Get out your (Bob) Geiger counter
Your "Friday Fruitcakes" post is a perfect example of why you guys keep losing elections. When people right in with valid criticisms of your sides actions and viewpoints, you try to change the subject because you can't debate the issue. For example, "If your intent was to demonstrate even a shred of moral authority by saying your son is in Iraq, forget it. " So Cindy Sheehan (who had a child in the war) has the "moral authority" to comment on the war in Iraq but this father (who has a child int he war) doesn't have the "moral authority"? Can you say hypocrisy? This is exactly the kind of stuff that your side does/says all the time. Also, referring to Bush you say "that your president -- he's damn sure not mine -- ". Actually, he is your president (assuming of course that you are a US citizen) just as the 2 senators from your state are your senators, regardless of whether you voted for them or not. Finally you say "because of your ignorant, sheep-like support for them, it is on yours as well." So any person who supported the war (or a policy) is responsible for the deaths of people that happen as a result of that war (or that policy)? Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy are holding up passage of a National Sexual Offender Database. So their policy right now is preventing this from getting passed. So the consequences of not having a national database would be on their hands, if say a predator moved from one state to another, wasn't tracked (because their is no national database currrently), and then assaulted or murdered someone. So people who ignorantly support Reid and Kennedy would have blood on their hands on well, according to your reasoning?
P.S. Please explain how adding more taxes (windfall profits tax) to the price of gasoline is going to lower the price??
Bob replied quickly and here is his reply with my reply to it in bold below each section...
Yes, this is a canned message and it is the only response you will get from me.
So you often get emails from people pointing out the hypocrisy and inconsistencies in your arguments?
It is obvious that we are on opposite sides of a great social and political divide in our country. It is my personal belief that we are in something akin to a political civil war in America and I consider people like you -- at least based on the content and tone of your correspondence -- to be my political enemy.
Yes, there is a great divide between the following: the side that likes America in general and how it is and those that hate America and want to change it radically because they think America is an evil country. I fit the first category; You and your ilk fit the 2nd category.
As such, even sending you a canned e-mail represents about 60 seconds too much time for me to waste on someone like you.
Then why did you bother to send it?
Let me be very clear: I don't care about you. I don't care about your opinions. If I see a car sporting a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker broken down on the side of the road, I do not stop to help.
But Bob, according to Howard Dean, Republicans are the ones that are "mean" and "evil". Now you're telling me that you are the person who wouldn't stop to help someone of the side of the road. So are you a Republican? Because that seems like a "mean" or "evil" thing to do. And Howard Dean said Republicans are "mean" and "evil" so I don't get it, Bob?? You obviously do care about my opinions or you wouldn't have taken your precious time to respond
Am I getting through to you yet?
Yes, you hate Republicans Bob. I understood that after being on the website for 5 seconds
If you support George W. Bush, his administration and the Republican party you are partially responsible for a war that has the vast majority of the world hating our country and you have the blood of thousands of dead American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died in Bush's war on your hands.
What about if you support Bush, but not the administration or Republican party. Or if you support the party but not Bush. Do you have to support all three in order to be "partially responsible"? Or 2 out of 3? But seriously, anytime America is going to enter or start a war would you put that up to a world vote, since its more important that the world doesn't hate us, than our own interests? Also, does FDR have the blood of American troops on his hands for entering World War II? And Japanese/German blood? Does that theory of yours apply to all wars? or only ones started by George W Bush (that's the guy you hate right?)
And don't you have better things to do than correspond with a liberal political writer?
Don't you have better things to do than to respond to me?
After all, your side is about to lose the House of Representative in November and, not long after that, your president will be impeached for his lies and his crimes. If you don't want that to happen, you better get to work on your sickening agenda. Rest assured, I will spend every spare minute this year working to defeat Republicans and not debating every idiot on your side who actually believes they can step into the rhetorical ring with me.
Bob, the reason you don't want to debate them is because you can't. You are incapable, both because of your pure hatred and because the majority of Americans do not agree with your radical left-wing agenda. I would love to debate you at some point so it can be shown how foolish you are. Good luck taking the House of Representatives in November; you guys will win it one of these years.
You will receive no further response from me -- other than to appear in my Friday Fruitcakes column, in which I make fun of ignorant people like you, because you are not worthy of debate.
Hmm...Bob you seem mighty full of yourself for someone who can't even to bother debating the emails people sent you? I wrote about 4 things in my email to you yet you only responded to 1 of them. Why was that Bob? I'm the ignorant one, yet you are the one who posts emails and then doesn't respond to the points in the emails, but instead goes off on tangents about how much you hate Bush, the Iraq War, etc..so I'll ask you again. How does Cindy Sheehan (who had a child serve in Iraq) have the moral authority to comment on the Iraq War, yet the person who wrote you an email in last week's column (who has a child serving in Iraq) does not?
Let's wait and see his reply