Its on the INTERNET! THIS IS GROUNDBREAKING EARTHSHATTERING NEWS. Smell the roses slotherbrain. Bush was elected by popular vote. Don't curse him for getting elected, curse the people who voted for him. THEY are the ones you should blame if you have a problem.

Actually, nitrus, Bush wasn't elected by popular vote, Gore was.

Bush, *ahem*, won the electoral vote. Before you insult others you might want to get your own facts straight.

OWNED BY THE DRAMAQUEEN HIMSELF!

Hmmm....

Drama

Check July 12s entry. Apparantly a disclaimer at the beginning is all it takes to negate the drama. If only I had known...

Heh, Shut up Nitrus :P You're causing a riot with all this drama ;)

um... yeah. Things are starting to look familiar. Like this has all happened before... If you don't agree with what someone posts, there's really no need to insult them or call them names. Just shake your head, maybe even giggle about what they said and go on with your life. It's really not that hard. Or you could remind yourself not to read that persons journal in the future. That would also be a good way to handle it I think. In short, let's not have this escalate to the same level as things got to in the not so distant past. I think we all know what I'm talking about...

I don't know whether this is true or not, and really I don't care.

It's not as if the Bush's retro-planned to make money off Hitler.

Dumbface.

Bush doesn't want to suspend the election. Tom Ridge asked the question, and it was a valid question. If terrorists were to attack a large metropolitan area on election day, what would we do? Would we disenfranchise the citizens of that community, or postpone their vote? Either way, someone would accuse Bush of "fixing" the election. By asking the question now, Ridge is allowing the country to voice their opinions. I guess some situations are win/win for people who hate Bush.

"Its on the INTERNET! THIS IS GROUNDBREAKING EARTHSHATTERING NEWS. Smell the roses slotherbrain. Bush was elected by popular vote. Don't curse him for getting elected, curse the people who voted for him. THEY are the ones you should blame if you have a problem."

-Nitrus

First, in this country presidents are elected by the electoral college, not by popular vote.

Second, Bush lost the popular vote. Gore won it.

Third, Check the first source- they are associated press articles. The New York Times is also on the internet. Simply being posted on a web site does not negate the validity of a news source.

Take a civics course, read a newspaper, study a bit. Oh, and try not to employ fallacious arguments. Ad Hominem attacks rarely get you anywhere.

I think we're not looking at this picture from the right angle. I'll agree that Bush was elected fairly by the standards that we have used since the birth of the Constitution. Hell, my parents voted for him. Here's the solution to our problems: DON'T VOTE!! I'm not voting in this next election, and I think it can best be explained by Mr. Paul Hein. I will not pledge myself to either Mr. Bush nor Mr Kerry. Although Bush is probably the more dangerous of the two, Kerry still doesn't want us out of Iraq. He won't bring the soldiers home. They all love war, and I hate war, so why should I vote at all?

that article offers an interesting view. I disagree vociferously, but find it interesting. Thanks for linking to it.

Geez, Nate. If all you had was $5 words I would have gladly broken them for you.

You are employed by the phallus of an advertising hawk...that can't be right, can it?

Don't worry, I still love you.

Was it really Ad Hominem?

"Its on the INTERNET! THIS IS GROUNDBREAKING EARTHSHATTERING NEWS"<---(Dicto simpliciter- speaking simply, a sweeping generalization)
"Smell the roses slotherbrain."<--- maybe a mixed metaphor? This is your best bet at ad-hominum. It's more likely just an insult. To be ad-hominum he would have to try to draw a conclusion from this statement. Such as"You are a slotherbrain, therefore your facts don't matter". he does not do this.
"Bush was elected by popular vote. Don't curse him for getting elected, curse the people who voted for him. THEY are the ones you should blame if you have a problem."<--- These statements are just stupid.

Which part do you dissagree with? The part about how you shouldn't vote or the part about how not voting still gives you the right to complain?

In all fairness, I thought I would show Nitrus how he should have argued the original post.
"So, our current president- the corporate fascist traitor- is incredibly wealthy."

This is a complex statement. Similar to a complex question.You nest an assumtion inside 2 verifiable facts. You make no attempt at proving the current president is a corporate fascist traitor.

"His family money has bought him everything he ever wanted. Up to and including the presidency."
dicto simpliciter(sweeping statement)Followed by Post hoc ergo propter hoc(after this, therefore because of this) He didn't "Buy the presidency". He bought advertising. He campaigned. Thes things are not wrong, or illegal.

This is the fellow that wants the power to suspend national elections (can you say: "dictator for life"?).
The straw man argument. ( I state the reasons for this in an earlier post)

So, where did all that scratch come from?

Try Nazi Germany. That's right, the Bush fortune was made by being Hitler's bankers.

Surely not the entire fortune.


Feel free to rip out my intestines and eat them you psychic vampire!

Archie my boy,

First, he does draw the conclusion that my argument is useless because I am a "slotherbrain." That conclusion was implicit in his post.

Next, I wasn't arguing that W was a corporate fascist traitor, so I didn't need proof. I was simply labelling him such as a means of identifying him.

My statement that the Bush fortune was used to purchase the presidency was not a use of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. I did not assume this fact- if you would like to see the supporting argument for that premise I would be happy to provide it. Still

Also, this is not a straw man argument. The Bush administration has suggested implementing a plan to suspend elections (an unprecendented development). Had I said: George W Bush wants to make himself dictator of the North American continent that would be a straw man.

And no, not the entire fortune. Just the seeds of it.

Of course, the post in question was not an argument (philosophical or otherwise). It was merely a pointer to some interesting information. If you would like me to craft an argument I'd be happy to do so.

Slotherbrain.

"Smell the roses slotherbrain" was a seperate and complete thought. he was simply labelling you such as a means of identifying you.;) as for your post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Yes I want you to provide proof! I didn't say your conclusion was wrong. The fact that you did not provide the neccesary support is what caused the fallacy. The straw man fallacy is valid. You did not say "the Bush administration. You said Bush himself wanted to suspend elections. Tom Ridge is the man that actually asked the question. And it was just a question. He did not argue for it. He asked if there was a plan. Big difference.