Key economic statistics: Clinton Years VS. Bush Years - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-02-2008, 06:46 PM   #46
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


from the Top 5. The view is nice up here.
I'm sure it is, and you can thank the United Sates for it. In addition to everything the United States provides other countries including yours on security and defense issues, the United States buys 80% of what Canada exports. Exports account for a third of Canadian GDP.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 07:24 PM   #47
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


The "childish and uninformed" insinuations would be "Bush is a Nazi" or "Bush is the worlds biggest terrorist."
Absolutely not! If you are seriously suggesting that calling him childish and uninformed is the same as calling him a Nazi or the world's biggest terrorist, then you, sir, are childish and uninformed.

Quote:
Excuse me for remembering what the airheads and conspiracy nuts that criticize GWB from the political Left actually say.
And for the last fucking time, those calling him a Nazi and the world's biggest terrorist are NOT representative of the general political Left. These individuals hold an extreme view. You don't claim Ann Coulter as your political voice, do you?

You really should know better.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 07:26 PM   #48
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
The "childish and uninformed" insinuations would be "Bush is a Nazi" or "Bush is the worlds biggest terrorist." Actually worse than faggot in every sense except possibly political correctness.

Excuse me for remembering what the airheads and conspiracy nuts that criticize GWB from the political Left actually say.
No, I meant people calling him, literally, childish and uninformed.

I don't understand your point any longer, as you seem to be flipping between topics: criticisms and name-calling.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 07:28 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


The "childish and uninformed" insinuations would be "Bush is a Nazi" or "Bush is the worlds biggest terrorist." Actually worse than faggot in every sense except possibly political correctness.

Excuse me for remembering what the airheads and conspiracy nuts that criticize GWB from the political Left actually say.
Yes, and every now and then the odd far left comes in here and spouts that crap. And yes, those on the left have usually spoken out, or tried to ignore him so that the person leaves. I've never seen applause for those.

However, you don't read it from the regulars here, so why bringing this up all the time? Do we make even a single step of progress when we just start again to take the argument of those on the extremes to disregard the political views entirely? Would anyone of us look clever by doing so? No.

Those Nazi comparisons of each and everything get tiresome. I don't know in how many contexts I'm a Nazi, because, after all, I'm a German. Even my own Minister of the Interior compared me to the fascists, alongside 34,443 others because we signed a warrant to file an amparo with the German Federal Constitutional Court in order to stop the data retention act.
This man is insane. (On the other hand, I admit, we just call him wheelchair-Goebbels. )

But in discussions like this I see no place for those arguments, as the participants are far from those left-wing nuts.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 07:30 PM   #50
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 12:14 PM
You are wise for your years, Vincent.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 07:30 PM   #51
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Yes, but do you defend Bush against the "childish, uninformed and simplistic" insinuations of the "vocal minority" with the same vigor as you defend those who are the targets of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter? We can disagree about issues and policies but meritless claims and personal attacks should be rejected out of hand by both sides. Don't ya think?
I sincerely appreciate your frustration, but in real life I think it generally works better to ignore the hot air balloons and focus on people who seem to want a respectful and constructive exchange. As often as not, those people are just as disenchanted with lower calibers of dialogue as you are. Unfortunately, in a public setting like this--and especially when the topic is US politics--you're just not going to achieve a no-hyperbole,-no-taunting-and-no-snideness,-EVER standard without choking all the social dynamism out of it...even people who are usually thoughtful and constructive get ornery sometimes, and oftentimes people who really do want substantial argument don't grasp how badly they hurt their own chances of getting just that when they start out with an impatient or sarcastic tone.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 10:16 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


No, I meant people calling him, literally, childish and uninformed.

I don't understand your point any longer, as you seem to be flipping between topics: criticisms and name-calling.
You and Diemen have taken Vincent's labeling of liberal arguments as "just as childish, uninformed and simplistic as some of the conservative arguments" and somehow turned it into an example of levelheaded criticism of Bush. Confusing me as well.
But let's see which is more common in FYM when it comes to addressing the performance of president Bush.

On this very page of FYM there is a thread entitled: Bush Doesn't Realize Gas Could Reach $4 Gallon

Which quote does not appear? Does not appear.

1) Bush is uninformed.
2) Bush is an idiot. (Period)
3) bush is an idiot and out-of-touch
4) I used to think that the President of the United States should be required to have just a teensy bit of intelligence, but apparently that is not the case. What I can't understand is how that dunce got elected once, much less twice!
5) all the Bush lovers and Bush himself will realize that he and they are all pieces of shit.

Ah, the academic depth of those critiques is truly impressive. By they way, if you chose the non-pejorative (1) you would be correct.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 10:29 PM   #53
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
You and Diemen have taken Vincent's labeling of liberal arguments as "just as childish, uninformed and simplistic as some of the conservative arguments" and somehow turned it into an example of levelheaded criticism of Bush. Confusing me as well.
But let's see which is more common in FYM when it comes to addressing the performance of president Bush.

On this very page of FYM there is a thread entitled: Bush Doesn't Realize Gas Could Reach $4 Gallon

Which quote does not appear? Does not appear.

1) Bush is uninformed.
2) Bush is an idiot. (Period)
3) bush is an idiot and out-of-touch
4) I used to think that the President of the United States should be required to have just a teensy bit of intelligence, but apparently that is not the case. What I can't understand is how that dunce got elected once, much less twice!
5) all the Bush lovers and Bush himself will realize that he and they are all pieces of shit.

Ah, the academic depth of those critiques is truly impressive. By they way, if you chose the non-pejorative (1) you would be correct.
That, first of all, is my mistake, as I thought you were complaining about people calling Bush childish and uninformed.

I think people are so sick and tired of writing the same things about Bush that they simplify their arguments to generalized insults after a while, specifically in reaction to statements or actions that they perceive to be "typical" of Bush. Is it intellectual? No. Does it bring good debate around? No. Is it understandable? Yes.

I do not think Bush is a Nazi or a war criminal, and I think he honestly believes in the war. I do not think he is a particularly bright man, for he lets his weaknesses (stubborness and intellectual laziness) constantly enter play in his decision making. I think he strongly believes, as most people do, that Saddam Hussein was an evil man.

The problem, and I find this to be a problem with a lot of people who deduce things like George Bush does, is that you cannot go against the designed system in place just because you believe strongly in something. George Bush didn't go into Iraq because he believed there were WMDs. He went into Iraq because he was sure that Saddam was a bad person, and he used WMDs as the reasoning in the public forum.

I think an analysis like this one, that I have typed, is much more along the lines of something you want to see, for it analyzes what he has done, avoids name-calling, and puts discussion points out there.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 11:14 PM   #54
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


You and Diemen have taken Vincent's labeling of liberal arguments as "just as childish, uninformed and simplistic as some of the conservative arguments" and somehow turned it into an example of levelheaded criticism of Bush. Confusing me as well.
I apologize for the previous post - I didn't catch the entire context of your response.


Quote:
On this very page of FYM there is a thread entitled: Bush Doesn't Realize Gas Could Reach $4 Gallon

Which quote does not appear? Does not appear.

1) Bush is uninformed.
2) Bush is an idiot. (Period)
3) bush is an idiot and out-of-touch
4) I used to think that the President of the United States should be required to have just a teensy bit of intelligence, but apparently that is not the case. What I can't understand is how that dunce got elected once, much less twice!
5) all the Bush lovers and Bush himself will realize that he and they are all pieces of shit.

Ah, the academic depth of those critiques is truly impressive. By they way, if you chose the non-pejorative (1) you would be correct.
First of all, none of the quotes you are using came from people participating in this thread. Secondly, most of those quotes are from people who rarely post in FYM and can hardly be considered representative of the general tone from the left. And lastly, of the ones who do post in here fairly regularly, I can personally attest to confronting one of those posters about his over-the-top Bush bashing.

Do we all still turn a blind eye?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 01:05 AM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen

Do we all still turn a blind eye?
No, in actuality I've noticed that most all of the Bushitler, 9/11 truthers stuff and ad homonym attacks get swatted down pretty quickly by regular posters, most of whom don't support Bush.

But to get back to the point of strongbows thread. Bush gets no credit here for two things that he really should; economic growth/ job creation with low inflation and no terrorist attacks since 9/11. Instead he is attacked, isn't he, for the policies that made those feats possible...tax cuts and increased intelligence efforts. Anything is fair game for criticism of coarse, but one must also be willing to acknowledge positive results.

Let me ask you a question. If you'd lived through a president being assassinated, the hell-in-a-basket year of 1968, widespread race riots, a war in which 65,000 Americans were killed, wage & price controls, an oil embargo, a president resigning in disgrace, 4 years in which inflation was over 10%, a deep recession, a savings & loan bailout, an actual presidential impeachment and disco.

Would you honestly think George W Bush was our worst president in history?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 01:17 AM   #56
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


But to get back to the point of strongbows thread. Bush gets no credit here for two things that he really should; economic growth/ job creation with low inflation and no terrorist attacks since 9/11. Instead he is attacked, isn't he, for the policies that made those feats possible...tax cuts and increased intelligence efforts.
Wow, you and Strongbow both love your fuzzy math. The conclusions you come up with given the facts are hilarious...

Your president congress theory was paticular funny because it just over looked MAJOR OBVIOUS faults of theory.

Just like this statement that I quoted does... This whole "we haven't been attacked since, due to Bush policy", is just bullshit. This cannot be proven, and the fact that adults fall for this type of logic cracks me up.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-03-2008, 01:24 AM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


That, first of all, is my mistake, as I thought you were complaining about people calling Bush childish and uninformed.

I think people are so sick and tired of writing the same things about Bush that they simplify their arguments to generalized insults after a while, specifically in reaction to statements or actions that they perceive to be "typical" of Bush. Is it intellectual? No. Does it bring good debate around? No. Is it understandable? Yes.

I do not think Bush is a Nazi or a war criminal, and I think he honestly believes in the war. I do not think he is a particularly bright man, for he lets his weaknesses (stubborness and intellectual laziness) constantly enter play in his decision making. I think he strongly believes, as most people do, that Saddam Hussein was an evil man.

The problem, and I find this to be a problem with a lot of people who deduce things like George Bush does, is that you cannot go against the designed system in place just because you believe strongly in something. George Bush didn't go into Iraq because he believed there were WMDs. He went into Iraq because he was sure that Saddam was a bad person, and he used WMDs as the reasoning in the public forum.

I think an analysis like this one, that I have typed, is much more along the lines of something you want to see, for it analyzes what he has done, avoids name-calling, and puts discussion points out there.
Very well said.

Look, I don't expect, and wouldn't want, this to turn into the Yale Debating Club. Flippancy, style, a hint of button-pushing with just a twist of hyperbole can actually make discussing politics fun. But I think we agree that it needs to remain at least partially grounded in civility and reality.
Should I stray, I hope I can count on you Philly to call me on it.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 01:37 AM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Wow, you and Strongbow both love your fuzzy math. The conclusions you come up with given the facts are hilarious...

Your president congress theory was paticular funny because it just over looked MAJOR OBVIOUS faults of theory.

Just like this statement that I quoted does... This whole "we haven't been attacked since, due to Bush policy", is just bullshit. This cannot be proven, and the fact that adults fall for this type of logic cracks me up.
And here's BVS, as if on cue, here to test me.

Well, I never did mind about the little things.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 01:42 AM   #59
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
The conclusions you come up with given the facts are hilarious...

This whole "we haven't been attacked since, due to Bush policy", is just bullshit. This cannot be proven, and the fact that adults fall for this type of logic cracks me up.
Is this the way you'd want people to address you if they thought you were drawing completely invalid conclusions from whatever alleged evidence? What's the matter with just asking, "Where's your proof that 'Bush's policy' is the reason there haven't been more terrorist attacks?", or simply saying "I don't think that's a valid conclusion at all" then explaining why?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 03-03-2008, 01:56 AM   #60
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Is this the way you'd want people to address you if they thought you were drawing completely invalid conclusions from whatever alleged evidence? What's the matter with just asking, "Where's your proof that 'Bush's policy' is the reason there haven't been more terrorist attacks?", or simply saying "I don't think that's a valid conclusion at all" then explaining why?
I apologize. I constantly wrestle with this... But I feel like I constantly ask this poster to provide more and he doesn't. Usually when I ask him direct questions he leaves the thread. So I'm not sure what to do. He often speaks in vague attacks towards the forum or conspiracy theory type attacks towards "the left" in general.

I'll try and find a way to deal directly in the futrure.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com