DescentBB

I would say however that most voters vote on generalized assumptions

Birdseye wrote:I would say however that most voters vote on generalized assumptions

Only you and your liberal bunch.

Please, please. Libertarian. The real republican party

Birdseye wrote:Please, please. Libertarian. The real republican party

Oh, you can call yourself anything you want. But what you say and what you believe as you have shown here says that for the most part you are a Libby.

And I know alot of liberals who dont call themselves so because they know its a dirty word.

It's because we like to []think and stuff.

Points for Goob for the subtle think-outside-the-box reference!

Stop ruining my fun or I will make up another rap about you.

This is an illuminating thread, because it *should* divide along two lines pretty cleanly. Straddling the fence, however, seems to be the best the dems and lefties can do, from what I'm reading.

You forgot to mention "never saying anything of substance" and "responding to substance by nit-picking random tangential points" ;)

Something I've learned in my years debating here: when someone is willing to meet opposing arguments head-on, that's usually a sign of good scholarship -- they're willing to deal with the best criticisms and form the opinion supported by the data. When someone is unwilling to meet opposing arguments head on, that's usually a sign they're not confident in their position, but they're too emotionally attached to it to be willing to change it in the face of facts.

Birdseye wrote:I don't see how al qaeda prefers Kerry

Me neither.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/ ... index.html

Damn, again in this thread? Necro-Kuf! Be gone!