banned bush interview

[thinksmall]

the 'banned' tag really just seperated the morons from the smarter guys.

 

the idiots will question why the fuck the video is labeled banned. while the smarter guys take from the video itself..

 

=]

[ohefdubs]

if it weas banned then why didnt the government take it off you tube???????????

[shitting]

oh what a surprise, casek has again proven how shit-for-brains-dumb he is.

nerd

[ibfamily]

im pritty sure the government could get something of youtube

[fermentor666]

Certainly if it was banned. That's why casek is such an idiot. He somehow equates ridiculing dissent means censorship, and like his calling people a fascist or comparing Bush to Hitler, casek is so sheltered and paranoid that he completely dillutes and debases the concept of fascism and the brutality of the Nazi party. It also shows that he's a fucking nutjob just like the rest of the idiots that think we are living under facism. There are definitely signs of nationalism and a decent possibility that this country will become a dictatorship and prison state, along with actually censoring material. But we are not yet, and to call it fascism and censorship is to belittle actual fascism and censorship, which is dangerously stupid.

 

And not only that, he has nothing to say after calling a person a fascist, as if he thinks he can throw the word around without having to back up his stupid fucking remarks and be taken seriously. A sure sign of conspiracy blowhard, and certainly not the only evidence.

[fermentor666]

Like this story about Hillary Clinton anti-Bush remarks that are far more damaging on CNN, it shows ridicule and hysteria at such remarks, but is not censored or banned. Because there is no censorship of such thoughts. Certain media channels might not air footage or will hang up on callers that the station doesn't like, but that is in the private sector. You are free to say anything other than cusswords on the commercial channels and NPR. And the internet changed everything, because it allows for people to communicate completely uncensored to a vast majority of the country and also outside of the states without fear of censorship, unless you are a pedophile or some such shit.

 

Hell, the Anarchist's Cookbook isn't even banned on the internet. Of course, it allows for a lot of idiots to preach bullshit, but it's their right to freedom of speech.

[fermentor666]

So it's official, casek is full of shit and was just using scare tactics to draw attention to his thread. Congratulations casek, maybe there is a job for you at Fox News yet. You could be Bill O'Rielly's "fact checker" and find plenty of examples of fascism over at Daily Kos.

[Theo Huxtable.]

Certainly if it was banned. That's why casek is such an idiot. He somehow equates ridiculing dissent means censorship, and like his calling people a fascist or comparing Bush to Hitler, casek is so sheltered and paranoid that he completely dillutes and debases the concept of fascism and the brutality of the Nazi party. It also shows that he's a fucking nutjob just like the rest of the idiots that think we are living under facism. There are definitely signs of nationalism and a decent possibility that this country will become a dictatorship and prison state, along with actually censoring material. But we are not yet, and to call it fascism and censorship is to belittle actual fascism and censorship, which is dangerously stupid.

 

And not only that, he has nothing to say after calling a person a fascist, as if he thinks he can throw the word around without having to back up his stupid fucking remarks and be taken seriously. A sure sign of conspiracy blowhard, and certainly not the only evidence.

 

 

i don't see signs of the u.s. possibly becoming a dictatorship. as long as there are elections every 4 years, and a 2-term limit for the presidency, then it isn't a dictatorship; regardless of how the leader behaves. bush has made many quesitonable moves, but his power is still restricted. if bush decided to run for a 3rd-term, or tried to get legislation passed to allow unlimited terms, then we can consider that perhaps its a dictatorship. i think of a dictator as someone that is totalitarian; and elections, terms, and checks & balances pretty much prevent one from being totalitarian.

[Theo Huxtable.]

when casek gets owned with irrefutable facts, and his theories are debunked and lies are exposed; instead of either admitting he's wrong or at least giving a counter-argument, his only recourse he chooses is to throw a tantrum and call you either a fascist, a nazi, a homosexual, a bitch, a commie, or all of the above. seen it several times.

[serum]

How to Win Informal Arguments and Debates

Skilled debating is an art. In order to win arguments and convince others of your views, you must understand the basic components of logic, psychology, and effective communication.

 

Steps

Decide on a position you would like to argue for, and become well-informed about that position. Ideally, this will be something you really believe in, because it is much easier to make convincing arguments for ideas you are enthusiastic about. Make sure you understand not only your own position, but the opposing position as well. This will allow you to anticipate objections and respond more effectively.

Find someone to debate with. If you are reading this article, it's likely that you already have someone in mind. Before proceeding, however, you should familiarize yourself with the concept of "impossible people." In order to have any chance of winning a debate or accomplishing anything productive, you need to be arguing with someone who is basically reasonable. Otherwise, save yourself the trouble and find someone more reasonable to debate with.

Begin by stating a thesis. This is just a brief statement of your position and your reasons for holding that position.

 

Example: You might say "I believe the Moon was once of a part of the Earth for the following reasons," followed by a quick summary of why you believe that. Try to use evidence-based premises, if possible. For example, "Geological data shows that the Moon's rocks are quite similar to those found in Earth's early history" is much better than "The Moon being blasted out into space by a collision is just a really cool idea."

Respond to objections. In most cases, your opponent will respond to your thesis by objecting to one or more of your premises, which are the reasons you have given to support your position. If you are well-informed about your position, most of the objections should already be familiar to you. Use logic and evidence to show your opponent why his or her objections do not work. You can refute (dispose of) objections by two major routes: showing that the evidence does not support them, or exposing a logical flaw in the premise of the objection.

 

To refute the idea that refined white bread is healthy because it is processed, you might state that a study of rats fed a diet of white bread alone all died (which is true, incidentally). This would be an evidence-based response.

To make a logic-based response, you might state that "The fact that white bread is processed does not mean it is healthy. There is no established link between highly processed food and better health, so your objection does not follow from your premises."

Build on your opponent's objections. If possible, don't stop at refuting them - turn them around and use them against your opponent's position.

 

Example: Your thesis might be that lab rats should not be used in painful experiments. Your opponent might object that rats cannot experience pain in the same way humans can. You might use evidence to refute this objection by referring to studies which show the same type of brain and nervous system function in rats and humans under stress. Instead of stopping there, show your opponent how his or her attempted objection actually supports your position. Continuing the example given here, you might say something like "since you have made the issue of the ability to feel pain the basis of your objection, doesn't the evidence I've shown you suggest that performing experiments on lab animals is unethical?"

Attempt to resolve each point before moving ahead to the next issue. If there are unresolved points about which you and your opponent cannot agree, it will be difficult to accomplish anything productive, because the unresolved points will continue to come up over and over again. Ultimately, this will lead to a situation where there is no choice but to "agree to disagree," which is usually not an ideal outcome.

Remain calm, rational, and reasonable at all times. You may feel that your opponent is totally failing to understand your position, but if you become too agitated, you opponent will take this as a sign of weakness and conclude that he has you on the ropes. Rather than helping to convince your opponent, shouting or insulting remarks will only serve to make him more confident in his position. Emotional behavior is no substitute for rational arguments.

Have patience. As long as both you and your opponent are debating in a reasonable manner, be willing to spend some time explaining your position and your premises. It is not easy to change someone else's mind. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the most powerful among them is the simple fact that no one enjoys discovering that he is mistaken. It's not a particularly easy thing to accept, so be patient. You won't convince him with your very first point.

Use effective speech and grammar. You don't need to pretend you are a university professor, but if you want to be effective and convincing, you should use decent English. Don't try to use big words in order to sound more intelligent, because most people can see through such an act. On the other hand, don't be afraid to use the right word for the task. If a big word is called for, use it. Most importantly, try to speak (or write) clearly and confidently. Make your point using no more and no fewer words than you need.

Ask questions. Most people assume that the person with the most knowledge of a topic will win in a debate, this, however, is not true. If you are able to ask questions you can easily even any playing field. The idea behind this method goes back to Socrates. Socrates would ask the men, who thought of themselves as wise, question after question until they could no longer give a response without demonstrating a logical fallacy or proving his point. Remember that many people like to hear themselves talk, this can be used against them. Also, do not use questions that they can have multiple answers for, if they respond with an "um...(pause)" and contemplate the idea to make up their mind you will go nowhere because once you have completed the questioning period all they need to do to avoid your conclusion is to go back to that question and change their mind.

 

Using the debate example previously mentioned (the pain-response of rats) a way to debate using the Socratic Method would be to ask "How do humans feel pain." The logical answer would be through nervous-system impulses (you will most likely get an answer much simpler but with that basic idea). You then might ask if a nervous system is responsible for those impulses. They will answer yes, and then you ask if rats have a nervous system. The logical conclusion is yes. Therefore, if rats have a nervous system and a nervous system is responsible for pain, rats can feel pain.

 

Another method to argue that same point is to ask how you know someone else is feeling pain. They are likely to respond that the person will say ouch. You then ask them "Well, babies don't say ouch, does that mean that babies do not feel pain?" They will most likely change their answer to be a bit broader (always try to get them to concede the broadest definition for an idea (i.e. murder, life, pain), this allows for you to make your point part of that definition). They will most likely retract their previous statement and say that if a person cries out then they are in pain. You then point out that rats squel and try to escape when they are most likely in pain.

Be willing to lose. A skilled dialectician (debater or arguer) understands that sometimes, the other person's arguments will simply be stronger than one's own. If you find yourself cornered and unable to refute an opponent's points, be honest and reasonable enough to concede defeat. Do not become stubbornly determined to keep objecting even after you have been proven wrong (that would make you an "impossible person!"). Anyone who has engaged in debate regularly has experienced a number of losses. Congratulate your opponent, learn from your mistakes, and move on. Every experience (win or lose) makes you better equipped for your next encounter.

Don't take too much pride in being right (or winning the debate). It makes it harder for your adversary to admit to being wrong which, in an informal clash of opinions, should be your primary goal.

 

 

Tips

The rule of thumb to remember is that your own desire to believe something or your own opinion about how great the belief is will not convince anyone else. To do that, you need logic and evidence.

Become familiar with how logic works. Being able to argue logically will make you very effective at pointing out the flaws and contradictions in your opponent's objections. You don't have to take a formal logic course or memorize logical notation, as long as you understand the basic principles of logic and the logical fallacies (arguments that have a logical flaw which makes them inconsistent or self-contradictory). An introduction to logical fallacies is linked below.

On the other hand, if your opponent is an amateur, consider using logical fallacies (see below) of your own, like Straw Man arguments or non-sequiturs.

Be a gracious loser. Never have bad sportsmanship.

Increase your vocabulary to include great segue words and debate jargon to use in your argument, such as "moreover", "inasmuch", "per se", and "vis-a-vis".

If all else fails, remember that you can "win" an argument by just proving them wrong. You don't have to prove yourself right, but since they are wrong this implies you are right.

A well defined technique to discredit your oponents points is a three step process of cusion, question, and confirm. First accept your opponents viewpoint, then ask a general leading question and then confirm that the answer to that question disproves their point. The cusion step is critical to letting your opponent know you understand their point, but disapprove.

Keep talking about facts and logic and such. When your opponent gets bored of this arguement, likely they'll apologize and say you were right the whole time. Note: This will take a lot of knowledge on the subject and patience.

 

 

Warnings

Be careful how passionately you approach an issue. If you ostracize your opponent they will rarely end up agreeing with you, no matter how convincing your point was.

Remember that you cannot win a debate against a friend. If you make them feel foolish you may end up losing their friendship.

 

 

[fermentor666]

^^ Yes. I try to stay away from hurling insults, but when someone starts throwing labels at me, particularly calling me a fascist, I find it hard not to respond with insults. If casek said it to my face with all serious, and then start calling me a bitch or gay, I would either punch him, or kick him out of my house, or both. Of course, he would never have the balls to say anything like that to someone's face.

 

 

i don't see signs of the u.s. possibly becoming a dictatorship. as long as there are elections every 4 years, and a 2-term limit for the presidency, then it isn't a dictatorship; regardless of how the leader behaves. bush has made many quesitonable moves, but his power is still restricted. if bush decided to run for a 3rd-term, or tried to get legislation passed to allow unlimited terms, then we can consider that perhaps its a dictatorship. i think of a dictator as someone that is totalitarian; and elections, terms, and checks & balances pretty much prevent one from being totalitarian.

 

 

Yeah, it is unlikely that this country will become dictator-lead, but it is a POSSIBILITY, however slim.

 

 

There cannot be a dictator behind a totalitarian state, the two terms cancel each other out. Dictator-lead states are fascist states. A totalitarian state would be the government lead by the Soviet Union Communist party. It can be argued that when under Stalin's command, it was a dictatorship, but it was a secret dictatorship. The Communist regime far outlasted Stalin, anyways.

[Theo Huxtable.]

 

 

 

 

Yeah, it is unlikely that this country will become dictator-lead, but it is a POSSIBILITY, however slim.

 

 

There cannot be a dictator behind a totalitarian state, the two terms cancel each other out. Dictator-lead states are fascist states. A totalitarian state would be the government lead by the Soviet Union Communist party. It can be argued that when under Stalin's command, it was a dictatorship, but it was a secret dictatorship. The Communist regime far outlasted Stalin, anyways.

 

 

true, when i was thinking of "totalitarian" i was specifically thinking of Stalin. although a totalitarian system would be a government run by a one-party system, in virtually all cases these single parties that controlled all forms of government were headed by a dictator; thus i don't see the two terms cancelling each other out.

 

out of curiousity, can you provide examples where totalitarian regimes were not headed by a dictator?

[lord_casek]

i like how everyone is getting down on me for titling the video what it was titled on youtube.

[Theo Huxtable.]

i like how you're slyly backpeddling and acting like you just innocently "titled" it and there were no implications whatsoever with the use of the word "banned" in your thread title, and that you yourself never implied or thought it was banned.

[lord_casek]

i like how you're slyly backpeddling and acting like you just innocently "titled" it and there were no implications whatsoever with the use of the word "banned" in your thread title, and that you yourself never implied or thought it was banned.

 

nein. and i would think it would be banned after the way bush acted towards a reporter trying to get answers to important questions.

 

we are rarely privy to such things in whitehouse press conferences.

[Theo Huxtable.]

Bush acted annoyed by the reporter cutting him off. That makes you believe it was banned? That wasn't the first or last interview in which a president or any other high-ranking official acted annoyed by a reporter's questions or by a reporter cutting someone off.

[lord_casek]

Bush acted annoyed by the reporter cutting him off. That makes you believe it was banned? That wasn't the first or last interview in which a president or any other high-ranking official acted annoyed by a reporter's questions or by a reporter cutting someone off.

 

her pressing and him dodging makes me think that. her newspaper piece after that, moreso.

[fermentor666]

true, when i was thinking of "totalitarian" i was specifically thinking of Stalin. although a totalitarian system would be a government run by a one-party system, in virtually all cases these single parties that controlled all forms of government were headed by a dictator; thus i don't see the two terms cancelling each other out.

 

out of curiousity, can you provide examples where totalitarian regimes were not headed by a dictator?

 

 

Most of the Eastern European countries during the cold war, such as Czechoslovakia and Poland, were totalitarian states. The USSR was a totalitarian state after Stalin died. He was technically just the party leader and was not an official dictator, such as Hitler, Franco, or Mussolini, he was more of a behind-the-scenes dictator, because really did rule just about every aspect of that government in the way a fascist dictator does. But after he died, the fascist aspect of Stalin's regime dissipated into a totalitarian state.

 

We can't be a totalitarian state because we have different parties that control the government, like Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independants, the Green party, etc. I trust you know that already, but some people here like to over-simplify matters by calling it the US a fascist dictatorship because they do not understand anything about politics other than what they heard on a Rage Against the Machine album, probably because they think education is "for suckers and nerds".

 

I like how DRUNKEN ASSHOLE ONER is taught a new word--totalitiarian--and uses it in the same way he uses "fascist". Clearly, this boy has never broadened his horizons beyond high school. Just look at his screen name for chrissakes. It screams "juvenile rebel without a cause".

[2Blazzed]

you think he can ever actually answer the questions? He always dodges the questions and goes on a rant.Just like any other idiot who has no idea what they are talking about.

[fat ralphy]

i dont see why this would be banned except for the fact that it is a poor interview....

[leftwinghack]

i dont see why this would be banned except for the fact that it is a poor interview....

its cause they have no ideas on how to make the country better so they make everthing out to be controversy or some evil plan this stupid bush fooled all your smart left leaning senators hahahahahaa who is the dumbasss now

[fermentor666]

Once again, intelligence has been sucked out of Crossfire by the vacuum of stupidity.

[Guest spectr]

wow... I just watched this... Hopefully, he will be convicted of war crimes the minute he gets out of office...