Was the US better off before or after George W Bush?

[I Saw OJ]

Jesse Ventura needs to get rid of that stupid mullet thing.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I don't believe for a second the world ends on 12/21/12. I have Zero DEBT . NOT 1 penny. Well see what happens here.

The month of june approaches. that leaves 2 1/2 years to 12/21/12. Soon we can put all BS to rest .

Then what was this supposed to mean?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: jonks
How bout some data?

Satisified with direction of the country:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166...eral-Mood-Country.aspx

Consumer confidence:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...r-Views-Economy.aspx#3

Consumer views on economy:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...r-Views-Economy.aspx#4

argumentum ad populum

Ah, so if a much larger percentage of the total populace thinks things are MORE fvcked up now than when Bush first took office, that's a meaningless statistic in determining whether things are in fact more fvcked up. But if YOU think things are LESS fvcked up now than when Bush first took office, then it must be true.

Have I got that right?

LOL... are you seriously going to argue that a logical fallacy is actually not a logical fallacy?

Um, yes?

If someone asks a subjective question then subjective evidence is completely valid. There is no proving whether something is "better off" or not. It's opinion. Citing opinion polls as evidence of what popular opinion is, is not a logical fallacy.

Agumentum ad Populum is a logical fallacy when one wishes to prove the truth of something and cites popular opinion as proof of truth. If 99 out of 100 people think OJ killed nicole, that doesn't make it true. But if 99 out of 100 people polled think OJ was a great football player, then that's strong evidence for his being a "great" football player, since it's entirely subjective.

wiki:
Exceptions
Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: jonks
How bout some data?

Satisified with direction of the country:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166...eral-Mood-Country.aspx

Consumer confidence:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...r-Views-Economy.aspx#3

Consumer views on economy:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...r-Views-Economy.aspx#4

argumentum ad populum

Ah, so if a much larger percentage of the total populace thinks things are MORE fvcked up now than when Bush first took office, that's a meaningless statistic in determining whether things are in fact more fvcked up. But if YOU think things are LESS fvcked up now than when Bush first took office, then it must be true.

Have I got that right?

LOL... are you seriously going to argue that a logical fallacy is actually not a logical fallacy?

Um, yes?

If someone asks a subjective question then subjective evidence is completely valid. There is no proving whether something is "better off" or not. It's opinion. Citing opinion polls as evidence of what popular opinion is, is not a logical fallacy.

Agumentum ad Populum is a logical fallacy when one wishes to prove the truth of something and cites popular opinion as proof of truth. If 99 out of 100 people think OJ killed nicole, that doesn't make it true. But if 99 out of 100 people polled think OJ was a great football player, then that's strong evidence for his being a "great" football player, since it's entirely subjective.

wiki:
Exceptions
Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true.

Please... we both know the worth of subjective evidence. Even the quote from wikipedia states "[it] only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true." In other words, "so what?" Most Americans elected and re-elected Bush. Would that support the idea that he was a good President? Of course not.

Ironically, I agree with you (IIRC - I don't feel like hiking through the thread ATM), but it seemed like you were using those numbers to make some sort of case. Perhaps I misinterpreted your intent.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I don't believe for a second the world ends on 12/21/12. I have Zero DEBT . NOT 1 penny. Well see what happens here.

The month of june approaches. that leaves 2 1/2 years to 12/21/12. Soon we can put all BS to rest .

Then what was this supposed to mean?

It means that Nemesis is still off his meds.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Looks around for nearest reservation to get way from such insanity. Now Obama takes us deeper into Afganestan. You speak with forked tongue. No troops home from Iraq as promised befor election . So far the Guy has lied about everthing.

The month of june approaches. that leaves 2 1/2 years to 12/21/12. Soon we can put all BS to rest . Awake to trueth. Its an ugly trueth tho. So far Obama has NOT done right thing.

This thread is not about Mr Obama. I even put that in the OP. Why do you need to change the thread's subject to Mr Obama?

And this nonsense is getting old. We know: you don't want to talk about Obama. You're SO concerned over the "integrity" of the thread, though you only to post in it to remind us that this is about Bush. Blah blah blah. The discussion evolved. Deal with it.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Looks around for nearest reservation to get way from such insanity. Now Obama takes us deeper into Afganestan. You speak with forked tongue. No troops home from Iraq as promised befor election . So far the Guy has lied about everthing.

The month of june approaches. that leaves 2 1/2 years to 12/21/12. Soon we can put all BS to rest . Awake to trueth. Its an ugly trueth tho. So far Obama has NOT done right thing.

This thread is not about Mr Obama. I even put that in the OP. Why do you need to change the thread's subject to Mr Obama?

And this nonsense is getting old. We know: you don't want to talk about Obama. You're SO concerned over the "integrity" of the thread, though you only to post in it to remind us that this is about Bush. Blah blah blah. The discussion evolved. Deal with it.

There are lots of threads on this forum concerning Mr Obama. And there is no reason why you can't start another one. The only reason I can see for the multiple attempts to change the subject from the thread's OP is an effort of diversion.

As I stated before, I started this thread to get an idea of how many people thought that the US was in better shape before or after Mr Bush's presidency and why. If I wanted to discuss Mr Obama I would have made that the subject of the OP.

Why do you need to divert this thread onto Mr Obama?

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Looks around for nearest reservation to get way from such insanity. Now Obama takes us deeper into Afganestan. You speak with forked tongue. No troops home from Iraq as promised befor election . So far the Guy has lied about everthing.

The month of june approaches. that leaves 2 1/2 years to 12/21/12. Soon we can put all BS to rest . Awake to trueth. Its an ugly trueth tho. So far Obama has NOT done right thing.

This thread is not about Mr Obama. I even put that in the OP. Why do you need to change the thread's subject to Mr Obama?

And this nonsense is getting old. We know: you don't want to talk about Obama. You're SO concerned over the "integrity" of the thread, though you only to post in it to remind us that this is about Bush. Blah blah blah. The discussion evolved. Deal with it.

There are lots of threads on this forum concerning Mr Obama. And there is no reason why you can't start another one. The only reason I can see for the multiple attempts to change the subject from the thread's OP is an effort of diversion.

As I stated before, I started this thread to get an idea of how many people thought that the US was in better shape before or after Mr Bush's presidency and why. If I wanted to discuss Mr Obama I would have made that the subject of the OP.

Why do you need to divert this thread onto Mr Obama?

Like I said, you only show up to play thread-cop, so it's not like you are really interested in the conversation. After ~160 replies, I'm sure you have whatever information/opinion you were looking for. I've explained countless times why Obama's name would naturally arise, but you're not interested in that... you're only interested in squealing whenever the Bush-bashing eases.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: jonks
How bout some data?

Satisified with direction of the country:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166...eral-Mood-Country.aspx

Consumer confidence:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...r-Views-Economy.aspx#3

Consumer views on economy:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...r-Views-Economy.aspx#4

argumentum ad populum

Ah, so if a much larger percentage of the total populace thinks things are MORE fvcked up now than when Bush first took office, that's a meaningless statistic in determining whether things are in fact more fvcked up. But if YOU think things are LESS fvcked up now than when Bush first took office, then it must be true.

Have I got that right?

LOL... are you seriously going to argue that a logical fallacy is actually not a logical fallacy?

Um, yes?

If someone asks a subjective question then subjective evidence is completely valid. There is no proving whether something is "better off" or not. It's opinion. Citing opinion polls as evidence of what popular opinion is, is not a logical fallacy.

Agumentum ad Populum is a logical fallacy when one wishes to prove the truth of something and cites popular opinion as proof of truth. If 99 out of 100 people think OJ killed nicole, that doesn't make it true. But if 99 out of 100 people polled think OJ was a great football player, then that's strong evidence for his being a "great" football player, since it's entirely subjective.

wiki:
Exceptions
Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true.

Please... we both know the worth of subjective evidence. Even the quote from wikipedia states "[it] only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true." In other words, "so what?" Most Americans elected and re-elected Bush. Would that support the idea that he was a good President? Of course not.

Ironically, I agree with you (IIRC - I don't feel like hiking through the thread ATM), but it seemed like you were using those numbers to make some sort of case. Perhaps I misinterpreted your intent.

Then I'll call truce, with one small caveat. Most (voting) americans did not elect Bush, he lost the popular vote. heh.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: jonks
How bout some data?

Satisified with direction of the country:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166...eral-Mood-Country.aspx

Consumer confidence:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...r-Views-Economy.aspx#3

Consumer views on economy:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...r-Views-Economy.aspx#4

argumentum ad populum

Ah, so if a much larger percentage of the total populace thinks things are MORE fvcked up now than when Bush first took office, that's a meaningless statistic in determining whether things are in fact more fvcked up. But if YOU think things are LESS fvcked up now than when Bush first took office, then it must be true.

Have I got that right?

LOL... are you seriously going to argue that a logical fallacy is actually not a logical fallacy?

Um, yes?

If someone asks a subjective question then subjective evidence is completely valid. There is no proving whether something is "better off" or not. It's opinion. Citing opinion polls as evidence of what popular opinion is, is not a logical fallacy.

Agumentum ad Populum is a logical fallacy when one wishes to prove the truth of something and cites popular opinion as proof of truth. If 99 out of 100 people think OJ killed nicole, that doesn't make it true. But if 99 out of 100 people polled think OJ was a great football player, then that's strong evidence for his being a "great" football player, since it's entirely subjective.

wiki:
Exceptions
Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true.

Please... we both know the worth of subjective evidence. Even the quote from wikipedia states "[it] only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true." In other words, "so what?" Most Americans elected and re-elected Bush. Would that support the idea that he was a good President? Of course not.

Ironically, I agree with you (IIRC - I don't feel like hiking through the thread ATM), but it seemed like you were using those numbers to make some sort of case. Perhaps I misinterpreted your intent.

Then I'll call truce, with one small caveat. Most (voting) americans did not elect Bush, he lost the popular vote. heh.

Meh, ya got me there