More "Bad" News
I know all you get these days is bad news and it's tiring. But that's the way life is, folks. And now, there's bad news for the liberal "impeach Bush" movement. Troop casualties are way down in March of 2006, to the second lowest since the Iraq War began. Read it for yourself if you can stomach Newsmax:
March Casualties Second Lowest in 3 Years!
Of course, one who hates Bush can only hope since there's still eleven days left in March. Maybe there'll be string of IED's that will up the numbers and give you hope.
However, for the rest of us...HOORAY! Good news!!
posted by Underground Logician @ 7:50 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
This is just sick illogical mean spirited post.
You are showing your true wingnut colors. As a Liberal War Veteran who has seen what combat really is I take extreme umbrage with this post.
You are a chickenhawk loud-mouth jackass.
No, this is not an illogical mean spirited post. I'm mad as hell!
This is a sarcastic parody of the liberal left using the deaths of our soldiers for their own political agenda. I have come off this way with such disdain because of the intensity of my anger at them. I literally hate it when the "hate Bush" movement focuses ENTIRELY on the bad news. It angers the military, and makes this logician mad as hell (Did I say I was mad as hell?).
So, either you didn't catch my point, or you have deliberately "taken offense" by my post negatively so you have something to bitch about.
If you missed it the first time, I hope I have cleared up this misunderstanding. If you are deliberately taking offense, I find your attitude offensive.
UL: your prejudice and conservative bias is so extreme I have no idea how you sleep.
You are so full of shit. If you are going to say something stupid at least stand behind it or retract it. "I was only joking" is what cowards say. Apologize and pull the post.
What do you have to be mad about? You are a chickenhawk, probably a fat one too. Life's been good, right? You regurgitate the wingnut line and act as if it is a new notion to you, citing gossip columnists and gas bags as sources.
You talk in circles using what you think are big words trying to impress people. What you don't realize is that all of us have had philosophy 101 and we can see how confused and idiotic you are.
One of the benefits of making fun of people who never learn anything is that you can go away for a long while and when you come back, they're still idiots.
Oh yeah, Socrates was a gay pedophile and Plato marvelled at the beauty of men. It must drive you into convulsions that they lived such an illogical and immoral lives, but my gut tells me that you are a closet case putting up a ridiculous front.
bye bye numbskull
buh-bye, Cranky Yankee. You have added absolutely nothing to this post except a great character description of yourself and your ability to insult.
Daniel:
Not only are you enlightened about the homosexual issue, but conservatism as well. You are so multitalented and expert.
As to my sleeping, when I get tired, I go to sleep. I don't worry what leftists think of my conservatism. Do you lose sleep over what conservatives think of you? Didn't think so.
Any other questions?
By the way, I knew that Socrates and Plato wrote of the love for boys and men. BUT NOTICE, I'M NOT CONDEMNING THE LOGICAL AND RATIONAL SYSTEM OF THESE MEN. Nice try in shocking" the UL with such a scandal. Is this all you got?
You "Christian-phobes" demonize us for our hatred of sin and say it's a cop out to say "love the sinner; hate the sin." Well, this is a perfect example of this. I don't condemn the logic of Socrates because he thought boy love was normal. I don't subscribe to this if I approve of his logic in general. Here's proof that one CAN throw out the bathwater and keep the baby.
However, I know you will not accept this for it will upset your entire fallacy and then you'd have to deal with what's really going on: your wholesale unreflected acceptance of a deviant lifestyle.
If you refuse to see the light, I hope you remain frustrated and conflicted.
Socratically yours,
UL
So, where's the love.
Tolerance is not a liberal strong point. As I read these posts I am reminded of that "nightmarish" site hostess who scolds some for the use of sarcasm and encourages the potty mouths of like-minded radicals (witness these two). It would not be so bad if the whole premise of her site (according to her) is to foster debate and discussion of differing points of view. I must admit that I am a bit sad about Cranky's post here. Although our views are very different about most things I had developed a respect for the manner in which he presented his side of the issue. The other Brit "boy" is just too pathetic for words. Hopefully his acting is better. And, what is it with him repeatedly pointing out that Americans are fat. Strange bias for a man who is engaged to a "Rubenesque" girl.
BTW, you and I don't agree on homosextuality. I believe that individuals are born with a sexual preference. So we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
Kathleen: I don't believe you.
Kathleen:
I have no love for sin. As to people, I'm workin' on it.
Ah...it's all so clear to me now. I think I know where my anonymous friend posing as you (UL) on my blog, came from.
Enlightening.
Cranky Yanky has a knack for the insult, does he not? Your talents are wasted here, Yank. You remind me of a modern Shakespere. I'm serious! Have you ever considered writing plays or screenplays?
Be useful!
Sadie Lou,
Let's wait for the Yank to respond. This is referring to the post at the family blog where the young daughter has thyroid cancer? I don't want to insinuate without evidence. There are a lot of people who could write damaging comments.
It was either the Yank or that other guy because it's very coincidental that the person suggested the little girl or the girl's father was gay...
Sadie:
Perhaps it can be traced through Blogger. Or, you can go to Cranky and ask him directly. However, he could say no because he didn't do it, or no because he's lying. You don't think anyone who would write such a despicable thing as was written would openly admit it, do you? Second, what if someone who has come my blogsite, but didn't comment, used my name? There are scores of people who read and never comment. So, assuming Yanky is intelligent, which I assume, and has kids of his own, he would NEVER pull such a prank, especially as one so openly against what I say. He or the other "guy" would be immediately suspect. I'm not going to do that. I guess I'm asking you follow my lead.
Best bet is let it drop. And if the perpetrator is reading this, which I assume he is, he knows by now that we're watching for him. And if he's the type that enjoys this sort of thing, he may strike again regardless.
Jesus, go away for a few days and you people are cowardly accusing me of posting anonymously on a blog I never heard of.
Sorry Sadie Lou, Not me. In fact I have never visited your blog.
In case you didn't notice that's not my style. Insults are part of my style and I believe in their direct use in a full frontal assault. If I were insulting you you would know it.
You'll have to use your exquisite investigative intuition on another boogieman. UL is right. You went for the easy answer. Not surprising...
Furthermore, if you researched any of my writing for comparison you would very quickly see that I don't use reference to sexuality in the pejorative toward people.
If by the other guy you mean Daniel it is not his style either.
Sorry to disappoint.
I'm not disappointed, Cranky.
Anyone who uses my name like that is a coward. You are not like that.
I never go anon.
Post a Comment
<< Home