i've learned through many discussions and pissing matches with tw that he is a vulcan. he believes emotion can and should be removed from discussions and issues. i agree that it should, but i don't believe it can. the human is an emotional animal. it is also a lazy animal. very few will ever dig deep enough to learn the hard reality of a situation so they respond instinctually or emotionally. i believe this recent election is an example of that. many people (the swing voters) didn't so much vote FOR something (democrats) as they voted against the negative emotions caused by the war which emotionally can be set squarely on the shoulders of the republicans. if the D's can avoid stepping on their collective cranks for the next two years the swing voter will feel good about the "change" they've brought and will vote for a D president. we'll see in two years.

If your post was not about a president in '08, then why did I quote that sentence and reply accordingly to that paragraph? Why would I mention your other paragraphs that are not disputable? Why waste bandwidth on paragraphs based in reasoning and history. Those other paragraphs were speculation based in sound logic and with historical precedent.

If using current attitudes, then a most likely president is Republican and one who is not wacko extremist. But history demonstrates that picking a future president in two years is about as reliable as making a profit from slot machines. Furthermore, sitting Congressmen rarely become a president.

BTW Shocker, where is the attack? Are you that touchy? Did I say your mother wears combat boots? Of course not. Did I challenge other parts of your post? No. Obviously no reason to. One paragraph in your post that is not based in history predicts a president two years early. Traditionally, presidential contenders are mostly unknowns two years before an election. That is not an attack. That is simple fact based is history. And that reply was exactly what you posted about in your paragraph 6. Where is this attack?

Do you deny that most readers of these posts are fickle? If yes, then why did you not post a reply? Your salience implies you agreed. Lookout123 examples the concept: His is a traditionally likely statement. Why such an emotional change? Well if you could answer that question, then there are many presidential contenders who would hire you.

An interesting discussion would be on why 'fickle' emotions changed so sharply. During Vietnam, it was called Tet. We had no such single event during "Mission Accomplished". And yet something changed sharply in but maybe six months causing independents - those who don't blindly follow the party line - to suddenly see George Jr lying. If so much can change so quickly over such little events, then how in hell does anyone hope to guess a next president? Better would be to use a dart board and monkey. Just ask Senator Gary Hart about sure bets.

That reply was exactly about your paragraph 6. Are you now retracting paragraph 6?

Did not surprise me... now we have to get rid of the religious leadership in DC ASAP!

We're in ur kongruss

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...nthefloorc.jpg

raysin ur tackses.


edit: {thanks to Hoof Hearted for the pic}

Do original 8-hole black Doc Marten's count? ;)

ooooooh. did you say original?:PP

Well, original style I meant. I bought them used in 1995, and I've replaced the laces more times than I can count, but they have never let me down.

1995.....let's see, in 1995, my docs were about three years old and had holes in them :P I was so disappointed when they bust up. I thought docs were indestructible....they aren't.

Emotions, absolutely, can be removed from discussions.

I'd say not so -- look how he gets when he interacts with me! He copes poorly, and comforts himself with delusions. Hardly Vulcan.

Aw man, that was a letdown, just another attack on tw. I was expecting a long post about how it should have been obvious that the US would elect a liberal because only UG and his privelledged intellectually elite equals are in a minority, and only the exceptionally intellegent are conservatives - and vice versa, only the conservatives are exceptionally intellegent.

I don't reckon anyone here is vulcan like. Aren't they famous for not having emotions?

I do like to imagine tw with pointy ears, though.

Has anyone considered the idea that if the left didn't antagonize the wealthy by making it plain that they consider them scum and want to grab as much from them as possible, that they might take a much more liberal attitude toward philanthropy?

WTF kind of stupid statement is that??!