November 11, 2007

WHO DOES THIS, PART II?

Do I have some sort of sign on my forehead that says "Tell Me How Much You Hate Bush"? It happened to me again in the airport last night, where some man wanted to rant about "those maniacs in the White House." What makes strangers think I want to talk about this crap with them?

Posted by: Sarah at 07:52 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I had the same thing... same, until I sat by a 19 year old Marine on the flight home...

Posted by: awtm at November 11, 2007 08:45 AM (MRpfq)

2 This time did you tell him that your mother taught you it is not nice to try and discuss politics with someone you don't know? And offer to email him a copy of a manners book? You're really just too nice, you know.

Posted by: airforcewife at November 11, 2007 11:32 AM (mIbWn)

3 Yeah, you do kinda have that "I hate Bush too" look about you. ;-) I guess I have just gotten so used to tune these people out.

Posted by: Butterfly Wife at November 11, 2007 03:07 PM (BO9rS)

4 You probably look like the kind of asshole who voted for Bush. After all, you DID vote for Bush. Let's face it, Bush is an idiot. Get used to hearing more and more about it.

Posted by: Lee Atwater at November 11, 2007 03:54 PM (+LSNx)

5 And you tell ME that I meet a lot of weirdos! But seriously, I do. I get the anti-war/Bush/America types a lot, and I just smile at them while simultaneously thinking, "You're an idiot. For the Love of All That is Holy keep me from reaching in my purse and poking one of my double pointed needles through this idiot's throat."

Posted by: Erin at November 11, 2007 06:16 PM (XRza7)

6 You know if my thoughts & beliefs were disagreed with by 3/4 of my fellow american citizens, and 9/10 of THE REST OF THE WORLD, I might want to reexamine said thoughts & beliefs. I will never understand you that make up the 25% that still have faith in this criminal cabal of an administration.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at November 12, 2007 03:31 AM (AKSWt)

7 Sarah, do you roll your eyes a lot when you read your comments? Just wondering.

Posted by: airforcewife at November 12, 2007 06:50 AM (mIbWn)

8 So Pres. Bush is such an “idiot” that he’s able to run a “criminal cabal” at the White House AND get away with it. I would say that would take the most brilliant mind the world as ever seen. Also, interesting concept of “thoughts & beliefs” based upon a popularity contest. So ignore independent thought and beliefs and blindly join the majority, like sheep, because they can’t possibly be wrong or risk being in the minority which must be wrong, purely based on their lack of numbers? I’ll take the latter, thanks. Especially if the majority is ranting that a man is an idiot even though he graduated from Yale AND Harvard, was a military pilot, made millions in the oil industry, was the Governor of Texas, and TWICE elected the President of the U.S. That’s more of a reflection on the person spouting off such asinine drivel. You don’t approve of the man or his policies, fine. Calling the man names like a five year old who doesn’t get his way, not exactly an example of intelligent debate and ironically hypocritical. BTW, most American’s are overweight; would that make them experts on health & fitness?

Posted by: tim at November 12, 2007 11:19 AM (nno0f)

9 Is there some sort of pleasurable benefit to being crass, ignorant, and impotent while posting anonymously to online fora? Responses, such as those of the twin tards above, can only be learned behaviors, perhaps a step or two above flatworms navigating a maze...but since the reward isn't a food pellet when you click "post", I can only assume the reinforcement is self-inflicted, and short lived, given the frequency.

Posted by: Deskmerc at November 12, 2007 11:45 AM (Ho1gG)

10 I may not like the man, his policies or anything else about him.... but I don't talk politics with strangers. period. LAW

Posted by: liberal army wife at November 12, 2007 01:18 PM (Ocu2J)

11 Dear Timmy & Deskset, Where in my post did I refer to Shrub as an idiot?? All I said if 75% of my fellow americans, and 90% of the world disagreed with me I would be forced to reexamine my thoughts because if that many folks disagree with me I am in all likely hood the one that is incorrect. But just like a typical disingenuous conservative, you did not bother addressing the main point, instead you setup a straw-man and had a good old time knocking him down. I continue to be amazed at the utter blind faith displayed by you twenty-five percenters.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at November 12, 2007 07:59 PM (AKSWt)

12 Sarah, While my dad always told me that arguing with babies and fools was pointless, I have always found myself unable to quietly listen to those types. I always speak up, softly, and probably with the look of disdain I am feeling. I have found it just shuts them up. They are expecting affirmation of their illogical views, based on emotion not reason, and it just stuns them that ANYONE would disagree. People who speak with facts and not name calling have an ability others do not. When I have done this I have never been argued with. They are just too stunned to answer except possibly with a stuttering reply beginning with "uh, ummm oh well," and drifting off in a "you know I didn't really...... " Try it, you'll like it.

Posted by: Ruth H at November 13, 2007 04:55 AM (Bgs6y)

13 Bubba -- But by your logic, Copernicus should've changed his mind. Isn't it more important *what* you stand for instead of who stands beside you? The last thing we need in this world is more fickle people who change their minds when they hear someone else has. I disagree with you that that's a sign of intelligence; it may be a sign of not paying close attention to the issues if you can be easily swayed. Why do you have no confidence in elected officials who are privy to insider information but utter confidence in the general population, 25% of whom are retarded (as South Park likes to joke)? I mean, what do you make of stats like this? The national poll, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, shows that about a third of Americans believe in ghosts (34 percent) and an equal number in UFOs (34 percent), and about a quarter accept things like astrology (29 percent), reincarnation (25 percent) and witches (24 percent). These groups will overlap with the groups of people who are against the war. Are you sure they're against the war for the right reasons? I'm not.

Posted by: Sarah at November 13, 2007 05:10 AM (TWet1)

14 Oh yea, sorry Boob, didn’t mean to lump you in with Lee’s highly intelligent name calling, I’m sure you meant no offense by accusing Pres. Bush of being a criminal. “Typical disingenuous Republican”? I wonder if that’s a requirement for the vast right wing conspirators, ‘cause I missed the last meeting? Nobody side stepped your main point Bubba No Brain, I answered it head on, reread it, especially the part about asinine drivel. BTW, you’re big on the whole Global Test thing, eh? I wonder how what percentage of Americans would agree to set foreign policy by that standard. Also, I wonder what percentage of Americans thought the surge would work. You know, we of the blind faith variety.

Posted by: tim at November 13, 2007 05:14 AM (nno0f)

15 Bubba Bo Bob Brain declared: I continue to be amazed at the utter blind faith displayed by you twenty-five percenters. followed by: All I said if 75% of my fellow americans, and 90% of the world disagreed with me I would be forced to reexamine my thoughts because if that many folks disagree with me I am in all likely hood the one that is incorrect. Ah yes. It's those icky people who don't slave their beliefs to polls who suffer from blind faith. Right, thanks for pointing that out. I guess us icky "twenty-five percenters" will just have to live with not being with the "cool" crowd.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at November 13, 2007 03:01 PM (MKaa5)

16 Dear Sarah, and Patty-Pat, Indulge me for a bit, as I have mentioned this to Sarah before. Way waaaaayyyyy back in late '02 during the early run up to the Iraq debacle, I made the following forecast: "If we invade and he(ie Saddam) has those weapons, he will use them and the casualties are going to be enormous (like 25 k KIA & 50 k wounded were my numbers) OR he does not have them (which was my prevailing view) and we will end up looking like complete jackasses and lose whatever "moral authority" we ever thought we had world wide". While maybe not the exact words I used; they were my sentiments then, guess which forecast has come true?? All because people were afraid of being called "unpatriotic" well you can call me that all you wish, since as I type this my DD-214 sits at this desk with me. I submit, it is YOU the 25 per centers that are the true non-patriots as YOU are the ones that think "water boarding" does not constitute torture, and continue to support an administration that has committed verifiable impeachable offenses, and yet still bleat about Clinton's oval office "hummer". One final point maybe we on this side of this particular discussion would not be so condescending if you'd stop mentioning Clinton, since it is a verifiable FACT he has been out of office for nearly SEVEN years now.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at November 13, 2007 07:07 PM (AKSWt)

17 But Bubba, you didn't address anything I said. And aren't you setting up your own strawman here, since no one anywhere used the word Clinton? I think you're doing exactly what you accuse us of doing...

Posted by: Sarah at November 14, 2007 03:17 AM (TWet1)

18 Sarah, I was using Clinton as an example of why so many one this side of the debate are of a rather condescending attitude. I try to avoid that, if I can, but sometimes I fall into that particular trap. I always try to base any opinion I have upon objective facts, and from my reading too damn many people on BOTH sides of the Iraq discussion are doing exactly the opposite, they watch "Faux" news which includes every cable "news" channel anymore, not just Fox. Maybe if the populace would read a damned newspaper or three every day they might find themselves a bit more informed. I blame media consolidation for the ill-informed nation, but that is a different discussion for another day.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at November 14, 2007 06:20 AM (AKSWt)

19 "Maybe if the populace would read a damned newspaper or three every day they might find themselves a bit more informed." Oh you've got to be kidding, right? BTW, "we" are uninformed because we don't agree with you. Perfect logic. Also, anyone who says "verifiable impeachable offenses" and "I always try to base any opinion I have upon objective facts" can't be taken seriously.

Posted by: tim at November 14, 2007 10:23 AM (nno0f)

20 tim asked: Oh you've got to be kidding, right? No, he's pretty much like this all the time.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at November 14, 2007 02:25 PM (MKaa5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
53kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.1774 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.1464 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.