Why I'll Vote Against Bush

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

WP Clears Up Repubs' Distortions

Will wonders NEVER cease?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Sep2.html

--> For instance:

• Kerry did not cast a series of votes against individual weapons systems, as Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) suggested in a slashing convention speech in New York late Wednesday, but instead Kerry voted against a Pentagon spending package in 1990 as part of deliberations over restructuring and downsizing the military in the post-Cold War era.

• Both Vice President Cheney and Miller have said that Kerry would like to see U.S. troops deployed only at the direction of the United Nations, with Cheney noting that the remark had been made at the start of Kerry's political career. This refers to a statement made nearly 35 years ago, when Kerry gave an interview to the Harvard Crimson, 10 months after he had returned from the Vietnam War angry and disillusioned by his experiences there. (President Bush at the time was in the Air National Guard, about to earn his wings.)

• President Bush, Cheney and Miller faulted Kerry for voting against body armor for troops in Iraq. But much of the funding for body armor was added to the bill by House Democrats, not the administration, and Kerry's vote against the entire bill was rooted in a dispute with the administration over how to pay for $20 billion earmarked for reconstruction of Iraq.

[mosca]

the republican convention seems to have motivated LABF to attempt some damage control...

[watermock]

Originally Posted by RunByDesign

In the most true sense of the word, I willfully retract the hillbilly statement in regard to your well thought interpretation. The resource that is critical thinking, affords a person considerable room for error, in my book. It is the intellectually lazy and dishonest that I truly despise. With that being said, I can not say that I, myself, am not guilty of said undesireable trait.

Your all over the map to the point of incoherence. You "willingly retract?"

Your logic is inherently flawed. It's the typical liberal dilly dally. In the world of REALITY, there are no gray areas. It's either it is, or it isn't, or you are in the world of what if's. People that live their life "interpreting" things rarely even see what is in front of them.

What a bunch floral quasi-intellectual tripe. I won't bother with the arrogant Hillbilly insult, it just sets the table for your arrogant, circular thinking. This is the worst post in quite awhile. Your just trying to sound intelligent without even making a point.

Second, critical thinking isn't a RESOURSE there Genius, it's a PROCESS.

Third, you seem to despise yourself evidently.

"I can not say that I, myself, am not guilty of said undesireable trait."

That was a fancy way of saying your a hypocrite. How amusing.

[quoteWe all are.[/quote]
Totally assumptive without any foundation whatsoever, just because your intellectually dishonest doesn't mean everyone is.

It is those that subscribe to this method of interpretation as a way of life, that I truly despise. The common sense train of thought is fallacy in and of itself, that much is clear. To label you as one in the same, based on your geographical locale, was not my intent and again, I retract anything that may have been interpreted as indicating such.

I'm going to drop the fact you keep calling critical thinking as an interpretation, that has allready been handled, since your going to use it for the rest of the post. Why is the "common sense train of thought" a fallacy?
If your kid falls into the river and can't swim, do you need to analize the situation while he sinks to the bottom and drifts downstream? Again, it's a simple yes or no. If you can't swim either, you have to make a train of thought decision...let your child drown or risk your own.

People who have not been gifted the certain pieces of the puzzle, moreover, the techniques in which ways of effectively interpreting and solving problems are most useful, have not passed under my radar, so to speak.

Huh? First you imply your gifted by placing others below yourself. Now I will explain the PROCESS of Critical Thinking. There is nothing wrong with using Critical Thinking, it's that once a decision is made, it has to be a decision. Again, I am having a hard time figuring out WTF your trying to say between the flowery rhetoric.

I am entirely aware of this fact.

What fact? All you did was make assertions that you were gifted and are aware that nothing passes "under my radar, so to speak". How amusing.

I grew up in an isolated, secular religous society, considerably much the same as the region that you indicated. The same type of unitellectual thought processes dominate the collective consciousness of the region that I was raised.

Wow, you said intellectual process. Now your assuming a collective conciousness of a region. No argument, certainly no foundation, and a total assertion.

The most basic truth of the matter has to be that smart and truth seeking people, will not have their thought process controlled willingly but, will seek out ways of interpretation and thought processes that will bring them closer to what the truth may be.

First, you didn't back off your Regional Collective Conciousnous assumption you apologized about in the first paragraph. You simply went right back to it. Then you assume that people have their thoughts controlled willingly.

I would assert that it's our UNWILLING and UNAWARE brainwashing that is the biggest problem.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by mosca

the republican convention seems to have motivated LABF to attempt some damage control...

Is it any surprise that mosca can't tell the difference between "damage control" (hint: there would have to be something actually or potentially damaging to control) and pointing out false claims?

"Damage control" is what the misadministration you're backing has been doing since Bunnypants said "mission accomplished" in Iraq (in case you need a little illustration.)

[watermock]

God your a fool.

Kerry is totally changing his War Room and your telling me that he's not going to attempt damage control.

Is it any surprise that mosca can't tell the difference between "damage control" (hint: there would have to be something actually or potentially damaging to control) and pointing out false claims?

We are still waiting. It's so funny. Everything is sailing along just fine....that's why he just changed his Campaign Manager. There is only one place for Kerry to go, and he doesn't want to go there.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"The Republican Convention goes on all week, and of course, the highlight will be toward the end of the week. George Bush will show up for one day, you know, just like he did in the National Guard."

--David Letterman

[watermock]

Run out of cartoons LABF?

On to Letterman jokes?

Doesn't surprise me, the best venues for Kerry are Letterman and The Daily Show. Maybe Alan King or Babwa WaWa.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Gagfest" is how D. L. Bruin at BruinDesign.com described the Republican Convention.

Nothing but brain-dead sycophantic automatons led by a Text-Book Sociopath.

-And Moore is correct. That village in Texas is gonna get its idiot back.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Mark Shields Destroyed Bush's Speech Promises

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/polit...04/sb_9-3.html

"...MARK SHIELDS:... I did go today and did do some reporting actually on the president's initiatives, and the increases in the president right now we're looking at the new fiscal year begins Sept. 30, that's the fiscal year that we'll be dealing with for this presidential election.

The president has asked for increases in job training as he spoke of last night, for the next fiscal year. But over the next four years, his administration and his budget calls for cuts of $1.7 billion in job training.

In other words he's going to increase it just for this year, the same thing in elementary and secondary education, he's increasing it by $834 million, but he will cut it by five and a half billion over the next four years. Those are the administration's own budget documents for 2006 through 2009 --

JIM LEHRER: What does it say?

MARK SHIELDS: What it says is he made promises he can't keep. The president got the biggest cheer in the hall when he said I'm going to make permanent the tax cuts. He didn't address the deficits anyway.

And he said we're going to cut this runaway federal spending. When he calls for an increase in federal spending for this election year, then he's going to meet his cuts over the next - these are his own budget documents, David.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush's Speech By the Numbers

Number of mentions

Unemployment - 0
Uninsured - 1
Outsourcing - 0
Premiums - 0
Middle-income families - 1
Iran - 0
North Korea - 0
Osama bin Laden - 0
Al Qaeda - 3

[Cito Pelon]

Explain Heisenberg's Uncertaincy Theory.

[RunByDesign]

Originally Posted by watermock

I would assert that it's our UNWILLING and UNAWARE brainwashing that is the biggest problem.

Assert whatever you want to. It is you that has to carry the burden of your ignorance, not me.

Narcisuss...err...wafflemock: If I have a desire to dumb my intellectual process down for a few hours, I will address you directly. Until that point, please refrain from taking it upon yourself to respond to one of my posts, that is clearly not directed to you, as you only bring down the comprehensional value of the discussion with your alcohol-induced, neanderthal-like ramblings.

I can clearly see that comprehension and reason are not your strong points. Feel free to spare me the anguish next time. Reading a post of yours reminds me of that annoying kid that dragged his nails across the chalkboard.

Incidently, you sheepishly certify and occupy your own assertion. Crafty way of creating a self-fulfilling assertion. How ironic....and unaware.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by RunByDesign

Narcisuss...err...wafflemock...

Watercock undoubtedly spends long hours gazing at the reflection of his own face in a puddle of beer.

[RunByDesign]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Watercock undoubtedly spends long hours gazing at the reflection of his own face in a puddle of beer.