I believe I have studied the issues thoroughly. I do not agree that I am ignorant. I just place different priorities on different things. You may say the environment is important, for instance – I say that in general, it is less important that growing industrial interests.
You may say it’s important to have international support before going into Iraq. I say it was crucial to go in at the time that we did, without waiting for international support.
You may say it’s important to ensure that women have the right to choose abortion. I claim that abortion is a crime against human life.
Is my support of Bush due to ignorance, or to the fact that Bush is, on many fronts, doing what I want done?
Thanks for the debate tips but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Your assertion that “Creationists routinely thrash Evolutionists in debate” is specious at best and ludicrous at worst.
In fact, I’ll even concede that it’s probably a push. For every thrashing an Evolutionist takes in debate, I’ll show you and equal and opposite Creationist.
First – Oh perfect. Not only can the president not speak off the cuff, now he can’t even fucking read?
Second – No, I don’t particularly like President Bush. But part of the reason I don’t is precisely because of the way he comes across in public speech. I don’t like him in spite of it. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe how many people do. I’d say it’s more like the people who agree with his policies either tolerate his apparent stupidity, or just shine it on.
Call me overly critical if you must, but I’d prefer my president not to sound like an idiot when he’s addressing me.
Third – I don’t perceive Bush as particularly truthful, in light of his record of misspoken “facts”, unclaimed mistakes, decisions made on questionable info … oh who am I kidding … the man fucking lied to the nation, right in his State of the Union address. How can anyone say he comes across as truthful?
I will give you the republican battle cry: “He’s resolute in his decisions.” But if his decisions only serve to fuck up our country, I don’t care how damn resolute he is. One can be resolute and still be wrong.
No difference. If you want the things he’s currently doing, done, you’re ignorant. If you don’t want those things done, and you’re supporting him (maybe you don’t know his agenda), then you’re ignorant.
So you know his fine print, then you’re simply ignorant on a macro level.
Naturally we’re free to place our priorities where we chose, although that has little to do with a person being ignorant or not.
So if I want the things he’s currently doing, I’m ignorant.
Specifically, if I want Roe v. Wade repealed, I’m ignorant?
If I want the tax cuts made permanant, I’m ignorant?
If I want same-sex marriage forbidden by the states, I’m ignorant?
Yes or no, please, to each of those.
I believe I can make cogent cases for each of those propositions. If you dismiss those out of hand, I think we can safely understand what your accusation of ignorance really means: “You don’t agree with me.”
I led you to the water. Stick out your damn tongue. From Dr. Scott:
She even advises that the best thing to do is avoid the debate altogether. Read the fucking article.
It is remarkable how stupid smart people can be. Were you under the mistaken impression that voters have to take IQ tests? Voters are weebles, and weebles like strong leaders.
Alright here are your yes and no answers in which I’ll elaborate later on, most likely when we get to the semantical nitpicking phase of our discussion.
Yes.
Yes
Yes.
Oh look the trifecta.
I find the things you believe in to be counterproductive to the forward direction of this nation. Whether you’re ignorant, or perhaps some selfish jerk, is yet to be determined.
I’ll throw out the first salvo for the semantic hairsplitting that is soon to follow as well.
btw Ignorant: Unaware or uninformed
I say you’re uninformed about the true impact of all these stupid policies you believe in.
Due to the nature of entropy and time’s arrow, every direction is forward. It is a fundamental mistake (and in fact a common mistake of fundamentalists) to see only your own direction as the forward one.
Well, to take one example, and not to sound indelicate, but I am in the top 1% of wage-earners in the country. My support for Bush’s tax policies certainly is both informed and consistent with my own financial interest.
Is this a point on which reasonable people may disagree, or is it absolutely, rock-solid, you’re-an-idiot-if-you-don’t-agree established that the Bush tax cuts has ramifications that will cost me money instead of saving me money?
I suppose it’s a point that determines whether you’re selfish or ignorant. I fail to see any positive things coming from this tax cut except a few wealthy people saving a couple of bucks. On the other hand, the negative aspects are very real for millions of people, and the nation as a whole would be better off if they were repealed.
You trying to string me along with some questioning and then pounce on me Matlock style or something?
Is your economic knowledge so vast and your analytical skills so honed that it is impossible to believe that there ARE positives you just aren’t seeing?
OK, let’s accept your analysis for a moment. The benefit for some people is that they save a few bucks. That includes me: I benefit from the Bush tax cuts. And for the moment, I accept your argument that while I save a few bucks, millions of people suffer negative effects.
So now we seem to agree that I understand, fully, the effects of the Bush tax cuts.
And I’m still in favor of them.
I made my own wealth. I started from nothing. Now I want to increase my wealth, and I’m not interested in being forced to subsidize others if I can possibly avoid it.
Cut to the chase, do you have some type of point? Maybe chronologically all things move forward, but it’s certainly possible for us humans to take a big 'ol fucking step back.
Anymore of this nonsense and I’ll have to break out the bong.
