Resident-bush*-Supporter (RbS)at work just doesn't get it

[radfringe]

This time he was hyped up about the missing explosives story being "over blown" and Kerry "jumping the gun" in accusing bush* of being incompetent

:sigh: well, I pointed out that the existence of the weapons depot was known BEFORE the invasion. While "major combat" was going on 2 different units were at the depot and just kept "rolling" onto Baghdad.

After major combat -- depot was not sufficiently secured, and now the exlosives have gone missing.

RbS: they moved them before we invaded

me: then why didn't we know they were moved? Two problems with that argument -- we have satillites and other surveillence technology available -- if Iraqis moved the stuff, wouldn't the surveillence photos etc show it being moved? We are not talking about 1 or two boxs, but rather 40 or more truck loads. Secondly, why didn't we go check out the place in the first place? too busy securing oil fields?

RbS: well, Kerry is over-blowing the situation

me: :eyes: how is missing explosives "over-blowing" the situation? Look we invaded Afghanistan to "git Bin-Laden" and lost him, then we invaded Iraq to prevent WMDs from getting into the hands of terrorists -- but we lost an entire depot of potentially deadly weapons.

RbS: pish-posh -- all of Iraq and the rest of the area are loaded with weapons of one kind or another

me: so we help them aquire more by not securing KNOWN weapon sites? This is serious stuff -- Bin-Laden is still out there, although he is not a concern of bush*'s, and now it appears deadly weapons are not a concern either

-----------------

no luck in convincing RbS otherwise -- just goes to show you "If you are voting for bush* -- then you haven't been paying attention"

[praxiz]

1. You can't spell RbS without "B.S"

:)

[Quadrajet]

2. You can't argue with them.

It is a fundamental belief by all freepers that the liberals are out to get * and that this is just another desperate, last ditch effort to derail the "momentum" that * has. Remember, they always take the government's word at face falue, unless of course it's the Clinton adminstration.

[hadrons]

3. ask 'moran' about the troopers getting killed/maimed by these explosives

or is that just "over-blowing" it too

[billyoc]

4. "jumping the gun" in accusing bush* of being incompetent

Would be accusing him of doing something stupid when he was 15 years old, which I'm sure he did. Since high school, * has been:

A mediocre legacy student at prep school.

A mediocre legacy student at Yale.

A complete failure as a military pilot.

The destroyer of every business venture he's ever been involved with.

As a governor, his record was so atrocious, he had to seal all his gubernatorial records in his fathers presidential library(unprecedented, BTW).

Worst. President. Ever.

When in the hell is it going to be time to accuse him of incompetence? When he accidentally cuts someone with his chainsaw out playing rancher?

[0rganism]

5. When Matt Taibbi went undercover for Rolling Stone in the Orlando GOP...

...he summed up the situation thusly (emphasis mine):
---
...The problem not only with fundamentalist Christians but with Republicans in general is not that they act on blind faith, without thinking. The problem is that they are incorrigible doubters with an insatiable appetite for Evidence. What they get off on is not Believing, but in having their beliefs tested. That's why their conversations and their media are so completely dominated by implacable bogeymen: marrying gays, liberals, the ACLU, Sean Penn, Europeans and so on. Their faith both in God and in their political convictions is too weak to survive without an unceasing string of real and imaginary confrontations with those people -- and for those confrontations, they are constantly assembling evidence and facts to make their case.

But here's the twist. They are not looking for facts with which to defeat opponents. They are looking for facts that ensure them an ever-expanding roster of opponents. They can be correct facts, incorrect facts, irrelevant facts, it doesn't matter. The point is not to win the argument, the point is to make sure the argument never stops. Permanent war isn't a policy imposed from above; it's an emotional imperative that rises from the bottom. In a way, it actually helps if the fact is dubious or untrue (like the Swift-boat business), because that guarantees an argument. You're arguing the particulars, where you're right, while they're arguing the underlying generalities, where they are.

Once you grasp this fact, you're a long way to understanding what the Hannitys and Limbaughs figured out long ago: These people will swallow anything you feed them, so long as it leaves them with a demon to wrestle with in their dreams...
---
more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6539082?rnd=1098243992310&has-player=unknown

[obiwan]

6. Knock his head with a brick...you'll hear an echo.