Skeptic said:
...
1). I'm sure they're devastated, Ion.
2). True to your usual parasitical view of life, you didn't stop reading the paper in protest for their endorsement of Bush... you just stopped paying for it.
You're not the kind of guy to make any sort of protest that might, God forbid, actually mean that you must deny yourself anything.
Ladies and gentlemen: the "progressive" attitude in action.
Regarding 1)., it doesn't matter to me whether
"...they're devastated...", what matters to me is my integrity, no matter the popularity.
Regarding 2)., I boycott paying The San Diego Union Tribune;
I use it anyway to read pro-Bush points of view, antagonist to mine, so that I can be open minded;
more open minded than Bush's yes servants, a la Condi Rice;
as for my
"...parasitical view of life...", with my
"...parasitical view of life..." I got a graduate degree in Electrical Engineering, without using affirmative action, and in a foreign language where my thinking is slower than in my native tongue;
but Bush got a law degree -which is cheaper intelectually than a scientific degree-, in his native language, and with legacy help from his father (after poor C grades at Yale), and this is affirmative action for the rich and the undeserving;
so, if my lifestyle has a
"...parasitical view of life...", then Bush's lifestyle has a way more
"...parasitical view of life..." than mine.
In fact speaking of Bush's
"...parasitical view of life...", in three years time, you will say that in given losing situations, there will be nothing better to do than what Bush will be doing.
Watch for these losing situations he creates since 2000, because the neoconservative fool paints himself into a corner.
November 2004 there was a crossroad, facing a fork with two prongs:
.) Bush's prong with record deficits, war of aggression for looting, tax cuts for the rich and outsourcing the U.S. industry;
.) Kerry's prong with deficits in check, international diplomacy, taxing the rich, penalizing the outsourcing of the U.S. industry.
But let me support this with what the world thinks, according to the Los Angeles Times now, a paper that I respect.
Saturday January 22, 2005 Los Angeles Times has on page A11, under
'Israel Denies Plans to Attack':
1.)
"...A BBC World Service Poll of 22,000 people in 21 countries showed this week that 58% of respondents, and a majority in 16 countries, considered the world more dangerous because of Bush's reelection..."
2.)
"It would be sensible if the Americans would think not only about potential military strikes. It would be good if they would participate more constructively in the diplomatic efforts of the European Union.";
3.)
"...Commentators in varios regions chided Bush for what they said was his aggressive projection of American power and questioned whether the president was sincere about backing freedom fighters and not dictators...";
4.)
"With this president the world feels like it's dancing on a volcano.";
5.)
"We also think about his economic policy based on abysmal deficits which put USA (and therefore the rest of the world) on the edge of a financial crash.".
Not too much winning with Bush's neoconservative policies, eh?
At the crossroad on November 2004, you and your ilk, you voted and chose to lose.
