Your ‘tenure’ here is iirrelevent. I didn’t fall off the truck yesterday and suddenly discover the world of political debate. Get over it.

If you “weren’t offended”, then why bring it up. You called it an “ad hominem” attack. You’re bringing it up for the second time, not I. Finally, how, and why, I stopped posted here before is not in the least bit germane, whether or not you now, “in retrospect” think it was childish (like I care).

At least I could say, then, that the ad hominem attacks weren’t even related to the argument I was making, my posts, or the topic, for that matter.

Semanticleo, when did you get here? Two days ago? In the first place, you know less about me than mouse, who is also a relative newcomer compared to me. I’ve been posting here for years. If anybody is sowing discord it’s you with your stupidly posited arguments that wouldn’t gain points in a high school debate club.

Frank is more interested in sowing discord than reaching an understanding.

But it is fun to tweak the weasel. isn’t it?

As for the ad hominem attack, it’s pointless to be offended by you. It’s like being offended that rain is wet. However, it does point to your hypocrisy when you become outraged at others when you deem yourself sufficiently offended. As I recall, your last exit from our fair threads followed a temper tantrum the likes of which I have yet to experience on the internets. Highly entertaining, but in retrospect rather childish.

I meant that I wish killing terrorists were somehow bad for Bush, because then liberal Democrats would be for it, and with all the Americans behind the effort, we could win.

It’s hard to fight with one hand behind your back.

BTW, by all means, do not ignore the ad hominem attack — it was actually meant to be instructional…

In responding to neoconsrloopy, you defended yourself by clarifying that you did not suggest that when terrorists blow up innocent civilians, it’s better for bush.

You added: I wish it was, then you lefties would want it stopped, and back the war.

I’m simply asking what you mean by that.

Loopy, I didn t say when terrorists blow up innocent civilians, it s better for Bush& I wish it was, then you lefties would want it stopped, and back the war.

What do terrorists blowing up innocent civilians have to do with the war Iraq? Of course, I don’t mean the terrorists that have sprung up since the war in Iraq.

SadieB: Your problem is that George is not reality for you. You still believe that he “stole” the 2000 and 2004 election, when most sane people think of him as the President of the United States.
You wish he wasn’t, so you think he isn’t.

I don’t live my life in the context of George Bush’s popularity.

1) I don’t hate him

2) I support him, when I agree with him, and when Americans’ lives are at stake — there is a difference you lefties don’t acknowledge.

3) I love annoying you left – wing yahoos who think the sun rises and sets on your decrepit ideology.

Because he needs George W. Bush to give him something to do with his life.

JK

It’s like George Bush is reality for them. He is more real to them than their own lives, or the lives of anyone else. I mean, I understand the affiliation drive is very powerful, and people will all kinds of crazy things to be part of a group. But they really take it too far the way they can’t help but contextualize everything in terms of “good for Bush, bad for Bush.”

Save the moral indignation for the next time a terrorist in Iraq blows up innocent civilians.

Why do you people’s lives in the context of George Bush’s popularity?

Death Toll May Be Far Less Than Expected
Email this Story
Sep 9, 5:21 PM (ET)
By ERIN McCLAM

NEW ORLEANS (AP) – Alarming predictions of as many as 10,000 dead in New Orleans may have been greatly exaggerated, with authorities saying Friday that the first street-by-street sweep of the swamped city revealed far fewer corpses than feared.

Sorry to spoil the party, lefties

And the phrase is “couldn’t care less,” because when you say “could care less” it kind of means the opposite of what you are trying to say.

I care about what the Secretary of State was doing during a national disaster because damnit, she is on my payroll. I am paying her salary and I expect a little bit more from my employees. I expect them to show up for work.

The ethnic bit I thought I would save for the Malkin thread, since it’s more in keeping with the topic there.

You can’t prove a negative. Show me one photograph or even a credible eyewitness who says he was shopping.

Second, it wasn’t in the aftermath it was during. There were two disasters here, one was the hurricane itself and the other was a period of, what was it, five days that people were dying slowly of shock and dehydration? It was during those five days that she was shopping. You’d think a Secretary of State might have had things to do like, I don’t know, twisting arms to line up foreign aid?