Ultimately all this shows is that you guys are ALL losers, concentrating on TV process not political substance. It's a game show, reality television gone politican.

Get real. People are DYING because of you. I watched a crowd of people being bombed by an F16 tonight and the pilot cried "Hey Dude" as he saw 30 lives end at the press of his button.

Cut the crap and start thinking about the message, not the messagner. Was it a pen or wasn't it? Oh Fuck off! Anyone here got an IQ?

GET RID OF BUSH.

oaknet wrote:
] I watched a crowd of people being bombed by an F16 tonight
] and the pilot cried "Hey Dude" as he saw 30 lives end at
] the press of his button.

Where?

k wrote:
] ] What did Dem presidential contender John Kerry take out
] ] of his jacket as he approached the stage [with his back
] ] to the auditorium's audience]?
] ]
] ] What did Kerry place on the podium?
]
] From the people who brought you the CBS news document forgery
] scandal, here's Jacketgate. Kerry won the debate because he
] seemed more on message. He didn't flounder around much and he
] made points his opponent couldn't rebut. Having a cheat sheet
] when your opponent doesn't could easily produce this effect.
]
] Neither Rathergate nor Swiftboatgate seemed very serious to
] me, but I must confess to their effect. If it turns out that
] Kerry did bring a cheat sheet, his campaign is toast.
]
] The mainstream press hasn't picked this up, yet.... The NY
] Post is claiming that if you look at it from another camera
] angle its a pen. I never believe anything I read in the NY
] Post. So, where are the other camera angles? Lets have 'em out
] on the net!
]
] U Turns out it WAS just a pen.
]
] [ Also turns out, in the video, both men take something out
] and put it on the podium. So, whatever, mostly. Granted the
] rules state that no candidate was allowed to bring anything to
] the podium but seriously, what the fuck. If we can't trust
] the candidates not to hide some sort of magic crib sheet in
] their pen, then they shouldn't be there in the first place.
] It's a dumb rule. -k]

Yes, k. And you are a dumb fool. (It rhymed.) What you have just written is the biggest piece of shit that has ever been posted to this site short of some of the things skullaria has written. Adamist may use sometimes unreliable sources, but he has never expressed himself in such an utterly insipid tone as you two do. Now, even though your literary pigshit above deserves dismissal, I would be loath to leave it unchallenged. So, I would love to see, where the situation in question reversed, if you would still share this opinion? If Bush were accused, you would treat it as if it were the next Watergate. Since your rabid hatred for the president has grown beyond mere policy differences, or the usual right/left arguments, into a fanatical, obsessed support for a lame duck candidate on the order of Dukakis or Mondale (but actually much closer to Bush and Reagan in his true ideology), you are treating your candidate as if he can do no wrong. Interesting political school of thought. Sounds more like a mental illness than a political ideology. Seems more along the order of Right wing Christians than the liberals that once existed before they sold out to corporate interests and special interests.

So,k. You claim that "If we can't trust
] the candidates not to hide some sort of magic crib sheet in
] their pen, then they shouldn't be there in the first place. ... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]

Vile wrote:
[ Given that your stated goal is to disrupt us as much as possible, I typically ignore everything you say, even when it has merit, which it frequently does, in between the ad hominems and bile. But this reply exceeds even my tolerance for insult and faulty logic.

You claim that I'm so rabid in my hatred for bush that I would respond with unchecked vitriol and fury were the situation reversed. That I am, in fact, unable to think rationally about the president. You clearly believe this of me with the very same unreasoned passion you ascribe to me, so I imagine argument isn't likely to have an effect. Still, I do defend that I would treat this rule as dumb regardless of the target. You may, happily, continue to think otherwise since it can't be *proven* either way.

I'm neither fanatical nor obsessive about John Kerry. I don't particularly like the guy, but I think he'll do a substantially better job than Bush, period. I have never pretended to be anything but accepting of Kerry as the nominee and support him precicely insofar as he is not Bush. I'd love to have better options than "not Bush", but I've only got one, and Kerry's it, so I favor him.

Really, you don't get insipid until the second section where you imply that my argument is without merit, and that my right to exist is questionable. As if that silly threat weren't enough, you claim you'll leave it at that, and then don't, dribbling on and completely misunderstanding the simple concept of trust. In fact, what I said was, I don't think we need written rules to proscribe the President and candidate from "cheating." These men should be honest enough not to cheat without a proctor leaning over them with a copy of the rulebook. So, in fact, my argument is precicely that dishonest men have no business being on the podium. It is, actually in *no* sense, the converse argument you claim it to be.

Presumably the remainder of the slander you spew is supposed to convince someone of something, or perhaps you're simply fullfilling your promise to be the local troll. If I thought you knew even half enough about me to honestly mean any one of those asisne things, I might take them seriously, but as it is, I don't mind when people marginalize themselves further with half sentient rants. I'm glad you've managed to slough off all the blame for society's ills on "middle-class, apathetic, cynical, pseudo-intellectuals" and I can only hope it fills you with all the joy and hope you deserve as a great paragon of virtue. -k]

k wrote:
] Vile wrote:

FOR ONE, I didn't write any of this. You did!~ So, what the hell is that "]Vile wrote:" thing doing on the top of the page! Goddam, you lazy bastard! Erase that shit! Make some sense, goddammit!-----Vile

] [ Given that your stated goal is to disrupt us as much as
] possible, I typically ignore everything you say, even when it
] has merit, which it frequently does, in between the ad
] hominems and bile. But this reply exceeds even my tolerance
] for insult and faulty logic.

I don't disrupt as much as possible. I represent. Get that straight, k-hole.

]
] You claim that I'm so rabid in my hatred for bush that I would
] respond with unchecked vitriol and fury were the situation
] reversed. That I am, in fact, unable to think rationally
] about the president. You clearly believe this of me with the
] very same unreasoned passion you ascribe to me, so I imagine
] argument isn't likely to have an effect. Still, I do defend
] that I would treat this rule as dumb regardless of the target.
] You may, happily, continue to think otherwise since it can't
] be *proven* either way.

Yes, but what can be proven you prove yourself later on in this post, k. See, You cannot think rationally about the president and you say it yourself in so many words in two paragraphs or so. Watch. I will point it out.
]
] I'm neither fanatical nor obsessive about John Kerry. I don't
] particularly like the guy, but I think he'll do a
] substantially better job than Bush, period. I have never
] pretended to be anything but accepting of Kerry as the nominee
] and support him precicely insofar as he is not Bush. I'd love
] to have better options than "not Bush", but I've only got one,
] and Kerry's it, so I favor him.

Whooops! It was actually the next paragraph. Silly me. You contradicted yourself from paragh one to paragraph two. Why would you do this? It doesn't make sense. Are you sure you are okay, k?
]
] Really, you don't get insipid until the second section where
] you imply that my argument is without merit, and that my right
] to exist is questionable.

Well, isn't it? I mean, look at yourself. A grown man, Being a Kerry cheerleader and leading us to a bloodsoaked draft situation with your pseudoliberalism. Can you not fathom mankind's desire to question your viability as an asset to existence itself? Surely you must be more reasonable here, k.

As if that silly threat weren't
] enough, you claim you'll leave it at that, and then don't,
] dribbling on and completely misunderstanding the simple
] concept of trust.

I understand the concept of trust, because it has been both proven to me and broken to me, and both concepts involved you, in fact. See, you make me trust the collective stupidity of mankind. Conversely, you make me... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

skullaria wrote:
] ] What did Dem presidential contender John Kerry take out
] ] of his jacket as he approached the stage [with his back
] ] to the auditorium's audience]?
] ]
] ] What did Kerry place on the podium?
]
] From the people who brought you the CBS news document forgery
] scandal, here's Jacketgate. Kerry won the debate because he
] seemed more on message. He didn't flounder around much and he
] made points his opponent couldn't rebut. Having a cheat sheet
] when your opponent doesn't could easily produce this effect.
]
] Neither Rathergate nor Swiftboatgate seemed very serious to
] me, but I must confess to their effect. If it turns out that
] Kerry did bring a cheat sheet, his campaign is toast.
]
] The mainstream press hasn't picked this up, yet.... The NY
] Post is claiming that if you look at it from another camera
] angle its a pen. I never believe anything I read in the NY
] Post. So, where are the other camera angles? Lets have 'em out
] on the net!
]
] U Turns out it WAS just a pen.
]
] [ Also turns out, in the video, both men take something out
] and put it on the podium. So, whatever, mostly. Granted the
] rules state that no candidate was allowed to bring anything to
] the podium but seriously, what the fuck. If we can't trust
] the candidates not to hide some sort of magic crib sheet in
] their pen, then they shouldn't be there in the first place.
] It's a dumb rule. -k]
]
] So what if they DID have a cheat sheet?

So what if Bush did too? If that were the case, then you and adamist and k would throw the biggest hissyfit in the history of memestreams (counting most of mine, even). So, with this in mind, you have proven that you are utterly corrupt in your political ethics and should probably just listen, read, vote if you must and definitely not speak. Skullaria, I truly hate you, as childish as that sounds, from this hypocrisy to your defense of Anne Rice's little menopausal hotflash on Amazon, you have proven to be an utter worthless waste of sperm and egg. I have yet to see you bring up an intelligent point that isn't based solely upon what you think or feel emotionally. There isn't a trace of logic in your head and if you were to die tomorrow of an aneurysm, the collective median of IQ points in humany would rise exponentially. Please assume room temperature for the good of our planet.

I'd rather someone
] check the facts than blurt off something they weren't sure
] about.
]
] Drudge is a nasty little conservative pigman.

And you are simply a nasty, unintelligent hogbitch. At least I have the balls to direct this TO you. There is nothing wrong with conservatism that some liberal fool has not concocted to explain why it's okay that people are essentially turning into lazy bags of shit. You are probably one of those. Take an enema.