Log in

No account? Create an account
04 November 2004 @ 08:58 pm
I'm going to apologize too. :\  
INSERT INFORMATION HEREparadoxx181 on November 4th, 2004 09:27 pm (UTC)
thats so beautiful
K0LDk0ld_x on November 4th, 2004 09:35 pm (UTC)
If I can get my camera working, I will apologize myself. :
Things could always be worse.lildogg on November 4th, 2004 09:40 pm (UTC)
Wow. That's ... really cool. I want to submit something.
(Deleted comment)
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on November 4th, 2004 10:06 pm (UTC)
Yes, exactly. We'll just stand next to you embarrassed.
(Deleted comment)
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on November 4th, 2004 10:23 pm (UTC)
Not really. The majority of Canadians I know don't want Americans in their country. And I certainly didn't say anything about America being a horrible, horrible country and being completely devastated by Bush's reign. I'm just apologizing in advance for whatever he does to the rest of the world in the next 4 years.
(Deleted comment)
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on November 4th, 2004 10:26 pm (UTC)
He certainly wasn't sitting in the White House for most of the past four years. ;) (cough vacation cough.)

And by Bush, it's sorta implied that we mean his administration. I've said this before.
(Deleted comment)
soliloquial on November 5th, 2004 12:19 am (UTC)
People like you are the reason Bush is in power, no, not republicans, ideological dipshits that can't clearly discern right from wrong. There is no point in arguing with you, I could smack your ass down on everything you have to say in Bush's defense, but you'd probably sidewind it with an excuse like you've done in this journal, so consider this my only comment to you here.
(Deleted comment)
soliloquial on November 5th, 2004 03:23 pm (UTC)
Only because Jeffrey allowed me to say anything further, I will; unlike your previous assumptions that moving to Canada would solve the problem of having to share the land you walk on, like me: some of us don't have the means to do so. As well, this country isn't filled with people like you, only a little more than half, sadly, but then again...

Just like you had said in
this comment, it was very very hard to defend Bush; and as valid as that statement was coming from a republican who seems doesn't believe everything they hear from their superiors, you are like-minded to Bush. Allow me to reiterate:

Instead of sitting on your ass having everything handed to you on a silver platter since you are "upper class", you are also ruthless, if you think Bush had right of way to bomb innocent land, kill people and innocent children in the process, and continue to invade a country, in the entire time finding a man out of power (Saddam), and the wrong man responsible for our attack at that, thus disrespecting their eastern culture by staying there, or what some republicans would call it: freeing a nation... just to get oil because no one could stop us? Ever since he said the words "bring it on", our soldiers have been dropping like flies, and while he was just beginning his ventures as a "business man" in the oil business, reporters said this:

In 1990 when bush was a director of Harken energy he received a memo from company lawyers, warning directors not to sell stock if they had any unfavorable information about the company, one week later he sold $848,000.00 worth of Harken stock, two months later, Harken reported losses of more than $23 million dollars. It should be no surprise why this country is deathly in debt, he doesn't seem dumb, he is dumb. And so are you, if you stand behind a man that seems to work in favor of only your family's best interests instead of the rest of the world as a whole.
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on November 5th, 2004 03:45 pm (UTC)
Supposedly he doesn't like Bush necessarily, but his administration's doings. We've already concluded that Bush's stupidity is a very important factor, but not one that would hinder his entire administration from making decisions. Why not focus on them a bit and what the rest of them has done? I'm sure it'd be pretty easy.

And to clarify, yet again, by what I mean by allowing anyone to continue further: I treat my comment threads as a public forum. I won't censor anyone. I let my friend Hannah bitch out this young mother without telling her to stop. And she was brutal! :P
soliloquial on November 5th, 2004 04:02 pm (UTC)
Because having friends like Dick Cheney, it shouldn't be a question of whether or not it was his administration's decisions: Cheney is a monster.

Not only did he claim to be against the release of Nelson Mandela, but was against Martin Luther King being a federal holiday. Despite the lack of actions being taken as far as I know, when he was asked for confirmation of his motives, he didn't answer. How could anyone answer something like that? They couldn't.
(Deleted comment)
soliloquial on November 5th, 2004 06:51 pm (UTC)
You quote me for personal reverence in the fact that I did wind up replying to you a second time, and I explained that, even more ironically, and then you misquote me? Or is it that you're taking what I said out of given context?

I'd have the mind to keep this short since this seems like the latter, but, you presented yourself as upper class for being a hick, you should expect following judgement, you are equally to blame. Also, do not try to scrape for insults at the bottom of the barrel just because of the words I chose to use to excersize my point, in this case, you're copping the fact that I called you ruthless.. as pointless, yet you pay mind to it.

As for calling me "boy" I did not go: "OMFG STFU STUPID KERRY HATER", that too, I also judged purely on your choice of words, I am a grown man, you on the other hand need to form slightly more coherent thought to convince me otherwise. If you don't want to be presented as ruthless, then you'd do best to present yourself in a manner which did not scream "I only care about my money and not the innocent people overseas."

Lastly, I unless you read that I called you a noble altruist, then I did not say it, but I don't expect any different, after all, you had to break down and tell me about your personal life when I did not ask for it. I am curious as to the point you were trying to make with your "metaphor" about Canada, though.
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on November 5th, 2004 07:17 pm (UTC)
Nah, you even told me you're not going to write more comments and then after asking me then you posted more.
- soliloquial on November 5th, 2004 07:31 pm (UTC) (Expand)
- jeffreyatw on November 5th, 2004 07:33 pm (UTC) (Expand)
- soliloquial on November 5th, 2004 07:38 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on November 5th, 2004 07:30 pm (UTC)
Please, correct me if I'm wrong. This is an observation.

You affirm your political stance due to the notion that what your candidate does is beneficial to you... to me, this "uncaring" seems like you'd rather have the candidate that punishes those below you. I'm sure I'm wrong in assuming that you care at all about anyone else, but still, when has anyone in history really wanted to hurt those "below" them, in furthering their cause? I can only think of one prominent mustachioed figure from the early 20th century...

Basically, your stance seems contrarian. You'd rather go against what everyone (in this case, those on LiveJournal) desires, because you know that, at least financially, you're above a lot of them. But uh...

Do you really make more than $200,000 a year?
soliloquial on November 5th, 2004 08:19 pm (UTC)
Do THESE people look like they make more than $200,000 a year?

- jeffreyatw on November 5th, 2004 08:21 pm (UTC) (Expand)
- soliloquial on November 5th, 2004 08:24 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on November 5th, 2004 12:41 am (UTC)
And that's why we're apologizing for what we're about to do.
Ranagan_Labardinelabardine on November 4th, 2004 10:28 pm (UTC)
We'd rather take the states that went democratic along with the citizens, thank you very much. The rural areas will be happy with our conservative party and will enjoy hating the French while the liberal people can enjoy rule from a party with the values of the democratic party and the political savvy of the republicans.

Red states won't miss places Boston, New York, Detroit and most of California anyway... It's places like that that made it flyover country. As a deal sweetner... Red states get COMPLETE control over Nascar.
(Deleted comment)
Ranagan_Labardinelabardine on November 4th, 2004 10:47 pm (UTC)
I think a bigger question would be, are all people who love Nascar hillbillies? I think you slandered people more than I did...

I'm simply stating Nascar is a lucrative business and exclusive control over it would generate a hefty amount of revenue that would more than make up for the loss of the democratic or 'wrong' states.

And of course we can't take the blue states... The best ones like New York and Cali have republican governors in place... Who says checks and balances doesn't work? =P

(Deleted comment)
Ranagan_Labardinelabardine on November 4th, 2004 11:29 pm (UTC)
Why are you being so testy? You're supposed to be convalescing with thoughts of national unity after your months and months of vicious long term consequence having, nation seperating , ideological warfare.

I'm just saying many Canadians feel if you guys are gonna break up... We'd let the blue states stay with us for awhile. They'd be red up here.
(Deleted comment)
Ranagan_Labardinelabardine on November 5th, 2004 11:11 am (UTC)
Because showing your irritation kind of presents to anyone who may be watching that you agree with your own interpretation of my statement. Ergo the only person calling yourself a redneck with some sort of slander behind it, thus far is yourself.

(Deleted comment)
Ranagan_Labardinelabardine on November 5th, 2004 06:47 pm (UTC)
It wasn't an insult. You're very sensitive about it. Again it sounds like your issue isn't with me but your heritage and maybe Nascar. Are you a self loathing republican?