Some nonsense is just too confrontational to ignore, such as this Letter To The Editor in today's Philadelphia Inquirer by some life form named Scott Durham of Haddonfield, NJ:As I watch President Bush's poll numbers supposedly drop every day, with the media continually bashing him with glee, please let me make four quick observations.Well, here is at least one way that Durham is wrong (and Haddonfield is such a nice town; I can't believe it's inhabited by people exclusively like this guy).
First, by a very high percentage, I assume, the pollsters making these calls are liberals, with the questions slanted in their biased way.
Second, any logic would presume that the pollsters are reaching a heavily skewed audience of Democrats at home. (We Republicans are out making money, and hiring people, to keep the economy going.)
Third, I'm 49 years old and still waiting for a pollster to call me. For some reason I don't think I'll ever get the call.
Last, and most important, if an election were held tomorrow with Bush against any Democrat, GW would win convincingly and overwhelmingly. The American people would go into the voting booth and, through common sense, realize that the economy is growing and in great shape and that President Bush is killing terrorists before they kill us.
It's as simple as that. Period. End of story.
Oh, and by the way, to send an Email to this tool and tell him what you think of him, click here.
4 comments:
Hey, pal, looks like no one has written me in the past year. Can't you get your Bush hating, America bashing, flag burning, tongue piercing, Janet Reno loving, Hillary supporting, appeasing gutless libs to write me. I take all comers.
Bull Durham
PS And please have enough integrity to give me your name.
Gee, it's only been a year and a half since I posted about your obnoxious letter; if no one has Emailed you, oh well. I guess people have better things to do - I can hardly blame them.
And why on earth should I provide anything for you that you may want when you do nothing but spew garbage through your name calling? I'm sure you've been published multiple times in the letters section of the Inquirer. They seem to prefer people like you.
And in revisiting what you originally wrote last May, you use the sad copout that Dubya's polling numbers are low because "liberals" are asking the questions. Do you realize that your guy's disapproval rating on the job is higher than Nixon's at the peak of Watergate according to the Gallup polling service? Oh, right - they're "liberals" too; I should have known (you ignored the CNN poll also, and any station that gives a paycheck to Glenn Beck MUST be liberal, right?).
"America bashing, flag burning, Janet Reno loving, gutless libs" - you're almost too pathetic for words, do you know that? ("tongue piercing?" Yuck.)
I'll give you one more chance to call me some more names when you spit up more literary bile in response to this comment, as I'm sure you will (I'll allow it if you don't go too far, and please call me a "libtard" by the way; that's a name I haven't been called for a little while now, and it never fails to make me smile).
Thanks for having the integrity to give me your name.
Here's what you don't get--Bush doesn't care if he's at 4%, 35% or 74% in the favorable approval ratings. He kicked a little ass in the Middle East (Saddam), that Clinton, or his father, didn't have the balls to do. Me, you, both Clintons, Gore, all Senators and Congressmen, hell everyone, thought Saddam had WMD's, so Bush kicked that ASS real good.
He could be at 84% in the polls, but he did the RIGHT thing and kicked some rear end--knowing full well anti war appeasing libs didn't have the stomach for it. Are you like most appeasing libs? Let me guess, you think Bush is the bad guy right, not Saddam or Bin Laden? Boy, that Clinton was tough on the terrorists, wasn't he? hahaha And how many Starbucks and 7/11's have been blown up in America since 9/11? Let me guess? 0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bull
In “State Of Denial,” even Rumsfeld admitted that they never believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs – there’s a lot more to be said about whether or not they were actually in Iraq before Dubya launched his pre-emptive war (Hans Blix of the U.N. said they weren’t), but I prefer not to engage in the hopeless task of trying to persuade a life form like you on that subject. And Clinton secured convictions in every terrorist attack involving this country (not by himself, I’ll admit – Ramzi Yousef was convicted in Pakistan for the ’93 WTC bombing) except the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, which happened near the end of his term and was hindered partly because we didn’t have an extradition treaty with Yemen.
I apologize because I realize I’m using way too many big words for you, but I don’t know how else to communicate this stuff.
And I suppose creating the worst refugee crisis in the world (2 million at last count) for a war based on lies that has made us less safe according to the National Intelligence Estimate and killed nearly 4,000 of our military in the process and wounding thousands more constitutes “kicking ass” as far as you’re concerned. Sure, let’s kill more innocent people who have a different complexion than we do for no good reason (and if you had any familiarity at all with this site, you’d already know how I feel about bin Laden).
OK, you’re done now – have fun spewing your garbage somewhere else and getting published in the Inquirer letters section (and as if I’m going to give my real name to a nutball like you).
Post a Comment