Bush rebounding in polls

[conjur]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: conjur
LMK, it's well-known the sites he's linked to so far are worthless. What if I posted something from DemocraticUnderground or the World Socialist Website?

Spews-max is about on-par with demUG

but Washington times is more on-par with the NewYork Times.

but it's a matter of perspective, fact is that if you can't argue the points then you've lost the argument.

but then, if he can't pull the points form the article, I don?t see as how you need to respond. I?d respond to chosen points, even from demUG *mostly because they are so ignorantly bias that it?s not hard to point out the flaws *, but i wouldn't go reading an article w/out the points that the person I?m talking to agrees with being specifically pointed out.

But attacking the sight doesn't make you right.

Second supposed flip-flop isn't a flip-flop at all. It's consistent all the way. Kerry never wanted Bush to act unilaterally and didn't want to be tied to a UN resolution. However, Kerry criticized Bush for not exhausting all remedies .

that's a joke right?
that's like me trying to tell you, with a striate face, that bush didn't want to go into Iraq from the start of his presidency.

we know what's BS on both sides, no need to pomp-up and act like Kerry didn't fully support war when he agreed to allow the president to go. Nor did Kerry really think that we shouldn't fund the troupes when he voted against the money for them.

Wash. Times on par with the NY Times??? WTF???

Two words:

Bill Gertz


'nuff said.

Wash. Times is damn near a tabloid. It's Newsmax-lite.

The Washington Post is akin to the NY Times.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
The thing is Rob doesn't have much an argument to stand on, yet he continues on as if he did. He refuses to even look at our rebutalls and the shortcomings of his own arguments. He's so blindsided with his partisanship that he makes debating extremely challenging....

I have yet to hear one solid argument, except "your arguments are blindly partisan." Explain why Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, then argues against it later. If someone can explain that with any logic, I'll vote for Kerry.

Read my post above yours there.

To say that Republicans also flip-flopped doesn't explain Kerry's indecisiveness.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: conjur


No, you didn't. Unless it was somewhere on the georgewbush.com site. You have to be seriously deluded if you think anyone will take a campaign website as a source of non-biased truth.

Yeah, it was. They cite their sources, which should be indisputable. You afraid?

I'm going to bed. I'm baffled as to why you all care about my opinion so much.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

The Washington Post is akin to the NY Times.

your view doesn't change the fact that attacking the sight does not prove your point.

p.s.
your right, i was off: though more and more the NYTimes is a becoming liberally bias:

hint: if anyone thinks of some as 'neo-cons' and others as 'progressives' then the have been brain-washed to the ultra-lib new-speak.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
The thing is Rob doesn't have much an argument to stand on, yet he continues on as if he did. He refuses to even look at our rebutalls and the shortcomings of his own arguments. He's so blindsided with his partisanship that he makes debating extremely challenging....

I have yet to hear one solid argument, except "your arguments are blindly partisan." Explain why Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, then argues against it later. If someone can explain that with any logic, I'll vote for Kerry.

Read my post above yours there.

To say that Republicans also flip-flopped doesn't explain Kerry's indecisiveness.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Wow! You certainly are a candidate for the most ignorantly stubborn Kool-Aid drinker award!

Wow...I'm just baffled by that statement.

Again:

The Patriot Act was passed very quickly and without the proper level of debate and review. Now we see the effects of the Patriot Act and how its contents have allowed the administration to abuse its powers and ignore certain basic civil rights of American citizens.

Many Senators, including Mr. Kerry, now see the mistakes they made in passing the Patriot Act so quickly. They now want to remedy that mistake. See, they are able to admit they made a mistake, something this administration simply cannot do.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The Washington Post is akin to the NY Times.

your view doesn't change the fact that attacking the sight does not prove your point.

p.s.
your right, i was off: though more and more the NYTimes is a becoming liberally bias:

hint: if anyone thinks of some as 'neo-cons' and others as 'progressives' then the have been brain-washed to the ultra-lib new-speak.

There was no proof in his sites he linked to. Two were OPINION pieces!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

To say that Republicans also flip-flopped doesn't explain Kerry's indecisiveness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Wow! You certainly are a candidate for the most ignorantly stubborn Kool-Aid drinker award!

Wow...I'm just baffled by that statement.

on principle rob's right: but your right when it comes to patriot act. *stomach turns just typing that new-speak crap in*

as for war: let's not play games, you know full well Kerry is flapping around like a flag in the political wind.

That doesn't make him a bad candidate for president, his ideas about how to run the country do that, it just makes him a standard politician.

 

[conjur]

No, Kerry is not flapping around like a flag in the wind.

Kerry's nuance is lost on those who see things in only black and white. Perhaps that's why I understand Kerry so well and see Bush and neocons as one-dimensional simpletons.

Also, Rob was not right on principle. He ignored the crux of my statement and focused on one part of it. That was what I meant when I said I was baffled by his statement.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Kerry's nuance is lost on...

your bloody well kidding me, right?

are you actually making the nuance argument? I may be conservative, but i'm not a frekn' moron.

I?m not pining him to 'yes no' as I?ve clearly pointed out, their is something to be said for your argument in regards to his stance on the patriot act:

BUT

he also trys to change how he's perceived, despite what he 'actually' believes. How you intend others to perceive you is what your stance is, as otherwise you are trying to LIE to those you are trying to impress. Voting against the Iraq-war money was an attempt to get primary voters to think he was anti-war, saying he would have voted for the money (given a tax increase for it) was to try to sound more like a moderate. See, even when you don't paint broad strokes over the flip-flopping he's still trying to change public-perception to match the political stage he's on.

like I said, not unusual for a politician, but to call such attempts to create a misperception of his views in the population a ?nuance? is just partisan ignorance.

why don't i say Kerry supports terrorism and we can just yell idiotic views at each other? I'm sure you can see past your partisanship Conj I believe in you!

He ignored the crux of my statement and focused on one part of it.

Whenever someone distracts from a point made to focus on something pseudo-tangential all you need to do is point-out what they didn't actually respond to: if no response is forth-coming then they've submitted to being wrong in that aspect.

 

[TechJunkie95242]

Ok....

Kerry Flip Flops... google estimated websites 83,400

drumroll please!
:music:

Bush Flip Flops... google estimates websites at 97,000

The flip flops Bush has done seems like Kerry could do no evil.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: conjur

Also, Rob was not right on principle. He ignored the crux of my statement and focused on one part of it. That was what I meant when I said I was baffled by his statement.

Um, if I recall, I asked you to explain why Kerry "flip-flopped" on the Patriot Act. Your response was, "Well, many Republicans regretted passing that." That doesn't answer why Kerry passed it. If that's ignorant, excuse me.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242
Ok....

Kerry Flip Flops... google estimated websites 83,400

drumroll please!
:music:

Bush Flip Flops... google estimates websites at 97,000

The flip flops Bush has done seems like Kerry could do no evil.

Those searches aren't objective. The "Bush Flip Flops" search would pull up websites that read, "Vote for Bush because Kerry flip flops."

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

He ignored the crux of my statement and focused on one part of it.

Whenever someone distracts from a point made to focus on something pseudo-tangential all you need to do is point-out what they didn't actually respond to: if no response is forth-coming then they've submitted to being wrong in that aspect.

Lord knows his debate technique. There are many threads I just stop responding to.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: conjur

Also, Rob was not right on principle. He ignored the crux of my statement and focused on one part of it. That was what I meant when I said I was baffled by his statement.

Um, if I recall, I asked you to explain why Kerry "flip-flopped" on the Patriot Act. Your response was, "Well, many Republicans regretted passing that." That doesn't answer why Kerry passed it. If that's ignorant, excuse me.

I wrote two sentences. The first mentioned Republicans are against it now, too. The second covered the reasoning.

I made it simpler for you in a subsequent post since you apparently cannot tell one sentence from another.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: conjur

I wrote two sentences. The first mentioned Republicans are against it now, too. The second covered the reasoning.

I made it simpler for you in a subsequent post since you apparently cannot tell one sentence from another.

Not this late - you're right. At this point, I don't care anymore. My quest to piss off some liberals has grown tiresome. I've been beat. I concede. Good luck in November.

 

[conjur]

Ah, so you admit to attempting to troll? I see. At least you're being honest about trolling.

BTW, your generalization about liberals is misguided. You see, I'm not a liberal.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah, so you admit to attempting to troll? I see. At least you're being honest about trolling.

BTW, your generalization about liberals is misguided. You see, I'm not a liberal.

Call it trolling if you will. I call it looking for some good political debate. No one likes a good debate anymore (maybe I'm just not good at providing one). But what I've found here is it's a liberal breeding ground. If you don't support the liberal agenda, they just want you to leave. P&N my ass. The board should be called Only Democrats Welcome.

 

[conjur]

You are mistaking criticisms of Bush and his failed administration as a "liberal agenda". That is just not the case. There are plenty up here who are, at most, Libertarian, that supported Bush in the past but now see the deception and failures of this administration and want a return to true conservatives running the Republican Party.

I love a good debate, too, but you have to admit posting links to a campaign site and to known right-wing rags or tabloids will not garner you any credibility.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: conjur
You are mistaking criticisms of Bush and his failed administration as a "liberal agenda". That is just not the case.

I honestly believe the Bush criticisms are motivated by getting a Democrat back in the White House. I don't think these individuals would be as critical had Clinton done the same thing. Dems don't have a strong candidate in Kerry, so the only way to win in November is to garner votes AWAY from Bush - not FOR Kerry.

 

[conjur]

Well, at this point, Kerry would bring diplomacy and fiscal responsibility back to our government. He also won't try to preside from the pulpit, which will be a welcome change from Reverend Bush.

Read this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1294670&highlight_key=y&keyword1=%20case


For myself, I wanted McCain to win the nomination in 2000 and would have loved to see someone run against Bush in this year's primaries. Alas, those did not happen.