|
| Thread: George W. Bush: The right man, at the right time for the tough job! |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Vadskye91
Promising
Supreme Hero
Back again
|
posted September 26, 2006 04:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, didn't you say he was "incapable of following simple points" and that he was either stupid or ignorant? That would, in fact, be responding in kind.
This is my whole quote to Xarfax111:
Quote:
@xarfax111: Your post makes no sense, other than to prove you are incapable of following simple points. If english isn't your first language I suggest you get your money back from whomever taught it to you, they left huge gaps in your education. If english is your first language then there are clearly huge gaps in your intelligence.
Here is a piece of friendly advice though: you could probably benefit from anger management class.
His post didn't make sense, he didn't follow my points and his grammer, syntax, spelling and wild leaps in "logic" left no doubt to me that he was incapable of using the english language correctly for whichever of the two reasons I gave. I neither called him ignorant nor stupid.
Well, you did say that he was either ignorant of the ignorant of the English language or too stupid to understand how to speak in English. There are many smart people (see Aculias) who either don't know how to type properly or don't want to do so. That does not invalidate their point either. Admittedly, Xarfax wasn't clear about his statement, but what he was implying was that the idea of comparing automobile accidents with any relevance to military losses was a bad one.
Quote:
Quote:
Wouldn't that be a needless personal attack with no relevance to the actual issue?
Typical Republican. 
A person can only be expected to absorb just so much abuse before they respond. And I allowed him several personal attacks; including classifying me as a Nazi; that went unanswered. So if defending myself after being permissive; only to a certain point; typifies the Republican attitude than I have no problem with your statement. 
I'm not saying he was right to say that, but flaming in an otherwise serious thread is never a good idea. When the mod shows up in your thread to tell (almost) everyone to stop being stupid, that's generally a bad idea. If you want to really talk about Bush, talk about Bush. Not Xarfax.
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, that would be a perfect exampe of American Arrogance at its best. Or worst. By assuming that the only people who say that are stupid, useless, and so on, you have just proved the point he made better than he ever could. Congrats.
It was inteded to be insulting! I made no bones about that. Please reread the statement I gave at the begining of that post.
There is a growing trend among some internet posters, especially when their arguments ( if they even have any ) are proven vacuous, incoherent, baseless, or uselessly insulting; to throw down the vaunted statement which usually reads: "mommy he insulted me back so therefore he must be one of those 'ugly Americans' you know the kind that won't relent to me just because I wish he would."
Those types of responders usually think that since they played the "he's an ugly American" card it invalidates every point their target has made, while simultaneously excusing flames they've thrown.
I don't accept that. And neither should any other self respecting person no matter what country they are from.
I was honestly laughing at the end of this. You see no irony whatsoever in saying people are "liberals" and ignoring their arguments? It's the same thing.
Quote:
Quote:
And before you get started on me, I'm American too. Just for the record.
Why would I start on you? Are you one of those "ugly Americans"?
O noes! I am found out!
Quote:
Quote:
*coughcoughpersonalattackcoughcough*
Once again it was fully intentional and not disguised as anything less.
Quote:
 You just insulted him repeatedly, and then you smile? What the @#$%?
Yep, I'm still smiling. He brought it on himself by constantly egging me on.
Quote:
And now... *obligatory personal attack*.
So there.
Wrong, no personal attack, just the previously posted explanation.
Sorry, did I leave my sarcasm alarm off?
Quote:
@Consis: I have no problem with 'privatehudson' other than the same problem I have with anyone that joins a thread solely to post off topic spam. He actually responded on topic eventually and redeemed himself a bit imho.
Actually, PH posted on topic more consistently than you did. You took time out to flame once. PH consistently rebutted your posts and your statistics, and how much more on-topic can you get? Would you prefer he ignore your posts and instead argue on soley philosophical grounds?
By the way, a generic "Yo mama" in conclusion.
____________
Knowledge is power...
|
|
muerte
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2006 05:17 PM |
|
Edited by muerte at 18:53, 26 Sep 2006.
|
Quote:
I was honestly laughing at the end of this. You see no irony whatsoever in saying people are "liberals" and ignoring their arguments? It's the same thing.Quote:
Why are people equating the use of the term "liberal" with "insult"? I use it to categorize the political orientation of the statements; with likely attachments to the relevant party by the people that use statements that fall into that category.
I didn't ignore any of the posts or posters I called liberal, I responded to all of them. In fact I believe trogdor is the only one I even refer to as a liberal for that matter, and I addressed his point.
Quote:
Actually, PH posted on topic more consistently than you did. You took time out to flame once. PH consistently rebutted your posts and your statistics, and how much more on-topic can you get? Would you prefer he ignore your posts and instead argue on soley philosophical grounds?
It isn't PH's ( as you refer to him ) thread. He doesn't bear the responsibility of addressing commentary ( such as your own ) that has drifted way off topic in order to clarify points. I would love to return to talking about G.W.B.'s many fine points but the closest thing that even mentions the thread topic is this from Aculias:
Quote:
Many think that Bush altered the votes so it would be in his favor.
Everyone I know even out of California did not vote for Bush.
Also I think many people wanted action also, especially the people in the war AT THAT TIME.
They finally get some real action in war & they had to keep Bush in to do so.
I find the claims here to lean way too far towards the 'twilight zone' to be anything but another attempt to make me flame the supposed point of view.
Quote:
By the way, a generic "Yo mama" in conclusion.
You really are funny! The irony shot you took has just been lobbed back to you! Lamenting my insults while tossing verbal 'hand grenades' of your own? Classic!
As an aside: If it helps smooth ruffled feathers here, I apologize for descending into immature responses against Xarfax111.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted September 26, 2006 06:05 PM |
|
|
Rofl
Now that's what I like to see: A George Dubya Bush thread filled with arguments that end in a boisterous barbaric "YO MOMMA!" LoL! Ok what ever poor pre-judgments I might have had about this thread prior have now been eliminated.
Welcome to the new age of enlightenment!
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted September 26, 2006 06:19 PM |
|
|
Bah, you think every thread is poor these days Consis
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted September 26, 2006 06:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I can't praise George W. Bush enough!
Bush wants to kill everyone.
Bush is good.
Bush is our pal.
Everyone have fun!
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 26, 2006 08:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The road traffic comparison was used to show a general lack of perspective about the situation.
Trying to compare the two just doesn't work for me sorry.
Road fatalities are by and large unavoidable, wars (especially ones that involve invading another country) are usually avoidable. They come about not through random bad luck but by deliberate action. Nothing Bush or for that matter anyone can do could completely eliminate traffic fatalities, however the Bush administration and its allies could have avoided the war fatalities by not starting it in the first place. You can argue in favour of the war but the fact remains that is was a concious decision to commence it, not the random chance we see in most road deaths.
In that sense I don't think it matters how many people die on the roads compared to the losses in Iraq and I certainly don't think that merely owning a vehicle makes someone a hypocrite if they are concerned by road fatalities. I'd find it unamusing if they were boasting about drink driving or speeding in light of traffic fatalities but not for merely happening to own the same type of car.
As for my replies being off topic... I don't care, I reply to what I find interesting in people's statements. If you find that a problem then speak to a moderator, I'm sure they'll clean the thread for you if they feel its necessary.
You can alternatively always ignore it, as you did with my earlier point on perspectives between older conflicts and Iraq.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Xarfax111
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
The last hero standing
|
|
posted September 26, 2006 10:45 PM |
|
|
If you are unable to see the difference between
"giving orders to shoot other people in the head or bomb them away (<--thats what war is all about)"
and
"tragic car accidents"
then you are not worth any "debate" anyway.
But lets give you another try (i hope you understand my english).
You say Ape Bush is the best president for the current situation.
What are your points/facts for that?
What do you think about Hillary Clinton?
Does the Irak have something to do with the Al-Quaida?
Those are 3 simple questions in my simple non-native english. Maybe you can give some facts and arguments (excluding "shes a liberal" ).
____________
|
|
Vadskye91
Promising
Supreme Hero
Back again
|
|
posted September 27, 2006 12:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I was honestly laughing at the end of this. You see no irony whatsoever in saying people are "liberals" and ignoring their arguments? It's the same thing.
Why are people equating the use of the term "liberal" with "insult"? I use it to categorize the political orientation of the statements; with likely attachments to the relevant party by the people that use statements that fall into that category.
Categorize the political orientation with likely attachments to the relevant party? Here I quote: "More typical rhetoric from an ignorant liberal." "that's the kind of common sense tactics that liberal Democrats are entirely incapable of using." "...liberal puppet masters ( such as George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Maher, Howard Dean and the other left wing Democratic 'usual suspects' )"
That's not "likely attachments to the relevant party". We equate the word liberal with insult not because it is an insult, but because you use it as an insult. You overgeneralize those of a liberal viewpoint to be subject to all of those things you mentioned, and no doubt more than that.
What if I were to say that all conservatives were mind slaves of Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Colter, and so on? How would you respond to that?
Quote:
I didn't ignore any of the posts or posters I called liberal, I responded to all of them. In fact I believe trogdor is the only one I even refer to as a liberal for that matter, and I addressed his point.
Quote:
Actually, PH posted on topic more consistently than you did. You took time out to flame once. PH consistently rebutted your posts and your statistics, and how much more on-topic can you get? Would you prefer he ignore your posts and instead argue on soley philosophical grounds?
It isn't PH's ( as you refer to him ) thread. He doesn't bear the responsibility of addressing commentary ( such as your own ) that has drifted way off topic in order to clarify points.
Why not? Threads have a single overarching topic, that is true. But branching off to different topics that are derivative of the main topic, and relevant to it, is not off-topic. Was he being off-topic to correct your misquote of death statistics? No, he was responding to a claim you made that turned out to be mistaken. That's what argumentation is about.
Quote:
I would love to return to talking about G.W.B.'s many fine points but the closest thing that even mentions the thread topic is this from Aculias:
Quote:
Many think that Bush altered the votes so it would be in his favor.
Everyone I know even out of California did not vote for Bush.
Also I think many people wanted action also, especially the people in the war AT THAT TIME.
They finally get some real action in war & they had to keep Bush in to do so.
I find the claims here to lean way too far towards the 'twilight zone' to be anything but another attempt to make me flame the supposed point of view.
Quote:
By the way, a generic "Yo mama" in conclusion.
You really are funny! The irony shot you took has just been lobbed back to you! Lamenting my insults while tossing verbal 'hand grenades' of your own? Classic!
You know that was sarcastic, right? Just making sure...
Quote:
As an aside: If it helps smooth ruffled feathers here, I apologize for descending into immature responses against Xarfax111.
Jolly good.
Now, as a general rule of principle, I don't like having everyone gang up on someone. Any conservatives out there?
Wait, that's not right. Any conservatives who still like Bush out there?
____________
Knowledge is power...
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2006 01:04 AM |
|
|
<<<Wait, that's not right. Any conservatives who still like Bush out there?>>>
No, just us conservative lurkers who hate Bush. And it's not "STILL" like Bush....it's never did like Bush from the start.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted September 27, 2006 01:17 AM |
|
|
Oddly . . .
I don't like him because of his Iraq war and I knew he started it. . . but that didn't stop me from voting for him.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2006 02:31 AM |
|
|
Did you vote FOR him, or against Kerry? In other words, did you actually WANT Bush in office?
____________
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted September 27, 2006 07:27 AM |
|
|
Kerry was no Saint either, he was against alot of stuff.
I dont think he would of done any worst but he wouldnt know how to be a president if he just sat on his chair staring at the college football championship
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Vadskye91
Promising
Supreme Hero
Back again
|
|
posted September 27, 2006 02:11 PM |
|
|
Consis, I would love to hear the reason for that sometime...
____________
Knowledge is power...
|
|
Xarfax111
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
The last hero standing
|
|
posted September 27, 2006 05:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Consis, I would love to hear the reason for that sometime...
Thats easy to explain. Bush is telling that hes the more religious guy, the more family and trustful guy, the more patriotic guy and so on and so on...he and the media is keep on telling those people that he is like that. And in the end they do believe that, cause they like to believe.
While his acting is else.
People like Consis do have a strong believe in god and family. So Bush keeps on bubbeling about God and the Bible, and he likes to talk in the terms of the Bible, like "an Eye for an Eye" and that kind of stuff. As far as i do know Jesus was against "an Eye for an Eye", so hes against Bush. Being a Christian is not "going to the church every Sunday"..being a Christian is to act according to the message Jesus send out. Bush is doing the opposite of that.
People like Consis do have a strong feeling for patriotic things. So Bush keeps on bubbeling about the Country, Flag and Soldiers and stuff, and he likes to talk in patriotic terms like "you are with us or against us" or "our brave soldiers sacrifice their lifes for freedom" and that kind of stuff. Well if he would really care about his soldiers he wouldnt send them in unprepared. He and his stuff really thought that raid a land with some high technology planes and stuff would give him an easy win.. HIS VICTORY FOR THE HISTORY. Now hes having his debakel and he will be marked in history with that.
____________
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted September 27, 2006 06:49 PM |
|
|
this is all I can say please read
TIme limited...
knowledge... limited
How can I take a stance when I dont even know every detail, infact half of the true details? I know first hand that the news twists things everytime they get a chance. Though chances may be limited when it comes to governmental influences watching down on them, they find ways to irk society for ratings.
Some press likes bush also..
My whole point is what "I" might think I know about everything from school, parents, friends, news, internet, ect is coming from opinionated people who in the grand light of all that is true can not back up their story with anything valid.. Or am I wrong? (Could be I cant back up what I say until I investigate everyone and all the things they say)
Go ahead, pick anyone you already have as your influence. Let them do your thinking for you infact. They might aswell if what they say about Gas is true to you no matter what lol.
Another thing, even taking all you do know into consideration what would you do differently? Dont forget 100s of polititians like the senate and wise members are badgering BUSH (the one everyone is naturaly going to blame) all the time about whats right and whats wrong.
Dont forget, everyone with opinions who has soul conviction in their beliefs, has someone else with oppsing ones. Who is right? Who is to say who is right? I for one would atLEAST want to be educated in the true facts.
Thanks... blabbered
____________
What are you up to
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted September 27, 2006 08:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Thats easy to explain. Bush is telling that hes the more religious guy, the more family and trustful guy, the more patriotic guy and so on and so on...he and the media is keep on telling those people that he is like that. And in the end they do believe that, cause they like to believe.
For those of you not in the United States I need to inform you that Kerry ran one of the most inept campaigns I've ever seen. It was almost as bad as Dole's effort in 96'. The thinking amongst a lot of people was that if his campaign was that befuddled then "what would he be like as a president?" Bush's campaign meanwhile was on-target, ruthless, extremely well organized, and imaginative. There's no way in hell I'd vote for Bush but the truth is I didn't have a lot of confidence when I was filling in the Kerry bubble on my ballot.
BTW I'm willing to bet half my qp's that Consis voted for Bush because there was a couple of vacancies coming up on the supreme court and he's a pro-lifer.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted September 27, 2006 08:35 PM |
|
Edited by Aculias at 20:36, 27 Sep 2006.
|
I bet Kerry is pro choice.
I also bet if he was president, only people who were pro choice would work in his cabinent
Maybe that is one of the many reasons why he was not voted in office
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
muerte
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2006 10:03 PM |
|
Edited by muerte at 23:12, 27 Sep 2006.
|
Quote:
Now, as a general rule of principle, I don't like having everyone gang up on someone. Any conservatives out there?
Wait, that's not right. Any conservatives who still like Bush out there?
Thanks for the sentiment.
The only thing I can really say is that I was honestly unprepared for not just the ability of members of this community to change the subject or alter a posters responses in ways that fit their own concepts or their own agenda's ( and I'm sure this statement will soon be singled out for just such treatment; go right ahead I won't be drawn in again  ); but the seeming overwhelmingly obsessive need for them do so.  It's almost as if it were the only real pleasure they had left in life.
Regardless; the full consequences of the Iraq war won't be realized while G.W.B. is in office anyway and may actually take several decades to sort through and conclude whether or not it was of value as a whole or not. It isn't the "be all, end all" of the Bush administration to me. I see past one issue and try to view the whole situation in order to avoid the confines of singlemindedness.
The post from Consis actually turns out to be the most on topic and wisest response to my original post.
note original post:Quote:
I can't praise George W. Bush enough!
Assuming a leadership role in an office left absolutely barren of credibility and in a moral and ethical shambles personified by William J. Clinton; taking on an economy that's financial bubble had been burst by the rampant dot com company failures of the late 1990's and refocusing it with tax cuts into the emerging economic juggernaut it has become; all this while rising to the occasion of 9/11 to emerge as the pre-eminent world leader against radical religious fanatics while directing our nations troops in multiple campaigns worldwide against the agents of terrorism seeking to disrupt Western civilizations for whatever nefarious reasons!
followed by wise response:
Quote:
The common person will never know exactly what G.W. Bush's greatest accomplishments were while in office because of the war he started with Iraq.
I agree with Consis's assesment in the previous quote.
I'll take it a step further than he did ; however; and state that in my opinion too many people are incapable of viewing the G.W.B presidency except through the narrow prism of the Iraq war and the great accomplishments and contributions he has made while in office are going to continue to be lost on them.
I doubt that the Iraq war will make or break President Bush's historical legacy; especially since time has a way of sorting out the partisan hacks on either side of the political spectrum that push their agenda's of what people should believe about certain world leaders.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted September 27, 2006 10:10 PM |
|
|
Are you kidding,his legacy is already ruined lol.
From his lies to films to reading kid stories & serving this nation .
The war is just an add on to his legacy.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Vadskye91
Promising
Supreme Hero
Back again
|
|
posted September 27, 2006 10:25 PM |
|
|
Xarfax, Jesus is not against Bush any more than he is for Bush. God is not a Republican or a Democrat. I asked him.
I can't resist... Muerte, I find it odd that you accuse us of "alter a posters responses in ways that fit their own concepts or their own agendas". When have we ever misquoted you? Even if you disagree with us down to the last line, you have to admit we at least kept your quotes within their original context and fairly rebutted them. You dropped all the points I brought up against you and accused us all of being off-topic with our responces...
Quote:
I'll take it a step further than he did ; however; and state that in my opinion too many people are incapable of viewing the G.W.B presidency except through the narrow prism of the Iraq war and the great accomplishments and contributions he has made while in office are going to continue to be lost on them.
I doubt that the Iraq war will make or break President Bush's historical legacy; especially since time has a way of sorting out the partisan hacks on either side of the political spectrum that push their agenda's of what people should believe about certain world leaders.
I disagree, muerte. History isn't concerned with the policies of leaders, it is concerned with the overall results of their administration; in this case, the Iraq War. I think it would be time to discuss Bush's stance on privacy, or the lack thereof...
____________
Knowledge is power...
|
| |
|
|
