|
|
#91
10-10-2006, 04:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is your life better or worth since George Bush became the presiden
How does going to war do anything but decrease safety? Diplomacy is what was (is) needed, and we have gone backwards in every way possible in that regard. Some good our advanced military will do when every country in the world obtains nukes. It's embarassing when Bush invades Iraq on the premise of preventing weapons of mass destruction, when in fact nukes (and terrorism) are a direct consequence of such continued aggression.
|
|
#93
10-10-2006, 06:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is your life better or worth since George Bush became the presiden
[ QUOTE ]
Bluff, you might want to reconsider these posts. In my opinion, your posts in this thread reflect: (1) that you have simply chosen a "side" and are arguing it for amusement; (2) using logical fallacies (i.e., the dubious assumptions your posts make); (3) refusing to concede various subpoints of the argument (i.e., two people now have told you that your post was not a proper response to the OP and belongs in its own thread, yet you continue to disagree); and (4) relying upon "proof by verbosity", i.e., you continue to defend your post yet you have proffered only one very tenuous item -- the appointment of the 2 SC justices -- to support your position. Check out This Thread for a greater explanation of why your posts are inappropriate. [/ QUOTE ] 1) My statements reflect my true views. When I make a post with sarcasm or humor (that is not always recognized as such), I don't keep at it as if I am serious. 2) Your point #2 shows evidence that you do not know what constitutes a logical fallacy. It has nothing to do with the truth of the assumptions. A logically valid conclusion can be reached from erroneous axioms, though of course that doesn't make such a conclusion actually true. 3) Why should I concede that I am supposedly obligated to respond only on the basis of an OP's stated question or intention when nothing of the kind is the case? As long as I don't misrepresent the OP's questions or statements I can respond on an issue the way I wish. This is especially the case with questions that are "loaded". 4) My defense of my post didn't rely on actual evidence that could only be speculation anyway, as to what Gore/Kerry might have hypothetically done, even though I did give one such factor. And it should be evident to all that the entire question here is mostly subjective anyway because regardless of whether you view any poster's reasons for believing himself better off or not, you can't prove he personally isn't better off or not. Which is why my statements here don't require "proof" of what Gore/Kerry *might* have done that I wouldn't like to a degree sufficient to consider myself worse off under them than under Bush. As to the question in your other post, I am in fact a native born american. However I read several British newspapers and blogs online and have a taste for British murder mysteries, so I pick up and randomly use some British spellings or slang occasionally, even though in the next post I might use the american one. I type fairly fast and am also mildly dyslexic in spelling matters anyway.
|
|
#94
10-10-2006, 10:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is your life better or worth since George Bush became the president?
[ QUOTE ]
wow you are brainwashed. There is nothing moral about "Science". The fact that people might find this science "morally objectionable" has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religion. Science is not based on just investigating what people are morally comfortable with. "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." Science is not an opinion. It is facts. Facts, not moral judgements or opinions. So I guess if a vast majority of the country went back to the dark ages and believed that the world was flat, it would be a religious decision to teach the immorality that the world was round. Remember Galieo was excommunicated for suggesting that the Earth was not the center of the universe. That is what happens when you mix Science (facts) with Religion (opinions). [/ QUOTE ] Just got back to this post and was going to defend my position until I read Card's response - thanks.
|
|
#95
10-10-2006, 12:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is your life better or worth since George Bush became the presiden
[ QUOTE ]
How does going to war do anything but decrease safety? [/ QUOTE ] In theory? By forcefully removing elements from a foreign country that directly threaten your country, while at the same time improving the quality of life for the non-threatening residents of the foreign Country. In practice? No one seems to know yet, but damned if they don't keep trying.
|
|
#96
10-10-2006, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is your life better or worth since George Bush became the presiden
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Pro - government funded stem cell research. --- Against religious influence in the government. [/ QUOTE ] These two directly contradict each other. Or is it ok to inflict your morality on others so long as you just don't attach the name "religion" to it? [/ QUOTE ] Waaaaa????? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] What don't you understand? Funding stem cell research means you've placed a value of "good" on stem cell research, which is a moral decision. In fact, by refusing to fund it and not banning it, the Bush Administration has taken the least moral/religious stance on this issue. It's one of the very few things he's done that I agree with. On the other hand, taking money from people to fund something that those people find morally objectionable is one of the worst forms of tyranny. "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical" - Thomas Jefferson [/ QUOTE ] To take your argument to it's logical conclusion, there shouldn't be government funding for anything that someone finds morally objectionable? The list of reasonable objections is long, the list of not so reasonable objections would shut the government down. While I disagree, I get your argument that not making a moral judgement is equal to a belief that something is immoral. What is important is that government policy can't be controled by minority beliefs. There is a significant minority that believe any medical care is interfering with God's will. Should all medicare and medicaid programs be stopped because of this belief? Should the military be shut down because the Amish are pacifists?
|
|
#97
10-10-2006, 01:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is your life better or worth since George Bush became the president?
Bush as whole has made life better. His incompetence has driven up our Candian $. His contribution to the political unrest in the world has driven oil prices through the roof.
|
|
#98
10-10-2006, 02:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is your life better or worth since George Bush became the presiden
[ QUOTE ]
Bush as whole has made life better. His incompetence has driven up our Candian $. His contribution to the political unrest in the world has driven oil prices through the roof. [/ QUOTE ] Whatever dude. We're completely pwning your timber industry. Why don't you go eat some ham, call it bacon, and leave our politics alone? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
|
|
#99
10-10-2006, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is your life better or worth since George Bush became the presiden
[ QUOTE ]
To take your argument to it's logical conclusion, there shouldn't be government funding for anything that someone finds morally objectionable? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. [ QUOTE ] The list of reasonable objections is long, the list of not so reasonable objections would shut the government down. [/ QUOTE ] Not really. Doing these things at the local level is generally acceptable. [ QUOTE ] What is important is that government policy can't be controled by minority beliefs. [/ QUOTE ] No, it absolutely must be controlled by minority beliefs. The whole point of the Constitution is to protect minority beliefs. The majority don't need protection. It's not government in general violating minority beliefs that's bad, it's centralized government doing so. If local governments are doing it, people at least have a choice. [ QUOTE ] There is a significant minority that believe any medical care is interfering with God's will. Should all medicare and medicaid programs be stopped because of this belief? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, federal ones should. If people wish to have such programs within their own states, that's their business. [ QUOTE ] Should the military be shut down because the Amish are pacifists? [/ QUOTE ] Well, the Amish don't exactly pay much in taxes. More importantly though, I can see arguments for military being unable to be provided at a less central level of government, so I'm not interested in arguing against it. Most of what the federal government does though is doable at a state/local level, giving both the majority and the minority what they want except for imposing it on others. Since the only purpose of doing these things at a federal level is to impose them on those who disagree, there is no reasonable argument to implement them at a federal level rather than a state level.
|
|
#100
10-10-2006, 07:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is your life better or worth since George Bush became the presiden
Lets see...
Personal freedoms are eliminated daily..... (funny, how I thought that was one of the things that was suppose to make america great) Lives every day reflect more of 1984. More hatred towards me....because I live in a country that has a Moron for a president. As well...that hatred will breed more hatred for future generations Personal freedoms that are only allowed when a goverment agency or policy says they are allowed (for your own saftey of course, GW knows how every american should act, think feel) Is my life better..... I dunno...I'll need to run it by the people in charge... Wait a minute...they are already monitoring this....as well as in the near future Monitoring me in the bathroom to ensure I only do things that They...uhh...I mean...I think are appropriate. (should be a bill passed telling you how to squat real soon) Redefining of the word republican. GW Bush definition....republican = Nazi (if he only had another change for a 3rd term, he might start concentration camps for non-christians, democrats, libritarians, human beings, women, children, men...... Okay...over exagerated... How about limited freedom for those who qualify. Just think of the 3rd Term....cameras on every street corner....cameras in every home....listening to every converstation.....a chip in everyones neck (because if you arent doing anything wrong,you have nothing to worry about...or at least thats what the Nazis said....as well as the defenders of Hitler...ooopppss...sorry...Bush)....all personal freedoms gone..... In the Name of Saftey? Anti American sentiment and organizations at an all time high. Damn Taliban Internet Poker players.... Dont worry....GW will get them....and...he will get you too. Nixon recorded everything in the white house.... Bush thinks 1984 was just a starting point...
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
