I didn't ignore the question, nor was I quick to post. I read your initial response last night and stopped myself from posting what my gut response was, because it wouldn't have gotten us anywhere.
And before you continue your lecture to me about paying attention to the question, believe me, I was. And your examples of why you would question Bush are all very nice, but you need to understand that not everyone feels the same way. Not everyone thinks he lied about the war. Not everyone thinks he's guilty of any of the things you listed above. And wiretapping? Frankly, I'm for it. It amazes me that people can criticize the intelligence that the Gov't receives, yet wants to ban things that could help better that intelligence. These people were in our country. I don't see wiretapping phones as calling his ethics in to question whatsoever.
But, you do, obviously. And that's fine. But nothing that you've stated above, whether you believe it to be true or not, translates into a sane person thinking that Bush orchestrated 9/11. Why shouldn't tiggy feel outraged that people feel that way. That people would take their personal dislike of a man and his policies and translate that into him having planes crash into the Twin Towers. And the Pentagon. And wherever else was planned. That people think that is disgusting and appalling, and I think "outraged" is exactly the right reaction to have. Tell me why a person that doesn't think that Bush is the devil, and there are plenty of us given that he did win the election, should have any reaction other than outrage. She's not merely rolling her eyes, because it's not merely silliness. It's vile accusations made by people who didn't get the President that they want, and it crosses a line of decency. I don't even think that half of the people saying it, even really believe it themselves. It's a way of smacking back at and villifying the Republicans ,which is what lost them this last election to begin with.
I'm done here. I have no desire to argue back and forth with someone I don't even know. Neither of us will change the other's mind, and that's fine.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-27 03:29 am (UTC)And before you continue your lecture to me about paying attention to the question, believe me, I was. And your examples of why you would question Bush are all very nice, but you need to understand that not everyone feels the same way. Not everyone thinks he lied about the war. Not everyone thinks he's guilty of any of the things you listed above. And wiretapping? Frankly, I'm for it. It amazes me that people can criticize the intelligence that the Gov't receives, yet wants to ban things that could help better that intelligence. These people were in our country. I don't see wiretapping phones as calling his ethics in to question whatsoever.
But, you do, obviously. And that's fine. But nothing that you've stated above, whether you believe it to be true or not, translates into a sane person thinking that Bush orchestrated 9/11. Why shouldn't tiggy feel outraged that people feel that way. That people would take their personal dislike of a man and his policies and translate that into him having planes crash into the Twin Towers. And the Pentagon. And wherever else was planned. That people think that is disgusting and appalling, and I think "outraged" is exactly the right reaction to have. Tell me why a person that doesn't think that Bush is the devil, and there are plenty of us given that he did win the election, should have any reaction other than outrage. She's not merely rolling her eyes, because it's not merely silliness. It's vile accusations made by people who didn't get the President that they want, and it crosses a line of decency. I don't even think that half of the people saying it, even really believe it themselves. It's a way of smacking back at and villifying the Republicans ,which is what lost them this last election to begin with.
I'm done here. I have no desire to argue back and forth with someone I don't even know. Neither of us will change the other's mind, and that's fine.