The Gloves Are Off: Debate 2 Roundup

vroom:

My oh so confused message board friend!

I am aware of your very first post, which I responded to. However, you posted again after that. That is the post which I responded to regarding polling and thinking for yourself.

Go back and read this thread from the beginning. You will see that I am correct.

Instead of lashing out at you for this error, as you did me calling me names, and claiming that I have “flipped” I would rather state that you are sincerely confused.

You write many posts (as do I) and I think you simply are confused relative to this exchange.

Lumpy:

About half the nation thinks President Bush is intelligent enough to deserve another term. Do they all work for the White House?

As I have stated, you can have your dour candidate. I’ll take a guy who shows emotion and has real feelings! Oh, and one who stays the course, even when the political wind blows against him. That would be President Bush!

You also seem to think that if one can speak clearly, concisely and never make an error that he is automatically correct on the issues. I think that is quite a stretch! I know some people who have never had a college education and speak rather poorly, but are quite intelligent. They have “street smarts.” Ever hear of that?

We are voting for commander and chief, not debater and cheif! However, Bush beat your man on his own turf in the second debate.

Bush will also win the Presidency!

Zeb,

I know which post you referred to. However, referring to my later post, which agrees with my first post, is pretty lame.

Everybody else on the forums will simply look at the first post and see that I was ahead of the polls with my prediction.

You must be a republican to play such silly games with the truth.

vroom:

Not playing games, simply attempting to point you in the proper direction relative to my comments made in my second post.

I hope that this clears the matter up.

This message was meant to be in the “Kerry is in Trouble” thread…not sure how this got mixed up:

I’ve never said anything in this thread about Bush being responsible for 9/11.

What I have said, however, is that if he is to get CREDIT for there not having been an attack since 9/11, then it follows LOGICALLY that he receive blame if there is or has been an attack since 9/11.

Is this so difficult?

Sorry to pick on you vroom, I too understand that there are people out there who are not very intelligent when it comes to politics. However generally these are the 40-60% of the country that doesn’t Vote. This statement - “For example, he voted for taxes 98 times. Everyone with a brain knows that raw voting records aren’t really indicative of anything – however, plenty of people don’t have brains, so it will get traction with them.”
Is why some of us really have a problem with the elitist liberal left. You guys act like you need to make the decisions for the world because everyone else is so stupid and ignorant. You guys are so full of yourselves it really turns my stomach. Read my other post where I write a true story about how liberalism destroyed my friend. This is a kid who has a lower IQ, got lower grades all through school, and generally looked up to me as a “smart kid” in college who would help him with papers and such as we were in the same major. Then because I like bush better than kerry, (note I do not love bush) he calls me stupid, tells me i’m smarter than this and calls me a blind moron. This i’m afraid has gone too far when one of my best friends can go there with me. Liberal Extremism is a disease of anger much like the Muslim extremism that is plauging us right now. I would contend that conservative extremism is just as dangerous but right now there is no real “Extreme” conservative movement.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

Veg,

I’m not interested in making decisions for anybody. I am interested in goading them into searching for and finding out what is really going on in the world around them.

If I have to piss a few people off by pointing out that they are too damned lazy and ignorant and believe everything they are told, which is just plain dangerous, than so be it. This is the process that originally opened my eyes.

If people are able to actually form their own opinion and present it based on an understanding of the isse being discussed, then it is their own, and I can accept that as reasonable.

To blindly quote bullshit that most thinking people can see, whether republican or democrat by the way, is going to draw comment.

There is no elitism coming from me. Anyone has the ability to choose to see for themselves. It’s the same argument used against fat people – they can choose to eat ding-dongs and coco puffs and cry about being fat or they can open their eyes and take action.

Perhaps you are a little defensive on this subject?

If people want to show Bush or Kerry have real issues that need to be considered, then they should be able to raise real issues. Bullshit arguments deserve to be ridiculed. Don’t blame the messenger.

Vegita:

Yea! From this point forward vroom will determine what is a “bullshit” argument and what is not!

You don’t it? Tough!

All hail vroom… :slight_smile:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Vegita:

Yea! From this point forward vroom will determine what is a “bullshit” argument and what is not!

You don’t it? Tough!

All hail vroom… :)[/quote]

Dang…now why would I leave the word “like” out of the above?

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
This message was meant to be in the “Kerry is in Trouble” thread…not sure how this got mixed up:

I’ve never said anything in this thread about Bush being responsible for 9/11.

What I have said, however, is that if he is to get CREDIT for there not having been an attack since 9/11, then it follows LOGICALLY that he receive blame if there is or has been an attack since 9/11.

Is this so difficult?[/quote]

RSU –

I get what you’re saying, but it shouldn’t be an all-or-nothing dichotomy. Bush should get some credit for what he’s done correctly, and some blame for what he hasn’t done or has done incorrectly. Of course, this should be irrespective of an attack, but an attack would tend to highlight the negatives.

Kind of like the economy – Bush shouldn’t get all the credit nor all the blame – in fact, probably not even a majority (although more on the War on Terror, obviously, than on the economy).

BB, I think you are correct and your point goes without saying. The point of my post was to hold some of the other members to some level of objectivity with regards to their opinion of Bush.

That said, though I hope to be, I know I’m not always objective…but I think my infractions come with regard to interpretation of actions and words. Dare I say never have I attempted to defy logic in my impartiality against GWB!

So when an opportuntity like this arises, in which I can demand objectivity from a member or else they admittedly sacrifice logic, it’s convenient to call them out.

RSU:

Okay RSU…(yawn) what’s the name of the logic course you’re taking…come on. :slight_smile: