NationStates Jolt Archive

If you had a choice between these two realities, which would you choose?

1. The Twenty Second Amendment is repealed and George W. Bush is elected to another term of office. Ignore current approval ratings please and bare with me. America’s Democratic Party collapses leaving just the Republicans to run the country as they please.

2. You are kidnapped by the Russian Mafia when they mistake you for someone else. You spend the next few days being brutally tortured in the most heinous ways imaginable until you die broken and crying for your mommy.

Russian Mob

First one.

At least dying by the hands of the Russian mob would be relatively quick and a bit less painful.

Hmm, should I pick cholera, or the plague. Cholera or the plague. Hmm... I know! I'll stand from the outside and look in at those who have both and think it weird they have either! :p

In that type of a case my only regret would be having only one life to give to my country!

If I must suffer so that my country can live... I would endure whatever I had too in order to ensure America's survival, we simply would not survive a third term of Idiot-In-Chief.

First one, obviously. Worst comes to worst, you could just leave. I mean we've got that few thousand mile undefended border with Canada and it's not hard to get there.

long live teh bushman!

I mean we've got that few thousand mile undefended border with Canada and it's not hard to get there.


So true...besides Canada is basically my back yard.

So true...besides Canada is basically my back yard.

I'd have to cross about 80 miles of water to get there, but it's not impossible if you've got a boat.

I'm not voting on this one for the same reason I don't vote on a lot of things: I don't approve of either option.

I'm not voting on this one for the same reason I don't vote on a lot of things: I don't approve of either option.
This is what happens when you come from a country where it's not compulsory to vote...

First one, obviously. Worst comes to worst, you could just leave. I mean we've got that few thousand mile undefended border with Canada and it's not hard to get there.
I'd do that too; I have friends in Toronto and relatives in Newfoundland who would gladly take me in.

In that type of a case my only regret would be having only one life to give to my country!

If I must suffer so that my country can live... I would endure whatever I had too in order to ensure America's survival, we simply would not survive a third term of Idiot-In-Chief.

Amen dood:) , this country's running low on patriots these days...

:gundge: Slime the liberals! :gundge:

I'd have to cross about 80 miles of water to get there, but it's not impossible if you've got a boat.


I'd have 30-40 miles of land to cross.

Amen dood:) , this country's running low on patriots these days...

gundge Slime the liberals! gundge

This person seems to have completely missed the point with Neo Michakal's post.

Torn apart by tigers or nibbled to death by ducks?

Yeah, one could run away to Canada (and this one probably will, if the right wing doesn't tone it the hell down already), but I voted Russian Mob, because I respect them more. I'd rather be brutalized and murdered by them than "protected" (read: annoyed to death) by that incompetent moron.

Honestly I don't believe Americans would allow Bush to do that even if it passed all branches.

Is it just me or am I getting the impression that this game/forum leans towards the left... just a lil bit?

Going by that assumption, I'll assume that if I said "Which would you prefer, John Kerry being elected and the Democratic party being in charge or being trampled to death by rampaging buffalo?" everyone's "witty one liners" about how much George Bush is satan would quickly turn to a barrage of middle school flame remarks.

Regardless, please, this is rather immature. I'd venture to say the majority of you posting Bush hatrid messages don't know George Bush's policies or positions on near any issue. And formulating a position on someone or something without knowing the issues (or discussing the issues... hint hint...) is absolute folly.

And it's easy to spout out that you would move to Canada or get killed by the mob or whatnot rather than live under a canadicy you, for whatever reason, disagree with, but if push came to shove, none of you would leave your middle-class white computer-connected internet-wired have-the-ability-to-eat-more-food-in-an-hour-than-the-majority-of-the-world-eats-in-a-week communities. Get a grip.

I pick option 3 - shooting myself in the head.

Honestly I don't believe Americans would allow Bush to do that even if it passed all branches.
Optimism kills. Wake up, before it's too late. There's a significant chunk of Americans who would gladly make Bush king, and another chunk who think he isn't far right enough to be king yet.

Is it just me or am I getting the impression that this game/forum leans towards the left... just a lil bit?

Going by that assumption, I'll assume that if I said "Which would you prefer, John Kerry being elected and the Democratic party being in charge or being trampled to death by rampaging buffalo?" everyone's "witty one liners" about how much George Bush is satan would quickly turn to a barrage of middle school flame remarks.

Regardless, please, this is rather immature. I'd venture to say the majority of you posting Bush hatrid messages don't know George Bush's policies or positions on near any issue. And formulating a position on someone or something without knowing the issues (or discussing the issues... hint hint...) is absolute folly.

And it's easy to spout out that you would move to Canada or get killed by the mob or whatnot rather than live under a canadicy you, for whatever reason, disagree with, but if push came to shove, none of you would leave your middle-class white computer-connected internet-wired have-the-ability-to-eat-more-food-in-an-hour-than-the-majority-of-the-world-eats-in-a-week communities. Get a grip.
A. Why do you anticipate hostility? Why do people take anti-Bush remarks so personally -- if they're not Bush, I mean? Why do you care what we think of him? For myself, I promise, I won't pick on you unless you try to start a fight with me. But please accept that my utter contempt for Bush has nothing to do with you -- unless you're him.

B. I am familiar with Bush's policies. I watch Bush like a hawk and am familiar with all of his public policies. I disagree with all of them. I disagree with every word that comes out of his mouth. I know this because I listen to what he says. Bad for my blood pressure, but I do it because I like to know what my enemies are up to. (I call him my enemy glibly because I consider his policies to be dangerous and damaging to me.)

C. Canada is a perfectly civilized country that has a middle class and apartments and pavement and television and both Coke and Pepsi. I don't think we'd be giving up much of anything to move there. And if we moved to certain other countries, like Italy, we'd be actually gaining things -- like unbelievably good coffee. America is not the only game on the planet, you know.

Canada is a perfectly civilized country that has a middle class and apartments and pavement and television and both Coke and Pepsi.
What about Dr. Pepper?

"A. Why do you anticipate hostility? Why do people take anti-Bush remarks so personally -- if they're not Bush, I mean? Why do you care what we think of him? For myself, I promise, I won't pick on you unless you try to start a fight with me. But please accept that my utter contempt for Bush has nothing to do with you -- unless you're him."

I don't give a wooden nickel what you think about Bush. I say the same things when people talk to me about how they would rather commit suicide then have Kerry as president. Fact is, I disagree with Bush on many issues. What annoys me is the immaturity and ignorance displayed here, and since I'm home sick with a cold with some free time, I decided to post back about it.

"B. I am familiar with Bush's policies. I watch Bush like a hawk and am familiar with all of his public policies. I disagree with all of them. I disagree with every word that comes out of his mouth. I know this because I listen to what he says. Bad for my blood pressure, but I do it because I like to know what my enemies are up to. (I call him my enemy glibly because I consider his policies to be dangerous and damaging to me.)"

Pure ignorance. You know as well as I that you agree with plenty of what he says, even though you may disagree with how he goes about accomplishing it (though I'm positive you can find some common ground, Bush is such a centrist that there are policies any political affilition can find a common point with). Going by your logic, you would disagree that our country needs to be strong, you'd disagree that we need to be patriotic, you'd disagree that terrorists are bad, ect ect ect.

Furthermore, what policies of his are dangerous to you? What personal harm have you ever been inflicted because of any policy Bush holds or passed?

"C. Canada is a perfectly civilized country that has a middle class and apartments and pavement and television and both Coke and Pepsi. I don't think we'd be giving up much of anything to move there. And if we moved to certain other countries, like Italy, we'd be actually gaining things -- like unbelievably good coffee. America is not the only game on the planet, you know."

So move to Canada, see if I care. The major thing I was disagreeing with (and the one thing you conveniantly forgot to address) is the fact that none of you would be killed by a Russian Mob if push came to shove. And I still sincerely doubt you'd take the trouble to move to Canada as well. Either you really do prefer America or you are a collosial idiot for purposefully choosing a scenario that, in your opinion, is worse for you all around (I'm assuming you live in America now since you posted the "move to Canada" comment... unless you live in Greenland or something).

first one :D

The mob's quicker, and they tell you what they're going to do to you. At least they're honest. I'm going with the mob.

Oh! It's fifty-fifty!! I can't stand that suspense!!

Oh! It's fifty-fifty!! I can't stand that suspense!!

The Mob was winning 9-1 after I voted... Now the Mob is losing..... :(

I knew people disliked the republican party but I didn't realise they had quite such a ridiculously exaggerated attitude.

<snipped, with quotes taken out below>
Wow. An Olympic-quality swan-dive into attack mode. Whew! Heady stuff. I'll address the parts that seem answerable to me:


[/QUOTE]Pure ignorance. You know as well as I that you agree with plenty of what he says, even though you may disagree with how he goes about accomplishing it (though I'm positive you can find some common ground, Bush is such a centrist that there are policies any political affilition can find a common point with). Going by your logic, you would disagree that our country needs to be strong, you'd disagree that we need to be patriotic, you'd disagree that terrorists are bad, ect ect ect.[/QUOTE]

RESPONSE: I'll thank you not to tell me what I know. I will also thank you to take greater care when making remarks that could be construed as implying that I am a liar. It's really my line of demarcation, courtesy-wise. I said I disagree with every word that comes out of Bush's mouth and that is precisely what I meant. Same with disagreeing with all of his policies. I consider him to be a radical, not a centrist, but that only underscores how subjective such labels are. I disagree with the idea that "our country needs to be strong" because I know that our country is already strong and doesn't need to prove a damned thing to anyone. I disagree that "we need to be patriotic" because I consider patriotism to be "the last refuge of the scoundrel," nothing but a set of talking points for idealogues and corrupt bureaucrats. I despise it as a tool for manipulating the weak-minded. It is true that "terrorists are bad," but I disagree with Bush's recipe for dealing with them, which I consider nothing but a bunch of expensive political boondoggles that will accomplish nothing and harm much.


[/QUOTE]Furthermore, what policies of his are dangerous to you? What personal harm have you ever been inflicted because of any policy Bush holds or passed?[/QUOTE]

RESPONSE: I am firmly of the opinion that the Iraq war can only increase terrorism in the world and keep the US focused in the terrorists' minds as target #1. I am firmly of the opinion that the Patriot Act, if not rolled back by Congress, will dangerously undermine my civil liberties. I am firmly of the opinion that his environmental policies are already causing enough damage to begin affecting people's health -- including mine -- and this will only get worse. I am firmly of the opinion that his labor and immigration policies have put millions of Americans out of work and will inevitably eradicate more jobs and reduce wages over time. Likewise, the deficit and his trade policies will damage our economy in the long run, while enriching multinational corporations in the short run. That's just off the top of my head.


[/QUOTE]So move to Canada, see if I care. The major thing I was disagreeing with (and the one thing you conveniantly forgot to address) is the fact that none of you would be killed by a Russian Mob if push came to shove. And I still sincerely doubt you'd take the trouble to move to Canada as well. Either you really do prefer America or you are a collosial idiot for purposefully choosing a scenario that, in your opinion, is worse for you all around (I'm assuming you live in America now since you posted the "move to Canada" comment... unless you live in Greenland or something).[/QUOTE]

RESPONSE: How do you know what anyone other than yourself would do if push came to shove? Frankly, considering the way I run my mouth, I think it's highly likely that, if I met up with Russian mobsters, I would be brutally killed by them (and coming from New York and currently living in another large city, trust me, I am at risk of running afoul of Russian mobsters; they're all over the place). In any event, we are engaging in a little playful hyperbole for the sake of conversation. Lighten up a little.

As for Canada, you seem to think the idea of moving there is unfeasible somehow. How is it much more trouble to move to Canada from the US than it is to move to Hawaii from New York? People move to Canada from other countries every year. It can't be that hard. Actually, I've been saving up money to move to another country for some time now. I had been thinking about spending just a year or two in Europe -- Italy or the Czech Republic, two places I like very much -- and I would have to get an apartment and a job to do that, i.e. move. But, as US politics are going in a direction I dislike so much, I'm now thinking about an indefinite move. Canada is close and, thus, slightly cheaper to move to, and I won't have to learn another language. Seems easily do-able to me. You'll notice I'm not talking about giving up my citizenship. I just want to live in a jurisdiction where the Patriot Act doesn't apply. I'll still use my absentee ballot to try and vote the bastards out, and if I succeed, I'll come back.

I don't understand your last sentence. Are you saying that only a colossal idiot would want to live in Canada?

I'll go for #2 since I've been crying for my mommy anyway since the electronic voting machines in Ohio made W. president the second time.

I'm positive you can find some common ground, Bush is such a centrist that there are policies any political affilition can find a common point with

I said I disagree with every word that comes out of Bush's mouth and that is precisely what I meant.

It is true that "terrorists are bad," ...

Good job proving his point. :)

Oh! It's fifty-fifty!! I can't stand that suspense!!
Well, I voted for the first option because I'm already in Canada and don't particularly care what happens to the US. I've never lived there afterall, so why should I?

And of course, I'd rather not be tortured.

I live in Halifax. It's civilized and reasonably left-wing. Y'all could come live here.

well which would you rather be totured from. Wait the US doesn't torture. It just does all that it can *wink* to protect our freedom, from "terrorists" that want to take away our freedom.

To protect our freedom suspicious people may be detained indefinetly and labled a terrorist.

So as long as you aren't a "terrorist" you are better off with them then the Russian Mob.

But all seriously a radical goverment of any kind is bad, but in most cases would probably be better or at least no worse then being tortured (depending on the skill of the torturers of course).

<Checking poll results>

See? I said Bush's supporters (his "base") would be happy to have him in charge for life.

Either that or people are really afraid of Russians.

Good job proving his point. :)
I knew someone would pick up on that, but the post was already so damned long, I decided to wait before giving my answer, which is the only answer in light of my disagreeing with everything Bush says (i.e. refusing to agree with anything he says):

Yes, I do think terrorists are bad, BUT, if George Bush said so, I would say that I disagree with him, just on principle. Also, if George Bush says they're bad -- hell, if George Bush says water is wet -- I'll want an investigation to prove it, because I don't believe anything he says, either. On principle, of course. ;)

Well, I voted for the first option because I'm already in Canada and don't particularly care what happens to the US. I've never lived there afterall, so why should I?

And of course, I'd rather not be tortured.
The effects of bad environmental policies know no borders.

The effects of bad environmental policies know no borders.
Meh, it's not like another politician would do much about it.

hell, if George Bush says water is wet -- I'll want an investigation to prove it, because I don't believe anything he says, either. On principle, of course. ;)

There are a lot of people that would believe Bush if he said water isn't wet, on principle. It's usually best to think about something before making a decision on it.

And I doubt Bush would say water is wet. It's far more likely that he would say it isn't ;)

The Twenty Second Amendment is repealed and George W. Bush is elected to another term of office. Ignore current approval ratings please and bare with me. America’s Democratic Party collapses leaving just the Republicans to run the country as they please.


That's basically the premise Miraclia is based on... Joris L. Struik gets the 22nd (if that is the one) amendment repealed, and buys his subsequent 3rd election. Thereafter, every president is elected not by popular vote, but by the power of his wallet...

Meh, it's not like another politician would do much about it.
Depressingly true, but I reserve my right to bitch about it, within reason. :)

There are a lot of people that would believe Bush if he said water isn't wet, on principle. It's usually best to think about something before making a decision on it.

And I doubt Bush would say water is wet. It's far more likely that he would say it isn't ;)
If he were to say that, it wouldn't be on principal, but only because he forgot what "wet" means. (Or because he thought it was pornographic.)

And trust me, the decision I've made about Bush, I've been thinking about since I voted against Reagan. Bush is nothing but a symbol of everything I despise in American politics. I vent my anger on him, but if he goes away, there are plenty of others.

If he were to say that, it wouldn't be on principal, but only because he forgot what "wet" means. (Or because he thought it was pornographic.)

:p


Well all I'm saying is that it's never a good idea to deal in absolutes ;) Deciding that you don't agree with what someone says before they say it is in general not a good practice.

Great thread Undelia Viva President Bush.
Viva President Jeb Bush.

:p


Well all I'm saying is that it's never a good idea to deal in absolutes ;) Deciding that you don't agree with what someone says before they say it is in general not a good practice.
I disagree (humorously). I think everyone should try to have one person in the world with whom they will disagree on absolutely every single possible statement, under all possible circumstances. Just for the hell of it. Bush is my latest. (It's best to use public figures whom you don't know for this, unless you're sure you really hate the personal acquaintance you're doing it to.)

I've also been on the receiving end of this principle. It's kind of fun, actually.

RESPONSE: I'll thank you not to tell me what I know. I will also thank you to take greater care when making remarks that could be construed as implying that I am a liar. It's really my line of demarcation, courtesy-wise. I said I disagree with every word that comes out of Bush's mouth and that is precisely what I meant. Same with disagreeing with all of his policies. I consider him to be a radical, not a centrist, but that only underscores how subjective such labels are. I disagree with the idea that "our country needs to be strong" because I know that our country is already strong and doesn't need to prove a damned thing to anyone. I disagree that "we need to be patriotic" because I consider patriotism to be "the last refuge of the scoundrel," nothing but a set of talking points for idealogues and corrupt bureaucrats. I despise it as a tool for manipulating the weak-minded. It is true that "terrorists are bad," but I disagree with Bush's recipe for dealing with them, which I consider nothing but a bunch of expensive political boondoggles that will accomplish nothing and harm much.

As people have pointed out, you quite obviously don't disagree with every word coming out of Bush's mouth. You are just being sensationalist and argumentative. It's not cute. It's not funny. It's just immature.

As I pointed out, you do seem to disagree with a lot of Bush's policies, and I'm not here to defend Bush and act as another long boring "Is Bush right or wrong" debate. However, to say you disagree with everything of his on principle is both stupid and ignorant, and really embodies the stupidity of this thread. It's commiting an ad-hominim logical fallacy, focusing on the person rather than the issue being discussed.

Likewise, this thread is being general and cliche, not addressing issues at all but pushing blanket unsupported sensationalist sentiments in the interest of going "Look at me! I'm on a forum who hates Bush! I can be cool by telling everyone else how much republicans suck and Bush sucks!"

I get the same attitude towards Harry Potter, towards liberals, on the Christian or conservative forums I go to, and the same attitude towards Creationism when talking to high school kids in primarily liberal areas. And that attitude sickens me, it's what's wrong with a lot of the world. When you aren't willing to set aside personal vendettas you aquired against an entire sect of people for whatever reason, and you resort to overstatement and excessive hyperbole in order to bludgeon your point accross (a la :headbang: ), you only sabotage forward progress, improvement of both yourself and your community.

RESPONSE: I am firmly of the opinion that the Iraq war can only increase terrorism in the world and keep the US focused in the terrorists' minds as target #1. I am firmly of the opinion that the Patriot Act, if not rolled back by Congress, will dangerously undermine my civil liberties. I am firmly of the opinion that his environmental policies are already causing enough damage to begin affecting people's health -- including mine -- and this will only get worse. I am firmly of the opinion that his labor and immigration policies have put millions of Americans out of work and will inevitably eradicate more jobs and reduce wages over time. Likewise, the deficit and his trade policies will damage our economy in the long run, while enriching multinational corporations in the short run. That's just off the top of my head.

I asked you to give specifics upon how you, specifically and currently, are being harmed by any of Bush's policies and you give me the usual cliche anti-Bush rant. Yes, anyone could defend each policy, and this could turn into another wide debate about Bush's policies, but I asked you specifically for ways that YOU are being hurt. And I did so for a reason, I don't think you can provide any.

RESPONSE: How do you know what anyone other than yourself would do if push came to shove? Frankly, considering the way I run my mouth, I think it's highly likely that, if I met up with Russian mobsters, I would be brutally killed by them (and coming from New York and currently living in another large city, trust me, I am at risk of running afoul of Russian mobsters; they're all over the place). In any event, we are engaging in a little playful hyperbole for the sake of conversation. Lighten up a little.

My whole point, though, is a serious one, not a silly one. I disagree with the idea of being closedminded and exhibiting blanket discrimination against any group, whether it be in jest or not. If I said, in jest, the same thing about Howard Dean or John Kerry, I'm sure that you all wouldn't respond with the same silly quips, meaning that this topic is NOT merely in jest, but is another attempt at slamming a group of people you, for some reason, fundamentally hate.

As for Canada, you seem to think the idea of moving there is unfeasible somehow. How is it much more trouble to move to Canada from the US than it is to move to Hawaii from New York? People move to Canada from other countries every year. It can't be that hard. Actually, I've been saving up money to move to another country for some time now. I had been thinking about spending just a year or two in Europe -- Italy or the Czech Republic, two places I like very much -- and I would have to get an apartment and a job to do that, i.e. move.

But, as US politics are going in a direction I dislike so much, I'm now thinking about an indefinite move. Canada is close and, thus, slightly cheaper to move to, and I won't have to learn another language. Seems easily do-able to me. You'll notice I'm not talking about giving up my citizenship. I just want to live in a jurisdiction where the Patriot Act doesn't apply. I'll still use my absentee ballot to try and vote the bastards out, and if I succeed, I'll come back.

I don't understand your last sentence. Are you saying that only a colossal idiot would want to live in Canada?

No, I never said any such thing.

Again, if Canada is so great and the United States is as bad as you are saying it is, then why haven't you already moved? Leading to my last sentence of the last post... either you think the United States is better than Canada (hence you are just spouting garbage in the interest of being argumentative), or you are an absolute idiot because you are staying in conditions which you think are worse off for you than the alternative (moving to Canada). It's just a logical conclusion from the statements you've given to me.

~Matt

Not a hard decision at all. A one-party US wouldn't last long. If nothing else, the Republican party itself would fission to become two parties. As long as the US remains a free society, there is no way that half of the population would allow its political views to go unrepresented. And if it did not remain a free society, too many people would rebel.

The result of being tortured to death by the Russian mob would, on the other hand, be rather permanent.

:p

*sigh* Option 1, because if it gets to be too much, I can just move to another country, or at least try. In the other scenario I experience immense physical pain and death no matter what, so that's definitely less appealing.

Still... I almost feel unclean picking the first option...

Two things.

1) Nice poll, Trollbait! :rolleyes:
2) I would take a cup of yogurt as President for life if it would get all the radical Liberals the fuck out of here, whether it's to Canada or wherever.

One can only hope. :(

But you could split the republican party into the moderates and hardliners, Moderates aren't that bad

...As long as the US remains a free society, there is no way that half of the population would allow its political views to go unrepresented. And if it did not remain a free society, too many people would rebel.



Remember that saying about how, if you put a frog in boiling water, it will jump away and escape and maybe survive, whereas if you put it in cold water and slooowly up the heat, it will never know what went wrong?

When, exactly, is jump time?

When, exactly, is jump time?

Perhaps when there is an actual problem *eye roll*

Honestly. I'm waiting for specifics from anyone about how, in their life, they have been directly significantly hurt by the evil George Bush and his satanic republican party.

About the worst thing I can think of is that taxes go up. But that's happened with... pretty much every president. That's the nature of government. It gets bigger because people want stuff, and then that stuff has to be paid for, and the people complain because they thought all that stuff comes out of nowhere.

I mean, look at education spending. Bush passes a multi-billion dollar federal education spending law (which I highly disagreed with), yet people still complain that we need more money poured into federal education, and they lobby and raise havoc when it isn't. Then, when inevitably it is, they lobby and raise havoc that taxes are going up.

Furthermore, people don't seem to realize that George Bush isn't a monarch, nor is any other president. They don't make, draft, vote on, and pass the laws. That's why we have so many checks and balances in government. If you disagree with laws and policies, go yell at the hundreds of congressmen and everyone else that went into it, on BOTH parties let me add.

~Matt

Perhaps when there is an actual problem *eye roll*

Honestly. I'm waiting for specifics from anyone about how, in their life, they have been directly significantly hurt by the evil George Bush and his satanic republican party.
...

Perhaps a resident of Baghdad might qualify?

Have you in any direct and significant way benefitted from George and the Party?

\
1. The Twenty Second Amendment is repealed and George W. Bush is elected to another term of office. Ignore current approval ratings please and bare with me. America’s Democratic Party collapses leaving just the Republicans to run the country as they please.

2. You are kidnapped by the Russian Mafia when they mistake you for someone else. You spend the next few days being brutally tortured in the most heinous ways imaginable until you die broken and crying for your mommy.

Given the first choice, the chance of a one-party state actually remaining in power for more than one or two terms is low, so I might well choose one. If it were more permanent, I should hope it would be the Russian Moffia killing me for attmpting organize another political party to balance out the system, and bring America back to the land of the sane.

Oh, and Anti-Pasifists? Read that list of greivious harms AGAIN, because those are all ways in which he is harmed by the shrub administration.

As people have pointed out, you quite obviously don't disagree with every word coming out of Bush's mouth. You are just being sensationalist and argumentative. It's not cute. It's not funny. It's just immature.

As I pointed out, you do seem to disagree with a lot of Bush's policies, and I'm not here to defend Bush and act as another long boring "Is Bush right or wrong" debate. However, to say you disagree with everything of his on principle is both stupid and ignorant, and really embodies the stupidity of this thread. It's commiting an ad-hominim logical fallacy, focusing on the person rather than the issue being discussed.

Likewise, this thread is being general and cliche, not addressing issues at all but pushing blanket unsupported sensationalist sentiments in the interest of going "Look at me! I'm on a forum who hates Bush! I can be cool by telling everyone else how much republicans suck and Bush sucks!"

I get the same attitude towards Harry Potter, towards liberals, on the Christian or conservative forums I go to, and the same attitude towards Creationism when talking to high school kids in primarily liberal areas. And that attitude sickens me, it's what's wrong with a lot of the world. When you aren't willing to set aside personal vendettas you aquired against an entire sect of people for whatever reason, and you resort to overstatement and excessive hyperbole in order to bludgeon your point accross (a la :headbang: ), you only sabotage forward progress, improvement of both yourself and your community.



I asked you to give specifics upon how you, specifically and currently, are being harmed by any of Bush's policies and you give me the usual cliche anti-Bush rant. Yes, anyone could defend each policy, and this could turn into another wide debate about Bush's policies, but I asked you specifically for ways that YOU are being hurt. And I did so for a reason, I don't think you can provide any.



My whole point, though, is a serious one, not a silly one. I disagree with the idea of being closedminded and exhibiting blanket discrimination against any group, whether it be in jest or not. If I said, in jest, the same thing about Howard Dean or John Kerry, I'm sure that you all wouldn't respond with the same silly quips, meaning that this topic is NOT merely in jest, but is another attempt at slamming a group of people you, for some reason, fundamentally hate.



No, I never said any such thing.

Again, if Canada is so great and the United States is as bad as you are saying it is, then why haven't you already moved? Leading to my last sentence of the last post... either you think the United States is better than Canada (hence you are just spouting garbage in the interest of being argumentative), or you are an absolute idiot because you are staying in conditions which you think are worse off for you than the alternative (moving to Canada). It's just a logical conclusion from the statements you've given to me.

~Matt
1. Your problem with me seems to be that you dislike my style of self-expression. All I can say to that is, in the words of Humphrey Bogart: "I don't mind that you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them long winter nights."

2. The fact of the matter is that, hard as it is to prove it, I DO disagree with, or oppose, or reject everything Bush says. If he happens to say something that is factually true, then in such cases I am rejecting the speaker, if not the speech. Why? Because I believe that his policies, particularly his policies concerning terrorism, are merely fronts to advance a political agenda that aims to benefit him and his financial supporters, not his country. I do not believe he is a patriot. I believe he is one of the most corrupt presidents this country has ever had. When he points out that terrorists are bad, he is merely using such a fact to bolster an argument in favor of some measure in support of his agenda. He uses facts only in the most self-serving manner possible. The truth becomes meaningless when he speaks it.

3. Once again, you are taking my vehement criticism of Bush personally, as if my bad opinion of him can harm you somehow. This thread has been honest from the start -- it has a Bush/Republican Party-bashing attitude. If you don't like that kind of thing, the easy solution is not to participate. There are lots of other threads that aren't as slanted. There is no real issue being discussed here. The topic is clearly hyperbolic and is an invitation to people to express dislike of the current US government. Obviously, I'm good at that, because I certainly got a rise out of you.

4. Corrollary to #3 -- I do not hate and am not bashing an entire group of people. I dislike and am bashing one person -- George W. Bush. It's neither my fault nor my concern if you cannot tell where he leaves off and you begin.

5. And talk about ad hominems! In the above-captioned post alone you have described me and my statements as "immature," "ignorant," "stupid," and "stupidity." Again, considering that this is rather an "ad hominem" thread, I don't think my statements are out of place, so I will shrug off your criticizing me for playing by the rules of the thread. At any rate, I will take it as "praise from the master."

6. I believe the policies I listed do in fact directly harm me. International travel as well as life in a large urban center are now more dangerous to me than they need to be due to increased terrorism and lack of resources for domestic emergency response. I face increasing insecurity in my job, and if I get laid off, I am already seeing prevailing wages in my profession declining, so I will certainly have to take a significant pay cut to get a new job. I had to negotiate 5 months to get the amount I'm getting now. As it is, I was out of work for half of last year, so I'm really just trying to dig myself out of a financial hole. The number of Americans looking for work means that it will be harder for me to get a replacement job in any event. Illegal immigration and "guest workers" have a detrimental effect on security as well as placing an added burden on already over-burdened and under-funded health care, housing and infrastructure systems. Increased air and water pollution are already causing public warnings against eating local freshwater fish and air quality warnings in cities -- these are clear indicators of public health hazards. I eat, breathe and drink water. I am vulnerable to these hazards. Due to the Patriot Act, the confidentiality of my financial, medical and other personal records is compromised. All of these are measurable results of the implementation of Bush's policies, all have come into play since his first election, and it is my firm opinion that I can blame these policies for these conditions.

If you disagree, I will be happy to read your points on how these policies are in fact good for me.

7. Please check your sentence again. It links "collossal idiot" with the concept of living in Canada. If that's not what you meant, please rephrase. Which action or view do you consider collossally idiotic? As for why I'm not in Canada right now, easy answer -- I can't afford to move anywhere yet. Hopefully, this will change by the end of next year. But don't think that will shut me up. As I said, I don't intend to stop being an American citizen, so good, bad or indifferent, the US government will still be my government and subject to criticism by me.

"Perhaps a resident of Baghdad might qualify?

Have you in any direct and significant way benefitted from George and the Party?"

Exactly my point. The president really doesn't effect our lives that significantly, for better or worse. I wasn't one of those wackos who went and protested when president Clinton was elected either. Why? Because, while I do think having a good president is important, they really don't effect our lives that significantly. The only presidents that are elected are going to be centrist and are going to follow the general course of action that we've had going on forever. Slowly increasing government.

1. Your problem with me seems to be that you dislike my style of self-expression. All I can say to that is, in the words of Humphrey Bogart: "I don't mind that you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them long winter nights."

I really do wish you'd stop thinking you are something ultra-special and I am somehow offended. I don't mind your style of self-expression, it's no different than most other semi-intellegent people who post on forums. And I'm not offended by your writing style. I'm a little annoyed at your immature use of hyperbole, writing in some sort of character that is uber-against Bush, though still not really annoyed. But I'm not attacking your character at all. I'm attacking the positions and viewpoints you put forth.

2. The fact of the matter is that, hard as it is to prove it, I DO disagree with, or oppose, or reject everything Bush says. If he happens to say something that is factually true, then in such cases I am rejecting the speaker, if not the speech. Why? Because I believe that his policies, particularly his policies concerning terrorism, are merely fronts to advance a political agenda that aims to benefit him and his financial supporters, not his country. I do not believe he is a patriot. I believe he is one of the most corrupt presidents this country has ever had. When he points out that terrorists are bad, he is merely using such a fact to bolster an argument in favor of some measure in support of his agenda. He uses facts only in the most self-serving manner possible. The truth becomes meaningless when he speaks it.

Unsupported garbagey rant. And to be frank, I don't care. I could debate you all day long about each individual issue that Bush supports or says. Hell, I could debate both sides of every issue myelf. But this is irrelevent. The fact remains that you are not against every word Bush says, you have common ground as you've admitted in your other posts (thinking terrorists are bad). What you are TRYING to say, I think, is that you are opposed to Bush's greater philosophy. And that's fine. But to say you oppose each individual thing he says is commiting a fallacy of division. What is true of the whole is not neccesarily true of each individual part.

3. Once again, you are taking my vehement criticism of Bush personally, as if my bad opinion of him can harm you somehow. This thread has been honest from the start -- it has a Bush/Republican Party-bashing attitude. If you don't like that kind of thing, the easy solution is not to participate. There are lots of other threads that aren't as slanted. There is no real issue being discussed here. The topic is clearly hyperbolic and is an invitation to people to express dislike of the current US government. Obviously, I'm good at that, because I certainly got a rise out of you.

Again, stop thinking so highly of yourself. I'm not a Bush lover. I don't agree with everything he says. I probably disagree with him on more counts than I agree with him. Like I've said, whenever I see this silly pointless attitude of "Let's bash pointlessly without any discussion (or knowledge) of the issues", I tend to point it out. Call it my pet peeve if you will. It doesn't build growth, it doesn't build unity. Nobody learns anything, nobody grows in intellect or in their views. And as long as I'm in a public place where I have as much right to argue against a thread as people have to argue for it, I'll be happy to do so. I enjoy the opportunity to discuss things like this.

Furthermore, this may be completely and totally unrelated (and it probably is), but when I started posting the poll was about 8-1 in favor of the mob, and now people are starting to actually post rationally and reasonably. I won't be so foolish to take full credit for it, but if I made any sort of difference whatsoever I'm quite content.

4. Corrollary to #3 -- I do not hate and am not bashing an entire group of people. I dislike and am bashing one person -- George W. Bush. It's neither my fault nor my concern if you cannot tell where he leaves off and you begin.

"The entire republican party" isn't an entire group of people? I highly suggest you read the poll (and your older posts) through again. Though, even if it were only Bush, the fact remains that you are still mindlessly bashing without discussing issues. Goes back to my pet peeve.

5. And talk about ad hominems! In the above-captioned post alone you have described me and my statements as "immature," "ignorant," "stupid," and "stupidity." Again, considering that this is rather an "ad hominem" thread, I don't think my statements are out of place, so I will shrug off your criticizing me for playing by the rules of the thread. At any rate, I will take it as "praise from the master."

a. Yes it is an ad hominem thread. That's exactly why I posted.
b. I called your arguments and mindset immature ignorant, ect ect ect. Not you. You still misunderstand the "collisial idiot" quote, which I'll clarify in a second. Oh, and for the record, calling an argument pointless, silly, stupid, ect isn't a logical fallacy as it's directly addressing the issue. Ad hominim means "Attack on the man" for a reason.

6. I believe the policies I listed do in fact directly harm me. International travel as well as life in a large urban center are now more dangerous to me than they need to be due to increased terrorism and lack of resources for domestic emergency response. I face increasing insecurity in my job, and if I get laid off, I am already seeing prevailing wages in my profession declining, so I will certainly have to take a significant pay cut to get a new job. I had to negotiate 5 months to get the amount I'm getting now. As it is, I was out of work for half of last year, so I'm really just trying to dig myself out of a financial hole. The number of Americans looking for work means that it will be harder for me to get a replacement job in any event. Illegal immigration and "guest workers" have a detrimental effect on security as well as placing an added burden on already over-burdened and under-funded health care, housing and infrastructure systems. Increased air and water pollution are already causing public warnings against eating local freshwater fish and air quality warnings in cities -- these are clear indicators of public health hazards. I eat, breathe and drink water. I am vulnerable to these hazards. Due to the Patriot Act, the confidentiality of my financial, medical and other personal records is compromised. All of these are measurable results of the implementation of Bush's policies, all have come into play since his first election, and it is my firm opinion that I can blame these policies for these conditions.

And you do realize that

a. None of those policies had anything to do with Bush. Jobs, wages, ect all went down following the terrorist attack of 9-11, and have gone up since the war. The environmental restrictions have been improved with Bush, they were worse during the previous (for lack of a better term) regime. Immigration hasn't changed significantly because of Bush's policies.

b. As for the Patriot act, when have you been personally wronged by it? All it does is give the government the right to that kind of material if a neccesity is established. Did you know that before the patriot act, if a kid was kidnapped and left to die in a park somewhere, and a criminal revealed this information to a docter or lawyer or whatnot, they would be forbidden (under threat of loss of licence) to tell? Yet if the criminal told anyone else, that information could be freely distributed.

I agree that the Patriot act could be better thought out, I don't like some of it's policies. But something like it is absolutely neccesary, and I for one feel safer with it than without it.

7. Please check your sentence again. It links "collossal idiot" with the concept of living in Canada. If that's not what you meant, please rephrase. Which action or view do you consider collossally idiotic? As for why I'm not in Canada right now, easy answer -- I can't afford to move anywhere yet. Hopefully, this will change by the end of next year. But don't think that will shut me up. As I said, I don't intend to stop being an American citizen, so good, bad or indifferent, the US government will still be my government and subject to criticism by me.

No. It doesn't. I'll simplify my statement into logical steps.

Assume: Living in the US is less preferable to living in some other country due to Bush... or whatever.

Fact: You remain in the United States.

Logic, and basic principles of economics, tell us either one of two conditions are true.

One: You find living in the US to actually be preferable to living in any other country. Hence you stay here.

Two: You really do think living in the US is worse all around, yet you stay here. Making you a collosial idiot.

~Matt

...
Exactly my point. The president really doesn't effect our lives that significantly, for better or worse. I wasn't one of those wackos who went and protested when president Clinton was elected either. Why? Because, while I do think having a good president is important, they really don't effect our lives that significantly. The only presidents that are elected are going to be centrist and are going to follow the general course of action that we've had going on forever. Slowly increasing government.
...

OK, I admit I am not the sharpest tool in the shed. And I read slowly. Are you actually claiming that the president, and the presidents' party, has only insignificant effect on...

a. the life of U.S. citizens?
b. the life of non- U.S. citizens?
c. both of the above?


An unconventional view indeed. Either you are quite clever or not.

Isn't that one and the same possible reality?

Once you've got a one party Republican United States you'll be likely to be tortured to death by the Russian Mob who will work as contractors for the CIA.

I just hope neither one will happen!

OK, I admit I am not the sharpest tool in the shed. And I read slowly. Are you actually claiming that the president, and the presidents' party, has only insignificant effect on...

a. the life of U.S. citizens?
b. the life of non- U.S. citizens?
c. both of the above?


An unconventional view indeed. Either you are quite clever or not.

I'm saying that, given the fact that the population is going to elect a centrist president (by default, it has to be a president that both parties find common ground with), given the fact that we have so many checks and balances, that one man alone, the president, is not going to have a significant effect on people. Our government may have some effect as a whole, but generally, again, it stays on the same course and it really wouldn't matter which party was in charge, at least to a significant degree.

~Matt

I voted as most people usually vote
woot! I voted but what’s a republican? :D

I voted as most people usually vote
woot! I voted but what’s a republican?

A "republican" is someone who belongs to the Republican party. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The political affiliation I believe the author intended to use would be "conservative" or "right-wing".

However, I thought this far too nitpicky to point out until you asked :D

~Matt

"Perhaps a resident of Baghdad might qualify?

Have you in any direct and significant way benefitted from George and the Party?"

Exactly my point. The president really doesn't effect our lives that significantly, for better or worse. I wasn't one of those wackos who went and protested when president Clinton was elected either. Why? Because, while I do think having a good president is important, they really don't effect our lives that significantly. The only presidents that are elected are going to be centrist and are going to follow the general course of action that we've had going on forever. Slowly increasing government.



I really do wish you'd stop thinking you are something ultra-special and I am somehow offended. I don't mind your style of self-expression, it's no different than most other semi-intellegent people who post on forums. And I'm not offended by your writing style. I'm a little annoyed at your immature use of hyperbole, writing in some sort of character that is uber-against Bush, though still not really annoyed. But I'm not attacking your character at all. I'm attacking the positions and viewpoints you put forth.



Unsupported garbagey rant. And to be frank, I don't care. I could debate you all day long about each individual issue that Bush supports or says. Hell, I could debate both sides of every issue myelf. But this is irrelevent. The fact remains that you are not against every word Bush says, you have common ground as you've admitted in your other posts (thinking terrorists are bad). What you are TRYING to say, I think, is that you are opposed to Bush's greater philosophy. And that's fine. But to say you oppose each individual thing he says is commiting a fallacy of division. What is true of the whole is not neccesarily true of each individual part.



Again, stop thinking so highly of yourself. I'm not a Bush lover. I don't agree with everything he says. I probably disagree with him on more counts than I agree with him. Like I've said, whenever I see this silly pointless attitude of "Let's bash pointlessly without any discussion (or knowledge) of the issues", I tend to point it out. Call it my pet peeve if you will. It doesn't build growth, it doesn't build unity. Nobody learns anything, nobody grows in intellect or in their views. And as long as I'm in a public place where I have as much right to argue against a thread as people have to argue for it, I'll be happy to do so. I enjoy the opportunity to discuss things like this.

Furthermore, this may be completely and totally unrelated (and it probably is), but when I started posting the poll was about 8-1 in favor of the mob, and now people are starting to actually post rationally and reasonably. I won't be so foolish to take full credit for it, but if I made any sort of difference whatsoever I'm quite content.



"The entire republican party" isn't an entire group of people? I highly suggest you read the poll (and your older posts) through again. Though, even if it were only Bush, the fact remains that you are still mindlessly bashing without discussing issues. Goes back to my pet peeve.



a. Yes it is an ad hominem thread. That's exactly why I posted.
b. I called your arguments and mindset immature ignorant, ect ect ect. Not you. You still misunderstand the "collisial idiot" quote, which I'll clarify in a second. Oh, and for the record, calling an argument pointless, silly, stupid, ect isn't a logical fallacy as it's directly addressing the issue. Ad hominim means "Attack on the man" for a reason.



And you do realize that

a. None of those policies had anything to do with Bush. Jobs, wages, ect all went down following the terrorist attack of 9-11, and have gone up since the war. The environmental restrictions have been improved with Bush, they were worse during the previous (for lack of a better term) regime. Immigration hasn't changed significantly because of Bush's policies.

b. As for the Patriot act, when have you been personally wronged by it? All it does is give the government the right to that kind of material if a neccesity is established. Did you know that before the patriot act, if a kid was kidnapped and left to die in a park somewhere, and a criminal revealed this information to a docter or lawyer or whatnot, they would be forbidden (under threat of loss of licence) to tell? Yet if the criminal told anyone else, that information could be freely distributed.

I agree that the Patriot act could be better thought out, I don't like some of it's policies. But something like it is absolutely neccesary, and I for one feel safer with it than without it.



No. It doesn't. I'll simplify my statement into logical steps.

Assume: Living in the US is less preferable to living in some other country due to Bush... or whatever.

Fact: You remain in the United States.

Logic, and basic principles of economics, tell us either one of two conditions are true.

One: You find living in the US to actually be preferable to living in any other country. Hence you stay here.

Two: You really do think living in the US is worse all around, yet you stay here. Making you a collosial idiot.

~Matt
Maybe I'm dim this way, but I don't really see the difference between saying that my views are the views of a collossal idiot and saying that I'm a collossal idiot. Kindly either rephrase or stop denying that you are insulting me. I believe that one should never be unintentionally rude. When I call someone an idiot, I do it to their face in no uncertain terms (or in the case of George Bush, whom I'm unlikely ever to meet, I do it in public where everyone, including him, can hear me). I try never to use words like "stupid" or "collossal idiot" in indirect ways that could be misunderstood.

Now, I don't happen to think that you are an idiot. Therefore, I must assume that you are deliberately insulting me. The only reason you seem to have is that I have insulted George Bush. Again, unless you are him, my insults against him can't be taken in any way as a knock against you. Yet you repeatedly use rather intensely insulting personal remarks about me -- and then you try to say you didn't mean it that way because you were aiming just to the side of me, figuratively. Right.

I also don't believe you have poor reading skills. Therefore, your total ignoring of the specific details of my statements must be deliberate. I told you precisely how I believe Bush's policies are harming me directly. You may reject my arguments if you like, but don't try to claim I didn't make them. They're right here in the thread for everyone to read.

For instance, your supposedly simplified logical steps for how my not having already moved to Canada makes me an idiot fall to pieces when you go back to my post and see that I specifically explained that the reason I haven't moved yet is that I lack the money to relocate, and that I am hoping to have that problem fixed by the end of next year. That means that I will be moving, hopefully next year. I don't need to clear my personal life plans with you in order to have a legitimate political opinion. And besides, I've told you more than once that moving to another country will not silence my complaints against the Bush administration because I will not be giving up my US citizenship.

Accept that my views are completely opposed to yours or not, but kindly either quit insulting me or have the courtesy to do it directly.

If you had a choice between these two realities, which would you choose?

1. The Twenty Second Amendment is repealed and George W. Bush is elected to another term of office. Ignore current approval ratings please and bare with me. America’s Democratic Party collapses leaving just the Republicans to run the country as they please.

2. You are kidnapped by the Russian Mafia when they mistake you for someone else. You spend the next few days being brutally tortured in the most heinous ways imaginable until you die broken and crying for your mommy.

I WUV LIBERALS!!

Maybe I'm dim this way, but I don't really see the difference between saying that my views are the views of a collossal idiot and saying that I'm a collossal idiot. Kindly either rephrase or stop denying that you are insulting me. I believe that one should never be unintentionally rude. When I call someone an idiot, I do it to their face in no uncertain terms (or in the case of George Bush, whom I'm unlikely ever to meet, I do it in public where everyone, including him, can hear me). I try never to use words like "stupid" or "collossal idiot" in indirect ways that could be misunderstood.

I'm saying you aren't a collosial idiot. That's the point. Meaning you don't hate the United States and Bush as much as you are saying. Follow the yellow brick road kid.

Now, I don't happen to think that you are an idiot. Therefore, I must assume that you are deliberately insulting me. The only reason you seem to have is that I have insulted George Bush. Again, unless you are him, my insults against him can't be taken in any way as a knock against you. Yet you repeatedly use rather intensely insulting personal remarks about me -- and then you try to say you didn't mean it that way because you were aiming just to the side of me, figuratively. Right.

*yawn* You said this last time. I responded to it last time. I don't take offense. I've stated my position clearly enough times that I don't think I need to do it again :D

Oh, and making an either-or statement without a logical process behind it doesn't qualify as a forced logical statement. Nice try though.

I also don't believe you have poor reading skills. Therefore, your total ignoring of the specific details of my statements must be deliberate. I told you precisely how I believe Bush's policies are harming me directly. You may reject my arguments if you like, but don't try to claim I didn't make them. They're right here in the thread for everyone to read.

And I directly refuted each one of your supposed reasons. Because they are the same meaningless mantra I've heard a billion times.

Here's an example of a way you would be directly effected by... say... Saddam in power.

"He ordered his guards to come to my house and kill my children."

Obviously an extreme example, but nonetheless it is the type of thing I am looking for (not the killing part... the specific example part).

Tell me exactly how George W Bush is harming you either directly or via an action he took by passing a policy... ect ect...

For instance, your supposedly simplified logical steps for how my not having already moved to Canada makes me an idiot fall to pieces when you go back to my post and see that I specifically explained that the reason I haven't moved yet is that I lack the money to relocate, and that I am hoping to have that problem fixed by the end of next year. That means that I will be moving, hopefully next year. I don't need to clear my personal life plans with you in order to have a legitimate political opinion. And besides, I've told you more than once that moving to another country will not silence my complaints against the Bush administration because I will not be giving up my US citizenship.

Congrats. You've started to provide some reasons why you would rather stay in the United States. One I see is "It costs too much money for me right now".

The first thing you learn in economics is to take a situation as a whole, not take little parts and say "I dislike this..." ect ect ect. So you really WOULDNT rather be in Canada or any other place. You'd rather be in the United States which is exactly why you are here.

When you go driving on an errand, you WOULDN'T rather be at the beach or wherever, because if the situation as a whole was better off for you, you'd be at the beach. But if you went to the beach, you would have to spend extra money, you wouldn't get the errand you needed done, you'd waste time, ect ect ect.

So, on the whole, the United States is better for you than Canada.

Accept that my views are completely opposed to yours or not, but kindly either quit insulting me or have the courtesy to do it directly.

If you are taking this as an insult, then your "hyperbole" political positions must be a little too close to your real ones that when I challenge them you become upset.

I'm not attacking you or your character at all. I'm attacking your ideas and position. And that, my friend, is what debate is all about.

~Matt

I'm saying you aren't a collosial idiot. That's the point. Meaning you don't hate the United States and Bush as much as you are saying. Follow the yellow brick road kid.



*yawn* You said this last time. I responded to it last time. I don't take offense. I've stated my position clearly enough times that I don't think I need to do it again :D

Oh, and making an either-or statement without a logical process behind it doesn't qualify as a forced logical statement. Nice try though.



And I directly refuted each one of your supposed reasons. Because they are the same meaningless mantra I've heard a billion times.

Here's an example of a way you would be directly effected by... say... Saddam in power.

"He ordered his guards to come to my house and kill my children."

Obviously an extreme example, but nonetheless it is the type of thing I am looking for (not the killing part... the specific example part).

Tell me exactly how George W Bush is harming you either directly or via an action he took by passing a policy... ect ect...



Congrats. You've started to provide some reasons why you would rather stay in the United States. One I see is "It costs too much money for me right now".

The first thing you learn in economics is to take a situation as a whole, not take little parts and say "I dislike this..." ect ect ect. So you really WOULDNT rather be in Canada or any other place. You'd rather be in the United States which is exactly why you are here.

When you go driving on an errand, you WOULDN'T rather be at the beach or wherever, because if the situation as a whole was better off for you, you'd be at the beach. But if you went to the beach, you would have to spend extra money, you wouldn't get the errand you needed done, you'd waste time, ect ect ect.

So, on the whole, the United States is better for you than Canada.



If you are taking this as an insult, then your "hyperbole" political positions must be a little too close to your real ones that when I challenge them you become upset.

I'm not attacking you or your character at all. I'm attacking your ideas and position. And that, my friend, is what debate is all about.

~Matt
Well, if you're not calling me an idiot, then you would seem to be implying that I'm a liar. Not less insulting.

In each post so far, you address one or another point of mine, but all the others you either ignore or claim that I never said it or didn't mean it. Also, even when you do counter a point of mine, you aren't really countering them at all. Case in point, your remarks about the Patriot Act -- merely saying we need it does not refute my statement that it is harmful to me. If you can persuade me that it is in fact beneficial to me, kudos to you -- but remember, that I don't agree that it is necessary, so that argument will not persuade me.

As for what constitutes being harmed by a government, pardon me if I don't hang around and wait for Saddam's guards to show up. You apparently are more tolerant of government interference in your life than I am.

Finally, your argument that my claims of poverty are meaningless are themselves meaningless because you lack facts about me. You have no clue as to my circumstances, nor do you have any clue as to my plans. It so happens that I am (a) waiting for an inheritance to clear probate so I can clean up outstanding debts and free up personal income monthly; (b) trying to make the transition from a day to job to self employment in the arts; (c) looking for art-related work in Canada, which, if found before moving, will make it easier to move; and at the same time (d) trying to complete the self-employment transition AND collect a minimum of $10,000.00 cash in bank (which I don't have now but will certainly have if that probate court ever gets off its ass), both of which, once accomplished, will make it even easier to move. (A self-employed artist with money in the bank is the best thing to be if you want to live in exotic lands; governments waive all kinds of requirements for artists with money; I know because I looked it up.) I know precisely what I want to accomplish. From my present position, it should take no more than a year to do it. Hence, I will move by the end of 2006. To Canada indefinitely, if the country keeps getting more right wing (only because it's a slightly cheaper move; I won't have to ship my furniture by air). To Europe for a couple of years if it doesn't (I can leave my furniture in storage for 2 years).

So you see, you do not know the many reasons that have gone into my moving plans, or what I hope to accomplish by doing that, or how I intend to do it, or why I want to do it that way (I'm not just running from Bush; I have a life to manage). Therefore, your conclusion that the US is better for me -- and that I'm full of hot air for saying otherwise -- is nothing more than an assumption, which you are trying to use to undermine my credibility in general.

If you are taking this as an insult, then your "hyperbole" political positions must be a little too close to your real ones that when I challenge them you become upset.

I'm not attacking you or your character at all. I'm attacking your ideas and position. And that, my friend, is what debate is all about.

~Matt
Hyperbole is merely my style of delivery. The views expressed are entirely mine and are expressed accurately. The more extreme the language, the more fervent my belief. Even when I'm being playful, I'm still being serious. I'll tell you when I'm not.

And funny, I have lots and lots of debates, my friend, both here and in real life, yet my opponents and I never resort to name calling -- even indirectly. I don't believe you're not deliberately insulting me, but I don't intend to keep fighting with you about it. Let's just say, you've failed to persuade me on this point, too.

Hyperbole is merely my style of delivery. The views expressed are entirely mine and are expressed accurately. The more extreme the language, the more fervent my belief. Even when I'm being playful, I'm still being serious. I'll tell you when I'm not.

And funny, I have lots and lots of debates, my friend, both here and in real life, yet my opponents and I never resort to name calling -- even indirectly. I don't believe you're not deliberately insulting me, but I don't intend to keep fighting with you about it. Let's just say, you've failed to persuade me on this point, too.

I've given you logical argument after logical argument. I've given you a point counterpoint on every post and issue you've brought up. And yet what have you provided back? Another unsupported rant about how I am somehow insulting you.

Let's stick to the issues. I've provided plenty that I still want a response on. And if you really want to argue that I'm insulting you, stop saying "yes you are" and provide some specifics with a logical argument and conclusion.

~Matt

PS: Just saw your earlier post. Missed it due to the double post. I'll get right on that :D

Well, if you're not calling me an idiot, then you would seem to be implying that I'm a liar. Not less insulting.

I'm not calling you a liar. I'm telling you that you were lying. There's a difference. Liar implies that you have a character flaw of being inherently unable to tell the truth. I don't know you, so I really couldn't make that judgement. But calling someone out on a logical inconsistancy is a key element to debate, it's not an ad-hom or an insult. If you are taking my refutation of your points as insulting, then I would highly suggest taking another path then entering into a debate, as you will find this occurs quite a lot.

In each post so far, you address one or another point of mine, but all the others you either ignore or claim that I never said it or didn't mean it. Also, even when you do counter a point of mine, you aren't really countering them at all. Case in point, your remarks about the Patriot Act -- merely saying we need it does not refute my statement that it is harmful to me. If you can persuade me that it is in fact beneficial to me, kudos to you -- but remember, that I don't agree that it is necessary, so that argument will not persuade me.

I have carefully addressed every single one of your points. You provided a vague response about the Patriot Act, I gave you a specific scenario addressing a greater point for why the Patriot Act is neccesary (or something like it, I hardly agree with the PA in full). And then I gave you the all important question. What is the impact.

Impact is an essential element in debate, because you cannot establish a problem without establishing a personal impact. I asked you for your personal impact, how has the Patriot act personally harmed you. "Feeling less secure because of it" is weak and insignificant. That's a personal state of mind that changes from person to person. Has the government come to your door and shot you? Have they taken personal records of yours that comprimised your security? Have you or a family member been directly impacted by this at all?

As for what constitutes being harmed by a government, pardon me if I don't hang around and wait for Saddam's guards to show up. You apparently are more tolerant of government interference in your life than I am.

So TELL me, how has the government directly effected you. It doesn't have to be an extreme example, it just has to be specific.

Finally, your argument that my claims of poverty are meaningless are themselves meaningless because you lack facts about me. You have no clue as to my circumstances, nor do you have any clue as to my plans. It so happens that I am (a) waiting for an inheritance to clear probate so I can clean up outstanding debts and free up personal income monthly; (b) trying to make the transition from a day to job to self employment in the arts; (c) looking for art-related work in Canada, which, if found before moving, will make it easier to move; and at the same time (d) trying to complete the self-employment transition AND collect a minimum of $10,000.00 cash in bank (which I don't have now but will certainly have if that probate court ever gets off its ass), both of which, once accomplished, will make it even easier to move. (A self-employed artist with money in the bank is the best thing to be if you want to live in exotic lands; governments waive all kinds of requirements for artists with money; I know because I looked it up.) I know precisely what I want to accomplish. From my present position, it should take no more than a year to do it. Hence, I will move by the end of 2006. To Canada indefinitely, if the country keeps getting more right wing (only because it's a slightly cheaper move; I won't have to ship my furniture by air). To Europe for a couple of years if it doesn't (I can leave my furniture storage for 2 years).

Keep giving me reasons. You are just proving my point. You gave me lots of reasons up there why you prefer the United States to Canada currently. A few I notice are

1. Lack of work found there so far.
2. Not enough money to move yet.
3. Difficulty in moving.

Ect ect. The only point I was making was that there are reasons why you prefer to live in the US rather than Canada. Hence you haven't moved yet. If it were more beneficial for you to live in Canada you'd be there already.

So you see, you do not know the many reasons that have gone into my moving plans, or what I hope to accomplish by doing that, or how I intend to do it, or why I want to do it that way (I'm not just running from Bush; I have a life to manage). Therefore, your conclusion that the US is better for me -- and that I'm full of hot air for saying otherwise -- is nothing more than an assumption, which you are trying to use to undermine my credibility in general.

It's not an assumption. If the situation as a whole was better for you in Canada you'd be there. The fact that you are still in the United States suggests that your situation is currently better here for whatever reason. Did you not read my example about the beach and errands?

~Matt

1. I'm not calling you a liar. I'm telling you that you were lying. There's a difference. Liar implies that you have a character flaw of being inherently unable to tell the truth. I don't know you, so I really couldn't make that judgement. But calling someone out on a logical inconsistancy is a key element to debate, it's not an ad-hom or an insult. If you are taking my refutation of your points as insulting, then I would highly suggest taking another path then entering into a debate, as you will find this occurs quite a lot.



2. I have carefully addressed every single one of your points. You provided a vague response about the Patriot Act, I gave you a specific scenario addressing a greater point for why the Patriot Act is neccesary (or something like it, I hardly agree with the PA in full). And then I gave you the all important question. What is the impact.

3. Impact is an essential element in debate, because you cannot establish a problem without establishing a personal impact. I asked you for your personal impact, how has the Patriot act personally harmed you. "Feeling less secure because of it" is weak and insignificant. That's a personal state of mind that changes from person to person. Has the government come to your door and shot you? Have they taken personal records of yours that comprimised your security? Have you or a family member been directly impacted by this at all?

So TELL me, how has the government directly effected you. It doesn't have to be an extreme example, it just has to be specific.



Keep giving me reasons. You are just proving my point. You gave me lots of reasons up there why you prefer the United States to Canada currently. A few I notice are

1. Lack of work found there so far.
2. Not enough money to move yet.
3. Difficulty in moving.

Ect ect. The only point I was making was that there are reasons why you prefer to live in the US rather than Canada. Hence you haven't moved yet. If it were more beneficial for you to live in Canada you'd be there already.



It's not an assumption. If the situation as a whole was better for you in Canada you'd be there. The fact that you are still in the United States suggests that your situation is currently better here for whatever reason. Did you not read my example about the beach and errands?

~Matt
1. A distinction without a difference, delivered in a nicely condescending tone. A "logical inconsistency" is not a "lie." Also, I dispute that my statements are logically inconsistent. You don't agree with them; you think they are wrong; that doesn't mean that they don't make sense.

2. What a coincidence -- I thought your remarks were every bit as vague and inconsistent as you thought mine were. And here I thought we had nothing in common.

3. First you reject job insecurity (as well as my other points about cost of living, public health and domestic security, I assume) as a mere personal state of mind. Then you ask me if the government has ever shot me as what you would consider an acceptable example of negative government impact on my life. Then you ask me to provide an acceptable example, but it doesn't have to be "extreme." Christ on a cracker, if nothing short of getting shot at my front door counts as negative impact, then all I can say is, if you ever run for office, Canada won't be far enough.

4. Now you're just acting thick. I gave you reasons why I AM in the US, not why I would prefer to be there. The bars and fences that stop an inmate from walking out of prison are not evidence that he likes to be there. The catheters and tubes that keep a patient tied to a hospital bed are not proof that he prefers the hospital to his own home. The fact that I am taking the time to collect the resources necessary to relocate legally does not mean that I don't intend to relocate. Quite the opposite, I would think. But by your reasoning, unless I am typing this while running desperately for the border and dodging FBI bullets, then I don't really want to go anywhere. I'm sorry, but that's nonsense.

You know, it occurred to me this morning (2 days late, as usual) that the proper response to your initial challenge to me would have been "Shit, man, can't you take a joke?" But reading this last bit of yours (especially this Canada hassle) makes me think that, no, you probably can't.

I always wanted to go to Russia.

I always wanted to go to Russia.
Me too, as of today. :D

MOB for sure or jump off a building

I chose all three branches being Republican with Bush at the helm. There is hope in fixing the problems that might cause, while being tortured to death by the russian mob would leave me dead . . . and most likely make my last minutes or possibly hours of life would be none to pleasant. I think choosing the russians in anything else other than jest is pretty dumb, when it really comes down to it.

Anyway the epic debate thats going on in the thread is far more interesting than the thread itself.

My two cents: Yes the government does have a direct impact on me.

1) Superman is dead. Bush decided to put great limitations on stem cell research. Perhaps if he hadn't Superman would be alive and walking today.

2) I'm a taxpayer, Bush is adopting faith based initiatives, giving money to charitable churches. I'm an atheist and firm believer of seperation of church and state (not to the point where I think having the word god in our money or pledge should be unconstitutional.) In my opinion the Bush administration is stealing from me.

*Note these do get more serious*

3) My sister is gay and unable to marry her significant other. I doubt this would be a problem if say Howard Dean was president and Liberals had control of both houses.
4) My neighbor and friend Manny Demota was killed durring the attacks on WTC. Maybe if Bush hadn't gone on so many vacations during the beginning of his first term in office, the tensions in the middle east would have been scrutinized a little more carefully.
5) Two of my friends are in Iraq right now. While one was on leave for piece of shrapnel in his leg, I got to hear stories of how he has killed. It's very disconcerting to have someone you've known since you were little crying his eyes out, confessing something like that. The President is the commander in chief. Are you really suggesting the president doesn't impact the decision to go to war?

Now granted most of these directly affected people close to me, but will you really split hairs that much? I have noted the negative impacts on my life that Bush played a roll in (I will not say he is the sole cause, but definitely a large influence), and I find it hard to think of any of his actions that have directly affected me positively. Therefore, I tend to dislike the Bush administration for more than vague conflict of overall philosophy.

I stay in America, because I still currently love America. It the place of my birth and I find New York to be wonderfully diverse. I will not leave just because I strongly disagree with the policies being made by the current political leaders. Instead I will stay and fight for the changes I believe will make it better, through monetary donations, voting, and debate (though I'm starting to feel that the last is decreasing in effectiveness.)

In that type of a case my only regret would be having only one life to give to my country!

Exactically!, said the Caterpillar.

<snip even though all those points are excellent and compelling>
I stay in America, because I still currently love America. It the place of my birth and I find New York to be wonderfully diverse. I will not leave just because I strongly disagree with the policies being made by the current political leaders. Instead I will stay and fight for the changes I believe will make it better, through monetary donations, voting, and debate (though I'm starting to feel that the last is decreasing in effectiveness.)
Thanks for saying all of that.

I just want to clear up one little detail about my plans to move out of the country. It's not because I'm giving up on the US or because I think any other country is inherently better. I don't. My reasons are pragmatic.

First, I have been planning to live in other countries temporarily for some time, just for the experience and to pursue my career. So the current political situation is just adding an impetus. If the politics change, then so will my plans.

I feel that current US policies are causing me certain problems that can be avoided by living under different laws in a different jurisdiction -- this applies immediately to access to health care (in the countries I'm interested in, foreign residents and even just travelers get basic coverage under their national systems), cost of living vs. income, and general attitude towards the arts. In the longer term, depending on how US politics go, it will also apply to abortion rights and censorship issues (I seriously don't like the way the US is going on those, and as a female artist, they are both immediate concerns to me).

I have no intention of giving up my US citizenship. This means that, even living in another country, I will still be paying US income tax and still be voting in national elections and still active in trying to fix the things I think are wrong with my country. Someday, I'll come home, if I think I won't suffer by it. Self-serving, yes, but why not? Most of our ancestors were self-serving when they came to this country as settlers or immigrants in the first place. It's not some "noble" statement; it's just to make my life easier.