A little primer on using your browser
As it would appear that some of our liberal friends do not know how to use a browser, allow me to enlighten you.
You see, there are things called "links". Generally when one is making a point on the internet, rather than reproducing the entire text of an article they wish to cite as evidence, a web author will create one of these "link" things.
Now in most cases, you can tell a "link" thing, because the text will be in a different color, or when you run your mouse over it, the arrow pointer will change to a little hand.
So when "anonymous" posted their question, "And you have proof of this fabrication?" in regards to my Another Kerry Cheat Uncovered post, they could have answered their silly question very simply by clicking on the "link" thingee in the article's text, just like you can click on the words "Another Kerry Cheat Uncovered" in this sentence to view that page.
You see, there are things called "links". Generally when one is making a point on the internet, rather than reproducing the entire text of an article they wish to cite as evidence, a web author will create one of these "link" things.
Now in most cases, you can tell a "link" thing, because the text will be in a different color, or when you run your mouse over it, the arrow pointer will change to a little hand.
So when "anonymous" posted their question, "And you have proof of this fabrication?" in regards to my Another Kerry Cheat Uncovered post, they could have answered their silly question very simply by clicking on the "link" thingee in the article's text, just like you can click on the words "Another Kerry Cheat Uncovered" in this sentence to view that page.
posted by G-Man at 9:28 PM
Thanks for the unneeded exposition on clicking on links. What will it take for you Bushies to realize that the Drudge Report doesn't constitute proof of anything? It, like most of what Bush says, is pure right-wing fabrication.
Excuse me, but there's not a single Drudge Report article linked in any of my posts. Nor is there and from Fox News, so read and weep!
A Little Primer on Linking
As it would appear that some of our Bushie freinds do not know how to use a browser, allow me to enlighten you. If you want to claim that your link under "appear" ISN'T a link to the Drudge Report, then you need to link to some URL other than: http://www.drudgereport.com/kdn.wmv (which opens when you click on the link).
Ah frankly I had forgotten that one, but it is non-the-less a recording of the nationally televised debate -or is it not?
"Nor is there and from Fox News, so read and weep!" so you say....
Ah!! A Drudge Report clip from Fox News... now that's REALLY proof! Uh... and just what is George W. pulling out of his pocket too? You know what? I'll bet it's a crib sheet he's smuggling in in abbeyance of the negotiated agreement. Why does this not surprise me?
I see you are somewhat shocked that your man would do such a thing. I'm also glad that you're hiding behind the "anonymous" tag so that I can't leave little "love notes" on your blog (which must obviously be obsequious in its support of your candidate).
I am shocked that anyone with even half a brain would interpret BOTH candidates removing pens from their pockets as a sinister "smuggling in of crib sheets." How juvenile. But then, since your man lost the debate BIG TIME, I guess it's left all of you grasping at straws, hasn't it?
My blog is for INFORMED, intelligent postings. No one who posts there would ever try to pass off something like your clip of "surreptitious smuggling" as something factual. Therefore, your posts would be out of place there.
You see, there are some people in this world who get their rocks off by stirring people up. Obviously you are such a poster. You like it when people fight with you, otherwise you wouldn't have this kind of blog.
It would be different if you posted your support of your candidate's virtues without resorting to juvenile, fabricated attacks. Or, maybe you feel that your candidate is so lacking in virtues that the only way to present him in a positive light is to trash his opponent. Either way, if you don't like people responding to the nature of your posts, maybe you should blog about mountain climbing or goat breeding.....
I find it interesting that Kerry-ites claim the win of the debate so whole-heartedly.
I will grant you that the President's presentation was less "polished" than Kerry's. George Bush is certainly not a stellar public speaker, but his sincerity still comes through loud and clear. Kerry on the other hand, of course presented his points with a flair. He's an elitist snob from Mass. I mean con-men are known for their smooth presentation. His points however were devoid of content or a basis in reality. To solve the situation in Iraq, he'd hold a summit. What good is that going to do? The French (and that's who we're talking about here) have already indicated the even in the case of a regime change in the US, they'd still not go into Iraq.
btw, I couldn't help but notice that you snagged my idea and put a link to www.electoral-vote.com on your blog.
...and on another note...
My blog is for INFORMED, intelligent postingsNice to see that you're so informed that you didn't recognize a very well publicised photo from the Osetia school invasion.
Admit it, you simply fear an opposing point of view.
And liars are well known for getting peevish and pissed off whenever they are confronted by their lies.
Sadly for you, it's not just us Kerryites who say that our candidate won the debate decisively. All of the mainstream media -- that's right the REAL media -- also acknowledges this... and by a LARGE margin. In fact, by the largest margin that anyone has ever won a debate.
All your man did was sigh and grimace and become peevish and pissed off whenever he was challenged -- the very thing everyone claimed lost the debates for Al Gore four years ago.
Where was the substance in his so-called "sincere presentation"? There was none. The only thing he could manage to say-- bitterly-- answer after answer was his tirade about "mixed messages." And when his own "mixed messages" were pointed out, what did he do?? He grimaced and pouted.
I have no fear of opposing views when they are factual and not imaginary. You say your blog is for informed, intelligent postings. No one with any amount of intelligence (even the most ardent Bush supporter) would post such obvious fabrications and call it facts. No, my friend, you get off on fighting with people and that, I submit, is the sole purpose of this blog. So if you don't like the way people respond to your absurdly fictious ramblings, then, like I said, maybe you should blog on camel-herding or something like it.
Perhaps you've missed it, but there happens to be more to my blog than my political points of view. Since you are so "INTELLIGENT" and "Informed" perhaps you might find one of those articles more to your liking and less-challenging to your obviously fragile political point of view.
I couldn't help but notice that your response to the "Kerry & the Questionable Intelligence" post failed to address a single point that was raised in that rather lengthy piece. It simply spouted disproven party-line rhetoric. I have no problems entering into a rousing debate with anyone who wishes to engage in a "debate". But you simply haven't any cogent points to make other than political dogma, generalizations and wild gesticulations. To wit I certainly can respond in kind (since that appears to be your desire).
Now perhaps you have some "INTELLIGENT' and "Informed" thoughts regarding paleo-indians and the Clovis controversy or the use of Gavins in Iraq, but I doubt it or you certainly would have tried to "wow" me with them.
I find it vastly amusing that someone who has to resort to such obvious fabrication and opponent trashing to defend his own point of view should think to comment upon my "fragile political point of view."
I would say that having to resort to that sort of behavior indicates a far more fragile point of view than taking issue where your posts are obviously false. But then, as I said before, maybe the only way you can find to paint such a failed President in a positive light is to trash his opponent with fabrications.
Since, in your fawning and slavish devotion to said failed President, you obviously have nothing of substance to contribute on his behalf from his own accomplishments, I hardly think that puts you in a position to pass judgement on any of the rest of us in regard to fragility.
Unlike you, it is not my intention to "wow" anyone. Therefore, I will comment on posts as I see fit. If you post something that is blatantly false, do not be surprised when people call you on them. If I felt your posts on Paleo-Indians and the Clovis controversy or the use of Gavins in Iraq were as dishonest as your political posts, I would have commented on those as well, but I did not.
You certainly could use some work on your people skills. You like to dish it out, but you can't take the heat. You like to stir people up as long as they don't challenge you.
How old are you, really, G-Man? I'll bet you're about 12 or 13 years old, aren't you? That's about the age when kids think they know everything and have to fight for fun.
I find it vastly amusing that someone who claims to be so intelligent would latch onto a single post out all of them try say it's indicative any sort of personal qualities about the poster.
Fine, blithely ignore all of your candidate's inadequacies, believe him to be the second coming for all I care, but come election day, one's going to win and then we'll be stuck with whoever that happens to be.
I am not "fighting for fun" as you would indicate. I simply believe that John Kerry is too indecisive and too much a pacifist to effectively lead this nation in a time of war.
Your use of ad-hominim attacks however would seem more a reflection of your level of maturity than my posting of a single post which you find disagreeable.
Hah. This is quite humorous.
Pen or paper: winner Liberal loser who posts anonymously.
Spuing lies: winner Liberal loser who posts anonymously.
(note He/She accuses you of tactics his/her candidate espouses.)
Arguement: winner G-man (after all it is your blog)
Best Blog: winner G-man (who knows what the blog for the INTELLIGENT is like? Probably about flowers and basket weaving. But how will we know, IT wishes to remain anonymous.)
|
<< Home