This is all I care to reply to right now based on my heavily drugged up condition:
Quote:
|
when you guys feel you've got safety in numbers you have no problem throwing around the word idiot or whatever. Oh no...someone disagrees with you! Better circle the wagons and call him an idiot.
|
Steve, you should know by now how little I care about what other people think. I will call someone an idiot if I think they are in idiot, not because I think others will agree. Just because others agree does not imply my giving a shit that they agree with me... after all, my response was the first one, so at that time there was NO "safety in numbers"...
And as far as the "personal attack" calling him an idiot, well if he thinks Bush wants Pakistan then he is, indeed, an idiot which lacks all the facts. Exactly why I think voters should have to take a current-events type test and get at least 1/2 the questions correct before being allowed to vote. A sample question might be "In what Middle-Eastern country was Saddaam Hussein removed from power in the last few years?" I know there are some people who probably couldn't get that right...