|
| Thread: Who will be president? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted February 17, 2004 09:55 AM |
|
|
Consis, yes, the ability to keep oneīs temper most of the time is a secondary virtue that deserves some credit.
Why do I say "secondary"? Because standing alone, it doesnīt do much good. If the same person always argues in a stereotypical and simplicistic manner, without any willingness to reflect on his own "opinions" (which by coincidence shows itself to be always identical with a certain political partyīs current position on the subject), the good self-control doesnīt make him a less uninteresting read, as far as I am concerned.
On top of this, there is the obnoxious habit to commit discussion "fouls" whenever the argument is not going said personīs way - for example flood the argument with irrelevancies until everyone has forgotten whatīs been talked in about the beginning (this method is also known as the red herring.)
Finally, if the discussion is totally and utterly lost*, with all arguments refuted, the defense goes like this:"Im not arguing anymore. Nothing anyone says in an Internet argument is going to change the way anyone thinks."
I very much agree with the one who said that such displays of intellectual dishonesty (or inability?) do not have to be encouraged.
==================================================================================
* Of course the only thing that we can lose in an internet discussion is our own errors.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 17, 2004 10:41 AM |
|
|
And Peacemaker, I donīt really understand your last post. Where does anyone suggest that arguments from one side of the spectrum are categorically bad? And where are the ad hominem attacks? I reread the second page of this thread, but were hardly able to find any.
____________
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted February 17, 2004 01:44 PM |
|
|
I think kerry will win, for this reason, and this reason alone:
Reason: Ppl want to move on and forget the war. Kerry is a new guy compared to bush, and not associated with the war in the same way.
And who cares how your wife votes?  Any vote is a vote for democracy, especially a stupid vote.
|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
|
posted February 17, 2004 11:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And who cares how your wife votes? Any vote is a vote for democracy, especially a stupid vote.
well democracy started a war near my garden i hope gootch convert his wife... 1 vote is 1 vote
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 18, 2004 02:51 AM |
|
|
Hey Lews! Long time!
I will stand by my post and let those who might recognize some of their emotionally-driven allegations against others figure out who they are.
(You can IM me if you want!)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 18, 2004 05:02 PM |
|
|
Hello Peacemaker,
I havenīt been that much been away ... (occasionally dropped a humble comment or two)
I can IM you if you like, but Iīll also respond to your position here at this part of this thread:
With your last post, if I got it right, youīve pointed fingers at everyone involved ... well, everyone except for yourself. It seems a bit arrogant to me, the way you pass judgement about the emotional state of those you disagree with. There may be the possibility that you just didnīt fully understand their points, perhaps even because of possible emotional involvement. I donīt think that anyone of us is free of occasional myopic thinking.
And my two questions were serious, if you donīt like to answer them here, maybe youīll do this via IM.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted February 18, 2004 11:43 PM |
|
|
Lews -- LOL!! Touche man. I definitely fell into the same trap by saying what I did. I certainly don't think I'm immune to mypoic thinking.... (well I hope I don't anyways!)
I just generally have had bad experiences with members of political parties saying insulting things about members of other political parties and levelling generalized accusations against one another whether they're true to the individual in question or not. I guess I saw a few people doing that to one another up top here.
It is only my wish that people focus on issues and not affiliations.
Sorry to all of you if I got a little premenstrual in the way I expressed it though.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
ouse
Adventuring Hero
old man river
|
|
posted February 24, 2004 02:34 PM |
|
|
yea, the whole ellection thing,
im going to say nator will win this one but only because i beleive that this time around people will not be able to resist his crazy name.
personally the only good candidate im seeing is bush.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 24, 2004 10:43 PM |
|
|
I hope you vote Bush then.
Sadly, I'm not able to vote yet...7 months...so close. 
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 25, 2004 10:38 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 25 Feb 2004
|
It Seems Ralph Nader Is Going To Run
In the 2000 election between Al Gore and G.W.Bush he ran as an independent and won two whole states, stealing both electoral and popular votes from each partys' nominee. In New Hampshire and Florida he left Gore and Bush in the his wake to the tune of many thousands of votes. In florida especially, he recieved well over 97,000 votes while Bush only brought in a trifle over 500. Being a democrat himself causes a serious conflict of interest when running against his own party's nominee. He could take away a significant amount of votes from John Kerry. When matched with the other democratic nominees Kerry leads the pack by a large margin but when polled against the incumbent the numbers seem closely matched. The question is:
1. Now that has Nader has decided to run which party will his historically green campaign favor when the votes are tallied?
When asked why he would hurt his own party's turnout for votes in the 2004 election(if he decided to run) Nader responded, "This campaign would be more about the dismantling of the Bush administration than it would be about getting votes."
I don't know the future but now that Nader has decided to run we might see the democratic nominees start pulling out their trump cards early on in the game. Each candidate is running on a particular high point that the others don't have. There's such good variety in our choices for a democratic nominee but that may not be a good thing. This is going to be a fascinating race to be sure.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 25, 2004 05:39 PM |
|
|
<OFF-TOPIC -- SORRY>
So who's the unmasked man in your avatar Consis -- is that you?
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 25, 2004 05:41 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 25 Feb 2004
|
Peacemaker
Yes Peacemaker that's me
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 25, 2004 06:09 PM |
|
|
(See IM for comment)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 25, 2004 10:28 PM |
|
|
Nader ran as the Green party candidate in 2000, not as an independant.
When are you going to have your own signature, Consis?
____________
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted February 25, 2004 10:38 PM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 25 Feb 2004
|
oh no, not again!
Quote:
It Seems Ralph Nader Is Going To Run
This is highly annoying to the "Anybody but Bush!" crowd. I just hope that this time around, people are smarter about the realistic chances for a third party candidate in the US system.
[cynic] The US system is rigged for the status quo, the two standing parties. The argument (common in 2000) that a vote for Nader serves as a voice for change is ^$#@* -- we need only look at how much attention the Bush administration paid to Nader's Green issues after taking office. Kyoto treaty, anyone? Once in power, politicians just do what they please, play their games, and when asked to account for themselves, they lie through their teeth. As voting citizens, we cannot speak with our votes; that's a myth. We can only stem the damage.  In this election, that means pulling the plug on Bush. [/cynic]
Edit: An amusing Flash animation about the Democratic candidates.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 01, 2004 12:08 AM |
|
|
Nader is running, that's a good thing. It would be even better if Dean had won the nomination.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 01, 2004 10:32 PM |
|
|
|
I'd love to see more comments (especially yours Khaelo) on the Kyoto Treaty and other international treaties. Any chance talking you into starting a thread on it with an intro of your understanding of the particulars?
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted March 02, 2004 03:54 AM |
|
|
This is the kind of trash that gets forwarded to me by my coworkers because they know I'm not a good ol' boy republican. I had to post this one becuase it gave me the biggest laugh.
Whether you are a democrat or republican, the truth
is, what has happened over the last year has been for
a good reason. We should pray for our leaders
regardless of their party affiliation, because in
spite of the view point, we are all looking out for
America's best interests.
Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement
claims:
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked
us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were
lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea,
North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000
lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into
a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an
average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French
consent Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama
bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and
did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple
occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us,
President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed
the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors
in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,
and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of
his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of
300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not
allowing another terrorist attack at home.
Worst president in history?
Note: this letter was also posted in the Stars N' Stripes newspaper and was subesequently torn apart. I can't help but think that chicken little might take it as gospel.
|
|
|
|
