wars

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Exactly, which is what I said isn't it?

Bitching at someone who supported Kerry (a man with a few skeletons in the closet) just because he did some bad things doesn't mean that they have no right to complain about Bush.

My point was that pro-Bush supporters more often than not, ignore what the other people are saying. An anti-Bush guy could say something perfectly reasonable and factual and you would mostly retort with "Yeah well you...." rather than "That's true, actually."

-AC

agreed but i dont think kerry would stay in iraq to finish what we started

btw there is already an anti bush thread

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Exactly, which is what I said isn't it?

Bitching at someone who supported Kerry (a man with a few skeletons in the closet) just because he did some bad things doesn't mean that they have no right to complain about Bush.

My point was that pro-Bush supporters more often than not, ignore what the other people are saying. An anti-Bush guy could say something perfectly reasonable and factual and you would mostly retort with "Yeah well you...." rather than "That's true, actually."

-AC

Originally posted by FeceMan
The rationale is that you're bitching is hypocritical because you supported someone who has done bad things and then ***** about whatever the hell Bush has done.

This is a fallacious mindset. If someone makes a negative claim against someone who you support you should retort it by giving logic and reason that may put a better light on whatever it is they're making a negative claim at. By you simply saying "OH YEAH, WELL YOU AND THAT DID THIS" you're more or less accepting whatever negatives that person is saying and suggesting that you can't retort them. Also the scope of negatives is far worse on Bush's side then those who Bush supporters often target. Example -

*Anti Bush statement* -Man, Bush really ****ed up, invading a country without valid reasoning and getting thousands of American soldiers killed who didn't need to be, what a waste, what a shitty president."

*Bush Supporter* - What about Clinton, you supported him! Look what he did, he got a blowjob and lied about it! He lied about it! That means he lied about other stuff too, or at least he would have, because lying about having an affair means he would lie to the American public about other stuff too, I can't prove this and it's based on a logic fallacy, but still he was bad! He was a horrible president! He got a blowjob from a fat chick and he's married!!

Now, what's worse? Getting a blowjob and lying about it, or being responsible for the deaths of thousands of American soldiers by sending them to an unnecessary war? I'd be hard pressed to find a Bush supporter who will give an honest, reasonable answer to this question.

But thats comparing two different cases and looking for the less controversial BF. Sure getting a BJ is not as bad as going to war. Anyone can see that.

The door swings both ways. Like Afro Cheese said "It's hardly confined to Bush supporters". If were to say:

For a defensive case for George W. Bush: The War in Iraq was originally intended to stop Saddam Husseim from selling WMD's to Terrorist. But unfortunally there wasn't enough evidence so the USA jumped the gun and invaded the nation and now is facing a rebuilding stage. Bush's error has been tranform into a solution for Iraq. They're on the verge of becoming a Democratic nation with elections and a new government that will no doubt be a trade business partner with America. So even thought the invasion was a mistake...something possitive can be brought out of this mess. Saddam and his sons are long gone. Now Iraq has a better opportunity to make business freely.

An Anti-Bush person would reply: WD your Full of shit! And you're Bush supporter! You're twistin things around to make it nice a clean. The war was a mistake and thousands are dying! THERE IS NOTHING POSITIVE ABOUT THIS!!!!!

It was never my point to be anti-Bush or pro-Kerry. The fact of the matter is, I would prefer to have Kerry than Bush. I'm not saying Kerry would have been a great president, I'm saying (as South Park did) that sometimes the choice is between two kinds of shit. You just have to choose the one that stinks less.

It was a case of the lesser evil. In this case it was Kerry. Both sides have their idiotic supporters. My point wasn't to be pro-either of them. Just pro-fairness in pro-Bush supporters acknowledging that anti-Bush supporters do, shock horror, sometimes say things that are factually, and crucially detrimental to Bush's case. Which they do not.

-AC

what does that have to do with my original ?

Nothing but people are mostly ignoring your question cause they recognize it's only purpose is to stir up trouble.

Originally posted by WindDancer
But thats comparing two different cases and looking for the less controversial BF. Sure getting a BJ is not as bad as going to war. Anyone can see that.

The door swings both ways. Like Afro Cheese said "It's hardly confined to Bush supporters". If were to say:

For a defensive case for George W. Bush: The War in Iraq was originally intended to stop Saddam Husseim from selling WMD's to Terrorist. But unfortunally there wasn't enough evidence so the USA jumped the gun and invaded the nation and now is facing a rebuilding stage. Bush's error has been tranform into a solution for Iraq. They're on the verge of becoming a Democratic nation with elections and a new government that will no doubt be a trade business partner with America. So even thought the invasion was a mistake...something possitive can be brought out of this mess. Saddam and his sons are long gone. Now Iraq has a better opportunity to make business freely.

An Anti-Bush person would reply: WD your Full of shit! And you're Bush supporter! You're twistin things around to make it nice a clean. The war was a mistake and thousands are dying! THERE IS NOTHING POSITIVE ABOUT THIS!!!!!

Right, a BJ is not as bad as going to war without valid reasons. And it's always the pro bush people who bring it up as if it's in some way comparable.

That Anti bush person is foolish. A smart person would say "the fact that Saddam Hussein doesn't have WMD's makes the whole war foolish, pointless, and idiotic, and based on obviously flawed information gathered from a bad president and his cabinet". Plus, that "solution" is one that never should have happened, it is simply not our business to force that upon that country. Forcing democracy upon that country is kinda ironic. And still, the fact remains that thousands of American soldiers are dying in vein, all because Bush and others ****ed up.

People should learn to accept the faults of all presidents, and stop committing the childlike retorts of "Well you did this so there!". If you're a Bush supporter, and someone puts Bush down and you disagree, then defend him, don't just say "Well Kerry/Clinton did this stuff that's not nearly as bad so you shouldn't complain about Bush!" It's more or less just submitting that the complains against Bush can't be retorted against and are, thus, true.

If someone insults Clinton, I don't retort by saying "OH YEAH WELL BUSH DID THIS SO THERE!" I retort by stating the positives that Clinton gave this country, and the good things he did that far outweigh his silly, blown up, demonized blowjob thingy. Bush people should try to do the same, though maybe that's just their way of admitting that Bush has done very few positive things while in office.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Nothing but people are mostly ignoring your question cause they recognize it's only purpose is to stir up trouble.

that waznt my intention❌

See a good match up would of been;
Imagine the Cold war actually turned into a real war but without the nukes... Who would of won?

USSR vs USA..

Originally posted by BackFire

That Anti bush person is foolish. A smart person would say "the fact that Saddam Hussein doesn't have WMD's makes the whole war foolish, pointless, and idiotic, and based on obviously flawed information gathered from a bad president and his cabinet". Plus, that "solution" is one that never should have happened, it is simply not our business to force that upon that country. Forcing democracy upon that country is kinda ironic. And still, the fact remains that thousands of American soldiers are dying in vein, all because Bush and others ****ed up.

Of course that person is meant to sound foolish. It was my way to illustrate how conclusive people can get about world events. Again, originally the idea was to take out Saddam and his sons because it was believed that he was supplying WMD to terrorists. That wasn't the case so now governement is stuck with rebuilding a nation. They weren't forcing democracy. One thing led to another and democracy was the best solution to the whole mess. And as I'm writting this that foolish person must be thinking "There goes WD again! Defending that idiot".

Originally posted by BackFire
People should learn to accept the faults of all presidents, and stop committing the childlike retorts of "Well you did this so there!". If you're a Bush supporter, and someone puts Bush down and you disagree, then defend him, don't just say "Well Kerry/Clinton did this stuff that's not nearly as bad so you shouldn't complain about Bush!" It's more or less just submitting that the complains against Bush can't be retorted against and are, thus, true.

People DO accept the faults of president. Anyone who says "This president never did nothing wrong" is way out focus with reality. Same with any Prime Minister. All presidents have their flaws. Defending a president is quite frankly the most pointless thing EVER. Who is gonna go over the same arguments again and again when people have already made up their minds even despite facts have been brought up. Ever notice me trying to make a case for Bush? I hardly do. I'm always split between the good and the bad about his leadership. I'm split because I know two things. One, there isn't enough to say good things about the man. Two, no one cares!

Originally posted by BackFire
If someone insults Clinton, I don't retort by saying "OH YEAH WELL BUSH DID THIS SO THERE!" I retort by stating the positives that Clinton gave this country, and the good things he did that far outweigh his silly, blown up, demonized blowjob thingy. Bush people should try to do the same, though maybe that's just their way of admitting that Bush has done very few positive things while in office.

If someone insults Clinton or Bush, or Regan, or Washington.....who really cares and what do we get out of that? nothing. You could point out the guy's pro's and con's. What does that really get to? Why do you look surprise when people throws mud at a politician. That's what politics are all about. Slamming each other and their supporters follow right behind. Politics is a dirty business...whoever tells you otherwise are not in touch with reality.

"Believing" in something is't a sound or acceptable reason to go to war. They had zero valid evidence to support it (which is made glaringly obvious by our current station there). "Believing" is a horrible reason to go to war with a country. I could believe that Mexico is breeding a new strain of the Ebola virus, doesn't mean we should go to war with them based soley on that belief. Of course we're forcing democracy, we're giving it to them whether they like it or not. Because we think it's "best" for them when many of them just want us out of their. "One thing led to another" is just a polite sugar coated way of saying "One major screw up and lie had to be fixed by other screw ups and lies".

Some people do accept the faults, but more often then not, when these faults are brought up, their first response is to attack whatever prior president/candidate the other person was for. I'd say that's far more pointless, not to mention logically flawed, then simply defending the person being attacked in a reasonable and mature manner, to wrongs don't make a right. They may accept their flaws deep down, but a lot of people sure seem to have trouble ADMITTING them when they're brought up during a discussion. Some people, on the other hand, flat out deny these faults.

Discussing pros and cons in a decent manner will get further then mudslinging. Just because politics is a dirty business doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed rationally and respectfully when possible by people. Of course, it isn't surprising that people do this, as you said, politics slings mud, so that in turn allows people to believe that that's the best way to discuss the topic, that doesn't mean I shouldn't point out the flawed mindset that allows this to be seen as acceptable debate tactics.

They have zero evidence now. At the time this whole war thing got started there was suspicion that Saddam was supplying terrorist. Plus given the fact that Saddam's reputation and hatred towards the U.S. didn't make his case any easier for him.

Let's say Mexico is working on a Ebola virus. And America does have the exact suspicions that they had with Iraq. I seriously doubt that the Government would attack Mexico. Why? because President Vicente Fox doesn't have the same reputation as Saddam Hussein.

What exactly does it mean to give Iraq democracy? It gives the people power to choose their leaders. Do you see Iraq in the future having free elections with Saddam in power? There are two very likely scenarios that could have happen. One, either one of his sons would have taken over and imposs the same iron fist government as their father had over the country. Two, another invasion to Kuwait very likely that would lead to another Desert Storm, and another retreat back to Iraq and wait for the UN to put sanctions on the country. The same tactics the father practice the sons would have continue.

Back on the political side....I would love to see a cleaner way for politics to be elected. But thats not the case. There can't be a political race, a proposition election, or even a Mayor campaign without any mudsliging. No side ever discards the chance to throw some mud at his/her opponents eyes. Facts do make things a lot more clearer. And it works at times (e.g. Richard Nixon) and other times it doesn't work. Like for example Whitewater scandal.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I do think it's a bit demeaning to call England, a country rich in literary, artistic and various other kind of heritages, very much the senior of the two, the same country as America more or less.

No offense to America, of course. I just think that's a bit of a drastic claim. That being said, our leaders here aren't doing much to stop us ending up as the smaller, twin brother of America. Continually highlighting the wrong things as pros of this country instead of the actual things that make this country what it is.

-AC

I'm not saying they ARE the same country, I'm saying that they are practically the same country, politically. I have a huge amount of respect for England. In fact, my respect for it would increase significantly if they disagreed with us a bit more often.

Oh, politically. Thought you meant in general. Apologies.

-AC

I've talked to a few English girls (mostly not Chavs) and they all think the American accent is sexy, whereas most American (children, friends, etc) people think the English one is sexy... and for the most part most of my friends would like to live in England and vice versa. *shrug* The fact that England seems to go on similar trends among children and shares some of the same celeb's is as far as I can see us being practically the same country (Barring politically... IMHO, Blair is Bush's *****).

Interesting point, Snoop.

Americans from my personal experience seem to be more uneducated on what it's actually like in England today than we are of what it's like in America.

Probably due to the fact that growing up, most of the broadcasted material on our TVs or stereos is American. So we're more accustomed to American culture than you are to English culture. Eg: A lot of English singers don't necessarily sing with English accents purely because they're used to the music they grew up which is - if not American - sung with an American accent. I think a lot of Americans hear this and think that they are trying to sing in an American accent.

Most Americans that I've experienced, aren't too familiar with anything outside of what they've learnt in school about our country. They don't get the slang, the terminology etc. Where as I can have a conversation with an American talking in whatever slang they want, and understand it.

So I think America is more embraced by England because of how much of your popular culture has been a staple of our lives, not necessarily through wanting to embrace it. Where as Americans tend to embrace England a lot more from my experience, because they know so little about it in the grand scheme of things.

I think nine times out of ten an American will be more likely to ask an Brit what it's like living here than vice versa.

-AC

I gotta say I'm guilty of that. The only contact I have with England is online.. besides that everything I know about your country is either from a book, a movie, or just word of mouth.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Interesting point, Snoop.

Americans from my personal experience seem to be more uneducated on what it's actually like in England today than we are of what it's like in America.

Probably due to the fact that growing up, most of the broadcasted material on our TVs or stereos is American. So we're more accustomed to American culture than you are to English culture. Eg: A lot of English singers don't necessarily sing with English accents purely because they're used to the music they grew up which is - if not American - sung with an American accent. I think a lot of Americans hear this and think that they are trying to sing in an American accent.

Most Americans that I've experienced, aren't too familiar with anything outside of what they've learnt in school about our country. They don't get the slang, the terminology etc. Where as I can have a conversation with an American talking in whatever slang they want, and understand it.

So I think America is more embraced by England because of how much of your popular culture has been a staple of our lives, not necessarily through wanting to embrace it. Where as Americans tend to embrace England a lot more from my experience, because they know so little about it in the grand scheme of things.

I think nine times out of ten an American will be more likely to ask an Brit what it's like living here than vice versa.

-AC

Well in slang, having a "wank" is masturbating. So a "wanker" would be a derogatory term.

EG: "You stupid wanker" would be similar to "You stupid idiot", but more informal. I haven't quite worked out why calling someone a masturbator is a derogatory term, much yes a stupid one. It's just stuck, no pun intended.

-AC