[eDebate] ans Slusher
Wed Sep 7 18:23:37 CDT 2005
he types: "much love, slusher"
i respond: i am not feeling the love. talk is cheap. give up the love.
he types: "only slime uses a natural disaster to advance their politics. "
i respond: i made an even better point in response to your previous post
when i ALSO wrote: "by then he had been criticicized by every pinko op-ed
clown and screecher in the country. assault is a crime but i don't begrudge
anyone who throws knuckles in self-defense."
in fact, mister short-attention-span, that was pretty much the GIST of my
answer to your previous post claiming that Bush was also playing politics.
what elephant sitting in the china shop of your mind?
ELEFUCKINPHANT ----> if Bush is just defending himself, you don't get to
charge him with using the natural disaster to advance his politics... <----
he types: "Check out...
( http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050912/12whitehouse.htm )
i respond: wow what an article! the greatest ever! i laughed. i cried. i
thank you so much Eric Slusher for bringing that text to my attention. i
might well have missed it except for the love you showed by taking me to
that mountain of insight.
it says that the White House is trying to change a general perception that
they flubbed it. is that supposed to show that they tried to use Katrina to
advance their politics? OH NO IT IZN'T!!!! THAT is your evidence? i have
novices that could do better than that mr. hiredgunresearcherstud.
also, TURN. the article makes CLEAR my only response, written in dark dark
pixels, that the White House is DEFENDING against those using the disaster
to advance their politics:
"Anger over what appeared to be a slow federal response to the disaster
wreaked by Hurricane Katrina had brought virulent criticism from local
officials--and from Democrats everywhere--and Bush's own evaluation at
week's end that the federal effort was "not acceptable" didn't help.
he types: "What about playing politics DURING a disaster?
i respond: i don't know if it is just that my computer is incapable of
displaying drivel or if i actually have to subscribe to it... but all i get
at that URL is an offer for 50% off for home delivery of the San Francisco
Chronicle. and of course i would never subscribe to that ragged-ass
embarassment of journalism. so i have no idea what you wanted to prove
other than that you are a consumer of filth produced by tree-murdering
ex-hippies. your mother must be proud.
he types: "Or, are they only slime when it's the "liberal elite" (as your
friends at Aruba News would say) doing it?"
i respond: DAMMIT! this is driving me nuts. I AM THE MASTER OF OBSCURE
REFERENCES. what the hell is Aruba News?
oh! i get it! you are taking a sexist jibe at Greta Van Susteren's
extensive coverage of the Natalee Holloway disappearance/murder? is the
only news that's fit to print "man-news"? are the news topics that strong,
intelligent, well-educated women cover unworthy of your phallo-centric
conception of "real" news? i think it would be wise if you just kept your
erectile dysfunctions to yourself from now on.
and no. slime also occurs on the far right. thus my mentioning Pat
Robertson in every post. but you must have missed that because you were too
busy chuckling at your sly reference to the "Aruba News".
he types: "George Bush lost New Orleans!" - Pat Buchanan 9/2/2005
i respond: damn boy... i was capping on Buchanan while you were still
carrying T.D. Barnes' backfiles. here is an oldie but goodie from Feb 20,
">"now, i didn't call him a racist. i merely called him an ideologue... but,
in Pat's case the label is fit. dude, his just-resigned campaign manager
went to a bunch of KKK "functions". Buchanan is about as explicit as it gets
these days that non-whites are ruining this nation. his appeals are targeted
bulls-eye at the angry white guy who can't get work because all them women
and minorities are taking over. also, he seems to appeal to bad spellers."
but i notice that you have squarely aligned yourself with Pat Buchanan on
this issue. i discipline thee and i punish thee!
he types: "And here's Newt....
i respond: frikkin San Francisco Chronicle again. are you trying to tell
us something Slusher? do i need to rethink wanting your love?
he types: "You think only dems and the liberal elite (and by liberal elite
I mean middle to low income recent college grads with blogs) are watching
the daily tracking polls?"
i respond: no i don't think that.
he types: "You think the Friday photo-op trip wasn't playing politics?
i respond: you did it! you got him! blessed be Allah! you and the
wonkette have shown me the error of my ways! i promptly bought one of her
"Bush doesn't care about black people" t-shirts for 17.99 to give you. now
that you and Pat Buchanan are best buds, i figured you could use a fashion
self-defense. the elefuckinphant?
also, you clowns are playing both sides of this particular fence.
president doesn't show up? he doesn't care!
president shows up? he is playing politics!
tricky-trickee... clever-clevah... what ever will Republicans do against
such wiley stragedists?
he types: "Let me put it to you this way: All you've got is DEFENSE. It's
sad really, to see your smart Republican friends having to defend this
idiot. (or is it imbecile? Can't remember which is worse) It's one thing to
complain about playing politics and another to have to defend against it
because you're down to you last line of defense."
i respond: yes... the Republicans are down to their last line of defense...
well, except for the part that they control most of the governorships, the
House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme
Court. except for that, the GOP is against the ropes! the Democrats have
them right where they want them!
and i believe "imbecile" is higher IQ than "idiot". let me check real fast.
the ever-trusty Answers.com (
http://www.answers.com/topic/mental-retardation ) reminds us that:
"The introduction of the IQ test was followed by a classification system
that used such terms as moron (IQ of 51?70), imbecile (26?50), and idiot
(0?25); later these terms were softened and classifications redefined
somewhat to mild (IQ of 55?70), moderate (40?54), severe (25?39), and
profound (0?24) retardation. The term mentally retarded itself, although
still commonly used, has been replaced in some settings by the term
he types: "It's over. First 9-11 after repeated warnings. Then Iraq on a
pack of lies. Now, after dedicating his presidency to protecting the
homeland and breaking the budget to pay for the largest agency consolidation
in the history of the government your guy gets an F on his first exam."
i type: did the old poster child of the far left get retired to a Gulag or
something that you are all scrambling for the position? let me be
diplomatic about this: you all lost the election because you had no ideas
and were correctly portrayed as screeching shrills without a plan. staying
angry and twisted is not the way to go man...
he types: "We're supposed to believe we're equipped to deal with a major
terrorist attack after seeing this? But that was the best reason they
offered to vote for them!"
i type: you didn't vote for Bush. the best reason the 62 million Americans
who DID vote for Bush had was looking at you. and make no mistake...
the GOP "campaign" largely consisted of pointing at you. and the net result
was that the Democrats failed to obtain a popular majority for the 7th
presidential election in a row. the Republicans won the Presidency for the
5th time in the last 7 elections, again with a popular majority. the
Republicans also control the Congress and the Courts and the Governorships.
but i agree that we are not prepared to deal with a major terrorist attack.
so we should continue to take action to prevent it. action that the left
obstructs much like the environmental lobby has obstructed the Army Corps of
Engineers for 25 years now.
he types: "The list of acceptable Republican candidates for president is
looking better and better with each passing day. Republicans and Democrats
alike know its over. The attacks are coming from all sides. ANYONE is better
than this moron. You know that. You can out wit, deride and brow beat all
you want. You're on your heels. Don't blame the left. Blame the idiot you're
in the unfortunate position of having to defend. It's time to pick a new
i respond: you crack me up, Slusher. the midget squeeking about how he's
gonna bust Arnold up! and how! isn't the Supreme Court about to move right
some more? didn't you all lose fucking California a few months ago? i mean
fucking C-A-L-I-F-O-R-N-I-A!!! the home of the San Francisco Chronicle and
the Los Angeles Times went Republican in the governor's race... the
Democrats have the Republicans right where they want them!
he types: "You can be a proud Republican without being tied to the anchor of
Bush. Nothing wrong with the former. Idiotic to do the latter. History can
be a very powerful judge. George W. has lost his Oval Office privileges.
And that's the bottom line. "
i respond: History judges us every day. George W. is about to seat 2
Supreme Court justices, including the Chief Justice of the next 30 years.
He is also going for a history-crunching repeat of mid-term election
victories for the party-in-power. And THAT is the bottom line.
oh yeah... ELEFUCKINPHANT....
and... big wet smoochy San Francisco kiss for you! gimme the love!
More information about the Mailman