Thread: Saddam Hussein captured.

Originally posted by FillYourBrain
it's the emotionally charged arguments that I refer to. Your feverish response is exactly what I'm talking about. You are so intent on arguing that you don't even realize that what I said opposes no particular view. I did not say sit back and do nothing. I did not say become a puppet. I said that over time, people lose the emotion and become rational. You most likely will too Unregd

What you've said opposes anything idealistic as being too much to bother with and something pursued mainly by naive, young people, who will "come to their senses" later in life. A conservative outlook is no more based in reason than a liberal one--the difference being one of attitude, preference, and opinion but not logic. I don't "root for my team" because I don't have one: I'm not some Young Democrat who sees nothing wrong in the Democratic Party and nothing but horrors in the Republican Party.

It comes down to principles: When I see or hear about something that I believe is injust or poorly done, I will let everyone who will listen know because that's the seed of change. If people aren't even aware of what a certain policy might lead to or what's even happening at the moment, how can they analyze the political environment to see whether they should vote for a better choice?

To say you disagree or agree with a certain political outlook is one thing, but to say one is based on emotion while the other is based on reason has got to be a fallacy, a violation of reason itself.

Originally posted by UnregdRegd
...A conservative outlook is no more based in reason than a liberal one...

interesting. I bashed Zakk (a conservative) in this thread primarily.

You're clearly taking an argumentative stance so I refuse to comment further on your post except to say that I wasn't talking about either party. Duh... genius

Well, me not wanting the war sure as hell didn't prevent it, so I may as well be happy something good came out of it.

But wait. You didn't want us to catch Saddam before we caught him. You're changing your opinion.

Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
But wait. You didn't want us to catch Saddam before we caught him. You're changing your opinion.

Wow.

edit: FYB, call your boy in. I think we're done here.

Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
But wait. You didn't want us to catch Saddam before we caught him. You're changing your opinion.

Wow indeed. While your arguments may be based on facts, they are facts that you create or skew in your head.

Let me see if I interpret Cheez's argument correctly (in nice simple terms):
> Saddam Hussein is bad
> It is not, however, worth going to war over
> Fact: We did go to war with Iraq
> Since we were at war, it was good we caught him
> The war should not, however, have been started because of that

Silvercord. No offense but you're like the Zakk of the other side. Congratulations.

Originally posted by Silvercord
...l basically sucks balls...

heh

well you've figured me out fyb

because, you know, these threads are always productive

EDIT:
exactly what IS the 'other' zakk side? I was just regurgitating what zach said, which was reasonable

What I'm saying is this. For someone opposed to the war, they should not say anything in regards to the positive outcome of it. They didn't want the war to start with, so why should they have the joy of something good out of it? It's all the rewards without work, and I think it's almost low for Govtcheez to go around talking crap about Bush and the war, then go "Way to go team" when a good outcome happens. It's like supporting your team only when they win. It's stupid.

let it go man. let it go.