posted
Ah, yes, persecuted by beliefs ... much as you and Omega are doing at the moment? Well, trying to, at any rate ... hard to tell with all the crying about "ad-hominems" and its proper spelling.
Frankly, I just think its naive to assume the opposition is naive simply because they disagree with your political beliefs.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
posted
No I'm arguing, which is different from persecuting, although some of the more ultraliberal people I know (and some of the more Fundie people I know, for that matter) seem to be incapable of making the distinction.
Hey, if I'd had the chance I'd have deleted MY ad-hominem attack just after you deleted yours.. I didn't get that chance, and now it's too late.
No, my definition of 'naive' was in response to your little 'paranoid' crack. It's my opinion that you're not experienced enough to know where the boundary between 'justifiably concerned' and 'paranoid' lies.
'Justifiably concerned' people look at the pattern of incidents between China and the Clinton administration (I sort of doubt Nixon leaked any nuclear secrets to the Chinese military, before you take THAT track again), and deduce that there's at least some reason to believe that there exists some collusion between the current administration and the People's Revolutionary Army.
'Paranoid' people are the ones who think the whole things a 'deal between Gog and MaGog' and one of the signs of the coming apocalypse.
There's a difference.
------------------ "Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
posted
Well, you gotta admit, with Bob Jones University's theory of "interacial dating" as a liberal plot ... well, that just sorta puts the Republican Party to shame.
I don't think I ever took the track that Nixon gave secrets to the Chinese ... so how could I do so again?
Sometimes the line between "paranoid" and "justifiably concerned" gets very close indeed. I don't mean to push you into one label if you're not, but I get so tired of hearing about the "liberal controlled media" ...
Well, off for a haircut and tire alignment ... ::sigh::
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
If he recieved more votes, he woulda won the popular vote, now wouldn't he?
And that's the crux of the issue. Okay, Bush won the electorate. The last President to do so without also winning the popular was also labeled "His Fraudulancy" ... it's not a new term, you know.
Why don't YOU answer my questions? Someone wanna compile a list of the questions Omega's been asked and not answered?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
posted
The popular vote is irrelevant in presdidential elections, according to the supreme law of the land, which was instituted by popular vote. According to law instituted by popular vote, Bush, having received more electoral votes, won the presidency, and is therefore a legitimate president.
Which part do you disagree with?
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic