37 replies to this topic

[cxwq]

I trust a man with convictions who can do what he feels is right and stay with the cause. He changed his mind? I was under the impression that he went to war to topple Hussein's rule and find WMDs.

You prefer he stays with a cause that is wrong? I wish he would have flip-flopped about two years ago. Fucking conviction and resolve.

He took us to war with Iraq by drawing vague links between Saddam and Osama and the assertion that Saddam was a threat to us with his WMD stockpile.

At some point he dropped the Saddam/Osama link thing because only Fox News viewers were buying it. During this stage of his attempt to validate the war he only mentioned WMDs. Interestingly, during the last month he actually tried to return to the Saddam/Osama link because the debates weren't going his way.

When it became increasingly obvious that Saddam was telling the truth about disbanding his WMD program, he pulled out the brilliant "liberate the Iraqi people!" line. Over a very short time, he moved WMDs down in importance and depose The Evil Dictator became the rally cry.

Currently he's alternating between two lines:

We went to find the WMDs and I'm still convinced they are there - but isn't Iraq a better place without Saddam? Flip.

Our mission to liberate the Iraqi people was a brilliant success - see, no massive terror attacks on US soil since we captured Saddam! Flop.

Bush is counting on voters being complete idiots next Tuesday and buying 4 years of consistent bullshit.

[AirApache]

Heheh...this is where the argument comes in. There are two lines of thought. Mine and yours. Either Bush is the flip flop or kerry is the flip flop. There's no way to argue that successfully because each person has his own opinion.

[cxwq]

Heheh...this is where the argument comes in. There are two lines of thought. Mine and yours. Either Bush is the flip flop or kerry is the flip flop. There's no way to argue that successfully because each person has his own opinion.

What in the hell are you talking about?

Have you heard of something called facts?

Bush and Kerry's statements are both a matter of record. Everything they say gets printed in hundreds of news outlets.

Kerry admits to changing his mind, he says that if he knew then what he knows now he wouldn't have given Bush the power to go to war.

Only the republican party could possibly make the above sound like a bad thing. When you learn important new facts it's okay to change your mind!

I agree that both candidates have changed their mind, because it's a fact. I approve of Kerry's reasoning and applaud his decision to confront the issue. I detest the fact that Bush is trying to pretend he hasn't changed his story.

You are, of course, entitled to think that it's okay for Bush to change his reasons for going to war but not okay for Kerry to change his mind about giving Bush the power to go to war. Of course you should know that millions of Americans have also changed their mind about giving Bush that power.

[ompa]

You two realize this could spiral out of control rather quickly... Let's just put it at that both candidates have their problems, and these issues will be resolved on election day.

Cx, Airapache can't even vote, so there's really no use trying to persuade him. Besides, he's Asian. And most Asians are extremely stubborn.

Airapache, for christ's sake just stop arguing, it's a Nerf forum. If you could vote, I'd agree with your arguing, but frankly, neither of us can.


~ompa

[cxwq]

I'm not trying to persuade him to change his mind, I'm making an example of his inane views purely for amusement value. I was, however, pretty much done with being amused so I'll just go back to paying attention to my database lecture.

[LDM]

And most Asians are extremely stubborn.

Haha, you couldn't be more correct. I also am Asian, and you won't find a more stubborn person around.

Oh wait . . . this didn't contribute to the discussion. Silly me.

[Lemmypoo]

Heheh...this is where the argument comes in. There are two lines of thought. Mine and yours. Either Bush is the flip flop or kerry is the flip flop. There's no way to argue that successfully because each person has his own opinion.

Interesting point! My philosophy, of how an argument happens, is that two opposing sides think they are right when they are not. So maybe I'm wrong, but seeing as me being wrong would be "0" and the quantity of my correctness being a value greater than zero corresponding to "X", and the "Y" value would be a number approaching "0" becoming very small as I become more correct, the equation of rightness and wrongness would look something like this:

1/X

You can see that it is mathematically impossible for me to be wrong as it would be an undefined value and bollocks to negative numbers because I say so!

Boy I've been off one one today. Maybe I actually should do my bonehead calculus homework. (Oh yeah CX is gonna bust out e, pi, phi, c, sigma, and a whole lot of his other buddies to come kick my ass for that.)

Now do you want a relevant asshol- I mean opinion?

Doesn't it seem funny that Dubya is against Kerry for deciding to support the war in Iraq? I mean Bush gives shit to Kerry for supporting one of his decisions, what the fuck did Bush want him to do? Say "fuck you Bush, my car runs on Catsup?" Lemmy tell you, supporting your opponents means you suck and are worthless shit-- oh wait! I got that backwards didn't I?

[Oroku Saki]

Speaking of Bin Laden, I wouldn't be surprised if Fox News did a fake story of Osama's capture right before the election.....

Finally got around to listening to a stream of the whole 3rd debate, and I am confident Kerry will most likely win. I figure that if Bush gets elected, it won't be the end of the world, but I think the next 4 years would be more bearable if he wasn't in office. If Bush takes a second term, I can only hope that none of the Supreme court justices retire or croak while he is president.

Edited by Oroku_Saki, 30 October 2004 - 09:40 PM.

[AirApache]

Wow. I have no idea how you can be confident. They are within 3 per cent range of each other (out of polled) and it has a 4 per cent margin of error. So this makes you confident how? People base their judgements more than on debates.

Fake story? Think of the absurdity and eventual chaos...law suits etc.

[Oroku Saki]

You never know. I know people who are confident in Bush as well, but we'll see on election day.

Watching the debates, Kerry seemed to be stronger in his arguments compared to Bush. Also, I have noticed in the media that for every bad thing Republicans say about Kerry, the liberals seem to have ten bad points about Bush

I don't listen much to the polls on which candidate has a better chance of being elected, because it is usually a random sampling of a few hundred people. Also depending on who's doing the polling, it can be easily doctored to make one side look better than the other. The only real way to see who is favored more as president is in the actual election.

Edited by Oroku_Saki, 30 October 2004 - 10:40 PM.

[AirApache]

Of course kerry is better. He has debating experience (probably in high school or college) but Bush doesn't. You can tell because he has more reasoning paths, making sure to get back on EVERY argument, leaving none behind. He also flows (takes notes) which is super-good.

[Oroku Saki]

What's your view on homosexuality?

I have posted the link to this article before, but I found it to best describe my views on the gay marraige issue.

http://www.angrypatr...m/politics.html

Just scroll down to the section entitled "Same Sex Marraiges."

Personally, I don't care if someone is gay. One of my friends came out of the closet a few months ago, and I don't feel any different about him because of it. I have also heard of gay long-term relationships working out more often than heterosexual ones, because they are happy being able to live as who they are, instead of being afraid of ridicule and discrimination. For the marraige issue, I think the best compromise is to just call it a "Civil Union" and be done with it.

Of course kerry is better. He has debating experience (probably in high school or college) but Bush doesn't. You can tell because he has more reasoning paths, making sure to get back on EVERY argument, leaving none behind. He also flows (takes notes) which is super-good.

Hence why I think Kerry would make a good leader to help bring our country together. If you are prepared and believe in your thoughts and views, and are willing to admit to your mistakes, you make a strong leader. Hell, it worked for Kennedy.


Also, getting to back Kerry's Iraq policy, I have found that he wants to get international support to help stabilize Iraq (unlike Bush who seems to maintain that we are fine by ourselves there), so we can gradually pull out our own troops. I doubt that Kerry is going to suddenly tell the entire military in Iraq to pack up and go home on his first day in office.

Edited by Oroku_Saki, 30 October 2004 - 11:04 PM.

[Lemmypoo]

...You can tell because he has more reasoning paths...

Read something funny in my paper today! The paper asked people on the street, "What are you most afraid of?" One dead fucker said "John Kerry getting elected." Get the feeling he can't vote this year with either of his hands for some reason, and I should also pick up a new tire-iron while I'm out!

Anyway, why on God's/Siva's/Allah's green earth would you write "reasoning" in anything related to George Dub? I swear to [snip] he had a Frontal Lobotamy. And since when did the word "path" end in an "s" in relation to Bush? And since when could Shrub write?

Now John F'n Kerry, on the other hand, is a very diligent note taker! Frankenstein's mon- I mean Kerry was scribbling notes with a Bic pen (black, 1.0mm, minus the cap) all the while George Dub incoherently babbled.