Valhalla Legends Archive

Well? Would you buy a used car from him, let him care for your baby or manage your investments?

No to the third one, yes to the rest (if I had a baby of course.)

Used car, I've bought from worse
Baby, he seems like a nice grandpa kind of guy
Investments, I don't trust people with my money, it bugs me to no end when lendign people money

Yes, No, No.

Absolutely. Perhaps not manage my investments, but the other two, without a doubt.

Yes
Yes
No

Used car salesmen are generally regarded as being pushy people that use strong-arm tactics, lies, and deception to make a sale.  So, yeah, I trust him as a used car salesman.  Other than that, I don't even remotely trust him.

Quote from: EpicOfTimeWasted on February 27, 2005, 01:55 PM
Used car salesmen are generally regarded as being pushy people that use strong-arm tactics, lies, and deception to make a sale.  So, yeah, I trust him as a used car salesman.  Other than that, I don't even remotely trust him.

You totally misinterpreted what Adron said.  The question was "Would you buy a used car from him?"  not "Do you trust him as a used car salesman?".  However, I do not discredit your post as your analogy is quite accurate ;)

Quote from: dxoigmn on February 27, 2005, 02:05 PM

Quote from: EpicOfTimeWasted on February 27, 2005, 01:55 PM
Used car salesmen are generally regarded as being pushy people that use strong-arm tactics, lies, and deception to make a sale.  So, yeah, I trust him as a used car salesman.  Other than that, I don't even remotely trust him.

You totally misinterpreted what Adron said.  The question was "Would you buy a used car from him?"  not "Do you trust him as a used car salesman?".  However, I do not discredit your post as your analogy is quite accurate ;)

I don't really think I misinterpreted what he said, I just combined the question that the subject asks and the question that he actually asked, and elaborated a bit.  Oh well.

Quote from: Adron on February 27, 2005, 08:17 AM
Well? Would you buy a used car from him, let him care for your baby or manage your investments?

1. Yes. 12 yards long, two lanes wide, 65 tons of American pride. My SUV <3's Iraqi Oil.

2. Sure, he does have an excellent wife.

3. Sure, his personal investments from when he was a Governor etc. were excellent, and owned a pretty good baseball franchise. Besides, Reganomics works.

I love how people would trust their CHILD with him, but not their MONEY.  Americans are a little screwed up.  :P

No Yes No. So it averaged out to a No.

MyndFyre, thats kinda stupid. People worldwide wouldn't leave a babysitter at home with their child and $135,000 of gold bars lying around. Its two different things. People are greedy with money, children are a different psychological story.

Quote from: Hazard on February 28, 2005, 03:00 PM
MyndFyre, thats kinda stupid. People worldwide wouldn't leave a babysitter at home with their child and $135,000 of gold bars lying around. Its two different things. People are greedy with money, children are a different psychological story.

Like I said, it's retarded.  Life > money.

Quote from: EpicOfTimeWasted on February 27, 2005, 01:55 PM
Used car salesmen are generally regarded as being pushy people that use strong-arm tactics, lies, and deception to make a sale.  So, yeah, I trust him as a used car salesman.  Other than that, I don't even remotely trust him.

Amen.

Quote from: MyndFyre on February 28, 2005, 02:47 AM
I love how people would trust their CHILD with him, but not their MONEY.  Americans are a little screwed up.  :P

Yup. We're idiots. Look at our leader! :P

Fyre its a mis-interpretation. Would you trust your babysitter with the keys to your Maseratti?

Quote from: MyndFyre on February 28, 2005, 02:47 AM
I love how people would trust their CHILD with him, but not their MONEY.  Americans are a little screwed up.  :P

Well, it's not that I wouldn't trust him with the money, it's that he has shown in the past that he's not so hot at managing money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_w_bush#Business_and_early_political_career).

How can you trust him with your tax money, and not your regular money?

Quote from: Blaze - (S-1-0-0) on February 28, 2005, 07:37 PM
How can you trust him with your tax money, and not your regular money?

Congress approves all his spending, it's not like he says 'go spend $x on y' and it happens, it has to go through Congress.

...which has a republican majority.

I'm not saying it lets him do whatever he wants, but I am saying that it lets the republican party do whatever it wants.

The topic of discussion is not "Do you trust the Republican Party?" it's "Do you trust Bush?"

Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on February 28, 2005, 10:39 PM
The topic of discussion is not "Do you trust the Republican Party?" it's "Do you trust Bush?"

Exactly. I trust the Republican Party with my tax dollars [and yes, this year I'm actually filing taxes] more than I trust the Democratic Party. :)

Quote from: Stealth on February 28, 2005, 05:14 PM
Well, it's not that I wouldn't trust him with the money, it's that he has shown in the past that he's not so hot at managing money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_w_bush#Business_and_early_political_career).

Well, if you trusted him, he'd know when to accept outside management advise as well? Trust him to make the right decisions, even if the right decision is to ask for help?

Quote from: Hazard on February 28, 2005, 04:26 PM
Fyre its a mis-interpretation. Would you trust your babysitter with the keys to your Maseratti?

They would need to earn my trust before I left my child with them.  At which point, yes, I would leave my keys to my car at home.

So lets say that your wife hires a babysitter. You talk with her for a few moments and are ready to go ahead and leave. You leave her with your child and all is well you have a great evening and all that. Lets say the next day you leave for a 5 day business trip, you'd just drive up and toss her the keys and say "Just don't take the car out."? No.

Quote from: Hazard on March 01, 2005, 01:21 PM
So lets say that your wife hires a babysitter. You talk with her for a few moments and are ready to go ahead and leave. You leave her with your child and all is well you have a great evening and all that. Lets say the next day you leave for a 5 day business trip, you'd just drive up and toss her the keys and say "Just don't take the car out."? No.

Why would I toss her the car keys?  That's moronic.  But yes, if I were to hire a babysitter, I would have to be able to trust her to have my bank account, credit account, etc. information in my house, and for her to not go through that information.

On a side note, I wouldn't hire a babysitter with whom I had only spoken with for a few moments.

I suspect we're on the same side, but you're making very extreme examples of your point to make it.

Bush had 2 kids, he knows how to raise him. I would trust him taken care of one of my chillins when I am out with my babies mama.

Bush seems like he would make a good stock broker. I like his economic views, I would trust him with my money (like as a stock broker I am assuming?).

I would probably buy a used car from the guy, but I mean the price would have to be right, I am not going to pay blue book value for a car because blue book is always inflated. I go with black book.

Quote from: MyndFyre on February 28, 2005, 02:47 AM
I love how people would trust their CHILD with him, but not their MONEY.  Americans are a little screwed up.  :P

I don't think I'd trust him to invest it, I would trust him to sit there & watch it do nothing though

Thats not too bright.

Look what happened when he watched Osama.

Well, you should only trust someone as far as you can throw them.

Fyre, there is a line between mutual respect for human life and respect for property.

Quote from: JoeTheOdd on March 02, 2005, 06:54 AM
Thats not too bright.

Look what happened when he watched Osama.

Nice attempt at being witty.

Not.

Quote from: JoeTheOdd on March 02, 2005, 06:54 AM
Thats not too bright.

Look what happened when he watched Osama.

He watched Osama for less than 9 months, I'd say it was Clinton's fault if anything

There was an entire book written on how it was Clinton's fault more than anyone else's. Check it out, its called Intelligence Failure. If you're one of those hard-core Democrats don't bother reading it, you'll just be offended by the truth.

Quote from: JoeTheOdd on March 02, 2005, 06:54 AM
Thats not too bright.

Look what happened when he watched Osama.

This is the kind of statement that will not get my approval for x86! :P

It's actually just about 8 months from the time of inauguration until 9/11/2001.  Compare that to the 8 years and the chance Clinton had of getting bin Laden from Syria that he chose to pass up.

Quote from: Hazard on March 02, 2005, 05:34 PM
Fyre, there is a line between mutual respect for human life and respect for property.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Alquida struck plenty of targets during the reign of clinton... including the cole. Clinton didn't do jack.

Quote from: quasi-modo on March 03, 2005, 09:17 PM
Alquida struck plenty of targets during the reign of clinton... including the cole. Clinton didn't do jack.

Lies, sorta. Clinton did do something in Iraq, sorta, and the former Iraqi regime dealed with terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda.

On November 15th, 1998 Saddam was eventually compelled into agreeing to allow UN Special Committee inspectors to resume their study of whether or not had Iraq had complied with a UN resolution to disarm Iraq. The committee had been sent in prior to that, but Saddam kicked them out and asked for the UNSCOM chairman to be removed from power. However, although Saddam allowed the inspectors back in he denied them access to crucial spots  - so, on December 16, 1998 American and British aircraft - as well as about 200 cruise missiles - began attacking military targets in Iraq trying to force Saddam to comply.

//this snippet comes from a book I own, "Inside the Asylum" by Jed Babbin:

Three days later, President Clinton addressed the nation, telling us that the "seventy-hour" strategy had worked and that Saddam's WMD programs had been degraded. But in fact, though British and American jets had bombed almost one hundred targets, Saddam had not bound himself to any verifiable disarmament, and the Clinton administration had shown yet again that it was satisfied with spin rather than substance. As the victors of the Gulf War, the British and Americans had every right to enforce their cease-fire agreement requiring Iraq's disarmament independently of the United Nations. But the Clinton administration never took that decisive action.

Slightly OT, but why do you trust books with such obvious bias?

Is any book that condems something else neccessarily biased?

Not necessarily, but likely to be, yes.

Put it this way: I'd rather read a book that summarises existing evidence and perhaps presents scenarios in the least biased way possible, so that I can make up my own mind. In other words, a book that presents both sides of the argument, as far as is possible.

That clip sounds like it came from a book that is merely a long op-ed. The title gives that away without even reading the quote. I don't trust books like that because they are obviously designed to change my mind. I don't trust them to present balanced arguments. I don't trust them to give me all the information. Thus, as far as I'm concerned, they have little credibility.

Before anyone says it, I think the same thing about books by people like Micheal Moore and Al Franken. I occasionally read that kind of thing for light entertainment, but never take any of it seriously - at least, not without checking other sources, starting with the references, if any are given.

Quote from: Arta[vL] on March 04, 2005, 11:16 PM
Not necessarily, but likely to be, yes.

Put it this way: I'd rather read a book that summarises existing evidence and perhaps presents scenarios in the least biased way possible, so that I can make up my own mind. In other words, a book that presents both sides of the argument, as far as is possible.

Unfortunately, CSPAN is not in the business of producing political information books... :)

Do you have proof that, albeit biased, this book isn't factual?

So basically you think that any book that tries to make a point isn't worth reading? You honestly do believe you're a Vulcan don't you  :P?

lol :P

I never claimed that the book couldn't possibly be factual. All I'm saying is that its obvious bias reduces its credibility. I'm quite sure it's based on fact, however, I take issue with the author's intertwining of fact with opinion.

Authors who are seeking truth are necessarily dispassionate about their topic - which is why The Truth (tm) usually doesn't emerge until years after the events. I like books that present the facts as dispassionaly as possible and that trust me to draw my own conclusions. Unfortunately, for topical subjects in politics, books like that are pretty rare (if they exist at all).

You've got an encyclopedia...

A topical encyclopedia? Good luck. A good example: pretty much everything regarding current politics at wikipedia is disputed.