"Bassos" wrote in message
news:48b540f3$0$187$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4OOdnRR3SLaLXinVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@comcast.com...>>
>> "Bassos" wrote in message
>> news:48b45d90$0$191$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>> "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:AbidnYAl9aCEvS7VnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com...>>>>
>>>>> Methinks you are off by about 1500 years or so ?
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm not. It's just that, as usual, you haven't a clue what I'm
>>>> talking about. You have completely failed to comprehend who "they"
>>>> are. Here's a hint: It's *not* the Chinese.
>>>
>>> Then your cleverness was far too great for my mediocre mind.
>>
>> Your mind isn't mediocre. It's pretty good. However, most of its energy
>> is wasted by having to prop up your ego. As a result, you have a hard
>> time paying attention to any voice but your own. It's you who makes your
>> mind mediocre even as you try to convince yourself that you're not.
>
> Wow.
> So, how do i overcome this propping up my ego ?
Shut up.
>>> Please enlighten me, if 'they' did not refer to the chinese, who did it
>>> refer to ?
>>
>> Context.
>
> It was in response to a sentence with a nice structure and all, and in
> response to that sentence, simple grammar indicated it referred to the
> chinese.
Only when taken completely out of context. It's like you never read the
other sentences in the post or were unable to connect one to another. That
is a mistake I've observed you to make before. I think the reason for this
is that you like to cherry pick your facts to support some preconceived
notion you've latched onto. This means you can't really appreciate context
very well at all, especially if it contains something you're trying to
avoid.
>> However, it appears you still need to be spoon-fed. "They" refers to the
>> neocons who defrauded their way into the White House and lied us into a
>> war to enrich themselves and their obscenely greedy supporters. It was
>> in 2002 that the incredibly stupid Iraq invasion took place. This is
>> patently obvious to just about everyone. Except you.
>
> You do know that Bush was re-elected after everyone knew his politics,
> right ?
Wrong. A lot of people still don't know his politics. Like you, many
people make their decisions primarily based on emotion and irrational belief
rather than informed rationality.
> Ze Fearz, ze fearz, zey rulez ze amerikaz.
See?
> (if you like i could come up with a list of things americains fear,
> starting with appearance)
>
> Will Barrack Osama, erm, Obama prevail ?
That's the neocon appeal to fear and irrationality. "You shouldn't vote for
somebody whose name sounds sort of like the name of somebody you're afraid
of, and you're afraid of him because we didn't catch him when we had a
chance, so that we could scare you again later."
> I saw the CNN bit about him, that looked promising. (he is by far the best
> candidate, far better than hillary even)
>
> The Democrats, having it let come to a bitter battle, divided the party.
Maybe you should have waited a day to make that comment. I saw Hillary's
speech and the Democratic Convention last night. Did you? Anybody who
voted for Clinton and now won't vote for Obama can no longer claim to be a
Democrat.
> What will you do ?
> (i vaguely remember you organizing some democrat thingy in 2004)
No, I didn't organize anything for 2004. I am moderately active in Obama's
campaign, although I'm not taking anything like a leadership role.
