What's wrong with "Anybody but Bush"?

[SirNitram]

It's not enough to simply be different than the other person. You have to show evidence that you're BETTER. If there were no more qualified applicants for the position, and the options you were presented with as a factory owner were actually worse than the guy you have, then it would be foolish to hire the other person in spite of the current manager's incompetence.

Golden Mean Fallacy; automatically assuming both sides are 'Just as bad' without presenting a shred of evidence.

[Darth Wong]

It's not enough to simply be different than the other person. You have to show evidence that you're BETTER. If there were no more qualified applicants for the position, and the options you were presented with as a factory owner were actually worse than the guy you have, then it would be foolish to hire the other person in spite of the current manager's incompetence.

Obviously, you ignored the point about how any normal qualified applicant, even if an unknown quantity, IS preferable to one who has DEMONSTRATED INCOMPETENCE AND DISHONESTY in the job. As I said before, if I ran a business the way some of you people advocated running the government, I would be out of business. You don't keep a known incompetent lying shitstain in the job just because you're can't PROVE that a qualified applicant of otherwise unknown skill is going to be better than him. He has demonstrated himself to be well below the NORMAL competence you would expect of a qualified applicant.

[tharkûn]

The difference, Mike, is that this isn't a normal hiring pool.

Statistically when you go to hire a new manager half of the possible hires should be above average; in firing the incompotent you weight whatever costs there are in firing him against the money you expect to save. Occassionally a company will get burned badly by picking a bigger loser than before, but odds are they wind up ahead.

For the presidency your hiring pool is ludicriously limited and your future possible choices are influenced by who you choose today as well as why you choose them. If you vote for a moron, hoping that he's less of a moron than the last one, then you end up with a new choice of morons in four years. Really voters aren't so much managers hiring a an employee, but consumers picking a vendor. If there are only two vendors who control the market and neither of them offers a product you want, why would you encourage them to continue offering the same dismal choices they always have been? The only way the market will shift is if enough people stop buying the crap that is being sold until somebody decides to offer something better.

The differences between Bush and Bush-lite are not enough to outweigh the effect of encouraging yet more of these craptacular choices in the future.

The Patriot Act? Died in congress and parts of it were authored by Kerry as I recall. Gay marriage? Kerry doesn't support, and frankly about the only thing that will bring the issue above the background is some imbecile going great guns opposing it. Iraq? Except for crying over spilt milk the only difference I see in Kerry is that he thinks a symposium will bring new countries into Iraq. Such differences between Bush and Bush-lite that I'm aware of are either: irrelevant things that neither candidate could possibly push through congress, things I disagree with, things I don't give a damn about, or not important enough to overule the need to bitchslap both parties for giving us two morons to choose between.

[Master of Ossus]

It's not enough to simply be different than the other person. You have to show evidence that you're BETTER. If there were no more qualified applicants for the position, and the options you were presented with as a factory owner were actually worse than the guy you have, then it would be foolish to hire the other person in spite of the current manager's incompetence.

Golden Mean Fallacy; automatically assuming both sides are 'Just as bad' without presenting a shred of evidence.

Where did I do that? It IS foolish to hire someone who's even worse, even if the guy you have is bad. I never applied this to anyone.

[Darth Wong]

The difference, Mike, is that this isn't a normal hiring pool.

Prove that this difference invalidates the logic of the argument, otherwise you're just being pedantic.

Statistically when you go to hire a new manager half of the possible hires should be above average; in firing the incompotent you weight whatever costs there are in firing him against the money you expect to save. Occassionally a company will get burned badly by picking a bigger loser than before, but odds are they wind up ahead.

And how does this invalidate the analogy? Are you suggesting that Bush is average, hence there's no good reason to believe Kerry or any other reasonably qualified applicant won't be better? That's bullshit and you know it. When you have someone who is the worst performer in recent memory, you can hardly use this logic.

For the presidency your hiring pool is ludicriously limited and your future possible choices are influenced by who you choose today as well as why you choose them. If you vote for a moron, hoping that he's less of a moron than the last one, then you end up with a new choice of morons in four years. Really voters aren't so much managers hiring a an employee, but consumers picking a vendor. If there are only two vendors who control the market and neither of them offers a product you want, why would you encourage them to continue offering the same dismal choices they always have been? The only way the market will shift is if enough people stop buying the crap that is being sold until somebody decides to offer something better.

And how does this invalidate the analogy? Unless you can prove that Kerry is massively, horribly incompetent, the logic still applies: better to go with an apparently run-of-the-mill candidate than one with a proven record of incompetence and dishonesty.

The differences between Bush and Bush-lite are not enough to outweigh the effect of encouraging yet more of these craptacular choices in the future.

Bullshit; one of them has a proven record of gross incompetence and dishonesty; the other is a run-of-the-mill politician. Any normal company would hire a run-of-the-mill manager to replace one who was sinking the company and lying to the board.

The Patriot Act? Died in congress and parts of it were authored by Kerry as I recall. Gay marriage? Kerry doesn't support, and frankly about the only thing that will bring the issue above the background is some imbecile going great guns opposing it. Iraq? Except for crying over spilt milk the only difference I see in Kerry is that he thinks a symposium will bring new countries into Iraq. Such differences between Bush and Bush-lite that I'm aware of are either: irrelevant things that neither candidate could possibly push through congress, things I disagree with, things I don't give a damn about, or not important enough to overule the need to bitchslap both parties for giving us two morons to choose between.

More irrelevant bullshit that indicates you obviously paid no serious attention to the argument put forth. Given a money-losing company which has been seriously fucked up by the lying manager, do you think he would present a recovery plan that looks much different than the one presented by a competitor? Both of them will talk the usual talk about trying to improve quality, restore customer relations, calm employee complaints, hold the line on costs, etc. But you will not choose the one who has demonstrated an inability to follow through on his claims in the past. The same goes for vendors, if you prefer that analogy. Given two vendors, both of whom promise to give you improved product quality and better delivery times, you don't distinguish based on their claims: you distinguish based on the fact that one of them now has a proven record of gross incompetence and lying to you.

[Master of Ossus]

Obviously, you ignored the point about how any normal qualified applicant, even if an unknown quantity, IS preferable to one who has DEMONSTRATED INCOMPETENCE AND DISHONESTY in the job.

Not necessarily. In many fields, even a bad worker is much better than an average guy. If you threw my automechanic into the shoes of the CEO of Time Warner, he would horrifically fuck the company. Time Warner's CEO isn't particularly good, but he's still better than someone off the streets.

Now, does this mean that Time Warner shouldn't hire someone else? No. However, it is foolish to hire someone who you cannot reasonably expect to be better than the guy you already have, even if that guy sucks.

As I said before, if I ran a business the way some of you people advocated running the government, I would be out of business. You don't keep a known incompetent lying shitstain in the job just because you're can't PROVE that a qualified applicant of otherwise unknown skill is going to be better than him. He has demonstrated himself to be well below the NORMAL competence you would expect of a qualified applicant.

In that case, you would only need to show the qualifications of the other individual before firing the incompetent one and replacing him with the qualified but unknown individual. However, there is still a burden to show that the new guy is qualified. Again, it's not enough to simply show that the new guy is different. You have to show that he can be reasonably expected to be better than the crappy guy. That's easier for the challenger to do, since the crappy guy sucks, but it doesn't entirely relieve him of his burden.

[SirNitram]

Where did I do that? It IS foolish to hire someone who's even worse, even if the guy you have is bad. I never applied this to anyone.

Maybe you're just slow on the uptake. You are assuming the other person is just as bad! In both the analogy and the Presidential race there is no evidence for this! That is why it is a fallacy to assume otherwise.

[Master of Ossus]

Where did I do that? It IS foolish to hire someone who's even worse, even if the guy you have is bad. I never applied this to anyone.

Maybe you're just slow on the uptake. You are assuming the other person is just as bad!

Bullshit.

I insist that you stop lying about my position, since every time I get into a debate with you you invariably butcher my position beyond recognition. This is just another in your long line of strawmen concocted against me.

In both the analogy and the Presidential race there is no evidence for this! That is why it is a fallacy to assume otherwise.

Nor did I say that there was, retard. What part of "The other guy has to show he's qualified/can reasonably be expected to be better" translates into "The other guy's just as bad?"

[Durandal]

Obviously, you ignored the point about how any normal qualified applicant, even if an unknown quantity, IS preferable to one who has DEMONSTRATED INCOMPETENCE AND DISHONESTY in the job.

Not necessarily. In many fields, even a bad worker is much better than an average guy. If you threw my automechanic into the shoes of the CEO of Time Warner, he would horrifically fuck the company. Time Warner's CEO isn't particularly good, but he's still better than someone off the streets.

An automechanic is not a qualified applicant for a CEO position, genius.

Now, does this mean that Time Warner shouldn't hire someone else? No. However, it is foolish to hire someone who you cannot reasonably expect to be better than the guy you already have, even if that guy sucks.

So you sit by and let the guy who's ruining the company continue to do so until The Perfect Applicant happens to drop by? Puh-leeze.

In that case, you would only need to show the qualifications of the other individual before firing the incompetent one and replacing him with the qualified but unknown individual. However, there is still a burden to show that the new guy is qualified. Again, it's not enough to simply show that the new guy is different. You have to show that he can be reasonably expected to be better than the crappy guy. That's easier for the challenger to do, since the crappy guy sucks, but it doesn't entirely relieve him of his burden.

And what specific burdens would you like Kerry to satisfy? All you and these other "Anti-Anbody But Bush" people have been doing is crowing that Kerry hasn't shown that he can run the country better than Bush without providing any specifics. Well what exactly would you like him to do? Run the country for four years so we can find out how good he is at it? Well then I guess you'd better vote for him.

In 2000, neither candidate had a presidential record because neither was an incumbent. So how did you judge who would be better for the job then? You looked at their political records and extrapolated on what a term for a given candidate would look like, and you voted based on which term you thought would be better, correct?

So what's preventing you from extrapolating Kerry's term versus Bush's demonstrated first term, which has been abysmal? I think this is what right-wingers who hate Bush and won't vote Kerry (because he's a Democrat, of course) refuse to accept. Kerry's term would, in all likelihood, be pretty uneventful. This versus Bush's projected second term, which based on his first term, would be utterly disastrous. So it's either uneventful or disastrous. Which do you prefer?

[SirNitram]

Where did I do that? It IS foolish to hire someone who's even worse, even if the guy you have is bad. I never applied this to anyone.

Maybe you're just slow on the uptake. You are assuming the other person is just as bad!

Bullshit.

I insist that you stop lying about my position, since every time I get into a debate with you you invariably butcher my position beyond recognition. This is just another in your long line of strawmen concocted against me.

Funny, you said It IS foolish to hire someone who's even worse, even if the guy you have is bad. and this is somehow a strawman? Oh, I see. You're assuming he's even worse than if you assumed he was just as bad. I was underestimating your wild assumptions.

In both the analogy and the Presidential race there is no evidence for this! That is why it is a fallacy to assume otherwise.

Nor did I say that there was, retard. What part of "The other guy has to show he's qualified/can reasonably be expected to be better" translates into "The other guy's just as bad?"

Let's see. First off, you disregard the OP entirely(As it says that the other guy is qualified, so that's half your requirements shown to be superfluous; we know he's qualified), then go on to say 'SHOW HE'S BETTER!'. Since you demand evidence he's better, that rather insists the default is that he's just as bad. Which, once more, is a Golden Mean Fallacy.

Don't like it? Blow me.

[Master of Ossus]

An automechanic is not a qualified applicant for a CEO position, genius.

I'm aware of that, moron. In fact, I specifically stated it. The fact of the matter, though, is that an applicant would have to show that they were qualified.

So you sit by and let the guy who's ruining the company continue to do so until The Perfect Applicant happens to drop by? Puh-leeze.

You would have to, unless you had reason to believe that another applicant was better. What part of this is difficult for you to understand?

And what specific burdens would you like Kerry to satisfy? All you and these other "Anti-Anbody But Bush" people have been doing is crowing that Kerry hasn't shown that he can run the country better than Bush without providing any specifics. Well what exactly would you like him to do? Run the country for four years so we can find out how good he is at it? Well then I guess you'd better vote for him.

Again, are you and Nitram going to throw anything at me other than bullshit strawmen?

In 2000, neither candidate had a presidential record because neither was an incumbent. So how did you judge who would be better for the job then? You looked at their political records and extrapolated on what a term for a given candidate would look like, and you voted based on which term you thought would be better, correct?

So what's preventing you from extrapolating Kerry's term versus Bush's demonstrated first term, which has been abysmal?

Nothing, dumbass.

I think this is what right-wingers who hate Bush and won't vote Kerry (because he's a Democrat, of course) refuse to accept. Kerry's term would, in all likelihood, be pretty uneventful. This versus Bush's projected second term, which based on his first term, would be utterly disastrous. So it's either uneventful or disastrous. Which do you prefer?

The first one, of course. What does this have to do with my position?

[Master of Ossus]

Funny, you said It IS foolish to hire someone who's even worse, even if the guy you have is bad. and this is somehow a strawman?

I did. No, that's not the strawman. Applying this to Kerry and claiming that I said he was worse IS a strawman.

Oh, I see. You're assuming he's even worse than if you assumed he was just as bad. I was underestimating your wild assumptions.

This is laughable, since that's not even what I was talking about. Obviously your knee-jerk reaction to anything but your own position is clouding what's left of your grey-matter.

Let's see. First off, you disregard the OP entirely(As it says that the other guy is qualified, so that's half your requirements shown to be superfluous; we know he's qualified),

I did disregard it, since the qualification that the applicant be qualified is NOT part of the ABB position.

then go on to say 'SHOW HE'S BETTER!'. Since you demand evidence he's better, that rather insists the default is that he's just as bad. Which, once more, is a Golden Mean Fallacy.

Don't like it? Blow me.

We have a term for people who act like you do, Nitram. It's called "Village Idiot."

[Darth Wong]

I did disregard it, since the qualification that the applicant be qualified is NOT part of the ABB position.

Who's the one relying on strawmen now?

You're basing your argument not upon Kerry, and not upon the Democratic Party, and certainly not upon the specific argument/analogy cited at the opening of this thread, but upon the literal semantics of the phrase "Anybody But Bush". You have a lot of nerve to pull that shit and then accuse anyone else of strawman distortions, sophistry, or village idiocy.

[Master of Ossus]

I did disregard it, since the qualification that the applicant be qualified is NOT part of the ABB position.

Who's the one relying on strawmen now?

You're basing your argument not upon Kerry, and not upon the Democratic Party, and certainly not upon the specific argument/analogy cited at the opening of this thread, but upon the literal semantics of the phrase "Anybody But Bush". You have a lot of nerve to pull that shit and then accuse anyone else of strawman distortions, sophistry, or village idiocy.

Since I have repeatedly heard people use the ABB argument to suggest that literally ANYBODY would be better than Bush, this does not strike me as being anything of the sort.

[Darth Wong]

I did disregard it, since the qualification that the applicant be qualified is NOT part of the ABB position.

Who's the one relying on strawmen now?

You're basing your argument not upon Kerry, and not upon the Democratic Party, and certainly not upon the specific argument/analogy cited at the opening of this thread, but upon the literal semantics of the phrase "Anybody But Bush". You have a lot of nerve to pull that shit and then accuse anyone else of strawman distortions, sophistry, or village idiocy.

Since I have repeatedly heard people use the ABB argument to suggest that literally ANYBODY would be better than Bush, this does not strike me as being anything of the sort.

Oh, so now you're using peoples' penchant for exaggeration in order to excuse your bullshit? The guy at the DNC who said that he'd take a ham sandwich over George W. Bush was actually being literal?

[SirNitram]

Funny, you said It IS foolish to hire someone who's even worse, even if the guy you have is bad. and this is somehow a strawman?

I did. No, that's not the strawman. Applying this to Kerry and claiming that I said he was worse IS a strawman.

Oh, I see. You're assuming he's even worse than if you assumed he was just as bad. I was underestimating your wild assumptions.

This is laughable, since that's not even what I was talking about. Obviously your knee-jerk reaction to anything but your own position is clouding what's left of your grey-matter.

Your own words show clearly you're talking out of your ass, kiddo.

Let's see. First off, you disregard the OP entirely(As it says that the other guy is qualified, so that's half your requirements shown to be superfluous; we know he's qualified),

I did disregard it, since the qualification that the applicant be qualified is NOT part of the ABB position.

What a lying peice of shit you become when you don't like what you're being told.

Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Show where Kerry is not qualified for the office. Those are the only qualifications, you putrifiably partisan twit.

then go on to say 'SHOW HE'S BETTER!'. Since you demand evidence he's better, that rather insists the default is that he's just as bad. Which, once more, is a Golden Mean Fallacy.

Don't like it? Blow me.

We have a term for people who act like you do, Nitram. It's called "Village Idiot."

I see this massive, GAPING lack of showing where I'm wrong. At best you whine how Kerry isn't qualified, but last I checked, he meets the only qualifications that actually exist.

You, of course, will rebutt with how there are somehow extra ones you demand for competence. But here's the kicker, shit-licker. Those exist only in your head, to guide your vote. The only real qualifications are laid out by the Constitution.. And unless you can show he somehow violates them, you're shit outta luck.

[Master of Ossus]

Oh, so now you're using peoples' penchant for exaggeration in order to excuse your bullshit? The guy at the DNC who said that he'd take a ham sandwich over George W. Bush was actually being literal?

No, however, I have had people tell me seriously that they would vote for random people off the street before they voted for Bush, since the random person would make a better president.

When challenged on it, they claimed that they were being serious. While the ham sandwich reference was obviously a hyperbole, it's quite astonishing how far some people will take claims like this.

[Darth Wong]

Hey, as long as you're going to TOTALLY IGNORE THE OPENING POST and just post whatever bullshit comes to mind based on an ultra-literalist interpretation of what you've heard unnamed "people" somewhere say, why don't you go write a long hyper-pedantic essay about how a ham sandwich doesn't actually have the public speaking skills, charisma, education, or work experience to be President?

[SirNitram]

Oh, so now you're using peoples' penchant for exaggeration in order to excuse your bullshit? The guy at the DNC who said that he'd take a ham sandwich over George W. Bush was actually being literal?

No, however, I have had people tell me seriously that they would vote for random people off the street before they voted for Bush, since the random person would make a better president.

When challenged on it, they claimed that they were being serious. While the ham sandwich reference was obviously a hyperbole, it's quite astonishing how far some people will take claims like this.

So you're basically trolling this thread to be an ass because some people have said that literally. Wow. And you actually have the gall to say I'm the one behaving like a VI. You show once again how a reasonable, logical person can descend into a slobbering troll when politics gets involved.

[Master of Ossus]

Your own words show clearly you're talking out of your ass, kiddo.

Prove it. Quote where I said Kerry was not qualified.

Show where Kerry is not qualified for the office. Those are the only qualifications, you putrifiably partisan twit.

Since I never made such a claim, this point is moot. And once again, stop slandering me.

I see this massive, GAPING lack of showing where I'm wrong. At best you whine how Kerry isn't qualified, but last I checked, he meets the only qualifications that actually exist.

Quote where I claimed otherwise and you might have a point.

You, of course, will rebutt with how there are somehow extra ones you demand for competence. But here's the kicker, shit-licker. Those exist only in your head, to guide your vote. The only real qualifications are laid out by the Constitution.. And unless you can show he somehow violates them, you're shit outta luck.

In other words, you actually ARE someone who feels that anyone over the required age who was born in the United States is more worthy of a vote than GW. I believe I can rest my case, now.

[Master of Ossus]

Hey, as long as you're going to TOTALLY IGNORE THE OPENING POST and just post whatever bullshit comes to mind based on an ultra-literalist interpretation of what you've heard unnamed "people" somewhere say, why don't you go write a long hyper-pedantic essay about how a ham sandwich doesn't actually have the public speaking skills, charisma, education, or work experience to be President?

Since Nitram is one of the people who's now claimed that anyone who meets the minimum age/natural-born clauses are sufficient qualifications, I would say that I now have nothing more to add to this discussion.

[SirNitram]

Hey, as long as you're going to TOTALLY IGNORE THE OPENING POST and just post whatever bullshit comes to mind based on an ultra-literalist interpretation of what you've heard unnamed "people" somewhere say, why don't you go write a long hyper-pedantic essay about how a ham sandwich doesn't actually have the public speaking skills, charisma, education, or work experience to be President?

Since Nitram is one of the people who's now claimed that anyone who meets the minimum age/natural-born clauses are sufficient qualifications, I would say that I now have nothing more to add to this discussion.

Of course those are the only qualifications, you asstard. Do you know what 'Qualifications' are?

[Master of Ossus]

So you're basically trolling this thread to be an ass because some people have said that literally. Wow. And you actually have the gall to say I'm the one behaving like a VI. You show once again how a reasonable, logical person can descend into a slobbering troll when politics gets involved.

Given that you yourself have just claimed that anyone who meets pathetic residency requirements is therefore "qualified" to be president, it seems clear that there actually is a literalist ABB crowd to which I refered earlier.

[SirNitram]

In other words, you actually ARE someone who feels that anyone over the required age who was born in the United States is more worthy of a vote than GW. I believe I can rest my case, now.

And you accuse me of strawmanning you.. Wow. You really take the cake, kiddo. I post the qualifications for the position of president, and you claim that's what I say is needed to be better than GW. Wow. That's all that needs said.

[Master of Ossus]

Of course those are the only qualifications, you asstard. Do you know what 'Qualifications' are?

Sorry, but you claimed earlier that my automechanic isn't qualified. Here's the thing, by those qualifications, HE IS! End of story. Thanks for playing.