Osama bin Laden is DEAD

[Jill]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

They aren't. Republicans always do appreciate the Republic's victories. Some non-Republicans resolutely avoid grasping this, to the wonderment of all who see it.

Fascinating. What blinders are you wearing that you aren't seeing the gnashing of teeth and utter flailing of the rightwingers that Obama got this done while at the same time trying to give complete credit for it to Bush? The right is downright apoplectic right now, desperately trying to figure out how to take this victory away from President Obama.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...g-picture.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ould-escalate/
http://rightwingnews.com/uncategoriz...-ladens-death/
http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...aden-dead.html

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Thinking of this sort illustrates the mentality of the Left -- too childish for Urbane Guerrilla to respect in the slightest, and I damn it categorically and often. Stupid, you see, should hurt. It should hurt as much as is needed for the lesson to be taught. For some minds, that means a level of agony that would double that of terminal prostate cancer, so slow are they to learn what they should.

Do not respect such minds -- they are slow and not nimble. In severe cases, meds must be considered. There are some folks who are only clinically sane. (Which is roughly what Michael Graham said of Janeane Garofolo.)

Ahhh, more personal attacks against Democrats and Liberals. So mature. What kind of mentality does that reflect, you think?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Clearly Obama located Bin laden, because he's secretly one of them.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Jill

Fascinating. What blinders are you wearing that you aren't seeing the gnashing of teeth and utter flailing of the rightwingers that Obama got this done while at the same time trying to give complete credit for it to Bush? The right is downright apoplectic right now, desperately trying to figure out how to take this victory away from President Obama.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...g-picture.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ould-escalate/
http://rightwingnews.com/uncategoriz...-ladens-death/
http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...aden-dead.html
Ahhh, more personal attacks against Democrats and Liberals. So mature. What kind of mentality does that reflect, you think?

Jill, you do not have a rational reason to vote for a Democrat, ever again, for any office. You do have falsehoods, rationalizations, and excuses, but I, as one of the people of freedom, a small-government sort of fellow, do not.

The Democrats successfully win elections relying on the votes of the socialistic, the parasitic, and the dull-normal fellow travelers.

Lets me out of that constituency, doesn't it? I registered Libertarian Party, so I don't exactly have a dog in the Dem/Rep fight. You do know which dog I root for.

It's not that I couldn't see some blogger bloviations -- it's that I care mighty little for them, hewing to the sort of opinionmongering that is giving the due credit to both -- Obama got schooled in the business of fighting a sub-rosa war and after two years' experience has had an unequivocal victory in this sort of unconventional, non-state conflict in which symbolic sorts of victories have more weight than they do in contentions between states.

An attack upon the policy record hardly means an attack upon persons. But again, and again and ten billion times again: stupid should and must hurt until it educates the educable to quit pissing on that electric fence. When you are committed to an ideology that obliges you to choose the lesser, the more collectivist choice, does that say you're intelligent?

Turning to a posted link or two: it is a complete mischaracterization of the Washington Times editorial to call it "flailing of the rightwingers" when it is a straightforward account of who did what, and how long. When I lived in Prince George's County, Maryland, I was much in the habit of buying both each day's Washington Post and Washington Times, leaning their editorial positions up against each other to see what insight dropping a mental plumb between their respective slants might give. Sometimes it was illuminating. Eventually I got the idea the Times staffers were the less dickheaded, and rather the less statist. Encouraging, really.

Does

George W. Bush started the hunt for Bin Laden and almost everything Obama has done to get Osama has been a continuation or an enhancement of the programs Bush put in place. That’s not an effort to steal credit from Obama, because he does deserve credit, but it’s just giving Bush some rightful credit for the part he played in helping to kill Bin Laden.

sound to you like flailing around to be unfair to Obama? This is all a matter of public record, and it's all over the place. If you think this is utter flailing, shame on you. You could always reread the piece. Indeed you should, for you have grasped little of its essence. I could keep on citing paragraph after paragraph from that linked article of its evenhandedness, but a tw-ish wall-of-text isn't my style. I'm not an obsessive.

Pp. 130-131 of this thread in CityData's forum are a typical-enough Internent firefight, yeah. An example of the sort of thing I don't waste a lot of caring upon. And your point might have been?

Honestly, Jill dear. Don't post stuff that invites condescension; use the old noodle. We are smarter than you'd like, or would like to acknowledge, tougher than you could handle, and we're fertile too. See Sarah Palin. And we make more sensible arguments, as anyone reading Jonah Goldberg's Proud To Be Right really has to acknowledge. We read things presently beyond your ken, but you can catch up. If you have the courage of your convictions, I invite you to test them.

[Jill]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Jill, you do not have a rational reason to vote for a Democrat, ever again, for any office. You do have falsehoods, rationalizations, and excuses, but I, as one of the people of freedom, a small-government sort of fellow, do not.

You are free to rationalize your own politics. You are not free to do so with mine.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The Democrats successfully win elections relying on the votes of the socialistic, the parasitic, and the dull-normal fellow travelers.

Interesting perspective. I find that the Republicans successfully win elections relying on the votes of the greedy, selfish, low-IQ, hate-filled, angry, frightened and those easily manipulated with complete lies. Guess which group I'd rather belong to.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Lets me out of that constituency, doesn't it? I registered Libertarian Party, so I don't exactly have a dog in the Dem/Rep fight. You do know which dog I root for.

The rabid one that needs to be put down?

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

It's not that I couldn't see some blogger bloviations -- it's that I care mighty little for them, hewing to the sort of opinionmongering that is giving the due credit to both -- Obama got schooled in the business of fighting a sub-rosa war and after two years' experience has had an unequivocal victory in this sort of unconventional, non-state conflict in which symbolic sorts of victories have more weight than they do in contentions between states.

An attack upon the policy record hardly means an attack upon persons. But again, and again and ten billion times again: stupid should and must hurt until it educates the educable to quit pissing on that electric fence. When you are committed to an ideology that obliges you to choose the lesser, the more collectivist choice, does that say you're intelligent?

What policy records? That's not what you attacked. You attacked the persons who adhere to those policies as being mentally ill.

The facts are, when viewed through the lens of reality, we as a nation have historically done better over the past half century when Democrats have been in control. Republican policies have repeatedly been proven, when implemented, not to work. At all. Well, that's not completely true. They work -- in the exact opposite way that's claimed.

I won't even humor you with what this country would devolve into under Libertarian rule.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Honestly, Jill dear. We are smarter than you'd like, or would like to acknowledge, tougher than you could handle, and we're fertile too. Just check out Sarah Palin -- who also might be hotter than you unless you could take the crown from Miss Turkey.

Honestly, Guerrilla dear, don't flatter yourself. I've taken on smarter than you and won. Handily.

As to whether or not Sarah Palin is hotter than me, or I could unseat Miss Turkey, I guess that depends on who's judging.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Jill

The facts are, when viewed through the lens of reality...

ay, there's the rub...

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Y'know what, Zen? I eat wafers. Free wine on Sundays, too. (If the phrase sounds familiar but you can't put your finger on it, Google is your friend and Bob's your ungulate.)

And I was raised Unitarian if I was raised anything. I like to think the experience of youth plus that of maturer years gives me a broad and sensible perspective.

Atheism is much too cramped for me. Too much a belief in unbelief so its final reward seems so... picayune. Perhaps the most sturdily rational, or rationalist, atheist I ever heard of was Robert A. Heinlein -- a fellow I'd happily consign to Heaven.

Or is it righter to reckon of those who are atheistic "Verily, they have received their reward."

The list of despots who behaved all their lives as if there were no afterlife that might possibly be influenced by their deeds in this life is long and written in dried blood: Jenghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Josef Stalin and his enabler Vladimr Il'ych you-know-who, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler. Those are just the high points. Their nearest real approach to God seems to have been when they were swearing at somebody. There's always that whiff of dead folks around the anti-believers who operate on a large scale, who very often do not discourage their followers to worship them, mortal men, instead of something more abstract and with the right touch of the supernal.

What the small-scale antibelievers seem to lack looks like the opportunity to slaughter like the big boys.

Now I follow a trinitarian way, to the point of being an Episcopalian lay minister, duly licensed by the Diocese of Los Angeles. There's a lot of... brain going on in the Anglican Communion. You know that's the kind of thing I like.

The difference between religious thinking and superstitious (or magickal) thinking seems to me to be in what you do with it once you've thought it.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

...

The difference between religious thinking and superstitious (or magickal) thinking seems to me to be in what you do with it once you've thought it.

You mean like a good Christian like likely presidential candidate Mike Huckabee who links gay sex to bestiality and abortion to slavery and who wants to amend the Constitution to reflect those views?

[SamIam]

Y'all are so cute trying to sustain a rational dialog with UG!