The problem Google has, as do most of its users, is that Google just finds information. It doesn't know how to put a correct value on its merit, or know how to utilize it appropriately. Sure you can find information, but you don't have a clue how to use it. Read on
This is epically hilarious coming from you.
I'm not sure you have a clue how Google works, because Google puts emphasis on most popular, most searched for, nearest to you geographically, etc. Neither of those things is “most appropriate”, “most accurate”, “most respected within it’s field”, etc. (May also want to check that Santorum bit for grammatical sense, because I couldn’t find any)
Wrong. Google puts emphasis on the most linked articles. It has nothing to do with searched or geographical outside of the map function.
I will be laughing about this comment for years with my former professors at Harvard, who also rarely have to consult “Google”, something most of them have little respect for as well
Do you really expect me to consider your posts of value after your history here? Throwing out Harvard when your arguments are crap isn't exactly a good spiel.
LMFAO… Oh, did Bush say it, than it must be true… :roll:
Did I say it was? No. What I'm pointing out here is that Republicans themselves claimed Bush had a mandate. You are flat up wrong. Deal with it. Instead of acting like an adult, you go with that stupid &*** line. Jesus Christ.
Kristol is a well known biased conservative pundit. Everyone knows what lens his words are viewed under. Tucker Carlson is just a clown! Yes, of course the conservative pundits would want to view the election of Bush as a mandate, the very same way idiots like Chris Matthews would want to rant about a Bush mandate for the attention they’d draw as the anti-Bush media
None of which proves your point. You claimed that "No Republican really believed Bush had a mandate" and now you are trying to smear the Republicans who did. H
ow about you just man up and admit you were wrong? Oh wait. You can't do that.
Yes, the Bush Administration were a bunch of hacks! were you not paying attention? Especially after re-election, when the more talented of the bunch jumped ship, & he was left with recycled hangers-on & more good old boy network types, like Brownie.
Thanks for proving my earlier point.
I’m sorry, weren’t you just trying to lecture me on how to formulate a good argument, then saying Bush’s own words about whether enough Americans were in support of his policies constituted a mandate for his policies? Have you seen what I mean about not knowing how to utilize information yet?
Come again? Why are you constantly changing what I said? I'm merely contesting your asinine comment that no republicans really thought bush had a mandate. Rather than admit you're wrong, you are changing the subject to arguments I never made.
Please discuss the arguments you are attacking with the one who made the original argument: YOURSELF.
Reliance on blatant fabrication is sign of serious weakness and massive dishonesty. Both of which I have come to expect from you.
LMFAO! Actually, those quotes aren’t what you said… You just helped make my point!
You researched & found the words of people who were either heavily biased conservatives arguing in favor of it being a mandate, OR, the words of rational minds who questioned why the Bush Administration governed like they had a mandate when they didn’t, & pointed out that there was trouble brewing ahead
Clearly you did not read any of those. Check the origin of the quote rather then casting NPR and CNN as "heavily biased conservatives." Like I said, you have a real big problem when it comes to finding information. Rather than look it up, you basically assume whatever you want. Just as you did here. None of the quotes show anyone of them questioning a mandate.
But you are still changing the argument to something you are fabricating rather than addressing what I actually said. I get that you don't have the maturity to own up.
But at least hide your rampant raging dishonestly a little better.
Most of whom were ignominious media characters trying to create something controversial to talk about that would draw reactions from either side, since they entertainment style media… No one seeks them out for knowledge… they seek them out for entertaining delivery & adding the term “mandate” draws attention…
Still, most of those quotes pointed out the two things that have already been said in this thread
Most implies a majority.
You are counting 3 out of dozens as "most." More dishonestly spews from your argument.
If you aren't even going to pretend to be honest, I see no reason not to put you on the ignore list. Even some of the worst posters here at least pretend to be honest.
