Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-10-2004, 06:23 AM   #26
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
I cant imagine Bumble is serious, dude you have trolled me for the last time.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 06:30 AM   #27
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
In other words you don't WANT to believe what I lay out in clear common sense. In fact you and other cons don't ever focus on the argument, instead resorting to name calling and trying to sidetrack any arguments.
Conservative mantra- "If you can't beat them- quit!!!"
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 06:46 AM   #28
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
Not quitting, i just wont be responding to your over the top claims. Ill keep reading them and if i see something that is remotely logical ill be happy to respond. These stupid "Bush is LIEING" threads you start ill pass on (unless i get really really bored).
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 07:17 AM   #29
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
Quote Bumble yet again: There was never an attack from Iraq, never even a threat from them. Why attack someone solely because you dislike them?

And as far as the question that you donb't seem to understand Alaura, the point is that the intelligence was not specific on Al Qaeda. All or at least most intelligence is not hardcore or specific. It only becomes specific when it is pursued. It is much like a murder, you have to put the pieces together and do not put them together unless you have an investigation. This did not happen because the URGENCY was not felt and the direction to pursue it was not there as it was for Clinton.

Okay now you just have proved my point, and yet you still do not answer my question. We had intelligence on Al Queda, that was non specific and we did not attack. We had much more intelligence on Iraq and we did. But you think it was wrong to attack Iraq, but you do you think Bush was wrong for NOT attacking Al Queda. Gee Bumble, if you can't see where you are totally off base here, it is not worth my time.

Being as you keep throwing Clinton into this trying to deflect from the topic at hand, I will address that. Clinton knew where Osama was and did nought. How on earth can you say it was urgent for Clinton? Clinton knew more, and knew for longer than Bush did and he did nothing at all. Yeah, your man was really on the ball wasn't he????
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 07:20 AM   #30
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
So Bumble, one last time, step up to bat here, Answer please, your last chance to prove that you have a thread of intelligence left, why do you think that Bush should have attacked Al Queda based on "intelligence" only, but you think he was wrong to attack Iraq based on "intelligence"? We actually had more than just intelligence on Iraq, we had proof the WMD's existed. Please just directly answer that. Don't start throwing other meaningless topics into the pot, just answer that.
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 07:39 AM   #31
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
Iraq has been attacking our jet fighters for years.
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 08:05 AM   #32
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Bumbleroot you are too funny. While Zolmaz gets upset, I just laugh at you. It's one thing to keep yourself convinced that Bush is a liar. It's ok, it's your right. I suggest in order to save face down the road, you would be better off to keep your clarivoyant opinons to yourself. You look like a fool.

Sorry buddy but what you're hoping will come out of the 9/11 commissions report isn't gonna happen. Be a good American. Focus on what we need to do from this point forward and in the future to insure that our national security will be the best in can be.
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 08:15 AM   #33
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Yes, Clinton was offered OBL on a silver platter, but I can understand why Clinton didn't want him. We had nothing to hold him on. He would have been arrested and released.

Bush didn't have the information needed to attack OBL before 9/11. There were memo's of "Al Quada wants to attack America". No mention of where, when or how specifically. For anyone to try and blame either administration for 9/11 is absurd. From what I have read and seen from the interviews, the Bush administration was beefing up security in airports and such after the memo's came out, but it's kinda hard to protect when the attacks mentioned are of unknown origin.

As for Iraq and Saddam. There were intelligence reports from our on and from foreign countries that Saddam had WMD. Being on the defensive after 9/11, I can understand perfectly why Bush choose to invade Iraq and take Saddam out of power.
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 04:07 PM   #34
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
So far this whole thread is just a war of the witless.

Really, can we not rehash this again? Bumble wants to find a reason to blame Bush, even if there isn't one. Likewise, the republicans won't blame Bush even if he is clearly at fault.

Can we stop this crap now?
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 06:41 PM   #35
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Originally Posted by AresProphet
Likewise, the republicans won't blame Bush even if he is clearly at fault.
Not true.....
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 07:17 PM   #36
Zolmaz Zo'Boto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,040
Originally Posted by AresProphet
So far this whole thread is just a war of the witless.

Really, can we not rehash this again? Bumble wants to find a reason to blame Bush, even if there isn't one. Likewise, the republicans won't blame Bush even if he is clearly at fault.

Can we stop this crap now?
Carefull, your bordering the critical thought process against the propaganda,
and thats a good thing. In 5-years you'll be a full fledged, card carrying,
flag waving, republican. Your always Welcome AresProphet.



GOD BLESS AMERICA
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS
GOD BLESS THE FAMILY
Zolmaz Zo'Boto (Live and learn, but what about dying for the future of others, like our forefathers have done for us all)
Zolmaz Zo'Boto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 08:55 PM   #37
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
Likewise, the republicans won't blame Bush even if he is clearly at fault.
If something is clearly wrong then there would be no way to debate about it.
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2004, 10:29 PM   #38
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
I have no reason to believe that anyone here defending Bush would turn against him given evidence that he did something wrong.

This isn't a personal attack, but rather a criticism of the political mindset found in party-line voters. You will support your candidate, even against evidence that you shouldn't, because you have done so all along. Changing your view would be equivalent to admitting you are wrong, and have been for a long time.

The assertion I have made for years is that the number one thing a human being will not do, is admit that he or she is wrong. The exception to this postulate is when a small step backward from one's cause is used to further one's own point along a different line, or to make another look foolish. In reality no such step back actually has been taken, and the person still refuses to admit he or she was wrong. Thus, my rule stands. I haven't found a good name for it but it's a good working model for debate.

It can be overcome, but only if the evidence is so overwhelming that remaining on the current course will only damage that person's political survival. "political" being a broad term here, including ideas of credibility, charisma, appearance of sanity; in short, everything a person considers about you before considering your arguments themselves. You don't believe an insane person, even if they are actually telling you the truth, because they have no proof of credibility. Self-preservation, even in an abstract social sense, still takes precedence over my postulate.

This arises from the fact that we credit people who have told the truth or made a strong argument in the past. If we discover that they are hypocritical, and furthering a cause which is obviously wrong (by an arbitrary standard), we will be inclined to discredit them in the future. Thus, when a viewshift occurs against my postulate, it is akin to the abandoning of a sinking ship.

So with these two levels of hierarchy, the preservation instinct and the conviction hypothesis (a decent working name for my rule), we can realize that a person who votes unwaveringly for a specific political party will continue to do so unless their conviction damages their credibility.

What would suffice as sufficient evidence to damage your credibility? I cannot think of one that could realistically happen. Thus, I will stand by my statement that none of you would do anything but defend Bush, despite what happens.

Likewise, because it will not politically benefit them to do so, hardline Democrats will not defend Bush, even if the evidence says it would boost their credibility. This requires a third explanation, although an extension of the preservation instinct to include political parties as much as the individuals comprising them might account for it. You could also go with the conviction hypothesis and say that the Democrats would then be admitting they were wrong. However, given that any allegations against Bush would be the result only of several years of party loyalty, conviction remains relatively shallow. I prefer the following.

By defending Bush, a Democrat would be damaging his credibility. It then benefits him to remain in his position against evidence to the contrary, to a very high degree. Given the nature of political conflict, even if Bush were revealed to be the second messiah himself (unlikely), there is an immediate trap set. A conversion of loyalty to Bush would be abused by his steadfast defenders, and the convertee would lose all credibility, simply out of a sense of revenge and spite. Traitors are never welcome, not even if it is a pull rather than a push which causes him to be attracted to a certain side rather than defect from his previous loyalty. In fact, given such deeply entrenched hostility as is present between Republicans and Democrats, it is highly likely that the turncoat would never regain any shred of credibility. In short, it would be sociopolitical suicide for him to switch loyalties. Even if he clings to his sinking ship of a party, his image would decay to an asymptote, but there would always be a sliver of loyalty that could be admired even by his opponents. Better than abandoning it entirely. For lack of a better term, I'll call it the Traitor's Dilemma, because like the simple-yet-complex Prisoners Dilemma of game theory, there is only one feasible outcome. Unlike the prisoner, the traitor's only option is not defection.

In any issue where there are distinct sides, you will find that self preservation, the conviction hypothesis, and the traitor's dilemma all more or less control the argument. It is possible, given a rational argument, that a view switch can occur and not be met with hostility. However, this is only possible if all parties enter the debate with an open mind, and all are equally susceptible to conversion.

Politics just isn't like that.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2004, 04:28 AM   #39
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Once again, I agree with most of what you said AresProphet. I can't speak for other Bush supporters, but if and when the time ever came that some credible information nailed Bush to the wall, I would be the first to say "Well that dirty rotten Son of a Bitch".

On the other hand, it will take alot more than the opinion of Bumbleroot and other Bush haters. It would take more than the spin the media chooses to put on the subject.

It would take information that was clearly undisputable by both parties in the House and Senate. It would have to be big enough that Bush was impeached or resigned as Nixon did.

That doesn't mean in any way I would change parties. It wouldn't cause me to vote for Kerry. I probably wouldn't bother voting at all if there wasn't another Republican stepping in worth voting for.

The biggest difference we see on this board is between those that support Bush in his decision to invade Iraq and those that don't. We throw out our opinions on why we support it and others throw out their opinion on why they are against it. A few try to throw facts in here and there when in all reality there is no fact to an opinion.
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2004, 06:08 AM   #40
Ulujain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: La La Land
Posts: 1,930
What you doing posting at this time, Caelie? Your pastor allows your laptop in church?
__________________
S.I.G.N.A.T.U.R.E.
Ulujain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2004, 07:51 AM   #41
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
I've criticized Bush a few times. The reason I defend him is because usually people here lay unfair blame on him. If fact there is a good chance I won't be voting for him when the time comes. I don't like how he turns a blind eye to our environment, and I dislike how religiously motivated he is. However I do dislike Kerry a lot more then Bush. Heh Kerry will say anything anybody wants him to say and that disturbs me.
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2004, 08:12 AM   #42
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Originally Posted by Caelie
but if and when the time ever came that some credible information nailed Bush to the wall, I would be the first to say "Well that dirty rotten Son of a Bitch".
It's easy to say that but in reality it rarely is that easy. I could point out any number of real-world situations where overwhelming evidence is disregarded by defenders of a cause. One easy analogy that sort of parallels the idea is how kidnapping victims frequently try to justify the actions of their captors. The situation is different but it's the same aspect of the human psyche.

Fact is, loyalty comes before truth, especially in politics. In a setting where objective facts are hard to come by you cannot afford to question your loyalties at every turn, because that's all you will end up doing. There is a degree of blind faith involved, because you simply don't have the ability to consider all the facts.

Originally Posted by Caelie
The biggest difference we see on this board is between those that support Bush in his decision to invade Iraq and those that don't. We throw out our opinions on why we support it and others throw out their opinion on why they are against it. A few try to throw facts in here and there when in all reality there is no fact to an opinion.
I disagree, and in fact am going to call this a cop-out on your part to avoid hard questions. There were avenues Bush could have pursued to gain public support for the war that did not involve relying on information that everyone knew was shoddy at best. He did not, and deserves to be held accountable for his actions.

This is not opinion, but fact, although it is admittedly with hindsight. There is little question that the intelligence Bush used was incomplete and uncorroborated; the controversy arises when people try to say he lied. To me it's a matter of semantics. He invaded a country on premises he knew were shaky at best, and that is all that matters. The blame is his for any mistake, and the fact that he is trying to pass it off speaks volumes about how he handles things (or rather, how he is handled by his administration). My disagreement with the war stems from the mishandling of it, not the actual invasion itself. How do we know an administration that misinforms us once won't do it again? How can we trust a President who doesn't take responsibility when he makes a mistake? The typical counter is "Clinton did it too" but two wrongs don't make a right. Presidents should hold themselves to a higher standard than "Well he did it so I can too!".

Hard facts do in fact exist, simply by logical deduction. And, a debate based solely on opinion is not necessarily irrelevant. Much of philosophy is simple opinion, using logical reasoning to determine which is a more applicable one. Your refusal to take an argument of opinions seriously tells me that you're in the wrong place.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2004, 10:28 AM   #43
Trith
The lesser of two weevils
 
Trith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 3,490
Send a message via MSN to Trith
I have no problem being critical of Bush. His policy towards immigration absolutely stinks on ice. He's being way to soft on illegals, and needs to rethink his entire approach to the situation. I think he's out to lunch when it comes to allowing them to stay in the country and it's most definately not what the rest of his party wants.

I also think he's being too soft on Iraq, and that his tax cuts..while nice, needed to be much greater than they were. But those are other issues..

The whole point is I have disagreements with his policies just like others do..but when presented with the alternatives..John "F'in" Kerry, it's obvious there is no real alternative, so I will squelch my criticism of Bush until I know that he's defeated the other clowns running in November.
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2004, 10:51 AM   #44
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Originally Posted by Ulujain
What you doing posting at this time, Caelie? Your pastor allows your laptop in church?
Where have I ever posted that I go to Church every Sunday? Where have I ever posted that I go to Church at all?
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2004, 10:59 AM   #45
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Originally Posted by AresProphet
Hard facts do in fact exist, simply by logical deduction. And, a debate based solely on opinion is not necessarily irrelevant. Much of philosophy is simple opinion, using logical reasoning to determine which is a more applicable one. Your refusal to take an argument of opinions seriously tells me that you're in the wrong place
I didn't say I refused to take an argument of opinions seriously. I believe I said it would take alot more than the opinions of Bumbleroot and other obvious Bush haters to make me view him (Bush) differently than I do now.
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2004, 11:19 AM   #46
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Originally Posted by Caelie
I didn't say I refused to take an argument of opinions seriously. I believe I said it would take alot more than the opinions of Bumbleroot and other obvious Bush haters to make me view him (Bush) differently than I do now.
I thought that [not taking opinion debate seriously] is what you implied, but it may be a misunderstanding.

But if you aren't going to be influenced by those that oppose your point of view, what will you be influenced by? You are effectively admitting that if someone is a "Bush hater" you are not going to cinsider their points.

I hate Bush. At the same time I try to make reasonable arguments and back up my points. It is not mutually exclusive to hate the man and have a valid point.

Yes, there are those who say a lot while really just repeating ad nauseum "Bush sucks". There are also people who say a lot while also just repeating ad nauseum "Bush is great". I don't take either of those types seriously, regardless of my own personal bias. I may try to be a little more civil when reprimanding bumbleroot for being a retard than, say, Trith or Zolmaz...

What's sad is that many people will defend even the thickest of idiots, as long as they share the same point of view. Meanwhile, they will attack their opposition for doing the exact same thing their own side does. A good clue that someone does is when a person makes a generalization about Republicans or Democrats. Generalizations based on political preference are just unapplicable, even if it's about the poltical stance itself; there are many different views within either party that not every member holds.

So your refusal to listen to an "obvious Bush hater" is ridiculous. You yourself are an "obvious Bush lover" if you want to apply your logic both ways. Your own admission that you would never change political parties is indicative that you are going more on blind faith than any rational thought.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2004, 11:37 AM   #47
Lurkerr
Mr. Helpful
 
Lurkerr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,720
Originally Posted by bumbleroot
Z- I am not offering propaganda.
The hell you aren't. Bumble, I find your beliefs to be sickening. How could someone be so misguided?
__________________
"I sold my soul to make a record, dip shit, and you bought one." -MJK

Last edited by Lurkerr; 04-11-2004 at 11:46 AM.
Lurkerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2004, 12:30 PM   #48
Caelie123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,027
Originally Posted by AresProphet
I hate Bush. At the same time I try to make reasonable arguments and back up my points.
Exactly my point. Maybe I read your post and pay attention because you apply logic and not alot of paranoia propaganda. Not only with Bush, but with religion and just about anything else we discuss. I'm not saying that you could ever change my views on how I feel about Bush or my belief in God or gay marriage, but I do take the time to read what you have to say. There are some on this board that I read about one sentence and move on because you can tell right off that it's a post filled with hate and paranoid delusions.
__________________
Caelie
65 Human Cleric
Caelie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2004, 06:44 PM   #49
Lith Ahntalon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 1,193
Send a message via AIM to Lith Ahntalon Send a message via Yahoo to Lith Ahntalon
Bumble Bo'Zoto has been born!!!!!!!!!
__________________
Right mind, right action.
Lith Ahntalon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2004, 07:53 PM   #50
Codsan
The Codfather
 
Codsan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 278
Well this thread is long, but I'm going to throw my usual centrist slant on it.

The assertion that Condi Rice outright lied is flawed. There's no proof of this yet. Now sometime in the future there may be evidence (say when the August 6, 2001 memo is unclassified) but for now we have to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Conversely here's an opinion piece by Joe Conason that points out quite a few contradictions that have come up so far in the hearings. It's an interesting read if you're even slightly skeptical about the whole mess. You have to look at an ad to see the whole thing but it's very enlightening.

Oh yeah this made me smile:
Originally Posted by Caelie123
That doesn't mean in any way I would change parties. It wouldn't cause me to vote for Kerry. I probably wouldn't bother voting at all if there wasn't another Republican stepping in worth voting for
There was in 2000. His name was John McCain and I voted for him.
Codsan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:03 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.