Searching "comments":
| # | Comment | Survey |
|---|---|---|
| 41 | Certainly not off to a great start.  | Based on the first week of 2010... |
| 42 | > I often wonder why people go through the trouble
> of typing out "O.K.", when they could just type > "okay". It's the same number of characters, but > you don't have to hit shift twice. Or even just OK. Generally speaking, 99 times out of 100 it'll be clear from the context you mean "okay" and not the abbreviation for Oklahoma.  | Based on the first week of 2010... |
| 43 | External hard drives. My life would've been made easier had I had one recently, but I'm sure as fudge saving up for one now. | Smartmoney.com says there are 10 things not to waste money on in 2010. Which of these would you miss if they went away? |
| 44 | http://thefump.com/fump.php?id=1217 I think the song says it all. | Walt Disney Inc has just acquired Marvel Entertainment Inc. Is this good or bad? |
| 45 | > For some reason, you never struck me as someone
> who would be into comic books. She sided with Iron Man in the Marvel Civil War. | Walt Disney Inc has just acquired Marvel Entertainment Inc. Is this good or bad? |
| 46 | Well, let's see. How many successful attacks on U.S. soil have occurred in Obama's first year? Compare that with Bush's first 9 months... Of course this doesn't excuse Obama continuing some of Bush's bad policies.
Of course the problem with the failed Christmas attack is that it proves that the terror watch list is too large. Makes it easier for TSA to miss people. I mean, when the list is filled with dead Senators, radio talk show hosts, and 4 year old boys, it's not too hard to see how someone who was actually a potential threat (turned in by his own father no less) could slide through the cracks. | Do you think the war on terrorism was being handled better by the Bush Administration? |
| 47 | > But as it stands..I think Bush handled it well
> enough.. On what do you base that? An increase in worldwide terrorist attacks? Al Qaeda growing in membership instead of being rolled up? Bin Laden still being free? Only one 9/11 co-conspirator even brought to trial? 9/11 period considering the sheer amount of warnings that were ignored? I'm curious as to how you define "well enough." | Do you think the war on terrorism was being handled better by the Bush Administration? |
| 48 | > When I'm not here to make comments do you find
> yourself screaming at the wall? > Do you want to answer my question, or just insult me? > Considering the fact that terrorism was a problem > BEFORE Bush..and considering neither one of us > (or anyone that I know for that matter) can go > back in time to see how the world would have been > different if Bush wasn't elected or if 9/11 hadn't > happened or if even just one thing was done differently > to combat terrorism..then I personally can only > assume he did well enough. Again, based on what? And I'd like an actual answer to the question to this time, or at least a refusal to answer it, as opposed to a cheap (and untrue) insult. | Do you think the war on terrorism was being handled better by the Bush Administration? |
| 49 | > I think banging your head on the wall is more
> productive than trying to argue with Frosty. > I ask a question, and she insults me. How am I the "bad guy" in this situation? Oh by the way, you misuse the word opinion in your later posts. What I posted about Bush were facts. Facts that can be researched. The increase in terrorist attacks worldwide? Came from a State Department report. The ignored warnings? The 9/11 Commission. Yes, people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Of course, some people just can't seem to tell the difference, can they Iseult? | Do you think the war on terrorism was being handled better by the Bush Administration? |
| 50 | > I did answer your question.
No, I said how do you define well enough and you give me a roundabout repeat of your original unsupported argument. > You seem to be the one that always insults (do > I need to point you to the last question you tried > to argue with me on?) On this thread you have insulted me for asking a question, then proceeded to accuse me of being the one doing the insulting. Yet somehow I'm the villain in this instance. Fascinating. > And don't even say that you didn't insult this > time because you marked both Iseult and I..all > negatives. I will dare. I gave you negative marks because of the derisive and insulting nature of the posts in question. Don't YOU dare to presume to know what my motivations are without being able to read my mind, or even my expressions. > And don't even say you didn't because > honestly, no one else gives a crap. I wasn't going to. But please, continue insinuating things about me that aren't true. After all, that's a perfectly valid alternative to trying to support your argument. </sarcasm> > But I did answer your question. Again, not really. I asked how you defined well enough, and you go "well, since it was a problem before, well enough." That is not an answer. That is your original statement re-worded. I would never be allowed to get away with anything like this. Hell, I can't even ask a question without being attacked. > If you would > like we can both talk about this. I just don't > want an argument. Ironically, talking was all I was going for in the first place before you and Iseult began insulting me. So you don't want an argument, you just don't seem to want me to argue from facts for some reason, since anytime I use data to support my argument you dismiss it as opinion, regardless of the source, be that source the DOD (to take this thread for example), or the 9/11 Commission (from this and other threads). You in all honesty remind me of LJD attacking me for being wrong when I quote her own Holy Book in debate. Though to be fair you are far less vicious than she in such instances. | Do you think the war on terrorism was being handled better by the Bush Administration? |
