Could you be a little less generic? What has he done, in regards to 9-11 that has impressed you?

 

Wait, Burt! Don't answer this!! It's a loaded question!!

Even though he specifically asked what impressed you personally, the basic premise of the political argument is to get you to discuss topics, either specific or general, that are diametrically opposed to by the other party (pun potentially intended).

Nothing good can come from answering his request and listing dozens of specific items, as the reader on the opposite side of the fence is always going to disagree with the merit of each and every one of them based on their own political ideology, regardless of the validity of your opinion.

Example 1:

Pro-Bush: It is my opinion that the President's strong will and determination to utilize decisive force in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban regime to discourage the ongoing production of terrorists in that nation was an excellent display of leadership during a difficult period in our history.

Pro-Kerry: Where is Osama Bin-Laden?

Example 2:

Pro-Bush: It is my opinion that the President's determination to cut taxes and reduce the tax burden on the American people has and will lead to continued job growth and an increased strengthening of this country's economy.

Pro-Kerry Then why are gas prices so high?

See how this works?

I'm glad I could be here recently to help guide these discussions.

 

In regards to what Bush has done since 9/11, which is all that matters to me.

We haven't had another terrorist attack since, have we? Nuff said.

 

I'm really liking you right now Steve. Good post!


The next time I join a "discussion" and am less than diplomatic, keep the above point in mind. It's a discussion based in futility. Why not have a little fun with it, at your opponent's expense?

 

Uhhh... We HAVE had uprising's in the streets protesting America being there. We've been kicking out of two or three cities now because we lost control. Where have you been??

Read more:

researchers for the Gallup Organization sat down with 3444 Iraqis in March and early April (before the latest outbreaks of violence). They conducted interviews that lasted as long as 70 minutes (often at great personal risk). And what they found does not bode well in the short-term for the US and its allies in Iraq, although it may bode well for the future of Iraq as a democracy.
The survey finds Iraqis mixed on the results of the invasion of Iraq, reports the Washington Post. Forty-two percent of Iraqis say their country is better off, while 46 percent say the US has "done more harm than good" in the past year.

The survey also showed significant differences along ethnic/sectarian lines, with Sunnis being strongly negative towards the US-led coalition, Shiites being more positive but growing more negative, while the Kurds in the north were quite supportive of the US (95 percent of Kurds supported the US-led invasion of Iraq).

Other telling findings of the survey were that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis, 71 percent (and that figure rises to 81 percent if the Kurdish areas in the north are excluded), now see the US-led coalition as an occupying force and not as liberators. USA Today reports that a solid majority, almost 60 percent, want the US and its allies to leave immediately, even if it means the security situation will deteriorate.

Scientific Evidence. Facts. Something that don't exist in any of you're arguments XLT...

At least know the Truth and the Facts of the points you're trying to argue, instead of just making stuff up as it suits your needs. Hey, isn't that how Bush got us involved in this war in the first place???

 

I beg to differ on this, it's not loaded. It's like saying, "He's a good guy" my question is "What makes him a good guy?" If you are going to have an opinion about someone, you should be able to back it up. Burt and I usually disagree, but can have a conversation, but thanks for your "help" Steve. Just because you have a pre-disposition on the subject, doesn't mean everyone does. I usually like Burt's answers, even if I disagree with his opinions, he's usually well thought out.

So, there's the question, what makes GW a good leader?

 

There is the problem with some in here, we are supposed to be united, not opponents. Believe it or not, people can have different opinions and methods, and still have the same cause.

 

As I stated earlier I can take a poll and make it come out any way I wish and thus I don’t pay much attention to polls that have not been taken “nationally”.

In your post you state that 3,444 people were questioned. Ok, let’s assume that is correct. Now, correct me if I am wrong but Iraq has an approx. population of 24 million citizens, correct?

If that is true then based on the 3,444 they represent a grand total of 0.015% of the population. That is not nearly enough of a “scientific” sample to come to any “logical” conclusions.

Now, if your “poll” results were correct and the numbers where from a much larger “national” sample then as I stated there would be MAJOR uprisings and protesting in Iraq. There has been VERY LITTLE to basically none at all when you take the 24 million citizens into account.

If it were true that 71% were just outright disgusted with us and wanted us out it would not be hard for 17 plus million citizens to kick out our military of 130,000 or so.

Therefore your scientific proof has now been handed to you by me and my simple logical mind, as I stated before poll numbers mean absolutely nothing when they are local or a sample just too small to make any logical conclusions. What does matter is “reality” and reality is facts that are undisputed by any “numbers” one can come up with.

Reality is the vast majority of the people in Iraq LOVE what we did for them, think what we did was CORRECT and want us to stay until everything is under control.

Don’t blame me for what happens in reality, and just because I do not present skewed numbers as facts does not mean that I do not try “my best” to argue an issue as honestly as I can. Will I always be right? Not always but the vast majority of the time I will be right while your left…

 

I believe that you have a presumption on what you feel my pre-disposition is on this subject. Everything I have posted in this thread indicates that the premise of my posts is that political discussions between diametrically opposed attitudes are relatively pointless. I don't see anywhere where I took up or defended a specific partisan political position, though it may be your supposition that I have a pre-disposition based on your own personal political pre-disposition. More fodder for my earlier commentary.

 

Context? Why do liberals have such a problem with this concept? In a discussion or debate, the person, or team, with a differing opinion, is your opponent. That's how it was used in my post.

This is only a small part of why I don't waste my time arguing, discussing, or trying to convince liberals of anything. They listen to, or read, what is being said for anything they can use to discredit you, not your stance on a subject.

 

I would agree with the basic presumption the Webmaster has made which is that two people who have pretty solid stands on their position really won’t change the others mind in a political debate.

For example BHibbs and I rarely if ever agree and same for some others like momalle1 and I. We can usually have great discussions, sometimes heated but rarely if ever have they gotten out of hand. I have great respect for them as well as everyone else here rather they agree with me or not.

I think the premise I come from when debating someone like BHibbs, momalle1, and others (that are always wrong and I try to straighten out) is to get others to think and possible debate themselves.

I know there are many people on here who feel the way I do, as well as many people who feel the way BHibbs, momalle1 and others with their view feel the way they do but would never say so. Many worry about actually saying how they feel about particular issues for fear of retribution from other friends, the high school syndrome I like to call it, or peer pressure. Another big reason many don’t speak out is you have a few that can’t help come along and start the name calling and dragging a good debate in the gutter.

There is a big difference in having a passion about an issue while arguing it and just coming along and name calling. Then you get the few drive by post of “Bush sucks”, “Kerry sucks” etc that add nothing to the debate and makes a person look completely lost and child like.

I think it is good to debate in the open for everyone even if there is only a few who are actually debating each other that will most likely never change the others mind it gives others who come along and read it something to really think about and perhaps show them that there are others who feel the way they do so they are not odd, different or in the minority.

Fact is the country is basically even split down the middle when it comes to most issues and I am willing to bet many, from both sides, feel a particular way about an issue because they “think” that is how they “should” feel rather then thinking an issue out themselves and coming to their own conclusions. Perhaps people like us in this thread, because of our views and positions will help others to forum a more logical conclusion because we got them to think and they read more information then what they would hear in a few sound bits on TV.

So, in conclusions I agree with the Webmasters comments about people like BHibbs and I when it comes to debating and we will most likely never agree but the big picture is we may get a few others to “think” ”Just why do I think the way I think?”

Have no fear I will continue to debate until BHibbs, momalle1 and others like them agree with me, then I will know they are on the right path…

 

"that are always wrong and I try to straighten out"

Now you're throwing in humor too? Thanks 01!!

We've actually agreed once or twice, don't forget. Have to admit though, when you can't explain what you've said, I lose a little faith in you....

 

My most humble apologies. My feeling is that you lean towards the right and don't hide it well, however, since you choose to remain nuetral, I digress.

 

What makes you think I'm liberal? Just because you are conservative and I've disagreed with you?

 

Well to begin with in the immediate aftermath I think that President Bush was able to calm the country because of his genuine honesty. I think the vast majority of Americans felt they could trust what President Bush was telling them and attempting to do to protect them from possible future attacks.

I think the vast majority of Americans felt they could trust what President Bush told them because he really did not sugar coat anything, he was upfront and honest with them rather they liked it or not. He never once stated that there would never be another terrorist attack and as a matter of fact basically told Americans they should prepare because it is most certain there would be future attacks.

I think the vast majority of Americans trusted the things President Bush was trying to do in order to keep them as safe as possible, Home Land Security, the Patriot Act etc. Not that these things were perfect or the complete answer but they were good steps in the right direction. Is there room for improvement? You bet, but it was still a step in the right direction.

I think the vast majority of Americans felt that NO longer was America going to stand idle while terrorist did what they pleased as they had been doing for many of years before, even before Clinton.

Bottom line is President Bush made the vast majority of Americans feel comfortable that someone was in charge and doing their best to keep people safe, never once did President Bush try to lay blame on 911 on anyone but those who where really at fault which was the terrorist…

Leadership, it makes all the difference in times of crisis, President Kennedy showed it during the Cuban Missile crisis, and was the right man for the time, as President Bush was the right man for this time in history, leadership…