George W. Bush's qualifications to be President

quote:

---

Oh dear Mammathus, perhaps you should wait until you are old enough to go to school before you engage in this sort of humiliating display.

---

Yes, it must be humiliating for your ignorance to constantly be paraded on this forum. Your ad hominem again demonstrates you have no case.

quote:

---

Why? You don't.

---

My arguement has been from the beginning that you have no support for your assertions...you have demonstrated my point in every post..or are you now going to provide academic or private funded research that supports your various assertion about racism?

quote:

---

Thats a direct lie, isn't it Mammy's Boy?

---

No it is the truth...must hurt since you can only resort to an insult...you have no case.

quote:

---

Becuase I provided much support for my prior arguments, all of which you dismissed by argument to your own ignorance.

---

where? you have made a constant stream of assertions with no indendent cooborative evidence to back them up and then followed them up with insult and evasion whenever asked to provide evidence...you have no case.

quote:

---

You are a troll

---

For asking you to put up or shut up? It seems that you don't even know what a troll is.

quote:

---

Oh please, the defender of racism argues to prejudices about contries?

---

I don't defend racism except in your perverted asshole mind. However, you show your hypocricy again by admitting you are prejudiced while condemning prejudice...you have no case.

quote:

---

My assesment is based on actual observation, Mammy's Boy -

---

..from the basement you parents lock you in at night?..wow..your amazing insights on America and racism are so well founded

quote:

---

If I believed the common prejudices I would fall for the US's hubristic self-perceptions of liberty.

---

You are not prejudiced but you now claim to know the self-perceptions of the people of entire country?..you are right, you are not prejudiced..you are just a moron.

quote:

---

Well seeing as you leap to ignorant assumptions about my status and experience, you are really just demonstrating your own naivite. But then, you're justa troll-boy, aren't you?

---

And you have failed to refute my assertion following with an ad hominem attack...you have no case....holmes is right, you are the most amusing clown to come along in a long time...

quote:

---

Yes, it must be humiliating for your ignorance to constantly be paraded on this forum. Your ad hominem again demonstrates you have no case.

---

Ha ha ha. Trolls don't want argument, so why should I give you one?

quote:

---

My arguement has been from the beginning that you have no support for your assertions...you have demonstrated my point in every post..or are you now going to provide academic or private funded research that supports your various assertion about racism?

---

I would suggest that if you investigated the topic, that would be easy enough to find. The guardian, for example, regularly prints articles by reserach bodies providing statistical evidence of racism in the UK. Theres plenty of it about - the fact that YOU have chosen to be ignorant is not MY problem, troll boy.

quote:

---

No it is the truth...must hurt since you can only resort to an insult...you have no case.

---

Nope, its still a direct lie.

quote:

---

where? you have made a constant stream of assertions with no indendent cooborative evidence to back them up and then followed them up with insult and evasion whenever asked to provide evidence...you have no case.

---

And what you have done constitutes yelling "NO ITS NOT" with your fingers in your ears. But then, thats what trolls do.

quote:

---

For asking you to put up or shut up? It seems that you don't even know what a troll is.

---

I have explained my position many times - you appear to be asserting that it is invalid for me to hold a position unless I can prove it to you and everyone beyond any doubt. Thats naive and unrealistic; its also a grievously dishonest "debating" tactic. And you have offered not even an explanation of your position - you just asser and assert and assert. Your simply ignorant and using your ignorance as a shield to hind behind. I say again - your ignorance is not my problem, grasshopper. Although you may learn at my knee, if you wish.

quote:

---

I don't defend racism except in your perverted asshole mind.

---

Prove it. Go on, prove it. I mean you wouldn;t want to be a hypocrite now would you? So seeing as you have made this assertion, it is up to you to demonstrate it to me comprehensively and incontrovertibly. And if you do not do so, or if I find your explanation inadewuate, then you will have run away like a chicken. So put up or shut up, troll boy.

quote:

---

However, you show your hypocricy again by admitting you are prejudiced while condemning prejudice...you have no case.

---

Ha ha ha!!!

quote:

---

..from the basement you parents lock you in at night?..wow..your amazing insights on America and racism are so well founded

---

Yet another demonstration of profound ignorance and assumption. Your'e just projecting your own sad life to others I reckon, troll boy.

quote:

---

You are not prejudiced but you now claim to know the self-perceptions of the people of entire country?..you are right, you are not prejudiced..you are just a moron.

---

Thats priceless. Yes, of course anyone who recognised thre racism in Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa is "prejudiced". Thats entirely logical, of course, becuase anyone who criticises what whitey is up to obviously hates white people. It must be true, Mammy's boy said so from his mommy's basement.

quote:

---

And you have failed to refute my assertion following with an ad hominem attack

---

Ha ha... I gave an ad hominem in return. Again, I am not responsible for your derisory powers of logic.

quote:

---

Ha ha ha. Trolls don't want argument, so why should I give you one?

---

Trolls evade..thus you fit the definition....you seem to be extremely mentally unstable...maybe that is why you have ha ha ha so often in your stream of consciousness reply to my post. But at least you admit you have provided no argument.

quote:

---

I would suggest that if you investigated the topic, that would be easy enough to find. The guardian, for example, regularly prints articles by reserach bodies providing statistical evidence of racism in the UK. Theres plenty of it about - the fact that YOU have chosen to be ignorant is not MY problem, troll boy.

---

Aha..so your sole basis for claiming that the jokes in the joke thread that started your sustained diatribes and lead you to claim that many of the participants at EvC are racists is based on newspaper polls from the UK? No wonder you have not been able to give a coherent response to any request for supporting evidence...certainly not an actual study. Also, what do statistics on racism on the UK have to do with your assertions of racism on this site? And you accuse me of faulty logic? What color is the sky on the planet you live on?

quote:

---

Nope, its still a direct lie.

---

You have not demonstrated it however.

quote:

---

And what you have done constitutes yelling "NO ITS NOT" with your fingers in your ears. But then, thats what trolls do.

---

I don't have to put my fingers in my ears. Point to any post in any thread where you have contributed where you have made a substantive and supported response to a question or criticism. Since you won't find any, there is nothing for me to avoid hearing by putting my fingers in my ears.

quote:

---

I have explained my position many times - you appear to be asserting that it is invalid for me to hold a position unless I can prove it to you and everyone beyond any doubt.

---

When you claim that people are racist or that their behavior has a direct link to violence against others it is not unexpected that evidence will be asked for. You refuse to provide it and it is completely apparent that you cannot support your assertions. Your claim is akin to a creationist saying they can teach Genesis in school as a replacement for evolution even if they have no evidence. You don't seem to accept that of creationists when you post yet you expect that it be accepted of your prejudices.Compare your behavior with someone like Rrhain who when asked to support his arguements (or even when not asked) belts out statistics, references, links, to support his case which can then be discussed by the participants.

quote:

---

Thats naive and unrealistic; its also a grievously dishonest "debating" tactic.

---

Nope, making statements against other people, races (don't forget your Uncle Tom comments), or countries that you cannot defend is a dishonest "debating" tactic...in fact your whole post 47 is a debacle.

quote:

---

you just asser and assert and assert

---

You are projecting.

quote:

---

Your simply ignorant and using your ignorance as a shield to hind behind.

---

I ask questions or ask for evidence for your assertions...you insult and evade...I insult back..wash-rinse-repeat..fun, no?

quote:

---

your ignorance is not my problem, grasshopper. Although you may learn at my knee, if you wish.

---

Actually, that was the point of my asking you for supporting evidence for your assertions, accusations, and characterizations of racism and its consequences...your responses have demonstrated you have nothing to teach but rather cling to your position than admit that it is based on your own racism, sexism, and prejudice. Nobody is just going to take "your" word for it that your opinions are fact.

quote:

---

Prove it. Go on, prove it. I mean you wouldn;t want to be a hypocrite now would you? So seeing as you have made this assertion, it is up to you to demonstrate it to me comprehensively and incontrovertibly. And if you do not do so, or if I find your explanation inadewuate, then you will have run away like a chicken. So put up or shut up, troll boy.

---

You mean I have to prove a negative i.e. that I am not racist whereas I asked you to support (not even prove just show independent evidence) your assertions?...seems that you have a serious problem with logic.

quote:

---

Ha ha ha!!!

---

The most coherent part of your post.

quote:

---

Yet another demonstration of profound ignorance and assumption. Your'e just projecting your own sad life to others I reckon, troll boy.

---

Then enlighten me...what great world wide experiences do you have other than reading the Guardian and other UK magazines? Have you ever lived abroad? Learned any other languages? Spent time living in another culture? Read any anthropological or sociological studies on different ethnic or religious groups? You seem so profoundly disinterested in knowing but fond of asserting that it would be surprising if you answer in the affirmative to any of the questions..no wait, you won't answer..you will just evade.

quote:

---

Thats priceless. Yes, of course anyone who recognised thre racism in Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa is "prejudiced". Thats entirely logical, of course, becuase anyone who criticises what whitey is up to obviously hates white people.

---

Nice incoherence....so recognizing the racist politics and policies of Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa is because of fear of a conspiracy against white people?...also does not address anything that I was referring to...so evasion yet again.

quote:

---

It must be true, Mammy's boy said so from his mommy's basement.

---

What you lack in intelligence you also lack in originality...you even have to copy my insults...c'mon...make up your own...

quote:

---

Ha ha... I gave an ad hominem in return. Again, I am not responsible for your derisory powers of logic.

---

Don't laugh too loud or the villagers won't feed you under the bridge at night...only surly trolls get fed at night.Given the utter incoherence of your arguments with me and everyone else in the threads in which you participate..you seem to be about as responsible as people who are in nice padded cells wearing comfortable jackets with chains to keep them from hurting themselves...run along and chew your shoe...ha ha ha ha ha ha...stealing peoples lines is fun

Wow, that must be convenient. You make assertions and do nothing that might actually interfere with them.By total coincidence I saw a great quote today that fits this very situation."In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is." Whew, that sure was easy.... to say. That doesn't change the fact that you are making a classic error. And now you are compounding it with a logical fallacy. No, you have NONE. Even according to the article it showed that he admitted he was wrong. He not only falsely accused the falsely accused... HE WENT ON to accuse people that weren't even initially charged!Buddy, the guy APOLOGIZED! It may be true that people are bringing it up again to highlight one of his poor performances (and his hypocrisy at pointing fingers at others for lying) but that does not mean he didn't do what he did.And I will repeat, that was just his most notorious incident. There were other embarassments as well.You clearly no nothing, and wish to remain that way. Okeydoke. I think he has been during this election cycle. I think you may notice... if you take in evidence... that I have already praised his recent activities.That does not mean he is not susceptible to his failings. He is, and he has shown them from time to time. When in a pinch he uses the race issue to separate himself from any opponent. Even when it is unfair to do so.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, it is YOU who have already admitted you have not. And apparently aren't up on reading my argument.My point was NOT that there were blacks against him, but that there were blacks against him within the liberal side. The guy portrays those who don't agree with him as being against blacks. Isn't that just a little like Bush and Co portraying anyone that doesn't agree with his policies as being anti-American? Because it's egomaniacal. Remember he is Jesus, and those who oppose him are Judas. That is pretty ridiculous... don't you think?After all Bush is already posing for that position and you think THAT's ridiculous, right? That's some pretty old coffee you got in the pot. Maybe you should try a newer brand. In fact maybe you should get out of your house and go to the store to actually see all the different kinds of coffee that is out there.Oh yeah, you have every reason to believe there are no such things as coffeee "blends", and if there are that they are no better than the original brand you bought, and so you don't need to. You can't be talking to me as I was the one that brought up Sharpton in the first place to give him credit for his actions during this election cycle. Well BEYOND that it was really quite funny. When asked about his egomania, he uses an apt description of an egomaniac to describe himself... and that was his defense? Man that's funny.By the way, when a person destroys their own character, isn't that character suicide? No one put those words in his mouth right? Or am I NOT supposed to believe your link? It has to do with whether his choice of which side to "believe" was racially motivated. Remember the girl was not on trial so you can't appeal to a jury about to put her away.I mean damnit why the F am I having to explain that this was WRONG? Due process WAS happening. At the time he was an ambulance chaser and a self-promoting provocateur. If conditions had been reversed he WOULD have been on the opposite side just to make his name on the race issue!The evidence has come out, the jury is in, the fair jury and thankfully he was shown to be a two bit phony and he has apologized! The fact that he tries to spin it with a few "Shouldn't I believe a GIRL?" and "But THEY have done worse!" shouldn't be able to mask the underlying stench. Did you move your eyeballs around the page enough to pick up that he started a conspiracy theory so as to rope in people that had no connection to the original "alleged" crime? That he did this just to blackmail or defame totally innocent people, even if the original crime HAD been commited?He states that the reason he did THAT, which resulted in a lot of bad for real people even before the trial, and would have resulted in a jury finding innocent people guilty, was because he cares about the fact that juries have found innocent people guilty.If you cannot spot the hypocrisy in the above then I simply have no use talking to you. Keep sleepwalking through this life.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Any thoughts on how Kerry/Bush debates are going to go? What the debates would need is a moderator that forces true debate, rather than exchanges of pre-canned statements.

---

I vote for John Stewart.

As much as I like his show, John Stewart is not exactly unbiased. The guy ran down Dean way too much during the Dem primaries, and is not even willing to touch the Israeli issue in a real way.I say go for Bill Maher, or Al Franken.Actually (to move away from comedians) I wouldn't mind Brian Lamb from C-Span.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Bill Maher in a Politically Incorrect format would be great. Imagine, Kerry and Edwards versus Bush and Cheney with Maher presiding.....by the end people would probably prefer Maher over all the candidates..

quote:

---

Yes, it is YOU who have already admitted you have not. And apparently aren't up on reading my argument.

---

I meant racism, not Sharptons career. I'm getting deja vu with your non-comprehension of feminism.

quote:

---

My point was NOT that there were blacks against him, but that there were blacks against him within the liberal side.

---

I'm sure people disagree with him for any number of reasons. But once again you are demanding I make a total judgement on the basis of one comment. Seeing as I do recognise the existance of collaboration, and also the necessity for criticising it among oppressed populations, I do not fins this remark particularly significant. I do not know, as you seem to allege, that it is meant to encompass all his critics regardless of the criticism. I'm pretty sure Archbishop Tutu has advanced similar arguments.

quote:

---

The guy portrays those who don't agree with him as being against blacks. Isn't that just a little like Bush and Co portraying anyone that doesn't agree with his policies as being anti-American?

---

YOU portray him as portraying anyone who disagrees with him as being against blacks.So lets be clear about something: all *I* said was Dean was deserving of criticism. I did not say Sharpton was a saint. The criticism levelled at Dean has been levelled by other, external, commentators on the American election not least because "centrist" politics appear to be essentially useless as a form of political activity on either side of the atlantic.

quote:

---

I mean damnit why the F am I having to explain that this was WRONG? Due process WAS happening. At the time he was an ambulance chaser and a self-promoting provocateur. If conditions had been reversed he WOULD have been on the opposite side just to make his name on the race issue!

---

Attribution of malicious motive again. Thats character assasination.Ity seems to me is that all you want is confirmation of your assumptions. You assume that there was no racism relevant in this case, you assume therefore that sharpton was a provocateur. It seems to me highly probable that due process would in practice be racist in the US, and that Sharpton was entirely correct to start from that RESONABLE position.Thats exactly what makes hiim credible.

quote:

---

The evidence has come out, the jury is in, the fair jury and thankfully he was shown to be a two bit phony and he has apologized! The fact that he tries to spin it with a few "Shouldn't I believe a GIRL?" and "But THEY have done worse!" shouldn't be able to mask the underlying stench.

---

So you rule out that it was a legitimate and genuine perception on his part, and assert confidently that it was pernicious and that he knew it to be at the time.Now THAT sounds to me like the equivalent of Bushes allegations of anti-americanism: anyone who defends blacks against racism is an ambulance chasing provocateur and a liar.And NONE of this distraction has nothing to do with whether Dean was worthy of criticism. He is, in my eyes, and I'm glad Sharpton was there to do it. I do not thinik Dean should be crticised BECAUSE of Sharptons statement, and so discrediting Sharpton would not make any difference to my view on the matter. Nonetheless it is extremely worrying to see people turning away from the argument about actually existing racism in favour of moral criticism of an individual. It is absurdly arrogant to claim that anger in ablack community exists BECAUSE of this person, that looks to me only to be an attempt to explain away contrary views with a conspiracy theory of how they were "duped" by this "operator".

I think we can agree He'd be better. I would anxiously await every press conference!Hey, and he can make John Stewart White House spokesman.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Wow, that must be convenient. You make assertions and do nothing that might actually interfere with them.

---

Yes, its obviously wholly invalid for me to judge America on its behaviour instead of its rhetoric.

quote:

---

Buddy, the guy APOLOGIZED! It may be true that people are bringing it up again to highlight one of his poor performances (and his hypocrisy at pointing fingers at others for lying) but that does not mean he didn't do what he did.

---

Again... that appears to be a radical interprtation of the "apology" I was able to find. If you want me to draw any conclusions from this alleged apology, you will have to show it. Hearsay counts for shit.

quote:

---

When in a pinch he uses the race issue to separate himself from any opponent. Even when it is unfair to do so.

---

That may or may not be true. It certainly was NOT true in the case of Dean, which is what you initially claimed.

That's funny, you made a total judgement about Dean, mrHambre, and me on the basis of one comment. And you made your initial positive judgement of Sharpton based on one comment of mine... That he is Jesus to those he wishes to represent, and those who disagree with him (or even a portion) are Judas? Archbishop Tutu? No let's be VERY clear. I said Sharpton was really great this election season as compared to his usual performance.Then Hambre mentioned his use of the race card against Dean, and I agreed.Then you, without any real knowledge of the US, Dean, or Sharpton, said that Sharpton's criticism of Dean was correct and my and Hambre's criticism of Sharpton was based on right wing character assassinations.So AT THIS POINT you are now changing your story to say he may NOT have been a saint. Duh Contra, that is what we were saying and knew and why we are not involved in puppeting some damn right wing character assassination pr campaign.That's why I said you shouldn't way in on specific American politicians, until you have some knowledge of the US and specific politicians. Hey contra... you catch how old that case was? You don't know jack about what I assumed at the time. In fact, I thought there might be something and then HE stepped in and I wondered why he was making HIMSELF bigger than the victim. And then I wondered why he was suddenly making the case look like a joke (making accusations that were incredibly ridiculous).Then it all came out. There was no racism to this case unless you want to count blacks making fals accusations against whites and then more accusations against anyone who might defend that first group.There is no ASSUMPTION, those are the FACTS. Which shows why YOU have just about 0 credibility. The reasonable position was to get to the bottom of the evidence, not to get to the top of a media circus. You still don't seem to get what actually occured there, and in some other of his crusades.Can you admit one black man can do wrong? Can you admit one black man who gets in front of a microphone and says he is working for others, might actually be working for his own self-promotion? If you can't then you are lost.If you can, then wrap your head around the HIGHLY LIKELY SCENARIO that whatever he is today, that is how HE started. Put down your theory books for a second and address the facts as we know them today. I cannot say what was in his heart or his perception at the very beginning of his involvement. Indeed I must ASSUME he hoped it would be real and NOT backfire in his face. But I can say pretty damn confidently that by the time he was dragging in all detractors as conspirators, he probably knew he had no case. And it took quite a while AFTER all the facts were out that he would even admit that perhaps he was wrong. THAT would be. But my criticizing Sharpton in specific on a specific number of cases, does not come anywhere close to that.One seems to wonder how you can accuse me of this when I already told you I hold Malcolm X in high regard. And I think you have given ample evidence how much weight your opinion ought to carry on this subject.Thank you, come again. ka-ching!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What behavior? International behavior? Tourists? You have already stated you have had no, and have no interest in gaining, first hand knowledge of teh behavior of Americans in their home country and feel confident listening to Rhetoric (sometimes secondhand) in order to form yoru opinion. Uh, well then what does your commentary count for? Shit.You don't know anything about American politics or politicians EXCEPT through hearsay.And you can't even read my posts correctly! I said that WASN'T the apology. Go back, read my post! I said it wasn't.The one I saw was more to the point, and I even described how it came about. And it certainly was NOT hearsay to me so once again your apologetics for his actions mean less than shit.As it stands you should have been able to glean all you need from that article. Can you not see that he was wrong and was spinning it to seem not AS wrong? Calling your bluff. You show me when and where the accusation was made by Sharpton. You show me that beyond mere theoretical frameworks, Dean was actually discriminating by not putting a black on that council.By the way did he have Native Americans, hispanics, asians, jews, muslims, arabs (nonmuslim), gays, women, bisexuals, transexuals, buddhists, handicapped, elderly etc etc in his cabinet?Could you tell me which he had to have in his cabinet, in order and why, so that he would not be guilty of racism, sexism, agism, etc etc?I mean if I ever run for office I want to know what the theoretical framework for all of my cabinets MUST have so that I wouldn't be racist, sexist, etc etc. Gods forbid that I choose people simply based on who I think would do a good job.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ok, then what about Molly Ivins?I's love to see Al Franken, though.

I had never heard of Ivins before that panel discussion she did with Franken.After watching that and her personal interview with C-Span I think she would be excellent, especially since she keeps things more civil than Franken while laying on just as heavy of blows.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)