Staredit Network

Errr, His morals are right or wrong, Thats for you to judge. That guy could be brilliant and intelligent etc. But if he decided to do something Morically wrong, Then it doesn't change thing. If hes doing the choices morally right or not, Thats for you to judge. I'm only stating that its not a question of intelligence but one of one's morals.

And Dude Chris, Please answer properly and Don't change our words around. I never said I knew him personally.

I haven't changed a person's words around, and I don't intend to. You dodged my question, I was asking you what HIS morals are, not the definition of morals.

Hmm, I believe there is more then four reasons why he shouldn't be president. But the fact of the matter is, the people trust him, or at least did, since he won. I'll give him credit though, at least he hasn't managed to blow all of us up in a nuclear firestorm.

He is a manipulator. He knows how to manipulate people into believing what he want's them to.

and thats a bad thing becuase??? He doesn't force you into believing anything, you were just convinced that his morals/ideas were the better choice. 'you' is just an example and not actually you.

he's right, its "you" who CHOOSES to beleive him, but bush does play a role in convincing people. He makes HIS job sound like the "good guys" and the Iraqi's the bad guys, but if you look at it from their position, bush is actually the bad guy, now isn't he?so it really all depends on how you look at it. I don't know WHY he got in office but what if Kerrey got in office, then what would happen?

by Iraqis I hope you mean terrorists, cause almost all Iraqis are good people, its just the small minority that causes problems...

Lol. Bush certainly hasn't done anything to so much as hinder racism against Arabs.

Hmm... You fail to grasp the word, Manipulate.

Let me use an example from my life:

There was a kid named Jared Gabel (Watch out. He is a narc) and he was friends with all my friends (Except for two. My friend Burke and Tyler) Me, Tyler, Burke, Jared, and another friend named Daniel, used keys to enter our highschool. Well, Jared tried to manipulate Daniel into throwing away the Video Camera and tapes that Jared had stolen, and had given to Dan, because Jared said, "The cops are after us". Luckily, Dan did not listen to him, and kept the evidence of the crime. Then comes about four days later, Dan got arrested for "Breaking into the school".

Then the next thing, Burke gets arrested. Then Tyler. Me and Jared were minors, and they took Jared away for a probation violation (Which is funny because he has 3 felonys on his head, at LEAST 10 probation violations against his head, and he went to Detention for 20 days, and is now in Oregon with NONE of this against him) They tried to get me in to question me, but a lawyer advised me to not say anything until court.

All that stuff happened while our other friend Nathan, even being told by me, Tyler, Dan and Burke, continued to hang out with Jared (Might I add Nathan got a felony for destroying federal property [A mailbox] while hanging out with Jared. Where did Jared's felony go????) regardless of being told by everyone there that he was the narc. Nathan believed Jared because Jared MANIPULATED him into believeing it was Burke and I who narced everyone out, when Nathan, knowing us since we were in the 5th grade, should have known better.


Got it yet? Manipulation does not benefit anyone but the Manipulator.

So I find it funny how you say that Bush being a Manipulator is good.

This is stupid. You blame all these problems on him when the only real debatable "problem" he has caused was entering Afghanistan and Iraq.

NCLB is his problem. So is Katrina's response.

please quote me where I said it was good for bush to be a manipulater....

S.T.A.R.S-Chris, don't argue with him. You did not ever say that, but to him it doesn't matter; if he wants for you to have said something, he will act like you have said it. He is just too wrong too many times to be worth your time (I hope your time has value to you).

Headlines: Bush claims attack was due to message from God.

Have we need anymore reasons to hate him?


Assuming he actually didn't, he did agree on his premises (That he is a manipulator) by saying:

Yes, and then you skipped the rest of his sentence. Absolutely classic!

It was obvious he meant Bush's attempts to get people to agree with his point of view aren't actually bad or manipulation.

Ah, so you mean to tell me that he has two minds? Apparantly, one of them agrees and the other disagrees. Why don't you tell me which one is correct. Either case, it shows he's either lying or he's agreeing.


It was obvious? Tell me, how is it obvious? Simply because you see it from his point of view? Why don't you think about it from my point of view; or even better, think about it from a person who has no idea what's happening's point of view.

Perhaps then you will understand that it's not obvious at all.

First of all, why did you delete the word "aren't" from my quote (I even see the extra space)?

Second, it was obvious because the words "manipulate" and "manipulator" completely contradict his statement.

well, it is bad for US that Bush is manipulating but not for HIM. So it all depends upon THE WAY YOU LOOK AT THINGS. Seriousely, why do you think the terrorist attacked us (yes, i distinguish iraquis and terrorist very much so)? maybe its because their(yes, im asuming, i recognize there is a huge possibility that im wrong, but...)culture says that we are wrong. Or maybe we did something to offend them, which would be much more likely. but, i agree, the biggest mistake was attacking iraq, but the bigger mistake was trying to change their culture to our ways. Isn't that like hittler?

Yeah, I guess I did. I was going to change it to "isn't" because that is the correct way to say it. But I decided to leave it and messed up (but didn't notice). Sorry.

As for your second point, I don't understand how something can be "obvious" if it is contradictory. Care to explain?

First of all, "aren't" was correct. You keep trying to correct me (with your fallacy comments), but you haven't succeeded yet.

Second, it's obvious that he wasn't calling Bush a manipulator because its definition completly contradicts his statement. Stop trying to waste my time.

Once again, you ignore my reasonings.

If his first part agreed that he was a manipulator and his second didn't, which one should I believe?

There's no such thing as a waste of time in discussing. But it is a waste of time if you continue to ignore my arguements.

Lastly, I don't care if you hate the "fallacies". They exist. If you want to prove them wrong, by all means, go ahead. I will be happy you did because that means I was in error. So far, I don't see my error.

Haha.

I'll go back and copy and paste for you. If you don't agree that it's not painfully clear he wasn't calling Bush a manipulator, then you're a liar.

"He is a manipulator. He knows how to manipulate people into believing what he want's them to."

"and thats a bad thing becuase??? He doesn't force you into believing anything, you were just convinced that his morals/ideas were the better choice. 'you' is just an example and not actually you."

That is how it appeared. We all know what he meant.

No. You know what he meant. I don't care what he meant. I take what he has and argue against it. If you think that's wrong, then you should take a debate class.

Its called common sense. If you have a opinion on something, or if your talking to some one you could easily say " Bears eating salmon isn't a bad thing cause they need to eat and survive, but its not a good thing either becuase the salmon trying to live dies" Now thats just the first example the came from my head but thats how I was saying "and thats a bad thing becuase?" statement.

Common sense doesn't exist in debate. It's either you're right or you're not. There are no ties. Well, there are, but in the case of a tie, the defending side (side without burden of proof) wins. So.. there aren't ties.

How about this, just next time, don't screw up.