Major Newspapers, |
Friday, July 6. 2007Stop the HajibTrackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Hey Paul,
Which pisses you off more: Seeing female Bush Administration officials wearing scarves on their heads or seeing Bush skip around the Whitehouse gardens holding hands with and kissing Prince Bandar and other Saudi douchebags?
I think keeping them wealthy by buying their oil is quite enough. They'll take our money whether we're nice to them or not and I wish the administration would figure that out.
Hey Whatever Your Screen Name is Now,
Since you've touched on the topic of douche bags, I'd like to know which handle you're going to go by next -- after having used "Regular Guy," "Chimpy McCokespoon," and "Saudis Suck"? How about this suggestion for your next screen name: "I'm a chicken shit uninformed candy-ass who doesn't have the guts to use my real name, but feel quite free in being a rude dick to others"? I'm just trying to be helpful.
At least your replies are getting a little more interesting.
Am I uninformed in your opinion because I disagree with this extremely partisan website? Only partisan Republicans that spew the party talking points are informed? Am I not allowed to have an opinion if I don't provide you with my name and social security number? As for my "topic of douche bags", did it offend you that I referred to the Saudis in this way? It didn't seem to offend Paul. In fact, he and I seem to be somewhat in agreement about the people that financed and executed the terror attacks on 911. Am I uninformed because I don't agree with you and FOX news that it was actually Iraq that was responsible for 911?
Your answer was about what I expected -- I'll give you one thing: you're predictable!
My opinion of you as uninformed is based on your previous characterizations of people on this blog -- who disagree with you -- as being Intelligent Design adherents, or believing, for example, that Thomas Jefferson is to be lumped in with Michael Moore as an America-Hater (I'm not sure what that formulation was about), or that the 'marriage' between the Repubs and the pharmaceutical industry is "making it impossible for so many to afford medication they desperately need." You know, stupid shit like that. Or maybe this characterization of Bush as a man who: "ignored intelligence prior to 911 and then sat around with the deer-in-the-headlights look in the classroom during the attacks ... lied to get us involved in the Iraq war and then continued to lie about it, screwed up FEMA with cronyism and made a bunch of excuses after Hurricane Katrina while New Orleans drowned, approved the torture of prisoners in secret prisons, trampled the constitution with domestic spying, dissolution of Habeas Corpus and whatever else is in the sadly named Patriot Act, appointed two extremely right wing Supreme Court Justices who continue to help tip the scales of justice away from the people and toward the corporations and the wealthy, approved the outing of a covert CIA agent and then commuted the sentence of the guy who obstructed justice to the point that we couldn't nail the real leakers....the list goes on and on and we'd be here all day trying to detail everything else." You know, writing dumb shit like that makes you kind of a douche bag -- but not nearly as big of one as the Saudis. But you do get pretty close by saying something like this: "Am I uninformed because I don't agree with you and FOX news that it was actually Iraq that was responsible for 911?" See now, when I read something like that, I realize that you probably can't help yourself because you may be a professor, or have an advanced degree in something far too deep for a schmuck like me to understand, or haven't yet reached your 30th birthday. I'd wager that one of those three things is true, but who knows? However, I do know this: you don't have the balls to say to someone's face the kind of foolish crap you've written here -- as evidenced by the fact that you can't even leave your name when you engage in insults and not argument. It is for these reasons that I believe you represent a good Putz-to-Douche Bag Ratio.
Well, at least you don't consider me as big a douche bag as the Saudis. That gives me some comfort. Thanks for the kind words.
What is it about you guys that you hate college professors and people with advanced degrees? I'm sorry I offended you because I said all those things about your commander in chief. Your reality is different than mine. I guess when I saw the deer in the headlights look in the film footage from the "My Pet Goat" school outing, what you saw was a brave, competent and noble leader wanting to jump to action but not wanting to startle the children (or whatever nonsense it was that the media spouted). I guess when I see a guy that can't string three words together to form a coherent sentence, you see an eloquent statesman. When I see a bunch of guys that change their reason for going to war every time their previous reason is debunked, you see men with resolve who are misunderstood by the liberal media. When I see a for-profit healthcare system that cares more about its shareholders than the people it's supposed to provide care for, I'm not exactly sure what you see. When I see a fallguy whose sentence was commuted by the president even though a Republican appointed judge and a jury of his peers found him guilty and sentenced him to 30 months in prison for obstructing justice, you apparently see a good American who was wrongfully punished in a witch hunt by the other side. As for the "Intelligent Design" nonsense, you're right, I don't know if you subscribe to it or not. But if you can generalize about me then it shouldn't surprise you that one might associate you with all the craziness coming from the political movement you obviously are a part of. What difference does it make if I leave my name and email address? We're not talking face to face and we never will be, we're communicating via little boxes of text over the internet. This website isn't different than any other political blog, other than it's way more partisan than the good ones. You sound angry like you want to start a fight. Maybe you're the one that needs to change your medication a bit. Relax. You think I'm uninformed. I think you're misinformed. The truth is we're both probably uninformed and misinformed, as the media seems to tuck away important stories or ignore them altogether in favor of Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole Smith and dead wrestlers. Political talking head shows that actually try to address more important topics rarely have credible guests on and never give people enough time to get any points across. The loudest screamer is the winner. That's all we have to work with. You read between the lines and see things through your filter and I see things through mine. Anyway, I see what's happening. Now you're stuck to the guy with the 26% approval rate and his vice president whose approval rate is almost into single digits. So, you have to keep defending him...it's either that or admit you were wrong. You're stuck to the unpopular war that 70-some percent of your countrymen disapprove of. You chose your team and dug your heels in the sand and even though it's obvious to most people, possibly even to you, that you're on a sinking ship, you're going to fight until the very end. You're angry about that, aren't you? I have to give you credit, though, you guys are tough. You don't give up.
Your response is once again unsurprising.
For what it's worth, I don't hate all professors and folks with advance degrees -- just the posers who style tends toward running off a long litany of 'the facts,' after which they throw out insults that fit their preconceived notions of what they think represents the other side. It's close-minded and weak. There are are many of these folks in academia. It's a profile that unfortunately fits you well, I think. You state your "case" and then set up a straw man to describe what you assume is mine in the most demeaning way that strikes you at that moment. And then you base your insults or 'zingers' on the false construct. As evidence of this in your writing, I submit the following: "I guess when I saw the deer in the headlights look in the film footage from the "My Pet Goat" school outing, what you saw was a brave, competent and noble leader wanting to jump to action but not wanting to startle the children (or whatever nonsense it was that the media spouted). I guess when I see a guy that can't string three words together to form a coherent sentence, you see an eloquent statesman. When I see a bunch of guys that change their reason for going to war every time their previous reason is debunked, you see men with resolve who are misunderstood by the liberal media. When I see a for-profit healthcare system that cares more about its shareholders than the people it's supposed to provide care for, I'm not exactly sure what you see. When I see a fallguy whose sentence was commuted by the president even though a Republican appointed judge and a jury of his peers found him guilty and sentenced him to 30 months in prison for obstructing justice, you apparently see a good American who was wrongfully punished in a witch hunt by the other side." It's an unrealistically absurd and childish way to debate or discuss anything. You don't really know much about what I believe, though I don't fault you for that; in the great scheme of things, it's hardly worthy of note. But what's ridiculous is you make it up as you go along so that you can appear witty, I guess, which you may or may not be elsewhere, but you aren't here. And you do it behind an anonymous screen name that changes as you see fit. Frankly, I'm uninterested in what is common on other blogs or sites where it concerns this sort of tactic. It's pretty shallow stuff, just of a different sort than the Paris Hilton bullshit. And it's gutless and lazy. And you (or others who engage in it) would never actually speak to someone in that manner. But because it happens elsewhere, you hide behind it as a way of excusing it away. The styles exhibited on blogs like Daily Kos, Firedog Lake, Crooks and Liars, etc., of the world are the examples of this, I guess. It's pretty sad. And for the record, you have absolutely no idea what I think, or why I've responded to you the way that I have. Frankly, I think you're a rude putz.
i thinkur a dumb ass and the hijab has actually helped women by making them be seen as equal partners not some garbage sluts... i think u are very uneduacted and should educate yourself before speaking. u back to your house and cry yourself to sleep foe being an ignorant moran.
The women in the photo don't look happy about it, or like they planned to do it either; none of the scarves match what they're wearing, and one of the women just draped it over her head like a scarf. To me, that says they were pushed to go along with it.
I didn't agree with you on Pelosi, because I think that a person should be allowed to decide what they want to do or wear. But I'll agree with you completely on this one, because forcing women to comply with the standards of dress in a religion they don't belong to is far more than just an iffy political decision.
i think your a dumb ass and the hijab has actually helped women by making them be seen as equal partners not some garbage begging sluts... i think u are very uneduacted and should educate yourself before speaking.you back to your house and cry yourself to sleep you ignorant moran.
I have quite a few friends that wear it who i deeply respect. |
SearchSupporterAlmased reviewed
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> |