of this news 'snippet', could summarize it in four lines at the most.

- Influetial and respected 'Ol'boys club member' writes his memoirs.

- Other members of the 'Ol'boys club' take exception with one specific comment in the other 'ol'boys' memoir, and calls the dissenting member to order, before the memoirs hit the bookshelves.

- Dissenting 'ol'boy' A.G., rectifies and makes good on his oath to his 'Ol'boys club'. This is not 'right' or 'left', it's just how 'Ol'boys' clubs function.

- Someone on a 'quidam' boys meet girls forum, invents some 'outerspace', 'Don Quichotte' like fable, in a desperate and sad effort to pin the whole thing on the 'left'. The world will not take note, and the 'ol'boys' will keep ruling over 'spced-out' 'Don Quichotte' disciples.


Here's the long form:
1) Alan Greenspan writes his memoirs.
After 18 years of service as the Chairman of the federal Reserve of the most powerful nation in the world, Alan Greenspan wrote his memoirs.

2) Having read early issues of the book, the White House 'boys club', dispatches Defence Secretary Robert Gates, to dissavowe in its name, the infamous comment A.G. made in the book about the war in Iraq.
Given that he is most respected and has been a central figure in the small club which has say in the destiny of the most powerful nation on the planet, early copies of his memoirs were sent to the 'other boys' in the club, as it is customary to do in such matters. The boys took 'political' exception to the now infamous comment Greenspan made about the war in Iraq:

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil."

Appearing on ABC, Gates said, "I have a lot of respect for Mr. Greenspan, but I disagree with his comment about oil being a leading motivating factor in the war."

3) Following Gates media outing, Greenspan attempts to diffuse the controversy and upset he caused with his 'ol boys club'.
This controversy management attempt, is what the W.P. article, among others, relates. Anyone with a 6th grade pass, can draw his/her own conclusions about this controversial exchange between the 'boys'.

4) In spite of clear evidence that this was nothing other than a score settling exchange between members of the 'Ol'boys club',
SOMEONE, on a web forum confuses and twists the whole simple event, and makes a 'Don Quichotte' like unfounded and desperate attempt to blame the whole thing on the 'left'!
No need to mislead, mischaracterize, highjack, or oterwise discuss it much further. The 'left' had nothing to do with this event. To suggest otherwise amounts to gross misleading and mischaracterizing.

There are so many legitimate events, where one could let lose to blame the 'left' or the 'right' in an equal measure, of demonstrated, real wrongdoings, lies and cheating. Why for the love of what is true, would anyone have to resort to 'ridiculous fabrications' and pure inventions, misleading and mischaracterizing everything and everyone in the process.

End of saga!

just a bunch of morons surmising what they think is write and wrong! stop! you are all wrong because you have to disagree with everything anyone writes. cant you find middle ground! if you cant then stop trying to prove a point that you cant prove. because everyone else knows the answer but you! dumb****s!!!!

singledad1b,

There is no middleground. The leftwing media grabbed a single sentence in Greenspan's book and used it to attack the President. I have offered four links, which all agree with what I just said. Nobody else has offered even a single link to support their position. They have simply insulted me and claimed that I am a liar.

i dont like greenspan either but if all anyone has to do is talk crap then it means nothing. i dont have to post links or anything i just dont like to see people say something when they dont have a clue! im not saying u dont have a clue but i do not accept one sided veiws. show something from the other side and come up with a sumation that makes more sense. i will not even check your links untill you show both sides. one side is not enough to give a proper opinion. do your research a little better and then lets debate this issue. that is when you find middle ground that works for everyone. free speech is great but it fails when you only give one side. remember the old addage, there is two sides to every story.

singledad1b:

people can espress any point of view they want here. You can agree or disagree with it as you like but you seem only to be able to spew profanity and make personal attacks on people who post here. I told you once that it is better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt, but obviously that message was lost on you. Further, profanity is a small mind's feble attempt at self expression. Clean up your act.

'garden',

Couldn't agree more with the general tone of your comment to 'singledad1B', as it applies to all of us on these forums.

But correct me if I'm wrong, I was under the impression 'singledad1B' went unjustifiably WAY OUT OF LINE in the case of 'barbiebigsister' only, and I had pointed it out to him in no uncertain terms. You seem to imply that this is a more pervasive issue than I thought, is that the case?

Would like to know!

Thanks.

voile look up a couple posts on this thread. he called someone a dumbs**t

Thanks 'Garden'

He posted a thread directed to all and he called it dumb s*****.
I'm not going to reply to him until he makes a clear distinction between forementioned dumb s*****s and the people he invites to answer to his posts. I might be wasting my time.

or dumbass

HUMMM,

A a sort of metaphorical 'suicide bomber' for dating sites forums?!?!?

As in how fast can I get my A** kick out of there??? The record holde gets the most untouched whatever?!?!?