Educate yourself

[Ferocious]

It's when I started doing real research that I finally stopped voting Republican in most cases.

Also I became more educated in real life experiences too.

You need to both live and learn to realize what the real truths are.

 

[Czar]

what does YABA stand for?

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Czar
what does YABA stand for?

Yet Another Bush Apologist

valid is also

Yet Another Bush Asshugger

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Talon - did you think you were going to get any "good" replies by posting this? It's just the way the liberals work here on the forum - they can't stand someone who has a definite stance on things and obviously they hate anyone who supports Bush. They call names (the newest being - YABA

), pick on spelling, and make up wild accusations to throw at Bush et al. Hopefully someday they'll wake/grow up and realize that sometime War is necessary at times and that Bush isn't this big evil monster they view him as.

Good luck overseas - don't let the whining few get you down. It's like Bow said - they don't really hate you - they just want your mission to fail so they can dance up and down and say "I told you so". Look at the threads here - they are setting themselves up to do just that. One day they will realize that we are doing the right thing.
Good luck and God speed.

CkG

I have solid stances on things, but not definite, and for good reason. Having definite stances on issues means that you aren't capable of listening to alternative choices. Your 'research' into the alternatives means finding someone who has baked the numbers enough to support the stance you can't back down from. Don't take me wrong, this happens to both conservatives and libs. Who was it that once said there is never a right way, only a better way? I agree with this to a large extent. The term 'right' is fluid in relation to different perspectives, whereas better can be applied to situations across the board, with the 'betterness' being relative, but still better.

And I don't hate Bush. I don't like a lot of his policies, and I will do my best to rally support behind his opponet in the next election, but not because I hate him.

Talon37, keep your head down over there so that you can come back and annoy us libs on the forums . As others have said, not supporting Bush isn't the same as not supporting our troops. You all take care of each other over there.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Czar
what does YABA stand for?

Yes! A baby alligator..
You and Bush are...
Yaba Daba Do...
Yellow and Blue are...
Yes! Another Bush acronym.
Yawn and believe again.
Yet again Bush amazes..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
It's when I started doing real research that I finally stopped voting Republican in most cases.

Also I became more educated in real life experiences too.

You need to both live and learn to realize what the real truths are.

No you don't need to live both. You don't need to experience something to know it is "bad". The more I research each issue the more defined I've become as a Conservative.

amok - that is not true - being a conservative doesn't mean that "you aren't capable of listening to alternative choices".

CkG

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ferocious
It's when I started doing real research that I finally stopped voting Republican in most cases.

Also I became more educated in real life experiences too.

You need to both live and learn to realize what the real truths are.

No you don't need to live both. You don't need to experience something to know it is "bad". The more I research each issue the more defined I've become as a Conservative.

amok - that is not true - being a conservative doesn't mean that "you aren't capable of listening to alternative choices".

CkG

I didn't say it was. I said having definitive stances means that, and said that both parties fall victim to it .

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ferocious
It's when I started doing real research that I finally stopped voting Republican in most cases.

Also I became more educated in real life experiences too.

You need to both live and learn to realize what the real truths are.

No you don't need to live both. You don't need to experience something to know it is "bad". The more I research each issue the more defined I've become as a Conservative.

amok - that is not true - being a conservative doesn't mean that "you aren't capable of listening to alternative choices".

CkG

I didn't say it was. I said having definitive stances means that, and said that both parties fall victim to it .

Still not true. Because I have a definate stance does NOT mean I won't listen to other choices. Care to try again.

CkG

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ferocious
It's when I started doing real research that I finally stopped voting Republican in most cases.

Also I became more educated in real life experiences too.

You need to both live and learn to realize what the real truths are.

No you don't need to live both. You don't need to experience something to know it is "bad". The more I research each issue the more defined I've become as a Conservative.

amok - that is not true - being a conservative doesn't mean that "you aren't capable of listening to alternative choices".

CkG

I didn't say it was. I said having definitive stances means that, and said that both parties fall victim to it .

Still not true. Because I have a definate stance does NOT mean I won't listen to other choices. Care to try again.

CkG

Not really. Negations are probably the most easily constructed logic in existance.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ferocious
It's when I started doing real research that I finally stopped voting Republican in most cases.

Also I became more educated in real life experiences too.

You need to both live and learn to realize what the real truths are.

No you don't need to live both. You don't need to experience something to know it is "bad". The more I research each issue the more defined I've become as a Conservative.

amok - that is not true - being a conservative doesn't mean that "you aren't capable of listening to alternative choices".

CkG

I didn't say it was. I said having definitive stances means that, and said that both parties fall victim to it .

Still not true. Because I have a definate stance does NOT mean I won't listen to other choices. Care to try again.

CkG

Not really. Negations are probably the most easily constructed logic in existance.

I don't negotiate my stances/principles/morals dealing with an issue - I negotiate solutions. Compromising on a solution doesn't mean that I can't and don't have a definate stance on an issue.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

What you are, Caddy, is a wind up robotic fensing machine. We put in a nickle and watch you refute any point. Mr. Robo Rebuttal at your service.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What you are, Caddy, is a wind up robotic fensing machine. We put in a nickle and watch you refute any point. Mr. Robo Rebuttal at your service.

Nah - It's just fun to see people squirm sometimes I think alot of what is wrong in America today is that people don't know how to make up their mind and look to others to make their decisions and opinions for them. I certainly am NOT a robot - You just mistake my decisiveness as being such. It's all in your perspective though. How's that mirror moony?

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Did I forget to mention parrot?

By the way, I think I owe you another nickle.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ferocious
It's when I started doing real research that I finally stopped voting Republican in most cases.

Also I became more educated in real life experiences too.

You need to both live and learn to realize what the real truths are.

No you don't need to live both. You don't need to experience something to know it is "bad". The more I research each issue the more defined I've become as a Conservative.

amok - that is not true - being a conservative doesn't mean that "you aren't capable of listening to alternative choices".

CkG

I didn't say it was. I said having definitive stances means that, and said that both parties fall victim to it .

Still not true. Because I have a definate stance does NOT mean I won't listen to other choices. Care to try again.

CkG

Not really. Negations are probably the most easily constructed logic in existance.

I don't negotiate my stances/principles/morals dealing with an issue - I negotiate solutions. Compromising on a solution doesn't mean that I can't and don't have a definate stance on an issue.

CkG

He did not say negotiate, he said negations. They are not close to being the same.

Educate yourself

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ferocious
It's when I started doing real research that I finally stopped voting Republican in most cases.

Also I became more educated in real life experiences too.

You need to both live and learn to realize what the real truths are.

No you don't need to live both. You don't need to experience something to know it is "bad". The more I research each issue the more defined I've become as a Conservative.

amok - that is not true - being a conservative doesn't mean that "you aren't capable of listening to alternative choices".

CkG

I didn't say it was. I said having definitive stances means that, and said that both parties fall victim to it .

Still not true. Because I have a definate stance does NOT mean I won't listen to other choices. Care to try again.

CkG

Not really. Negations are probably the most easily constructed logic in existance.

I don't negotiate my stances/principles/morals dealing with an issue - I negotiate solutions. Compromising on a solution doesn't mean that I can't and don't have a definate stance on an issue.

CkG

He did not say negotiate, he said negations. They are not close to being the same.

Educate yourself

Negations don't compute in a positronic brain.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ferocious
It's when I started doing real research that I finally stopped voting Republican in most cases.

Also I became more educated in real life experiences too.

You need to both live and learn to realize what the real truths are.

No you don't need to live both. You don't need to experience something to know it is "bad". The more I research each issue the more defined I've become as a Conservative.

amok - that is not true - being a conservative doesn't mean that "you aren't capable of listening to alternative choices".

CkG

I didn't say it was. I said having definitive stances means that, and said that both parties fall victim to it .

Still not true. Because I have a definate stance does NOT mean I won't listen to other choices. Care to try again.

CkG

Not really. Negations are probably the most easily constructed logic in existance.

I don't negotiate my stances/principles/morals dealing with an issue - I negotiate solutions. Compromising on a solution doesn't mean that I can't and don't have a definate stance on an issue.

CkG

He did not say negotiate, he said negations. They are not close to being the same.

Educate yourself

Educate yourself
relying on negation doesn't help his cause. He made a claim that was untrue on many levels - he says my rebuttal is negation to try to say it "could" be true thereby supposedly strengthening his claim. I proceeded to show him that negotiating a solution can happen(open-mindedness) even if one has a definate stance or opinion on the issue. One must be sure his accusation is fully true otherwise negation is easy

Educate thy self

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Talon37

Man this forum is full of a bunch of crying sissys who have absolutly no idea what they are saying, only that they heard someone say it on tv or read it on the internet. All this blood for oil crap is absolutly rediculous. Educate yourself. Do some REAL research into issues. And if your American and you are still winning then LEAVE. We dont need a country full of weak b@stereds like you around bringing the rest of us down or softening our image. Im in the military, 3 monthes ago my girlfriend of 1 year and brother got deployed to middleast. I will be in Iraq befor they get back and wont see them for at least 6 more monthes. I wont even get paid well to do it and you dont hear me crying. When you get deployed and live in the conditions we do and see what we do, then you can complain. Reality check, most of you sit behind your computers all day and live quite the cushy life. Go out and see the world as it is, not as you envision it as you stare into your screen.


Flame on.......:

"The standing army is only an arm of the standing government." Henry David Thoreau

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ferocious
It's when I started doing real research that I finally stopped voting Republican in most cases.

Also I became more educated in real life experiences too.

You need to both live and learn to realize what the real truths are.

No you don't need to live both. You don't need to experience something to know it is "bad". The more I research each issue the more defined I've become as a Conservative.

amok - that is not true - being a conservative doesn't mean that "you aren't capable of listening to alternative choices".

CkG

I didn't say it was. I said having definitive stances means that, and said that both parties fall victim to it .

Still not true. Because I have a definate stance does NOT mean I won't listen to other choices. Care to try again.

CkG

Not really. Negations are probably the most easily constructed logic in existance.

I don't negotiate my stances/principles/morals dealing with an issue - I negotiate solutions. Compromising on a solution doesn't mean that I can't and don't have a definate stance on an issue.

CkG

He did not say negotiate, he said negations. They are not close to being the same.

Educate yourself

Educate yourself
relying on negation doesn't help his cause. He made a claim that was untrue on many levels - he says my rebuttal is negation to try to say it "could" be true thereby supposedly strengthening his claim. I proceeded to show him that negotiating a solution can happen(open-mindedness) even if one has a definate stance or opinion on the issue. One must be sure his accusation is fully true otherwise negation is easy

Educate thy self

CkG

Uh huh, sure

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ferocious
It's when I started doing real research that I finally stopped voting Republican in most cases.

Also I became more educated in real life experiences too.

You need to both live and learn to realize what the real truths are.

No you don't need to live both. You don't need to experience something to know it is "bad". The more I research each issue the more defined I've become as a Conservative.

amok - that is not true - being a conservative doesn't mean that "you aren't capable of listening to alternative choices".

CkG

I didn't say it was. I said having definitive stances means that, and said that both parties fall victim to it .

Still not true. Because I have a definate stance does NOT mean I won't listen to other choices. Care to try again.

CkG

Not really. Negations are probably the most easily constructed logic in existance.

I don't negotiate my stances/principles/morals dealing with an issue - I negotiate solutions. Compromising on a solution doesn't mean that I can't and don't have a definate stance on an issue.

CkG

He did not say negotiate, he said negations. They are not close to being the same.

Educate yourself

Educate yourself
relying on negation doesn't help his cause. He made a claim that was untrue on many levels - he says my rebuttal is negation to try to say it "could" be true thereby supposedly strengthening his claim. I proceeded to show him that negotiating a solution can happen(open-mindedness) even if one has a definate stance or opinion on the issue. One must be sure his accusation is fully true otherwise negation is easy

Educate thy self

CkG

Uh huh, sure

For some reason I figured that would be your response.

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ferocious
It's when I started doing real research that I finally stopped voting Republican in most cases.

Also I became more educated in real life experiences too.

You need to both live and learn to realize what the real truths are.

No you don't need to live both. You don't need to experience something to know it is "bad". The more I research each issue the more defined I've become as a Conservative.

amok - that is not true - being a conservative doesn't mean that "you aren't capable of listening to alternative choices".

CkG

I didn't say it was. I said having definitive stances means that, and said that both parties fall victim to it .

Still not true. Because I have a definate stance does NOT mean I won't listen to other choices. Care to try again.

CkG

Not really. Negations are probably the most easily constructed logic in existance.

I don't negotiate my stances/principles/morals dealing with an issue - I negotiate solutions. Compromising on a solution doesn't mean that I can't and don't have a definate stance on an issue.

CkG

He did not say negotiate, he said negations. They are not close to being the same.

Educate yourself

Educate yourself
relying on negation doesn't help his cause. He made a claim that was untrue on many levels - he says my rebuttal is negation to try to say it "could" be true thereby supposedly strengthening his claim. I proceeded to show him that negotiating a solution can happen(open-mindedness) even if one has a definate stance or opinion on the issue. One must be sure his accusation is fully true otherwise negation is easy

Educate thy self

CkG

Uh huh, sure

For some reason I figured that would be your response.

CkG

<--- everyone has their faves. <--- mine.

 

[DealMonkey]

Run along now, you've successfully destroyed Talon37's little thread about something - not sure what anymore. I hope you're happy, you bastardos.

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: amok

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ferocious
It's when I started doing real research that I finally stopped voting Republican in most cases.

Also I became more educated in real life experiences too.

You need to both live and learn to realize what the real truths are.

No you don't need to live both. You don't need to experience something to know it is "bad". The more I research each issue the more defined I've become as a Conservative.

amok - that is not true - being a conservative doesn't mean that "you aren't capable of listening to alternative choices".

CkG

I didn't say it was. I said having definitive stances means that, and said that both parties fall victim to it .

Still not true. Because I have a definate stance does NOT mean I won't listen to other choices. Care to try again.

CkG

Not really. Negations are probably the most easily constructed logic in existance.

I don't negotiate my stances/principles/morals dealing with an issue - I negotiate solutions. Compromising on a solution doesn't mean that I can't and don't have a definate stance on an issue.

CkG

He did not say negotiate, he said negations. They are not close to being the same.

Educate yourself

Educate yourself
relying on negation doesn't help his cause. He made a claim that was untrue on many levels - he says my rebuttal is negation to try to say it "could" be true thereby supposedly strengthening his claim. I proceeded to show him that negotiating a solution can happen(open-mindedness) even if one has a definate stance or opinion on the issue. One must be sure his accusation is fully true otherwise negation is easy

Educate thy self

CkG

Actually, you made the wrong assumption. My passing on further debate on this topic was more or less because you are too firmly entrenched in your beliefs to be convinced of what I have to say. Coincidentally, that's also my point regarding definite stances. Negotiating solutions isn't really open-mindedness, its giving enough that you get at least part of what you want out of a discussion as opposed to nothing happening at all. It doesn't change your fundamental position (which is definite and can't be changed), so the same arguments will come back around later under a different guise. By saying that I'm solid, but not definite on my stances is saying that you could convince me to change my fundamental position if you argued well enough and showed me enough unbiased facts to support your opinion. Its what we try to do in the scientific community when fairly radical new ideas are presented. Some people are so firmly entrenched that they cling to old ideas regardless (the long time it took for acceptance of quantum theory for example). Others swing too easily. However, because of this we tend to thoroughly examine our field, and in the end it is productive. I try to model my stances on economic, social, and political issues in the same way. The problem, of course, is that I'm not nearly as competant in those areas as I am in physics . Because of that, I'm even more open-minded in those areas, though I have a lot more difficulty finding unbiased opinions on those subjects.

 

[LunarRay]

Amok said:
Actually, you made the wrong assumption. My passing on further debate on this topic was more or less because you are too firmly entrenched in your beliefs to be convinced of what I have to say. Coincidentally, that's also my point regarding definite stances. Negotiating solutions isn't really open-mindedness, its giving enough that you get at least part of what you want out of a discussion as opposed to nothing happening at all. It doesn't change your fundamental position (which is definite and can't be changed), so the same arguments will come back around later under a different guise. By saying that I'm solid, but not definite on my stances is saying that you could convince me to change my fundamental position if you argued well enough and showed me enough unbiased facts to support your opinion. Its what we try to do in the scientific community when fairly radical new ideas are presented. Some people are so firmly entrenched that they cling to old ideas regardless (the long time it took for acceptance of quantum theory for example). Others swing too easily. However, because of this we tend to thoroughly examine our field, and in the end it is productive. I try to model my stances on economic, social, and political issues in the same way. The problem, of course, is that I'm not nearly as competant in those areas as I am in physics . Because of that, I'm even more open-minded in those areas, though I have a lot more difficulty finding unbiased opinions on those subjects.
*********************

There is little difference in the scientific model in use for physics and social science or politics. In politics you simply predict an unknown using what available data exists. You first test the data for reliability, agree them to historical events for a notion of similarity and then determine the various possible reasons for the data to exist in the first place (the Agenda) and conclude that which fits is probably what is afoot. Something is always afoot and the players almost always lie. The Agenda and the road to it becomes clear with enough pieces visible..
RoboCAD will always argue the issue from a fixed POV. The Agenda relies on this condition for success. The Agenda is developed by the elite Power Brokers world wide. At this point in time it appears the Grand Agenda is the elimination of national borders and a One World Economy and thus a One World Power. Of course we'd have little need for governments in this world. They the Power Brokers would rule from the "Grand Board Room". No war, no hunger, all folks equal. Them in charge.
No thanks!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What you are, Caddy, is a wind up robotic fensing machine. We put in a nickle and watch you refute any point. Mr. Robo Rebuttal at your service.

Nah - It's just fun to see people squirm sometimes I think alot of what is wrong in America today is that people don't know how to make up their mind and look to others to make their decisions and opinions for them. I certainly am NOT a robot - You just mistake my decisiveness as being such. It's all in your perspective though. How's that mirror moony?

CkG

I once had a boss who prided himself on being decisive. He was completely incompetent. He loved to make decisions -- now -- whether he had enough information, whether his information was accurate, whether he needed to make a decision then or not. And, once he made a decision, he stuck to it no matter how much new information was presented. He was decisive, you see, and decisive people stick to their decisions, no matter how bad they might be.

He first got into IT as a VB programmer, and, like everyone else, he played with PCs at home. He therefore considered himself an expert on enterprise-level applications and infrastructure. He had no actual technical experience at that level, but that didn't deter him. Any time a decision got escalated to his level, we could count on him making a poor one. He cost us several million dollars in wasted effort and equipment.

My staff hated him, of course. I did my best to keep decisions away from him, but that has its own dangers. I finally caught on to the trick to manipulating him: get his ear first. Nine times out of ten, he latched on to the first thing he heard. Much easier to make quick decisions that way.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What you are, Caddy, is a wind up robotic fensing machine. We put in a nickle and watch you refute any point. Mr. Robo Rebuttal at your service.

Nah - It's just fun to see people squirm sometimes I think alot of what is wrong in America today is that people don't know how to make up their mind and look to others to make their decisions and opinions for them. I certainly am NOT a robot - You just mistake my decisiveness as being such. It's all in your perspective though. How's that mirror moony?

CkG

I once had a boss who prided himself on being decisive. He was completely incompetent. He loved to make decisions -- now -- whether he had enough information, whether his information was accurate, whether he needed to make a decision then or not. And, once he made a decision, he stuck to it no matter how much new information was presented. He was decisive, you see, and decisive people stick to their decisions, no matter how bad they might be.

He first got into IT as a VB programmer, and, like everyone else, he played with PCs at home. He therefore considered himself an expert on enterprise-level applications and infrastructure. He had no actual technical experience at that level, but that didn't deter him. Any time a decision got escalated to his level, we could count on him making a poor one. He cost us several million dollars in wasted effort and equipment.

My staff hated him, of course. I did my best to keep decisions away from him, but that has its own dangers. I finally caught on to the trick to manipulating him: get his ear first. Nine times out of ten, he latched on to the first thing he heard. Much easier to make quick decisions that way.

Without a doubt people oversell their abilities at times and some make quick and some bad decisions. Sorry to hear your boss wasn't a good manager who didn't inventory his own talents well enough to defer/listen to those more qualified.

CkG