But just for everyone’s convenience:
Your turn.
Again.
Oh, please! Your boosting my approximate 4 or 5 person shift to 8.2 (in the house only, that is) alters the point not in the slightest, and I’m sure you know it. The fact (assuming you are correct, as I can’t be arsed to confirm it) that three more people out of a hundred shifted their votes than I said proves absolutely nothing in regard to the point I was making when I said it.
Again, Bush simply is not hated by everyone…not even close. You could gloatingly post a 25 out of a hundred shift and it would still mean that approx. 25% voted for him. Further, many of those who voted for his opponents still don’t hate him; they simply thought that their guy, for whatever reason, would be a better choice. I know lots of people who voted for Kerry, Gore, whatever and they don’t come close to hating Bush. Most don’t even actively dislike him.
Your post illustrates exactly what I mean about how one can’t go by what they read around here if they want the real scoop on what is going on around the country. Irrational bias and specious arguments abound around here–as your post clearly illustrates–and I’m merely trying to keep the OP from being fooled by them.
Debunked, Refuted… [Wayne]Denied![/Wayne]
What amazes me is the capacity of some in the right to ignore that gut feelings are not were we are coming from. The cites that are mentioned are not only supporting the opinions of the posters, there is information in those cites that when ignored by someone that is accusing others of being misleading then causes anyone else to wonder why he is ignoring them.
Why yes, admitting right away that you “can’t be arsed to confirm” what they cited does wonders for the effort to convince anyone else. :rolleyes:
We are no longer in IMHO SA.
Hell, I really believe YOU could’ve been a better president. *You * at least seem averse to wading in and screwing up things you know nothing about.
[qutoe]People are consistently underestimating how “hard” it is to be the president of the United States.
[/quote]
On what basis do you make that assertion?
Well, given the fact that either way it has absolutely no impact on the issue at hand, I don’t see what difference it makes. And you wouldn’t either, if you weren’t so eager, as is Firefly, to try to point to some trivial error in my comments so as to make believe that it disproves my point. If you can provide some sort of evidence that the difference between 4 or 5 voters changing their votes vs. 8.2 (in the House) disproves my observation that Bush is not hated by everyone, I’d very much like to see it.
Welcome to the wonderful world of SDMB debating, Heckxx. The attempt to use cite requests to derail perfectly valid observations is one of the most egregious forms of intellectual dishonesty to be found upon this board. I’ve heard many people over the course of my life state that the job of U.S. President is one of the hardest in the world, something which should be self-evident given the issues they have to confront and who all they have to work with in an attempt to get anything done. Further, I’ve never in my life heard someone say “Man, I wish I was president. What a cushy fucking job that would be.”
But, here we have Elvis, smug in what he feels confident will be the perfect derailment of your perfectly valid point, should you not be able to point to convincing written evidence that this is so.
Elvis knows as well as I do that no factual proof exists as to whether the president’s job is ‘hard,’ as hard is a subjective call. But he will pretend, if you let him get away with it, that you’re point has been deemed invalid if you can’t point to some site acceptable to him to show that this is so.
I have no doubt in my mind that when this board was in its infancy, and the idea of cites seemed like a perfectly good idea, it never occurred to anyone that it would become perverted so as to attempt to derail perfectly valid points by demanding cites for statements for which the demandee knows perfectly well no factual proof exists. Yet it has become absolutely de rigeur around here.
Blow it off; I do. Otherwise, you will never state an opinion, observation or belief, all of which are perfectly valid elements of discussion in their own right.
Intellectual dishonesty and verbal sleight-of-hand, thy name be SDMB cite demands.
I was not only talking about his cites SA. Your opinions of Bush regarding Iraq are clearly misleading.
If you’d taken the time to actually read what you’re responding to (yes, tall order, I know), you’d note that I made no such request. I asked Heckx why he thought the difficulty of the job was underestimated, on whatever basis he thinks so, and *after * noting the level of effort Bush has so plainly put into it.
But it’s just more fun to denounce than to read and reason, isn’t it? :rolleyes:
So you’re agreeing with Elvis?
Heckxx: People are consistently underestimating how “hard” it is to be the president of the United States.
Elvis (interpreted by me): Why do you think people don’t believe it’s a hard job? I’ve never heard anyone say it isn’t.
And I already mentioned that acknowledging that it is a hard one does not make Bush look better. In your attempt to make others look bad, you are just showing others who is not to be trusted.
Cites will be always requested, there is no other way to establish who is more on the money.
I already said that the job is only hard if you take its responsibilities seriously.
Bush, and to be fair a number of his predecessors, have demonstrated the converse, that the job doesn’t *have * to be hard.
:smack: Yikes! What a perfectly wasted rant!
You are right. Ah fucked up! (I blame it on hurriedly reading posts while attempting to keep up with all the caca being thrown my way. YMMV, of course.) 
Sincerely though, my apologies, Elvis.
Please amend my coments regarding Elvis in this thread, Heckxx, to apply to the board in general…but not at this time and not in this instance. 
Sheesh! :rolleyes:
And what a veritable smilie-fest, huh?
I think I’d be a terrible president. I think the job would scare me…I’m pretty sure i could not take on that responsibility and stress. And decision making.
because someone said this: “He created the Iraq war. Anybody who wasn’t similarly deluded or deludable, which is most of us, would have handled it better.”
And there are other examples in this thread, im sure.
I voted against Bush both times, but I’ve never bought into all the anti-Bush hype. I’ve always found the vast majority of it extremely childish at best. I also think it’s just sour grapes the way the Dems keep mentioning his “loss” of the 200 election. He didn’t lose, he won, that’s why he’s president. Gore, whom I voted for, couldn’t even carry his own home state. If he had, he would have won, hands down; he would then have had enough electoral votes. (No president has ever been elected president without carrying his home state.) I think the system worked as well as it could considering the circumstances and that there was no conspiracy by the Supreme Court or others. Proponents of such theories need to grow up.
We weren’t talking about “everything he’s tried to do.” You said
Who knows, but as he likes to insist, he’s the decider. The bad decisions are on him.
(a) It’s correct, (b) 8.2% is in fact a pretty big shift, in our system, and © as I said, it dwarfs Bush’s winning margins.
Since you didn’t exactly ever suggest that on account of his slender margins of support, Bush shouldn’t presume to push a strong conservative agenda, I’m thinking that the comparatively enormous Dem win in the House entitles them to run roughshod over everything Bush has done for the past six years, as their mandate dwarfs Bush’s.
I voted for the present Bush’s father but not him. He was too right leaning, I am a moderate. He talked about compassionate Conservatism, to me that is a oxymoron.
His father didn’t go into Baghdad because he was warned about what would happen if he did, now that Jr. didn’t think enough of his own father’s knowledge (who was well aware of the consequences) decided he knew more and now we are in a real bad siruation. I hope we are not going to pay the price of his actions for many years to come.
I know some people who only voted for him because of his religious leanings. They wanted a change in the Supreme Court to be more right wing.
Monavis
SA, we’re cool.
My retarded dog would be a better president. Hell, a ham & cheese sandwich would be a better president. Hell yes, a good portion of people on this board would do a better job.