Quo Vadis, Appeasers?

[Ion]

...
Liberals do science? Where the hell do you get that??...
...

From jj himself, from me, from numerous liberals who do science.

 

[Patrick]

The implication was that only liberals "do" science, or most scientists are liberals, unsupported nonsense.

 

[Phrost]

Can you spot the differenece between:

and:

"...it's the liberals, the only ones who have an education, who do science,..."?

Because you confuse the quote from jj with the second statement...

Either you must not have a solid grasp of the English language, or you're being purposefully obtuse.

The statement was that we couldn't survive without Liberals because "they are the ones who have an education, who do science..."

Implying that there are no educated Conservatives, no Conservative scientists, etc, and without the Liberals, we'd all be screwed.

This is as bad as trying to spin Arnold's recent comments about Democrats being "losers" into a comment on their policy. He meant they were "losers" because he said they were "losers".

Skepticism and rational thought goes out the window when it comes to political ideaology around here, apparently.

 

[wipeout]

Bush is the one who overturned Saddam and is desperately trying to establish democracy in iraq

It would be unwise to believe that any "democracy" set up anywhere by Bush has the will of the people as its aim.

Bush is perfectly happy, for example, when his buddy Tony Blair ignores the overwhelming democratic will of the British people -- with 89% against the war and vast demonstrations in the streets -- and goes to war anyway.

So Bush and Blair claim to be all for "democracy" and yet ignore the will of the vast majority of a nation's people when that will conflicts their aims on issues even as important as starting a war.

They are undemocratic. They are liars when they say that they are. There are no other logical conclusions.

 

[Ion]

...
The statement was that we couldn't survive without Liberals because "they are the ones who have an education, who do science..."

Implying that there are no educated Conservatives, no Conservative scientists, etc, and without the Liberals, we'd all be screwed.
...

The statement means that US couldn't survive without Liberals because "...they are the ones who have an education, who do science...", however the Liberals are not the only ones "...who have an education, who do science...".

The Liberals are important.

 

[jj]

The implication was that only liberals "do" science, or most scientists are liberals, unsupported nonsense.

Once again, when you can't support your illicit accusations, you just make this up. You've been caught at this quite a few times now.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quo Vadis, Appeasers?

You stipuliate the false nature of your attack via your own quotes.

Capitulate immediately.

 

[Patrick]

Once again, when you can't support your illicit accusations, you just make this up. You've been caught at this quite a few times now.

Are YOU an example of these brilliant liberals? Listen carefully now, Einstein: I said that the other poster's claim that "liberals do science" was unsupported nonsense - he made the assertion. Now you're saying that I can't support my rebuttals that his assertion is unsupported??? I only have to point out that he didn't support his assertion! Is this getting too confusing for you, E?

 

[Michael Redman]

I hadn't realized that suggesting a large amount of the aerospace field in one place necessarily implied there wasn't any anywhere else.

Maybe you should reread your earlier post before criticizing my response to it.

Take one of America's biggest industries, aerospace technology and manufacturing. Where is this stuff located? New York? California? Massachussetts? Nope. It's Kansas.

It wasn't the "suggesting" that did it, it was the "Nope."

 

[Zep]

Gee, Dubya has done a GREAT job of uniting the United States, hasn't he. I don't think I have EVER seen any post-election responses as vituperous as this, especially stuff like threatened secession of some states because they voted the "wrong" way. I thought the election was supposed to HEAL the USA - huh!

Patrick is simply exhibiting all the Republican traits we dreaded would occur when Bush won: not the magnanimous and generous victory of a compassionate conservative, but a mean, skiting, skinny-cockerel-crowing claim of a mandate to continue the fell fascist actions the rest of the world loathes and has tried for 50 years to dispel.

And jj is simply enumerating the sense of dread that encompasses the rest of the civillised world, in the face of the above prospect.

So who do we think needs to have a change of attitude here, hmmm?

 

[jj]

Once again, when you can't support your illicit accusations, you just make this up. You've been caught at this quite a few times now.

Listen carefully now, Einstein: I said that the other poster's claim that "liberals do science" was unsupported nonsense - he made the assertion.

I don't see anyone making that assertion. I see you making it up so you can run back to town shouting WOLF WOLF WOLF.

There's a fable you need to read.