JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
news

Interesting. Here, you say I'm not competent to point out that Bush is
broken:

Bull****. Bush is broken,
He might be, but you're not competent to say.

You *aren't* competent to say. Your "diagnosis" (huh),
and the language you use to express it, are motivated
mostly by your partisanship. You're not competent in
any medical field, and no ethical doctor would ever
attempt a diagnosis based on watching a few carefully
selected clips from CNN. You hate Bush and policies
his administration has followed, and rather than
explain, in temperate language, what it is that you
feel is objectionable about his policies and actions,
you engage in a sophomoric attack on his neurology,
using highly inflammatory language.

Partisan.


But here, you imply that he might not be normal or qualified:

Since you believe Bush is normal and qualified,
I never said or indicated any such thing. You really do make a lot of
wild, unsupported leaps of faith. Why is that?

No, I don't imply that. You made an unsupported
assertion: that I believe Bush is normal and
qualified. I merely told you that I hadn't commented
either way.


As far as selling arms to Pakistan, your best response is "It's done, so
forget it". Based on that logic,

Your own, peculiar illogic.


all crimes are excused if they are in the
past.

No. The arms sales to Pakistan might have been unwise,
but they didn't constitute a crime. Nor have I
"excused" the sale. I haven't really commented on it.

You were talking about the sale of F-16 fighter jets to
Pakistan as if it was something that hadn't yet
occurred, and that can and should be stopped. I simply
told you that I'm not as concerned about it, given that
it has already happened and can't be undone, as I would
be if the deal hadn't yet gone through.




And your radio training:

None. But that's what I'd expect a highly partisan
"critic" to say. You just don't realize that saying
things like that confirms you as a shrill partisan.


Your endless repetition of one word, "partisan", is
the giveaway.

It isn't a "giveaway" of any such thing. You *are*
highly partisan. It's foolish for you to deny it. As
I told you, your comments about a number of other
things besides Bush give *you* away.


You probably also loved "cut and run", "troop surge", and a
few others I can't remember.

More unsupported and wild leaps of inference, which you
make *only* because of your intense partisanship. I
haven't said anything about any of those, nor have I
said anything that would reasonably allow you to assume
what my positions on them are.


Oh yeah: "folks". Your president

....and yours: George W. Bush is, of course, your
president...


has used the word to describe people who
build and deploy roadside bombs to kill our soldiers.

I don't watch television, and I haven't heard him say
that. That would be a poor choice of word. Bush has
lots of company among the American public for that sort
of poorly thought word choice. I often hear
otherwise-articulate police spokesmen, describing how
the perpetrator of some heinous crime was captured, say
something along the lines of, "...and then the
gentleman exited the residence with his hands up."
People who have committed horrible crimes are not
"gentlemen".