posted
Sorry for the quote dump, but it's easy to lose track of all of the reasons why Bush must go. I thought it might be helpful to just jog your memory of a few of them...
posted
I am actually deeply disappointed in this list. Some of the items are clearly padding -- but if you're going to pad, why not go for #100? And if you're NOT going to pad, why bother with 99 items?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Definitely a lot of padding. Some of these are just blurbs without any argument. And you've got a penchant for charged language that has little to no backing. And repeating slogans for effect. In fact, your entire style of agument irks me. You're like religion teacher. Your entire arguement against anything that happens to the nation is "I hate Bush. It is his fault, and he is evil." Well, let me say what a friend of mine said to my religion teacher. "Sir, your method of throwing s*** at the wall and hoping it sticks is not a valid rhetorical strategy."
I don't even agree with Bush on many issues. But I think that you're getting a little rediculous with the ad hominim (spelling?) attacks.
posted
Well, in that case, he's un-original in addition to the things I said above. He's still espousing what he posted. An attack against someone's character is not a valid argument against his actions.
Posts: 468 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, everybody tells me how unoriginal I am. I get that all the time.
Yes, the list is obviously padded. Please try to focus on the valid issues rather than whining about the invalid ones. Trust us: we all know which ones are the invalid ones. We don't need your razor-sharp insight to tell which ones are which.
posted
P.S. Tom, to answer your question, "why 99 items", I believe I know the answer to that.
At the bottom of the page I linked to, there's a invitation to suggest additions to the list. I suspect that two different people suggested the early-morning "dinner" item, and that it when the second one was checked for duplicaton, they overlooked the first one.
I believe that that's also why the quality of some of the reasons are better than others. I think they had a number of different contributors, some of whom were more effective than others.
posted
I'm sure we could create one if we wanted to...with enough padding to make it similar to this one of course. Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. Clinton did have some policies I disliked, but I doubt a list like this about him would largely consist of but whining about his personal life.
The difference between a blowjob and a constant and consistent war against the poor and the free makes quite a difference to me.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though I should add, this list has some unnecessary additions. What, Bush hasn't given them enough ammunition? They need to resort to "6. Where's Osama?"?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Actually, that's a very significant issue. Recall the situation: 9/11 terrorists attack the US. Dubya vows to bring Osama to justice. Then immediately he sets out on his pet project, Iraq, implying (and sometimes saying outright) that there's a connection between Osama and Hussein, though that couldn't be farther from the truth.
If Bush had thrown $87b at finding Osama Bin Laden instead of for cleaning up after this Iraq fiasco, do you have any doubt we would have caught him long before now?
posted
It's probably 99 because they had to quickly remove “Where's Sadaam” from the list. I like it – stupid one-liners, no analysis, playing to the favorite myths of the Left. If this is the opposition we have to worry about in 2004, I’m not sweating it.
And the blowjob thing with Clinton was not just about blowjobs - it was an attempt to deny a plaintiff the right to proper discovery in a sexual harassment lawsuit through perjury.
And there’s plenty of substantive complaints to make against Clinton in much the same vein. It’s just not worth it anymore because he’s gone, finally.
posted
And likewise, if folks like you get your wish and get more Bush, as far as I'm concerned, you'll get what you deserve. Nothing's more pathetic than a bunch of moralizing, greedy, ignorant people who vote for the candidate who tells them what they want to hear and then ignores any evidence that he's lying.
Yes, Dagonee, the Emperor's new clothes are very nice indeed. Just keep telling yourself that. The war on Iraq was justified, the war on Iraq was justified, the war on Iraq was ...
If you can't find any problems with Bush on that list, then you deserve what's happening to this country. I only wish you'd stop taking the rest of us down with you. I've only been unemployed three times in my life: all three of them were during Bush administrations.
posted
Hm. That IS odd. I never really thought of it that way, but I've only been unemployed during Bush administrations, too. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jeffrey Getzin said: If you can't find any problems with Bush on that list, then you deserve what's happening to this country. I only wish you'd stop taking the rest of us down with you. I've only been unemployed three times in my life: all three of them were during Bush administrations.
It’s just that there’s lots of other substantive threads about Bush going on right now, so the only purpose I saw to this was to post a glib, slightly clever list of unsubstantiated complaints.
My problem with lists like this and statements like “Nothing's more pathetic than a bunch of moralizing, greedy, ignorant people who vote for the candidate who tells them what they want to hear and then ignores any evidence that he's lying” is that it denies any possible moral reasoning on the other side. Which means any kind of meeting of the minds is impossible.
You’ve assumed you understand my motivations, you’ve assumed they’re all blameworthy. Believe it or not, there are people who support Bush because they think he’s the right candidate to support for what they consider moral and ethical reasons.
And your personal anecdote of unemployment, while touching, is absolutely irrelevant to this topic. I’ve only received negligent health care during the Clinton administration; I’ve only successfully sold my house during a Bush administration. I’ve only gone to universities while Republicans were in the White House.
quote: Hm. That IS odd. I never really thought of it that way, but I've only been unemployed during Bush administrations, too.
And what's odder, the only time I've ever known anybody unemployed was during Bush administrations. If you asked me to name an unemployed person during Clinton's administration, I wouldn't have been able to. If you'd ask me during a Bush term, I'd be able to recite a list ...
But of course, the bushites dismiss this as anecdotal. There seem to be an awful lot of anecdotes out there ... too bad the bushites don't seem to care.
posted
It is ancedotal evidence. Just because you don't know anybody that was unemployed then doesn't mean there weren't any. And it also doesn't mean that unemployment is caused by Bush. Where's that list of logical fallacies?
Posts: 468 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: And the blowjob thing with Clinton was not just about blowjobs - it was an attempt to deny a plaintiff the right to proper discovery in a sexual harassment lawsuit through perjury.
For me it was about him waving his finger at me and all the rest of the world on national TV saying "I did not have sex with that woman ... Ms. Lewinsky".
I don't trust Bush or Clinton. But at least with Bush there's the appearance that he really believes what he's saying and there might be some classified stuff that we just aren't privy to (WMD). Clinton's finger wave was blatant deceit of the American People for personal gain over a stupid issue that shouldn't have been a big public deal. As they say, if you can't trust them on the little issues...
Posts: 16 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
102) Kowtows to the drunken Kennedy. 103) Keeps expanding the federal government 104) Stupidly allows his friends' companies to get in on Iraq rebuilding action with no serious bidding, etc. 105) No new amnesty for Latin-Americans
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is ancedotal evidence. Just because you don't know anybody that was unemployed then doesn't mean there weren't any. And it also doesn't mean that unemployment is caused by Bush. Where's that list of logical fallacies?
Ah, but I'm not attempting a logical proof. No proof, no fallacy. Sorry. It was an excellent try, though, and I commend you for at least understanding the word "fallacy". (Although, strictly speaking, it'd be an Affirmation of the Consequent fallacy, i.e., if A->B, B, therefore A.)
I simply pointed out my observation. I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions about whether Bush has anything to do with it.
But then, you'd probably rather get your information from FOX News.
posted
It doesn't matter whether or not you were attempting a logical proof. You were making an argument. I was pointing out that it was in error, for the above mentioned reasons. You implied that bush was the cause of the unemployment, because occured in his term, rather than his predecesor's. You give no evidence to support that. That's a logical fallacy, whether or not it is part of a logical proof.
Oh, and by the way, I just love the tone of condescension that you use every time I try to point out a flaw in your arguments. I know nothing about your education but I highly doubt it grants you infalliblity, nor makes you smarter than everyone else. Get off your high horse.
Oh, and:
quote: But then, you'd probably rather get your information from FOX News.
quote: It is ancedotal evidence. Just because you don't know anybody that was unemployed then doesn't mean there weren't any. And it also doesn't mean that unemployment is caused by Bush.
There's more than just logic problems with the all too popular blaming the current economy on Bush. Am I remembering right that Bush took office in January 2001 after election in November 2000? The markets were reversing and in some cases tanking in Clinton's term before Bush was even even elected. Just look at the charts.
Interestingly, September 11 was just 9 months into Bush's term before there was much chance for any of his policies to have an affect on the economy. Yet by the charts, it was the final straw that broke the camel's back to turn an an already weak DOW downward, it solidified the S&Ps already obvious turn, and was practically irrelevant to the NASDAQ's bear run that was established in Clinton's final year in office.
I'm not going to go so far as blaming Clinton for the downturn on this evidence. He's just one person in a huge government and economy, just like Bush is. But the common liberal blaming of the economic downturn on Bush's policies when the NASDAQ had tanked 40% by election time in Clinton's term is pure fantasy.
Consider that NASDAQ chart the next time you see some of the democratic political candidates bashing Bush for the present economic woes. There's no excuse for such misrepresentation at that level of responsibility. It is pathetic that they promote for political gain the false understanding in our society that the present condition in the economy is due to present policy, when it is well known that market cycles turn slowly with cycle periods of several years.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It doesn't matter whether or not you were attempting a logical proof. You were making an argument.
Nothing doing. I was pointing out that the only time I have been unemployed was during the Bush administration. Anecdotes do not an argument make. They might be the beginning of an argument, mind you, but I can make as many anecdotes as I want.
I'm sorry if they bother you, but really, there's not a whole lot you can do about it. Until I state conclusively that Bush is responsible for my unemployment (and I must admit, I do think this is the case), you really don't have a leg to stand on.
Dude, you've been hanging out on Internet forums too long. I think you've forgotten how people really interact. If a cab driver tells you a story on the way to a meeting, do you tell him his story is inadmissible because it's an anecdote? Get a grip!
quote: You implied that bush was the cause of the unemployment ...
Clearly not. If I had successfully implied that, it wouldn't be a fallacy, now, would it? It would be a proof.
quote: Oh, and by the way, I just love the tone of condescension that you use every time I try to point out a flaw in your arguments.
Really? Do you mean it? I was hoping you'd pick up on it. It's just a little something special I threw in for you, seeing as how you're trying to be logical and all. Keep up the good work. With a little practice, you'll be making valid arguments in no time!
quote: I know nothing about your education but I highly doubt it grants you infalliblity, nor makes you smarter than everyone else.
No, just you.
quote: Get off your high horse.
But the view's so nice up here. Oh, and I can see your house from here!
quote:
quote: But then, you'd probably rather get your information from FOX News.
Charged language. Nice try.
Oh, aren't you the most precious little e-laywer! You're so cute, I could just hug you.
posted
Right. I was going to reply pointing out more of your insulting charged language, but it appears that you've already noticed and are capitalizing on it. You're bating me. I'm not going to play that game. You want to say what you want and then make fun of the people who disagree, go right ahead. I'm leaving.
Posts: 468 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really get tired of all this economy-blaming. For one thing, the Bush-era recession was long overdo, Bush or no Bush. For another thing, presidents have very little sway over the economy. Historically, tax cuts and increased spending have both had very little effect, and most economists argue that such tactics take so long to "trickle down" to the economy that in realistic terms, by the time a recession is recognized and such measures are taken, it is already too late. Thus, I'd argue electing a president based on economic policies is a bit silly. There are exceptions (such as when a president is pushing the deficit up too high *cough cough*), but not that many.
The Fed, on the other hand, has economic power. They are not elected though.
quote: Yes, Dagonee, the Emperor's new clothes are very nice indeed. Just keep telling yourself that. The war on Iraq was justified, the war on Iraq was justified, the war on Iraq was ...
Hey Jeff, just keep telling yourself that. The people in Iraq don't matter, the people in Iraq don't matter, the people in Iraq...
Really, why do you liberals insists on ignoring genocide. Conservative (not politically) numbers say that hundreds of thousands were murdered by Hussein. More realistic numbers put the actual figures in the low millions. But of course, its happening in Iraq so why should we care...
Oh yeah, the Hussein guy we captured, I'm sure he's just an imposter.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
NFL, liberals don't ignore genocide. It's just that we don't believe it was the primary or even secondary rationale behind the war. If it were, there are more than a few countries we should have invaded first, who're even worse to their own people. It's a nice side benefit, but I think conservatives are delusional if they think that was Bush's big goal.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
