Take The No (GW) Bush Challenge

[Billo_Really]

I like the idea but who cares that much to police those Libs?

And the worst offenders (whoever they may be, I have no idea of their identities) would never sign up for such a challenge.

I just did, ya long-horned **********!

Got anymore dumbass comments?

 

[francoHFW]

Sorry, GWB and Raygun will be around forever...disasters.

 

[Mojo2]

Pretty good troll gasbag but I am not going to voluntarily submit to any limits on my speech any more than you would, and neither is anyone else for that matter. If it pisses you off to hear the name of your former messiah then all is well, maybe next time you will think before putting your faith in a terribly flawed, tough talking asshole trying to channel the ghost of Reagan.

Nobody says you have to sacrifice anything, deuche-bag. But if your against the challenge and want nothing to do with it, then you're the one 'trolling' at this point. Especially, since I have ******* SAID MULTIPLE ******* TIMES IN THIS ******* THREAD ALONE THAT GWB IS NOT MY HERO AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS ABOUT. SO **** OFF AND EAT MY ASS TOO.

This is what passes as a "successful" right wingers thread.

Hey asshole, other than Obamacare, of which I am no longer a fan, EVERY ******* decision Obama had to make in the beginning of his Presidency was the direct result of the actions of the previous administration. You can't get past that. And the beginning decisions set the tone for his terms. The "off budget" wars that exploded the debt, the drug program that exploded the debt, the housing collapse the tax breaks, the economy failing in general. All that happened DURING the Bush period.

And Obama has been addressing those issues since elected. And trying to deal with a group of politicians bent on his destruction.

The two Presidents will forever be linked.

One by the mess he created.

One by the mess he created trying to fix the others mess.

Just the way it is.

So quit trash talking and think of a better thread topic. This one sucks.

Correction, Obama sucks.

And anyone who believes he doesn't is a victim of a mind **** so audacious that they will (figuratively, one hopes) eat a mile of his feces for the dubious honor of letting him **** their children and grand children and great grand children unto perpetuity, in the ass and mouths.

Sounds wonderful to you, I'm guessing.

No?

Ok, so you aren't stupid. And Sayet says you're not evil, either.

So, how do you explain yourself?

But if they're not stupid and they're not evil, what's their plan? How do they think they're making a better world by siding with Saddam Hussein, by keeping his rape and torture rooms open, by seek*ing the destruction of a democracy of Jews?

I don't know if you've seen the list going around the Inter*net of all the Nobel Prize-winning scientists from this tiny state of Israel. How do they think they're making a better world by promoting to children behaviors that are inappropriate and cause diseases and unwanted pregnancies and ruin people's lives? How do they think they're making a better world?

What I discovered is that the Modern Liberal looks back on 50,000 years, 100,000 years of human civilization, and knows only one thing for sure: that none of the ideas that mankind has come up with--none of the religions, none of the philos*ophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms of government--have succeeded in creating a world devoid of war, poverty, crime, and injustice.

So they're convinced that since all of these ideas of man have proved to be wrong, the real cause of war, pov*erty, crime, and injustice must be found--can only be found--in the attempt to be right.

If nobody ever thought they were right, what would we disagree about? If we didn't disagree, surely we wouldn't fight. If we didn't fight, of course we wouldn't go to war. Without war, there would be no poverty; without poverty, there would be no crime; without crime, there would be no injustice.

It's a utopian vision, and all that's required to usher in this utopia is the rejection of all fact, reason, evi*dence, logic, truth, morality, and decency--all the tools that you and I use in our attempts to be better people, to make the world more right by trying to be right, by siding with right, by recognizing what is right and moving toward it.

What you have is people who think that the best way to eliminate rational thought, the best way to eliminate the attempt to be right, is to work always to prove that right isn't right and to prove that wrong isn't wrong.

Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals "Think"


By Jove! I think he's on to something!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^
Again, Mojo, this is not a political debate thread. Please take the political debate to another thread.

 

[Mojo2]

I like the idea but who cares that much to police those Libs?

And the worst offenders (whoever they may be, I have no idea of their identities) would never sign up for such a challenge.

I just did, ya long-horned **********!

Got anymore dumbass comments?

Misplaced Liberal aggression.

Learn to control yourself, please.

Or is that too much to ask someone born with the mental defect you were?

You, like all Libs, were hardwired to be more female than male.

 

[Mojo2]

^^^
Again, Mojo, this is not a political debate thread. Please take the political debate to another thread.

Quite right.

I desist.

 

[Billo_Really]

Misplaced Liberal aggression.

Learn to control yourself, please.

Or is that too much to ask someone born with the mental defect you were?

You, like all Libs, were hardwired to be more female than male.

What'd I say?

 

[Billo_Really]

^^^
Again, Mojo, this is not a political debate thread. Please take the political debate to another thread.

That's right! Who does he think he is?

 

[oldfart]

Okay. Perhaps insults are a derailment devic in that it's just a clear message of BS heard, not taking it. I've never said otherwise. I personally would prefer to not suffer fools too much.

I agree.

Is there something to be said for taking the higher road? Yes, but I didn't take it, and I don't need to be condemned or otherwise preached to for not taking it. Though, I thank you for your consideration.

You are showing an admirable ability to re-evaluate your modes of communication. My hat is off to you.

I think mistakes have been made in this thread. But it has by no means been a failure either. People have taken the challenge, and we've seen first hand how people have a blame Bush for everything mentality and how it has dulled their abilities (assuming they ever had such abilities) to legitimately argue the real matters of the day.

I took the prudent step of doing opposition research on myself. In the last 30 days I have made 102 posts, most on economic matters, without a mention of GW Bush. It seems to me you have been hanging out in the wrong threads. The Gang of Seven only trashes Rothbard, the Austrian School, Ayn Rand, austerians, confidence fairies, bond vigilantes, R & R, A & A, inflationistas (Zimbabwe! Zimbabwe!), Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan, conspiracy theorists regarding government economic statistics, and others who richly deserve ridicule. I even said nice things about Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Romney's chief economic advisor.

Ad Hominem: a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

We use the same definition. Rhetorically, the purpose of an ad hominem is to deflect the debate away from the weakness of one's own position by making an attack on the opponent which is logically not related to the subject of the debate. The method of an ad hominem can involve appeal to authority, appeal to bias, appeal to emotion, and other rhetorical diversions. While this can be done without direct personal attacks (see legislative debates where "Senatorial courtesy" is invoked!), in common usage, especially in political usage, ad hominems do involve such personal attacks (think Dirksen's attack on Dewey in the 1952 Republican convention).

You continue to pretend that I have used ad hominem when this is just simply not the case. I have taken on your points and countered them in a proper means of argumentation. And when I say proper, I'm not meaning formally proper in a social sense that discourages direct insults. I say proper in the true sense that I have effectively argued the points at hand and not relied upon insults to dismiss said points as it regards to our interactions.

I disagree, but continuing this line of argument will be neither fruitful nor pleasant.

Furthermore, just because I say **** off to someone who deserves it; that's no less of an insult than your condescension than your muck about my 'infantile' actions. It's simply cruder.

I clearly labelled my tactic in that paragraph as sarcasm. I used it as an effective counter to your unartful mode of expression. You can't cry insult for my use of sarcasm after you throw an "infantile" (there is no more apt description) temper tantrum. Get over it and move on.

As to whether I am condescending, you know nothing of my background or life experience. Yet you presume to know all about us Bush-bashing lefties. Your response to my calm denial has been to call me condescending. I do not appear condescending to people who treat others with respect. My serious advice to you is to curb the attitude and you will be able to write better.

And it is not infantile to point out that you effectively post on an us vs. them basis,

Now this actually has the seeds of a good point. I do see the world in an "us vs. them" frame of reference. I have earlier today been very upfront about who I consider us and who I consider them. IMHO that is the reality of the world. And I know which side I am on and I am not afraid of defending that side. All this would make an interesting debate, so if you agree, reply to that post and I'll respond.

See posts #143 & #145:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...owing-people-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html

given the fact that you don't call out the propagandists on your side. That's a ******* reality check, dude.

Why this hangup about who I call out? Who made me Emperor of the Left? Are you Emperor of the Right? Why should either of us be responsible for other people's behavior? One of the major tenets of my faith (Taoism) is that we are not responsible for other's bad behavior. It's a part of what is called wu wei. I thought you righties were big on individual responsibility and against groupthink.

And you're one to talk about hubris. You're swimming in it.

Your bruised ego is damaging your ability to make accurate perceptions. I hope a good night's sleep helps restore your balance (that's another Taoist concept). And I am being sincere here; I truly wish you well.

 

[Indeependent]

If we drop GW, we focus on Obama.
Then we focus on Democrat.
Then we deceive ourselves that Democrat = BAD, Republican = GOOD.
Then we hunger for another a$$ like GW.

If we focus on issues, we lose sight of the fact that politicians don't care about issues, they care about what gets them elected.

 

[Billo_Really]

If we drop GW, we focus on Obama.
Then we focus on Democrat.
Then we deceive ourselves that Democrat = BAD, Republican = GOOD.
Then we hunger for another a$$ like GW.

If we focus on issues, we lose sight of the fact that politicians don't care about issues, they care about what gets them elected.

As long as they don't care about you, I fine with that.

 

[Indeependent]

If we drop GW, we focus on Obama.
Then we focus on Democrat.
Then we deceive ourselves that Democrat = BAD, Republican = GOOD.
Then we hunger for another a$$ like GW.

If we focus on issues, we lose sight of the fact that politicians don't care about issues, they care about what gets them elected.

As long as they don't care about you, I fine with that.

I fine with that also.
I see you're working on your Chinese.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I took the prudent step of doing opposition research on myself. In the last 30 days I have made 102 posts, most on economic matters, without a mention of GW Bush. It seems to me you have been hanging out in the wrong threads. The Gang of Seven only trashes Rothbard, the Austrian School, Ayn Rand, austerians, confidence fairies, bond vigilantes, R & R, A & A, inflationistas (Zimbabwe! Zimbabwe!), Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan, conspiracy theorists regarding government economic statistics, and others who richly deserve ridicule. I even said nice things about Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Romney's chief economic advisor.

I don't know who the Gang Of Seven is. I don't intricately follow pop political culture like before. I'm guessing that's the latest group of Senators to screw us over. That's fine, they're all screwing us over. They just find it convenient to put a face on it for the sake of promotion. It's a touch of Machiavelli genius when you think about it.

Nor do I spend so much time in political or economic threads any more, generally. But a big part of that is because both sides are throwing out propaganda. Now, I often confront the conservatives who do so. But I find it especially prevalent among the left. The majority of liberal posters on USMB actually justify Obama's actions through blame Bush nonsense. And Bush deserves whatever blame he deserves. But I'm sorry, there comes a time that an administration be responsible for its actions. And in my mind, that is year one. If things are still broken, it's cos they didn't get fixed. Not merely because someone broke them.

Your bruised ego is damaging your ability to make accurate perceptions.

It's so ironic that you made your erroneous ad hominem accusation, and then you so blatantly use ad hominem in this way.

We use the same definition. Rhetorically, the purpose of an ad hominem is to deflect the debate away from the weakness of one's own position by making an attack on the opponent which is logically not related to the subject of the debate. The method of an ad hominem can involve appeal to authority, appeal to bias, appeal to emotion, and other rhetorical diversions. While this can be done without direct personal attacks (see legislative debates where "Senatorial courtesy" is invoked!), in common usage, especially in political usage, ad hominems do involve such personal attacks (think Dirksen's attack on Dewey in the 1952 Republican convention).

NO. YOU ARE UTTERLY WRONG. NOW PAY ATTENTION, COS I'M NOT GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS OVER AND OVER TO AN ALLEGEDLY EDUCATED PERSON WHO SHOULD ALREADY KNOW THE DEFINITION OF AD HOMINEM. An ad hominem attack is based upon rejecting a person's thesis upon an irrelevant 'fact' (or opinion) about the author of a point. It is not merely based upon what you categorize as a 'deflection.' (How you don't know this and claim to have taught logic is beyond me).

E.G. 1

Person 1: Obama was the 43rd president.
Person 2: Obama was the 44th president, moron.

Person two did not commit ad hominmem. He rightfully addressed the logic, and merely added an insult (and an insult in and of itself is not a logical fallacy). By your erroneous definition of ad hominem, moron could be considered a 'deflection' and thus be ad hominem. But that is not the definition, and were it the definition, and the rigors of logic not so defined, then virtually anything could be considered a 'deflection' and be considered ad hominem.

E.G. 2

Person 1: Obama was the 43rd president.
Person 2: You're a moron.

Now, person 2 did commit a fallacy as he did not effectively refute person 1's claim in a logical manner and merely relied upon the insult as an argument.

I clearly labelled my tactic in that paragraph as sarcasm. I used it as an effective counter to your unartful mode of expression. You can't cry insult for my use of sarcasm after you throw an "infantile" (there is no more apt description) temper tantrum. Get over it and move on.

As to whether I am condescending, you know nothing of my background or life experience. Yet you presume to know all about us Bush-bashing lefties. Your response to my calm denial has been to call me condescending. I do not appear condescending to people who treat others with respect. My serious advice to you is to curb the attitude and you will be able to write better.

With or without context: These paragraphs drip condescension. You're seriously droning on, man.

Now this actually has the seeds of a good point. I do see the world in an "us vs. them" frame of reference. I have earlier today been very upfront about who I consider us and who I consider them. IMHO that is the reality of the world. And I know which side I am on and I am not afraid of defending that side. All this would make an interesting debate, so if you agree, reply to that post and I'll respond.

Everyone has an us vs. them mentality to some degree. Us humans are more tribal than most of us would ever want to admit. However, my point is that the more you can disassociate yourself from that state, the more honest of a poster you can effectively be. If you can't tell an rdean to stop posting propaganda because he is on your 'side,' then you have severely limited yourself.

Conversely, you'll notice in this very thread, I've routinely taken on conservatives for not abiding to stated means of posting for this thread. It didn't matter if I was on their 'side' or not. Things don't get effectively constructed via taking sides, imo. None of that is to say that I won't have a 'bias' of being more sympathetic to certain posters, who are more aligned to my way of thinking. But I will not disassociate myself from the truth just because one is a kindred spirit.

Why this hangup about who I call out? Who made me Emperor of the Left? Are you Emperor of the Right? Why should either of us be responsible for other people's behavior? One of the major tenets of my faith (Taoism) is that we are not responsible for other's bad behavior. It's a part of what is called wu wei. I thought you righties were big on individual responsibility and against groupthink.

It's not a matter of being emperor or being responsible for someone else's bad behavior. But continued silence in the wake of BS is a means of support, and you know that's true.

 

[Billo_Really]

I fine with that also.
I see you're working on your Chinese.

If you don't read Chinese, turn your head to the right.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Which liberal dares to go a year without turning political threads into a George W Bush bashing thread and to actually stick to the OP?

Come on. Who has the guts? I f'ing dare you to actually have to regard OPs and not devolve everything to GWB jack-off sessions.

Who's signing up for a year?

That means you don't change the subject to GWB. It means you don't even regard GWB when someone else brings it up (unless that's part of the OP). Who has the guts? What hardcore USMB propogandist, I mean liberal has the guts to give up his diet of GWB butter?

GWB is the worst President in my lifetime. Why would I accept such a ridiculous challenge when so many self defined conservatives have already tossed GWB under the bus? Now they are focusing on history rewrites so they can concentrate on electing more Republicans, something I find most distasteful.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

which liberal dares to go a year without turning political threads into a george w bush bashing thread and to actually stick to the op?

Come on. Who has the guts? I f'ing dare you to actually have to regard ops and not devolve everything to gwb jack-off sessions.

Who's signing up for a year?

That means you don't change the subject to gwb. It means you don't even regard gwb when someone else brings it up (unless that's part of the op). Who has the guts? What hardcore usmb propogandist, i mean liberal has the guts to give up his diet of gwb butter?

gwb is the worst president in my lifetime. Why would i accept such a ridiculous challenge when so many self defined conservatives have already tossed gwb under the bus? Now they are focusing on history rewrites so they can concentrate on electing more republicans, something i find most distasteful.

yawn.

 

[Black_Man1]

by comparison

lmao!

 

[birddog]

Clinton left an economy without a true surplus, and it was on the downslide. Clinton's poor performance set up 9-11 and the Iraq War. Why don't you dumbass liberals admit those truths? You will feel better by fessing up!

Overall, Bush was a good president, although he made mistakes mostly to appease the dimocrats.

Bush's Presidency was fraudulent. He then made mistakes that led to 9-11, and then attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9-11. The economy faltered, the war was mismanaged, embassies attacked constantly, leading the Dems to take back Congress as early as the 2006 election.

Think about that. For decades and decades, the GOP never had unified power in DC. Finally they get it, and it's such a mega-clusterf___ that it only lasts a whopping six excruciating years. The GOP's policies just don't work.

You are wrong and have failed to see the truth as I had noted it. Typical close-minded dumbass lib!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

by comparison

lmao!

Welcome back, Poet.

 

[Black_Man1]

The attempted character assassination continues!



(cool icon)