Re: Looking forward to after the election - end of stupid posts like this one :-)

From: Fred Bloggs (nospam_at_nospam.com)
Date: 10/31/04 

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:11:52 GMT

Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
> "Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:41850666.7000307@nospam.com...
>
>>
>>Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My choice would be Bush as he doesn't keep changing his mind as Kerry
>>
> does
>
>>>and he isn't such a wimp.
>>
>>You need to read George Soros and understand that refusing to change
>>one's mind is not such a good thing. Bush is "belief driven" and will
>>not accept any *reality* that would challenge those beliefs. This is
>>tantamount to belief in one's infallibility. By favoring Bush on the
>>grounds you stated, you are supporting the idea that Bush is infallible.
>>We now have ample evidence to disprove that Bush is infallible, he has
>>made numerous and colossal mistakes, and he has failed to accomplish any
>>of his stated objectives, many of which have been exposed as a
>>subterfuge for seriously corrupt ulterior purposes such as enriching
>>large weapons industry corporations and service providers, and illegal
>>conversion of oil reserves of a sovereign state.
>>Bush is clearly a wimp- and that is why he makes such an issue of it
>>with his false bravado. The record on his life is clear, he is a
>>cowardly draft dodger and a business failure, he has never done anything
>>right in his entire life. And above all there is no question that he
>>lacks the intellectual strength to defend his belief-driven positions,
>>he fires and dismisses anyone who would question him, and he abuses his
>>powers as President to suppress protest and dissent. If you think these
>>are characteristics of a strong and brave man, then maybe you need
>>therapy yourself.
>>
>>
>
>
> Was my point that he was strong and brave? Read my post again
>
> Cheers
>
> Klaus
>
>

When you say he "isn't such a wimp", where "wimp" has been a frequent
Bush supporter slur against Kerry, you adopt their inflammatory
rhetoric, then the context implies you also agree that Bush is
unwavering, steady, strong, brave etc...and all the other clearly
deceitful and wrong characterizations of Bush. It is not inflammatory to
describe Bush as weak, shallow, confused, and stupid- 65 million
Americans have observed this during the debates.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast