Kerry vs. Bush

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: bjc112
Interesting at 41 votes in the poll it stands at 32 Kerry, 5 Bush, 4 Nader. Goes to show ATP&N isn't representative of the country so far today. Well, maybe representative of California or Massachusetts.

I'd agree with that.

the forum used to be split about 50/50 between liberals and conservatives, but we at this forum know alot more about the situation today than the average person so I would say that this poll is more on the informed person than the average person

I disagree. As far back as I can remember on the P&N boards, it has always been a majority liberals. There are many more now than before. This is just my oppinion, but the liberals on this board don't listen to anything that contradicts their current beliefs. They are like teenagers. They think they know it all and refuse to listen to anyone who tells them different. If you try to take a position different, they will call you names and try to discredit you. If you do this to them, they act like only conservatives act like that and they (the liberal) are SO superior.

All of this has lead to many conservatives leaving these boards. It's like trying to carry on a conversation with a recording. They don't listen, and keep repeating the same stuff over and over. This is why I do not post here much anymore. It is an exercise in futility.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
This is just my oppinion, but the liberals on this board don't listen to anything that contradicts their current beliefs. They are like teenagers. They think they know it all and refuse to listen to anyone who tells them different. If you try to take a position different, they will call you names and try to discredit you.

You do realize, don't you, that, imo, you've just described the conservatives on this board.

Care to match examples?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Infohawk
I think a reasonable hypothesis for a shift would be that a lot of neoconservatives have withdrawn due to the lack of facts that could reasonably support their positions. Before the war, a reasonable --albeit still weak-- argument could be made that Iraq was a threat to the US, for example. Now that the WMDs are nowhere to be found, most neoconservatives have retreated. You still have some guerilla fighters like "heartsurgeon" who just make nonsensical posts and rarely defend themselves when challenged. Then you have CADkindaGUY who doesn't usually make any arguments, instead he relies on personal attacks and overabundant levels of sarcasm (just another form of agression). I've run into a couple reasonable conservative posters, but that's it. The way things currently are there just isn't much of argument you could make for Bush or conservatives generally. Basically, if we had found WMDs you'd see far more conservatives posting I think (if it's true they used to be here). As it is, they have no leg to stand on and the majority of conservatives here are fanatical diehards who don't see reason as predicate to posting.

Yep, and there we have the old "I'm smarter and more educated" argument folks.:) I knew we would see a blantant elitist post sooner or later;)
And some people wonder why people are labeled "elitists" - just take a look and how they present themselves and supposed "arguements".

CkG


Nothing in the post says I am smarter and more educated than others. Education has nothing to do with my hypothesis. Read my post again. While I don't think my argument is "elitist" I'm not sure what that has to do with the hypothesis anyway. Even if the hypothesis were "elitist" it could still be right. Please attack the argument head on if you want to attack it at all.

You made no "argument" - it was just elitist BS;)
You claim HS makes "nonsensical posts" and can't defend them.
You claim I don't make any arguments and then try to interject your psychobabble.
Then you proceed to say you don't see "reasonable Conservative posters" minus one or two
You top it off with the outlandish BS about there not being "much of argument" to be made for Bush or Conservatives in general.
Oh, and don't forget you last line about trying to dismiss the majority of Conservatives as "fanatical diehards" who don't use reason.

Yep - no elitism in that post at all.:roll:

One could also make the same claims about liberals too.

I think a reasonable hypothesis for a shift would be that a lot of liberals have shown up because they think the WAR supports their positions. Before the WAR, a reasonable- albeit still weak - argument could be made that Saddam was contained and had given up his WMDs and had destroyed them per his agreement. Now that some WMDs have been found the liberals try to excuse it as "left-overs" and "random". You still have some guerrilla fighters like <insert liberal poster here> who just makes nonsensical posts and rarely states his stance - just tries to question everyone else. Then you have infohawk who doesn't ever post anything of substance - just whines and bleats about nonsensical "reasoning"(not that "reason" or "logic" are his strong suit). I've run into a couple reasonable liberal posters, but that's it. The way things currently are there just isn't much of an argument you could make for kerry or liberals generally. Basically, since we have found WMDs in Iraq - it doesn't surprise me that the liberals dismiss the finds - they have to dismiss it since they have claimed Saddam had destroyed them or never possessed them. As it is, they(liberals) have no leg to stand on and the majority of liberals here are fanatical diehards who just hate Bush and don't see logic as something to to be embraced- as emotions and feelings are what is to be heeded.

That was fun wasn't it? Just a bunch of rhetoric - just like yours.

CkG

edit - to make one thing more "generic"
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
This is just my oppinion, but the liberals on this board don't listen to anything that contradicts their current beliefs. They are like teenagers. They think they know it all and refuse to listen to anyone who tells them different. If you try to take a position different, they will call you names and try to discredit you.

You do realize, don't you, that, imo, you've just described the conservatives on this board.

Care to match examples?

Not really. I haven't been looking at these boards much lately so I wouldn't have many examples anymore. If you want to list some examples, I'll be more than happy to read them. Am am interested in how you can say that about the conservatives on there since there are only like 3 that I know of. If I have some free time, I'll maybe post a few examples.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Gaard
This is just my oppinion, but the liberals on this board don't listen to anything that contradicts their current beliefs. They are like teenagers. They think they know it all and refuse to listen to anyone who tells them different. If you try to take a position different, they will call you names and try to discredit you.

You do realize, don't you, that, imo, you've just described the conservatives on this board.

Care to match examples?

Not really. I haven't been looking at these boards much lately so I wouldn't have many examples anymore. If you want to list some examples, I'll be more than happy to read them. Am am interested in how you can say that about the conservatives on there since there are only like 3 that I know of. If I have some free time, I'll maybe post a few examples.


Ok, when/if you want to compare notes just let me know. In the meantime, you might want to take a look at anything by heartsurgeon, Passions, Riprorin, and to an extent Crimson. ;)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Gaard
This is just my oppinion, but the liberals on this board don't listen to anything that contradicts their current beliefs. They are like teenagers. They think they know it all and refuse to listen to anyone who tells them different. If you try to take a position different, they will call you names and try to discredit you.

You do realize, don't you, that, imo, you've just described the conservatives on this board.

Care to match examples?

Not really. I haven't been looking at these boards much lately so I wouldn't have many examples anymore. If you want to list some examples, I'll be more than happy to read them. Am am interested in how you can say that about the conservatives on there since there are only like 3 that I know of. If I have some free time, I'll maybe post a few examples.


Ok, when/if you want to compare notes just let me know. In the meantime, you might want to take a look at anything by heartsurgeon, Passions, Riprorin, and to an extent Crimson. ;)

Bowfinger, Perknose, Infohawk, and to an extent DealMonkey;)

Next on your list?:D

CkG
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
"nonsensical "reasoning"
I'm sorry you think reasoning in nonsensical. By definition, it isn't.

"Yep - no elitism in that post at all."
I'm glad you agree now.

Your edited statement about liberals is not inconsistent with my hypothesis. I actually agree with you to a point. People tend to post more when events reinforce their beliefs and less when their beliefs are challenged. Most people don't like to be wrong. So you could be right that more liberals are posting now. And that doesn't mean my hypothesis, which is only a hypothesis (read up on the scientific method if you don't know what that is since you seem to think reasoning is nonsensical) is flawed.

(For fun, I predict one or two "posts until bleat" (PUBs).)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
stand-off?

;)

I got more - do you?;)

Info - if you want to play the rhetoric game - lets get it on. Also, I never said reasoning is nonsensical - you might want to study and learn about reading comprehension before continuing- lest you be shown the fool again;)

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Gaard
stand-off?

;)

I got more - do you?;)

Info - if you want to play the rhetoric game - lets get it on. Also, I never said reasoning is nonsensical - you might want to study and learn about reading comprehension before continuing- lest you be shown the fool again;)

CkG


Oh I gots more. :)
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Wow, this poll has it as a Landslide for Kerry.

Interesting to see the HUGE turnaround in here in just 5 months time.

God, if we could only manage to knock the Brainwashers off the air of Rush, Hannity and the rest like so many have donned Tin Foil Hats in here against CAD &amp; Co's Brainwashing waves. :thumbsup:
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Infohawk
I think a reasonable hypothesis for a shift would be that a lot of neoconservatives have withdrawn due to the lack of facts that could reasonably support their positions. Before the war, a reasonable --albeit still weak-- argument could be made that Iraq was a threat to the US, for example. Now that the WMDs are nowhere to be found, most neoconservatives have retreated. You still have some guerilla fighters like "heartsurgeon" who just make nonsensical posts and rarely defend themselves when challenged. Then you have CADkindaGUY who doesn't usually make any arguments, instead he relies on personal attacks and overabundant levels of sarcasm (just another form of agression). I've run into a couple reasonable conservative posters, but that's it. The way things currently are there just isn't much of argument you could make for Bush or conservatives generally. Basically, if we had found WMDs you'd see far more conservatives posting I think (if it's true they used to be here). As it is, they have no leg to stand on and the majority of conservatives here are fanatical diehards who don't see reason as predicate to posting.

Yep, and there we have the old "I'm smarter and more educated" argument folks.:) I knew we would see a blantant elitist post sooner or later;)
And some people wonder why people are labeled "elitists" - just take a look and how they present themselves and supposed "arguements".

CkG
No, we don't. I'd suggest you work on your own reading skills before you accuse others of comprehension problems.

The point is the Bush fan-boys lack facts to support their positions. Things are simply not going their way right now. There are two ways to address this. Rational Bush supporters will respond by withdrawing from the debate. (Charrison may be an example of this.) They cannot make well-reasoned arguments based on the information available, so they say nothing. They may be biding their time, waiting for new facts, or they may be reconsidering their support.

Irrational Bush supporters do not let the lack of supporting information deter them. They charge in swinging, again and again, hoping to either shout down their opposition or divert the discussion with red herrings and straw men.

For example, several have noted the Bushies no longer try to support their boy in D.C. They mostly attack others. Their response when someone points this out? More attacks. If they have valid, well-considered reasons for supporting Bush, they hide them well.


Contrary to Sir Cad's perverse twist on this, there is no elitism involved. It's simply an observation that the Bushies cannot defend their guy. Over the last few months, the closest they've come is one old artillery shell. When we've pointed out that this find is to be expected, that we never claimed Iraq had zero WMDs, that one shell does not come close to the Bush administration claims about Iraq's WMDs, that even the Bush administration and experts like David Kay downplay the significance of the find, they ignore these inconvenient facts. Instead, they keep bleating the same disinformation and diversions.

Also contrary to the Bushies' claims, this is NOT a liberal vs. conservative issue. It is certainly not a Bush vs. anti-American / anti-troops / Saddam-lover / whatever issue. People from both ends of the political spectrum have come to realize Bush misrepresented the Iraqi situation to lead us into war. It is not only possible, but quite common to oppose Bush while still supporting America and our troops. The constant slurs based solely on someone's criticism of Bush are another sign of their weak position.

Simply put, the facts are not on Bush's side. Some Bushies have accepted this and moved on. Others bury their heads and try to deny reality. The shifting balance here reflects this.
 

Thegonagle

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2000
9,773
0
71
Each time such a poll is posted here, it leans more and more heavily against Bush. This also reflects other polls from other, more mainstream sources. The Bushites thought the American public was stupid, but after 3 1/2 years, America is waking up faster than they (or I, for that matter) ever expected.
 

Macro2

Diamond Member
May 20, 2000
4,874
0
0
Whenever there is a war the drafte age kids never vote for the Incumbant.

(Even though there is no draft, yet)
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: Thegonagle
Each time such a poll is posted here, it leans more and more heavily against Bush. This also reflects other polls from other, more mainstream sources. The Bushites thought the American public was stupid, but after 3 1/2 years, America is waking up faster than they (or I, for that matter) ever expected.

perhaps, but demos have a bad habit of not actually voting. the repubs don't have a real majority at all, just more likely voters.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,870
10,661
147
Originally posted by: rickn
If Bush was running against himself, i'd still vote for the other one.
If Bush were running against himself, the attack ads would be hilarious!
 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
The real reason is that Conservatives are just sitting back laughing at your antics. Its sortof like the monkey cage at the zoo when somebody tosses in a bunch of bananas. Most of us don't post much because we don't want to take the chance of upsetting the delicate balance of things and risk ruining the most excellent show you all put on so regularly. Every now and again though things will start to settle down and get boring so we'll step up briefly and give your cage a good rattling in order to get the show going again. Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
All we want is a debate, and so far conservatives have not brought any substantial arguments to the table. For example, take CAD's post, where he actually manages to address the subject at hand for once.

I think a reasonable hypothesis for a shift would be that a lot of liberals have shown up because they think the WAR supports their positions. Before the WAR, a reasonable- albeit still weak - argument could be made that Saddam was contained and had given up his WMDs and had destroyed them per his agreement. Now that some WMDs have been found the liberals try to excuse it as "left-overs" and "random". You still have some guerrilla fighters like <insert liberal poster here> who just makes nonsensical posts and rarely states his stance - just tries to question everyone else. Then you have infohawk who doesn't ever post anything of substance - just whines and bleats about nonsensical "reasoning"(not that "reason" or "logic" are his strong suit). I've run into a couple reasonable liberal posters, but that's it. The way things currently are there just isn't much of an argument you could make for kerry or liberals generally. Basically, since we have found WMDs in Iraq - it doesn't surprise me that the liberals dismiss the finds - they have to dismiss it since they have claimed Saddam had destroyed them or never possessed them. As it is, they(liberals) have no leg to stand on and the majority of liberals here are fanatical diehards who just hate Bush and don't see logic as something to to be embraced- as emotions and feelings are what is to be heeded.

Bowfinger, quickly dismissed this WEAK argument with the following.

Contrary to Sir Cad's perverse twist on this, there is no elitism involved. It's simply an observation that the Bushies cannot defend their guy. Over the last few months, the closest they've come is one old artillery shell. When we've pointed out that this find is to be expected, that we never claimed Iraq had zero WMDs, that one shell does not come close to the Bush administration claims about Iraq's WMDs, that even the Bush administration and experts like David Kay downplay the significance of the find, they ignore these inconvenient facts. Instead, they keep bleating the same disinformation and diversions.

That is why conservatives cannot debate on the Iraq issue. They have absolutely nothing to stand on. Look at CAD pathetic attempt at an argument, shot down immediately by Bowfinger. CAD knows that any sort of argument he will make will get shot down in a similar manner, so he'd rather save himself the embarassment and charge people of elitism and other ridiculous things while completely AVOIDING the subject at hand. It's a downright fallacy to claim one old artillery shell as a WMD, hell there are people in the US with more weapons than Sadamm in their backyards.