Bush's presidency

[Henry Hawk]

Well done GoJ!!!..........

[Ghost of Jaco]

Well done GoJ!!!..........

Thanks Henry.
You give up too easily, my friend. When your debate opponent resorts to ridicule rather than rebuttal (always avoid alliteration, ahaha!), you are winning the debate. That is true even if you don't actually agree with the point of view you are arguing.
I may or may not agree with Roberts, who knows? I didn't offer his article up in support of my view, just as another viewpoint on the subject. Ex may have some very valid perspectives on the Bush presidency through a historical lens, but we would never know it because he lets his emotions (read: hatred of Bush) color his logical thought processes.

There's a book by Thomas Sowell called, "Visions of the Anointed". It's about how the Left really thinks that they are by birthright the ones supposed to lead this country. It ties in with my comments about radical environmentalism and radical Leftism replacing a belief in a higher power in order to fill a spiritual void (though it can happen to Radical Rightists as well).
Think I'm full of it? Does not the Left think of Obama as a savior or messiah?
I think he's an experienced politician who played well to his base and took advantage of middle-of-the-roaders who disagree with some of Bush's policies. Time will tell if he can grow into the shoes he's putting on. For the sake of the country I hope he moves towards the right a bit. More gov't and higher taxes are not the answer to this nation's (nor the world's) problems.
In a soundbite, "You cannot tax a nation into prosperity".

[Henry Hawk]

Thanks Henry.
You give up too easily, my friend. When your debate opponent resorts to ridicule rather than rebuttal (always avoid alliteration, ahaha!), you are winning the debate. That is true even if you don't actually agree with the point of view you are arguing.
I may or may not agree with Roberts, who knows? I didn't offer his article up in support of my view, just as another viewpoint on the subject. Ex may have some very valid perspectives on the Bush presidency through a historical lens, but we would never know it because he lets his emotions (read: hatred of Bush) color his logical thought processes.

There's a book by Thomas Sowell called, "Visions of the Anointed". It's about how the Left really thinks that they are by birthright the ones supposed to lead this country. It ties in with my comments about radical environmentalism and radical Leftism replacing a belief in a higher power in order to fill a spiritual void (though it can happen to Radical Rightists as well).
Think I'm full of it? Does not the Left think of Obama as a savior or messiah?
I think he's an experienced politician who played well to his base and took advantage of middle-of-the-roaders who disagree with some of Bush's policies. Time will tell if he can grow into the shoes he's putting on. For the sake of the country I hope he moves towards the right a bit. More gov't and higher taxes are not the answer to this nation's (nor the world's) problems.
In a soundbite, "You cannot tax a nation into prosperity".

again, I agree with your statements.. ..it is dead on....my problem is I usually don't have time to put together a lengthy reply....I try to mix work along with my time on here......... ..and DANG-it...that work stuff ALWAYS seems to get in my way..... ...

I will think of things I want to reply back with....and by the time I can collectively put my thoughts together....It has kind of lost it's punch...or I move on to something else, with every intention of getting back on a post, and never seem to materialize.......

but anyway...continue on....you represent the Conservatives on here very well...

[Sandy Eggo]

[dan foster]

Thanks Henry.
You give up too easily, my friend. When your debate opponent resorts to ridicule rather than rebuttal (always avoid alliteration, ahaha!), you are winning the debate. That is true even if you don't actually agree with the point of view you are arguing.
I may or may not agree with Roberts, who knows? I didn't offer his article up in support of my view, just as another viewpoint on the subject. Ex may have some very valid perspectives on the Bush presidency through a historical lens, but we would never know it because he lets his emotions (read: hatred of Bush) color his logical thought processes.

There's a book by Thomas Sowell called, "Visions of the Anointed". It's about how the Left really thinks that they are by birthright the ones supposed to lead this country. It ties in with my comments about radical environmentalism and radical Leftism replacing a belief in a higher power in order to fill a spiritual void (though it can happen to Radical Rightists as well).
Think I'm full of it? Does not the Left think of Obama as a savior or messiah?
I think he's an experienced politician who played well to his base and took advantage of middle-of-the-roaders who disagree with some of Bush's policies. Time will tell if he can grow into the shoes he's putting on. For the sake of the country I hope he moves towards the right a bit. More gov't and higher taxes are not the answer to this nation's (nor the world's) problems.
In a soundbite, "You cannot tax a nation into prosperity".

Your world is absolutely the worst set of bullshit of any poster on these boards.  Even worse than henry's delusional "god runs everything because I am too stupid myself" slant on everything.

More gov't and higher taxes is exactly what the right wing has been delivering for decades, yet you have bought assclown limbaugh's stance that the left is responsible for the mess. 

Do you have a single original thought of your own?  You think the "left" has proclaimed itself the anointed, not realizing that the nazi hack that wrote that phrase is just that and the left haven't laid claim to anything?  Its the neocons and their use of religion, led by shrub, that have laid claim to what "god wants" and the book you quote is just more of bush-orwellian speak of the scariest kind. 

At least we knew bush didn't know any better as he was led around the universe by cheney, et al, but you really should know better, or of just the same disastrous mentality as that moron.

[followsthewolf]

Aw, c'mon, Dan. Quit beatin' 'round the bush and tell us how ya really feel.

[Ghost of Jaco]

Your world is absolutely the worst set of bullshit of any poster on these boards.  Even worse than henry's delusional "god runs everything because I am too stupid myself" slant on everything.

More gov't and higher taxes is exactly what the right wing has been delivering for decades, yet you have bought assclown limbaugh's stance that the left is responsible for the mess. 

Do you have a single original thought of your own?  You think the "left" has proclaimed itself the anointed, not realizing that the nazi hack that wrote that phrase is just that and the left haven't laid claim to anything?  Its the neocons and their use of religion, led by shrub, that have laid claim to what "god wants" and the book you quote is just more of bush-orwellian speak of the scariest kind. 

At least we knew bush didn't know any better as he was led around the universe by cheney, et al, but you really should know better, or of just the same disastrous mentality as that moron.

Ex, Ex, Ex...er, I mean Y, Y, Y...I mean, dan, dan, dan...
I am hesitant to engage you directly in another debate. I always win!

#1 - I am smarter than you. Smart enough that I know to do research on more than one side of a debate, and then think about what I find out rather than just respond to the emotions I feel. I think, I research, I think some more, and then I post. And as Bo will attest, when I occasionally get a factoid or two wrong I will admit the error and correct my original post, if possible. It is how grownups debate things.


Smarter than you because I seldom actually contradict my own logic as you frequently do.
For example, within these two statements is a logical inconsistency:

Its the neocons and their use of religion, led by shrub, that have laid claim to what "god wants" and the book you quote is just more of bush-orwellian speak of the scariest kind. 

At least we knew bush didn't know any better as he was led around the universe by cheney, et al,

How can Mr. Bush be so smart as to lead the Neocons (considered by some political theorists to be the remnants of the Reagan Democrats, btw), yet too dumb to do anything but follow Mr. Cheney?


Smarter than you because I seldom make assumptions of facts that are not in evidence.
Example:

More gov't and higher taxes is exactly what the right wing has been delivering for decades, yet you have bought assclown limbaugh's stance that the left is responsible for the mess. 

How could you possibly know what my radio listening habits are, let alone whether I agree with a particular host's "stance" on an issue?
You cannot.
You are assuming that I have heard Mr' Limbaugh's opinion on the cause of a "mess", and that I agree with it.
There is no evidence on this thread for such an assumption (by now the canny reader will have also found the logical inconsistencies (deflection and setting up a strawman) in dan's statement here, as well, as a response to my assertion that we cannot tax ourselves into prosperity).


#2 - You prove me right time and time again with your own words.
My assertion: "When your debate opponent resorts to ridicule rather than [reasoned] rebuttal , you are winning the debate..."
Now, your response, ridicule emphasized to highlight how little reasoned rebuttal you have offered:

Your world is absolutely the worst set of bullshit of any poster on these boards.  Even worse than henry's delusional "god runs everything because I am too stupid myself" slant on everything.

More gov't and higher taxes is exactly what the right wing has been delivering for decades, yet you have bought assclown limbaugh's stance that the left is responsible for the mess. 

Do you have a single original thought of your own? You think the "left" has proclaimed itself the anointed, not realizing that the nazi hack that wrote that phrase is just that and the left haven't laid claim to anything?  Its the neocons and their use of religion, led by shrub, that have laid claim to what "god wants" and the book you quote is just more of bush-orwellian speak of the scariest kind. 

At least we knew bush didn't know any better as he was led around the universe by cheney, et al, but you really should know better, or of just the same disastrous mentality as that moron.

Just curious...would someone calling Obama "House ******" (as he has been called by some of the Islamic extremists he claimed he would sit down and discuss terrorism with) as offensive and disrespectful as you calling President Bush "shrub"?


#3 - My friend, may I gently suggest that you are, perhaps, a bit obsessive in your hatred of religion? To the point where I wonder about your balance, sometimes.
You claim to believe in neither good nor evil, God nor Satan, Heaven nor Hell. Yet you spend what seems to me to be inordinate amounts of time and energy heaping ridicule upon those who do believe in such things. You actually go out of your way to insult these people! If you do not believe in a higher power, so be it. In my opinion it's your immortal soul on the line, not mine, and I've done my part to "save you" by merely suggesting that your (lack of) belief may be incorrect and offering to discuss it with you. What, then, would you care of the beliefs of others? I do not believe in faeries, yet I do not seek out those who do for the sole purpose of heaping ridicule upon them. And if I were to happen upon a group of them discussing their beliefs I would merely shrug my shoulders and move on. I certainly would not (nor would any rational person, imo) take time out of my life to locate an insulting avatar to represent me, nor would I waste time researching authors who also do not believe in faeries and tagging my posts with their quotes to the exclusion of all else!*
In your posts, your disagreements (read: ridicule-laden posts) are generally peppered with insults to religious beliefs, even when no mention of such has been made. More than any Christian I know, your "religious beliefs" color every aspect of your personality of which I have been made aware.


#4 - You usually lose your temper and I rarely lose mine. Therefore my arguments are seldom colored by rage.


Now, to your points:
Thomas Sowell is not a Nazi, he is a Conservative. I challenge you to demonstrate any evidence in Mr. Sowell's writings or speeches that he is, indeed, a Nazi.

You may find this next point hard to believe, but I can back it up with research if you require it:
Liberal = Progressive = Socialist/Communist = Nazi. The word "Nazi" even MEANS "National Socialist".

Now, with that in mind:
Who wants to stomp out speech with which they disagree? Liberals. Think college speech codes and support of the Fairness Doctrine.
Who wants to make certain thought illegal? Liberals. Think Political Correctness and especially hate-crime laws.
Who doesn't understand the Constitution as it is written? Liberals. The vacuous "Separation of Church and State" means that the State cannot institute laws preventing people from worshiping as they please, as well as not instituting an Official Church of the united States. In matters of religion, the State is to have no voice at all. And let's not forget that the Left seems to not be able to understand a most simple phrase: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Are you aware that is included not to allow hunting, but rather to allow the people to rise up against the State in armed rebellion should they feel the boot-heel (think speech codes, Political Correctness, Fairness Doctrine, and hate-crime laws) of Governmental tyranny upon their necks ?


*I went to a site that, I think, you linked in a post, where there were listed many biblical verses that seemed  to contradict each other.
It was really an interesting site and I spent quite a while there, trying to better understand you, actually.
It seems it is quite easy to cherry-pick unrelated verses from the Christian Bible to make any point one really wants to make. It's called 'salad-bar theology", and it's practiced by believers and non-believers alike. I was surprised that I did not find the two unrelated cherry-picked verses that I consider the perfect proof invalidating such a practice:
"...And Judas went and hung himself".
"Go thee and do likewise".

-Goj

[dan foster]

Aw, c'mon, Dan. Quit beatin' 'round the bush and tell us how ya really feel.

[awol]

Ex, Ex, Ex...er, I mean Y, Y, Y...I mean, dan, dan, dan...
I am hesitant to engage you directly in another debate. I always win!

I am smarter than you.

i doubt that.  i doubt that very much.  you seem even unable to distinguish between individuals with whom you disagree.  let's examine that in conjunction with one of your other statements.

You may find this next point hard to believe, but I can back it up with research if you require it:
Liberal = Progressive = Socialist/Communist = Nazi. The word "Nazi" even MEANS "National Socialist".

why bother having all of these other words at all?  hmmm?  wouldn't it be simpler then to just revert to "us" and "them"?  how about just calling us lib's "the enemey" as you seem so want to do:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Are you aware that is included not to allow hunting, but rather to allow the people to rise up against the State in armed rebellion should they feel the boot-heel (think speech codes, Political Correctness, Fairness Doctrine, and hate-crime laws) of Governmental tyranny upon their necks ?

you didn't feel the need to take up arms when the patriot act was signed, but the fairness doctrine you might just have to do something about?  and by the way, if the media slant is so liberal, wouldn't the fairness doctrine just ensure that the conservative slant was given equal time?  it boggles the mind.  but i digress.

what is fucking hilarious is that you have twisted your ideas so far as to accept that the party of the master race would elect a black man as their leader.

let's look up some nazi characteristics, shall we?

from wiki:

Nazism is sometimes considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both political wings, it formed most of its alliances on the political right.

wait!  that's not us!  that's YOU!  that can't be right, then, right?

you must mean some modern nazi-ism then, right?

from answers.com:

Nazism: The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.

ahhh, good.  there's another source that doesn't specifically mention the right.  however, it does say racist, that's a bit of a stickler.  nationalism, why that's just what you call patriotism, isn't it?  national expansion, hmmm that doesn't sound so bad to you does it?  state control of the economy?  that's a bit close to bush's bailout, isn't it?

let's look on a decent, wholesome, site.

from conservapedia:

Here we have the core of Nazism: (i) a very strong dose of German anti-semitism (with a paranoid belief in a conspiracy between Jewish financiers who control the capitalist economy and steal from the Germans, Jewish liberal intellectuals who preach humanism and enfeeble the Germans, and Jewish communists who seek to enslave the Germans; (ii) a belief in the German nation and the "aryan" German race as an entity with a special, heroic destiny; (iii) war as the ultimate test of national strength and worth; and (iv) conquest--with extermination or removal of the resident population--to create more "living space" or the German people and larger fields for the German farmers. Add to this (a) the "leadership principle"--a hatred of parliamentary institutions, and a belief that a good political order sees an inspired leader giving people vision and commands (rather than see parliamentarians haggle and compromise on behalf of interest groups)--(b) the use of terror to obtain obedience, and (c) the desire to make sure that all of society's organizations serve the national cause, and you have Nazism. [6]

there's that sticky racism thing again.  and we've added a hatred of parliamentary institutions and a belief that a godd politial order sees an inspired leader giving people vision and commands.  that sounds a bit like "the decider" and your views on congress doesn't it?  little close to home yet?  terror to obtain obedience?  whatever (9/11) could (9/11) that (9/11) mean (9/11)?

maybe you should take the test.

http://www.okcupid.com/quizzy/take

i don't expect you'll post your results, or even answer the questions honestly, (if you even bother to click the link) but that should bother you enough to reevaluate your priorities.

[me]

I took the test did you awol?  Where are your results?  Here's mine:

Your result for The Would You Have Been a Nazi Test ...
The Resistance

Achtung! You are 38% brainwashworthy, 27% antitolerant, and 48% blindly patriotic
Welcome to the Resistance (Der Widerstand)! You believe in freedom, justice, equality, and your country, and you can't be converted to the the dark side.

Breakdown: your Blind Patriotism levels are borderline unhealthy, but you show such a love of people from everywhere and a natural resistance to brainwashing, you would probably focus your energy to fight the Fuehrer with furor, so to speak.

Conclusion: born and raised in Germany in the early 1930's, you would have taken up ARMS against the oppressors. Or even your friends' oppressors. Congratulations!

Less than 5% of all test takers earn a spot in the Resistance!

[awol]

The Expatriate
Achtung! You are 38% brainwashworthy, 23% antitolerant, and 24% blindly patriotic



Congratulations! You are not susceptible to brainwashing, your values and cares extend beyond the borders of your own country, and your Blind Patriotism does not reach unhealthy levels. If you had been German in the 30s, you would've left the country.

One bad scenario -- as I hypothetically project you back in time -- is that you just wouldn't have cared one way or the other about Nazism. Maybe politics don't interest you enough. But the fact that you took this test means they probably do. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt.

Did you know that many of the smartest Germans departed prior to the beginning of World War II, because they knew some evil shit was brewing? Brain Drain. Many of them were scientists. It is very possible you could have been one of them.

Conclusion: born and raised in Germany in the early 1930's, you would not have been a Nazi.

[Palehorse]

                        Your result for The Would You Have Been a Nazi Test...The ExpatriateAchtung! You are 0% brainwashworthy, 36% antitolerant,  and 5% blindly patrioticThe Would You Have Been a Nazi Test at HelloQuizzy

[Ghost of Jaco]

i doubt that.  i doubt that very much.  you seem even unable to distinguish between individuals with whom you disagree. 

Please tell me you were just pretending to be THAT obtuse, awol? Sheesh!
I was illustrating the sameness of the arguments (and argumentative style) of the three posters mentioned.

why bother having all of these other words at all?  hmmm?  wouldn't it be simpler then to just revert to "us" and "them"?  how about just calling us lib's "the enemey" as you seem so want to do:

Assertion discounted, you are assuming facts not in evidence.
The "enemy", in my opinion, are those who would seek to replace our republican form of government with socialism or communism. If there is or has been a form of gov't that has provided more freedom and opportunity for its citizens than our representative republic, then I am unaware of it. Therefore it is worthy of protecting from enemies both foreign or domestic.

you didn't feel the need to take up arms when the patriot act was signed, but the fairness doctrine you might just have to do something about?  and by the way, if the media slant is so liberal, wouldn't the fairness doctrine just ensure that the conservative slant was given equal time?  it boggles the mind.

Deflection and strawman as well as assuming facts not in evidence. Assertions discounted.
I am uncomfortable with any law that would allow the gov't to regulate free political speech. In fact, as I have stated on these very forums, John McCain and George W. Bush are unfit for public office due to their introducing and signing into law, respectively, of the Campaign Finance Reform legislation (oft referred to by me as "The Incumbent Protection Act"). Both (and a host of others) violated the US Constitution and therefore their oath of office.

but i digress.

Yeah. A lot.

what is fucking hilarious is that you have twisted your ideas so far as to accept that the party of the master race would elect a black man as their leader.

Obama is not black, he is biracial. And once again you are assuming facts not in evidence.

let's look up some nazi characteristics, shall we?

from wiki:
wait!  that's not us!  that's YOU!  that can't be right, then, right?

you must mean some modern nazi-ism then, right?

from answers.com:

ahhh, good.  there's another source that doesn't specifically mention the right.  however, it does say racist, that's a bit of a stickler.  nationalism, why that's just what you call patriotism, isn't it?  national expansion, hmmm that doesn't sound so bad to you does it?  state control of the economy?  that's a bit close to bush's bailout, isn't it?

let's look on a decent, wholesome, site.

from conservapedia:

there's that sticky racism thing again.  and we've added a hatred of parliamentary institutions and a belief that a godd politial order sees an inspired leader giving people vision and commands.  that sounds a bit like "the decider" and your views on congress doesn't it?  little close to home yet?  terror to obtain obedience?  whatever (9/11) could (9/11) that (9/11) mean (9/11)?

Fundamental attribution error, assuming facts not in evidence, and setting up a strawman (strawmen, actually). So your assertions are discounted again.

Abraham Lincoln - Republican. Universally credited with destroying the institution of slavery in the United States.

Civil Rights Act - 1964. Republicans supported the bill 27-6 in the Senate (82%) and 138-34 in the House (80%) while Democrats supported the bill 46-21 in the Senate (69%) and 152-96 in the House (61%).

Voting Rights Act of 1965:
Senate: 77–19

    * Democrats: 47–17
    * Republicans: 30–2

House: 333–85

    * Democrats: 221–61
    * Republicans: 112–24

Both pieces of landmark legislation were opposed by more Democrats than Republicans. So, factually, the assumption that Republicans are racist is false.
But anyone who pays attention to the news and give's it a moments thought can reason that it is Liberal Democrats who are truly, politically, racist.
Political racism would be legislating by race, would it not? The passing of laws that are not colorblind, but instead explicitly favor one race over the other.
It is Liberal Democrats who divide people into racial classes and try to legislate by race. Are there racist Republicans? I'm sure that there are, but not as a matter of public policy as it is with the Liberal Democrats.

And on a personal note: my adopted 6-year old daughter is biracial, just about the same color as Obama (and a real smart cookie, too!).

maybe you should take the test.

http://www.okcupid.com/quizzy/take

i don't expect you'll post your results, or even answer the questions honestly, (if you even bother to click the link) but that should bother you enough to reevaluate your priorities.

Even though you have exposed yourself to be  a "scammer" for websites that will no doubt flood my email with spam, I did sign up.
There are multiple tests, but since we are on the topic of Nazi-ism, I took the Nazi test. I did note that some of the questions were in the form of, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", so everyone's results are suspect, imo.

My results:
Your result for The Would You Have Been a Nazi Test ...
The Resistance


Achtung! You are 31% brainwashworthy, 18% antitolerant, and 43% blindly patriotic
Welcome to the Resistance (Der Widerstand)! You believe in freedom, justice, equality, and your country, and you can't be converted to the the dark side.

Breakdown: your Blind Patriotism levels are borderline unhealthy, but you show such a love of people from everywhere and a natural resistance to brainwashing, you would probably focus your energy to fight the Fuehrer with furor, so to speak.

Conclusion: born and raised in Germany in the early 1930's, you would have taken up ARMS against the oppressors. Or even your friends' oppressors. Congratulations!

Less than 5% of all test takers earn a spot in the Resistance!


Way to many errors in logic to take your argument(s) seriously, awol. Try again.

[dan foster]

The Expatriate
Achtung! You are 38% brainwashworthy, 23% antitolerant, and 24% blindly patriotic

Just for grins: I would have left with Albert -

The Expatriate

# You scored 23% on brainwashworthy, higher than 11% of your peers.
# 2/100 You scored 9% on antitolerant, higher than 2% of your peers.
# 49/100 You scored 38% on patriotic, higher than 49% of your peers.

[Palehorse]

 ^
  I------ . . .is now over. . .