I've mentioned that before on my "thoughts" thread. A powerful, rational philosophy not even mentioned as an alternative to the lunacy of Kant, Sartres "We cannot really know anything, we are insignificant specs of dust." Rand: "We can know everything, we are significant." Why not teach this? Come on, it's not politically correct in academia to give man any credit. He's just an arrogant little monkey, who needs to be herded around by those who truly know.
yunno, i read that, forgot it, thought of it myself, and and attributed it to my own brain. stupid me. if you combined the end of ""We cannot really know anything, we are insignificant specs of dust." with the start of: ""We can know everything, we are significant."" you get the right answer: "We may eventually know everything, but we are still insignificant specs of dust".
You can kiss my ass. You sarcastically used the word "amigo" and said I was searching for things to whine about. That is a personal attack. Admittedly subtle, but it's there. That's because you can't admit that he wasn't really against the war in the first place, AS HIS VOTING RECORD PROVED! Sadly, you evaded the question and said the voting habits of a Mass. senator aren't relevant. Maybe we should put you on the bottle of some Aunt Jemima, now that the Eggo box sponsorship is taken. If you start backtracking now and distancing yourself from what you know was a BS campaign *FROM THE JUMP* it lets us know exactly how little of a spine you really have.
You don't remember correctly at all and obviously didn't bother to check before posting. Do a search and read my posts. I defended Kerry only against the shameful attacks against his war record. I never defended his voting record. I didn't lobby for Kerry's policies but against Bush's policies. My candidate was General Wesley Clark, but once he was out of the primaries, Kerry was the only alternative to Bush, who I was definitely not going to vote for again because he is incompetent. Go check my pre-election posts and you'll find that they are all about Bush's failures, not Kerry's virtues. And my "not-Bush" stance didn't happen suddenly either. I've said it many times before in the last year. Ask Sourdough, it never failed to piss him off. You really should study my posting record before just making something up that doesn't hold true. And if you are alleging that my opinions are not my own (of his?)--then prove it or STFU. I could cite a lot of links to old threads to support this, but you even criticised me last week for doing that. So do your own damn search, but I'm telling you right now that the crock . . . is in your post.
Red, I can only go off of your general posting style that I have read over the past couple years and specifically go by my own memory. I am sure anyone can find posts and threads by you that would indicate what I believe you said AND other posts and threads by you that indicate what you believe you said. You play devil's advocate a and definitely defended Kerry on those issues. However, you never took the strong stance, from what I can remember, of voting for Kerry because he was the only "non-Bush" candidate. Feel free to link to old posts if you would like. I would not mind being proved wrong because it would improve my view of you (as if it matters at all what I think) to know that you took that stance and stuck to it - rather than taking the stance now, after the fact.
Oooh! How witty! And also a violation of your user agreement and Bretts rules. The next one gets deleted, try me. Boy are you living a sheltered life if you think that was a personal attack. :lol: :lol: :lol: Grow up a little if you are going to try to talk with the men. Try to understand, Skippy. I don't care about Kerry and I'm not defending him because I never posted anything to defend. It was your post! You called me out--right out of the blue even though I had posted nothing about Kerry. Listen carefully. I don't care about Kerry, the election is over, he lost. I care about George Bush, the guy responsible for this mess. You remember . . . the real issue. If you ask me something about one of my posts, I'll be glad to respond without "evasion", I always do. But don't make up an issue that doesn't concern me and scream for me to defend it. How obtuse can you be?
Does throwing your mod access around make you more of a man? Yea, I called you out. I called out the four that I could recall supported Kerry in this past election. "Our side" accused him of being dishonest and a waffler, and this is just one of the examples bearing that out. I wanted a response to this issue and guess what, none of the people whom supported Kerry in the past election manned up. None of them said "I agree with this decision" or "I disagree with this decision", which was all I was looking for. Why can't you give an honest opinion?
Fair enough. It is important to understand that being anti-Bush does not automatically make one pro-Kerry, It is not a black & white world. Some of us see the shades of gray. August 20. One of the hotter pre-election threads and typical of my stance. Notice that I'm criticising Bush and giving my reasons why . . . not promoting Kerry. http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?t=18559&page=1&pp=15&highlight=George+Bush September 7. Another thread in which I state my anti-Bush rhetoric. I also defend Kerrys war record, not his voting record. Note post 26 where I state that Kerry leaves much to be desired but is the only alternative to Bush. http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?t=19240&page=2&pp=15&highlight=George+Bush Or April 6. . . http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?t=15184&highlight=George+Bush . . . see post 6 where I mention my many reservations about Kerry and state "But it's him or Bush and I don't want any more of Bush." Or April 27. . . http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?t=15676&highlight=George+Bush . . . see post 15 where I say "What I'm doing is voting against George Bush." There are many others, but I don't really want to relive 2004 again. George Bush won the pennant and the Tigers didn't! Look very hard and you may find a post or two where I agreed with a Kerry policy, but if so, it is because Kerry happened to agree with my feelings from time to time. Mostly I just lobbied for the de-throning of George II.
