Blogcritics: Comments on Think About It

Comment by Shark

Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:44:04 EST

remember "Bush the Uniter!" Practically ignited a civil war. (But then again, THAT WAS THE GOAL.)

Comment by shaun

Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:27:02 EST

I agree with JR it is time to give someone else a shot. The " anyone but bush" crowd has a point with the fact that we know bush has done a terrible job, and i cannot remember many leaders in our history that have done quit as bad of a job a Bush has.

Comment by gerrard

Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:57:07 EST

Slightly off topic, but there have been plenty of good on topic responses... "help widen the middle class" Have you considered the fact that lots of Americans would very much like to see an expansion of the middle class even if (especially if?) it impacts the most wealthy?

Comment by JR

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:29:43 EST

Handing over the reigns to a new set of liars doesn't mean it is going to be better. This kind of "guess and check" strategy is flawed. I am not sure how you can defend it. Well if you don't hand over the reins, you KNOW it won't get better. If you vote for the incumbents because you fear the unknown, they take that as an endorsement of the crap they're pulling now. And when their term limits are up, the next group just looks to what "worked" before. The only way to get a change for the better is to... well, change.

Comment by Shark

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:29:25 EST

ERIC: "The system is set up to count votes, so the only way to register your perspective is to vote for the candidate who does that..." One caveat: this was true before 2000. heh.

Comment by Shark

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:26:24 EST

The flawed logic I am talking about is you assuming that because you don't like option X that Y just HAS to be better. What's behind the door? Lady, Tiger, or a nitwit with a keyboard? Craig, just stop, seriously. Teaching Logic 101 is not your strong suit.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:20:02 EST

you saying it's flawed is all opinion. my choice of picking X or Y is closer to "it's can't be worse" than "has to be better". maybe if my political outlook was closer to the center your argument would work...but not for me.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:19:59 EST

The whole point of the post is that I don't know, but some due diligence is in order.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:19:31 EST

I agree that there is a lot of visceral negativity toward Bush that is not necessariy driven by logic, and that a lot of people do have an anyone but Bush mentality, but no more so than a lot of Republicans had toward Clinton. There is always an "anyone but" vote - it's human nature. I don't agree that voting for the candidate who best represents your views - even if you are a voting bloc of one - is illogical, however. The system is set up to count votes, so the only way to register your perspective is to vote for the candidate who does that, even if he/she has no chance of winning. I don't see how voting your conscience can ever be seen as "wasting your vote."

Comment by Ms. Tek

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:18:12 EST

It also doesn't mean that its going to be worse, does it? How can you say it will when you really don't know.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:13:35 EST

The flawed logic I am talking about is you assuming that because you don't like option X that Y just HAS to be better. I understand they are all liars. I understand the lesser of two evils. Handing over the reigns to a new set of liars doesn't mean it is going to be better. This kind of "guess and check" strategy is flawed. I am not sure how you can defend it.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:01:27 EST

I said please consider the options because choosing based on what you don't want is kind of dangerous. ok, that' works: education: i want somebody who will make positive steps toward improving our system of education...instead of creating a lame 'test everybody more' program (oh...and also not fully fund it) environment: i would prefer somebody who will not label an initiative 'clear skies' while simultaneously making easier for industries to pollute ...i could go on but all of this will somehow be declared illogical.

Comment by Ms. Tek

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:54:56 EST

Please kiss my butt now, not the next time. I read your post, and I see exactly where it was going. Sorry you decide to throw a personal insult to say I lack critical thinking skills, but at the same time, I wouldn't expect much more from someone like you. Choosing against something is just as valid as chosing for. It doesn't matter at this junction that everyone on the dem side hasn't quite decided which angle they are going to attack. All of it doesn't matter because they are all LIARS anyway. They say what they want just to get in office just as Bush did. The thing is that we KNOW what Bush has done and will do. We don't want anymore of that. Time to give a new set of liars the reigns and see what their agenda has to prove. It doesn't matter because THEY ARE ALL LIARS, GET IT? And since you want to throw insults. I think you are a nasty poop head. Feel better now?

Comment by Shark

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:49:55 EST

Craig: "As much as you may hate this guy for the things he has done, the only scarier thing than "knowing what you are going to get" is "NOT knowing what you are going to get." Logic. brrrr. The author calling this piece "Think About It" is like a parapalegic saying "Come waltz with me!"

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:45:14 EST

You aren't much of a critical thinker are you? Or maybe you didn't read the post. I didn't say VOTE FOR BUSH. I said please consider the options because choosing based on what you don't want is kind of dangerous. I understand the lesser of two evils and everything else. All I am saying is that you should understand who you ARE voting for, not just who you AREN'T voting for. Pretty simple actually. I didn't say anything about YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR BUSH, Ms. Tek. Please read my post next time.

Comment by Ms. Tek

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:39:22 EST

Mark, if you don't like Bush, you are WRONG. There is NO REASON to not like Bush and since you don't know what someone else might do, best not vote for them, even if you don't like Bush because I mean you don't know what they are going to do. I mean they could be worse than Bush or better than Bush so don't vote for them even if you don't like Bush because you don't know what they are going to do. It's very logical, when you think about it.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:34:23 EST

look, you've basically set up a straw man argument. i don't happen to like any of the current administration's policies...and i can' help that. would you feel better if i just sat here and called bush "shrub", "dubya" or "stupidfuckingtexanfratboymoron"?

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:24:34 EST

You just made my point for me. You said nothing about the option you are choosing, just what you are choosing against.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:21:15 EST

flawed logic? 'environmental' policy: don't like it economic policy: don't like it invasion of iraq: don't like it education 'policy': don't like it it has nothing to do with the man and everything to do with what he stands for.