If Bush had actually paid attention to terrorism in any way, and 9/11 had still happened, then this might be a valid argument.
But Bush not only did nothing, he did several things which actually worked against the US being able to stop the 9/11 attacks:
- he effectively demoted Richard Clarke, a bipartisan terrorism expert, from cabinet meetings and put no one in his place
- he completely ignored Clarke's anti-terrorism proposal and put nothing in it's place
- he held not one single meeting about terrorism in his first 8 months in office
- he then went on an unprecedented month-long vacation in August, during which he got the PDB about Bin Laden, and responded by clearing some more brush for the cameras.
Then with the Anthrax attacks, we get another total clusterfrak of an investigation which may have found the right guy - after he committed suicide and can't actually defend himself.
Way to go.
I'm really tired of excuses for GWB. He simply didn't do his job. It would be bad enough if he tried and failed - but he doesn't even try.
And it's the same way he didn't do his job, that gave us the disastrous Katrina 'response'(where he ignored the problem and did **nothing** for an entire weekend), turned our first surplus in decades into the 4th-largest deficit in US history, and most recently fiddled while our economy melted down.
He's got jsut a few months left in office, thank God! But it's important to remember just how bad a President he was - so we don't ever elect anyone as terrible as him again.
GWB really is a complete and total, objectively verifiable disaster.
I'm interested in a list of Bush's possible successes.
And "not having more than two terrorist attacks" - 9/11 and then the Anthrax terrorism - doesn't count.
Thank you for proving that you can't even adjust one simple incorrect sentence so that it's actually correct - even if you adjust it in a way that supports the point you were trying to make.
That shows very precisely how any further political discussion would go.
In your original comment on this chain, on Sunday September 21, @12:17AM (#25090231), in a paragraph attemption to show Obama is against the Iraq war solely for political gain, you wrote this sentence that was wrong:
It wasn't until he had ambitions for the white house that he took a negative stance on it
I showed you how he had a negative stance against the war before we invaded, which was also before he was a Senator.
So all you have to make this sentence accurate and truthful, and defuse my complaint, is to add "*Once he was a Senator*, it wasn't until he had ambitions for the white house that he took a negative stance on it ". But **without** that precision, this sentence is inaccurate and misleading.
Why is that difference important? Because:
a) the point you are trying to make in your original paragraph, is that Obama is only against the Iraq war for political gain.
b) Without "Once he was a Senator", your statement is absolute - it states that Obama was **never** against the Iraq invasion. As I've shown you, this statement is contrary to reality.
c) with Obama's pre-Iraq war speech - all of which shows great judgement, btw, as all of his warnings have basically come true - the record of Obama's Iraq stance becomes much more clear.
Obama was against the war before we invaded, and when it was quite unpopular to be against it. But once we invaded and troops were on the ground, he gave the troops and the effort every chance he could. Then when the Bush administration's failures and deceptions about the war became more and more clear, Obama turned more and more against the war.
Is that clear to you?
I'm not taking your sentence out of context - that sentence **clashes** with the context. It is inaccurate and wrong.
Now, again, all you have to do to proceed and defuse my argument, is to agree that your sentence should read "*Once he was a Senator*, it wasn't until he had ambitions for the white house that he took a negative stance on it. " Or any similar variation that you feel still supports your point, but is actually truthful. So the point is not actually **wrong**.
I'll go that far, if you really are genuinely interested in a discussion.
I'm not even sure why I'm going through all this effort. I guess it's that I don't like inaccurate communication. It's simple lack of clarity like this which can make it difficult or impossible for things to move forward in any useful direction. In all walks of life, not just user forums.
If that seems pedantic to you, that's fine, and that's your privilege. I consider it necessary, especially in something that's already as subjective and subject to personal interpretation as a political discussion.
But you wouldn't even address the context of what I said with your reply which means you didn't address what I said at all.
That's because, as I've said repeatedly, I wanted to make sure you would actually admit it when you were wrong. So far you clearly have shown you won't.
You had some points but they were off in lalla land
Eve if they were all "off in lala land" as you say - then all you had to do was acknowledge them or disprove them for us to move forward.
That way, even if you really thought I was doing this as a dodge, then you would have called my bluff. And I would know that you are actually able to admit it when you're wrong, which to me is the hallmark of a good-faith discussion.
It leave us with the impression that you are the fucked up person who just cant get it. It isn't hard but for some reason, you just don't get it.
You're entitled to your opinion.
My opinion of you is somewhat different. My opinion of you is that you have an extreme difficulty admitting that you can possibly be wrong. This means that any discussion with you is not one that we are both actually likely to benefit from.
So, you're also entitled to go troll somewhere else, as you see fit. Just expect that when you make statements that are clearly wrong, and people call you on it and demand better of you, it may actually benefit you to admit it.
Avoiding admitting that you're wrong can work OK in some circumstances in the short term, but in the long term it's a pretty terrible policy. In fact, that's probably what's handicapped GWB himself more than any other factor.
All right, great.:) I'm glad I didn't get into the weeds with you, because clearly you would rather argue every possible side point and possible nitpicking interpretation of how you **could** be right, than just admit you wrote something that was simply wrong.
You can't even admit that you misread my original post, in which I was answering Alti's equating of Obama and Palin.
I mean, you can't even admit you didn't understand "the internets" was mocking Bush. I'm supposed to interpret from your original statement, which mentions neither Bush nor Obama, that you were mocking my mocking of Bush, by mocking Obama?
Quoted below - remember this? "can use the Internets" All of them or just some of them? I'm not sure if this is an honest typo or if he has convinced you that there are more then one internet that he knows how to use.
Come on. Would you believe that excuse, if our positions were reversed? I really don't think you would. And you'd be right not to.
And I understand exactly what you're saying, and in context. Where we differ, is how you are trying to assign to me the job of re-interpreting your words beyond their basic literal meaning.
It's not up to me to straighten out your words so that they actually fit the points you're trying to make. Either words mean something, or they don't. Either you take responsibility for what your words actually mean, or you do not.
Apparently you would rather not. So, in essence you do not appear to me to be interested in an actual good-faith discussion.
So, have a nice day, and if McCain actually gets in, I hope for all our sakes he's the leader you think he is, and not the disaster which I think his record proves he will be.
best.
~j : )
The part of your metaphor that doesn't map: "gets arrested with powder on his hands."
Saddam Hussein was never found to have ***any indication*** of WMD's in the run-up to the 2nd Gulf War. In fact, the direct opposite was continually found.
So, to expand your metaphor:
We know a guy killed 3000 of ***our*** people. We get him pinned down in one neighborhood. Then, rather than finish this job, we send our police into a neighboring village that had ***nothing to do with this***, because the chief of police has a problem with him that has ***nothing to do with any evidence*** that he intends us harm.
As a result of this, the guy who actually killed 3000 of our people gets away.
Was this operation a success?
It's a good thing there's other corporate empires the size of Disney, so that this can be fought and won.
Otherwise it would be Disney vs. rights of the average US citizen- which would basically be a replay of Godzilla vs. Bambi.
I see your black liberation theology nutcases, and I raise you Sarah Palin - a fundamentalist theology nutcase who McCain would put **inside the White House**, and have her finger on the button should he die in office. Which based on his age has a 1 in 3 chance of happening - and that's not even taking into account that he's had cancer 3 times already.
Also that "soggy liberal nonsense" gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity under Clinton. And the last 7 years of non-"soggy liberal nonsense" has given us a list of foreign and domestic policy disasters that now include the worst stock crash since the Great Depression.
So for McCain to be change from GWB, and Obama to be more of the same - well, that actually doesn't logically connect in any way. Really, it doesn't.
The Democratic Congress is also still blocked from passage in the Senate, because the Dems have a narrow 49 + 2 independents majority. And one of those 2 independents is Lieberman.
And of course all tie-breakers are to be settled by Darth Cheney, once he emerges from his pixellated bunker.
Yep. Like voting for Nader in 2000. Boy, those Florida Nader voters really changed things for the better - by helping put Bush in office.
It sucks that we have to make a choice between two imperfect parties and their imperfect candidates. But that doesn't change the fact that they're the only real choices before us.
I'd love it if we had a viable third party. But to do that, we need candidates who are actually dedicated to building a third party - and not just pushing themselves. We need something with a structure - candidates at teh state senate level, mayors, lietenant governors and then governors - and federal congressmen and senators - **then** a third-party would actually have some power and some purpose.
Otherwise it's like having to pick between which of 2 muggers in an alleyway will rob you, by choosing a priest. Guess what? The priest isn't there, and isn't strong enough to help if he was.
I'd just like to point out that "fiscally conservative" is not a phrase that accurately describes the Republican party in practice. Their proven record on spending and the budget every single time they get into the presidency is the exact opposite of that.
Compared with Democratic presidents, who tend to set the agenda in ways that result in a more balanced budget, less debt, and better job creation.
One of the main reasons this is so is that a hallmark of conservative policy, "supply-side economics", where you cut taxes for the rich and hope that they spend it and juice the economy, simply doesn't work in practice.
- I show you how my use of the phrase "Internets" is not either a typo or my ignorance, but an intentional mocking of GWB which you weren't aware of.
Rather than admit you were wrong in your categorization of me as mistaken or stupid for using the phrase "internets" as I did, you careen sideways to find a way to interpret what GWB said so it isn't wrong, by adding words he didn't actually say into the conversation.
- Then you say, I'm not sure when or how you got the Idea that I supported the Iraq war. I definately havn't showed that in my posts with you. I do support the war
So in other words my guess is correct - you **do** support the war. You just seem to think that because (according to you) I "shouldn't" know this, this somehow makes my guess wrong?
You then take my correct statement of this as "trying to change the topic" - when in fact I'm responding to one of your statements, in which you implied that I was "one of those clueless supporters" of Obama.
- I prove you wrong about Obama's stance on the Iraq war and occupation, and ask you to acknowledge this fact before we continue. I give you an easily confirmable citation. I tell you repeatedly that I'll be happy to wander into the other points that you mention - once you address this fact.
You steadfastly refuse to address this fact.
Now, that's of course fine, that's your privilege. But if you can't admit it when you're so clearly proven wrong even on such a minor point, the rest of our discussion is clearly destined to go nowhere.
Now you're using the excuse that it isn't something "substantial" - as defined by you. Well, if you can't even admit it when you're wrong on something insubstantial, how much more likely are you to admit it when I prove you wrong on something more "important"?
So, as I've said before, repeatedly, once you have shown you are able to admit you're wrong, I'll be happy to discuss all the other things in your posts that I think you're wrong about.
Until then, have a good day, good luck, vote for the candidate of your choice, and I hope that whoever gets will do well for America and all our futures.
- completely ignored all warnings from the intelligence community for his first 8 months in office
- demoted bipartisan Richard Clarke from cabinet meetings and put no one in his place;
- refused Clarke's intelligence plan and put nothing in it's place,
- held **not one** meeting on terrorism **and**
- took a one-month vacation in August of 2001 - where he received a briefing specifically mentioning Bin Laden and did, you guessed it, nothing?
I'd think that Bush is responsible for what Bush did in office. Or in this case, didn't do. I'd think that was in line with the conservative principle of personal accounability, wouldn't you?
My use of the phrase "the internets". No, it was not a typo, nor do I think there's a bunch of them. As I'm rather surprised you don't realize, "internets" is a stock phrase to poke fun at ignorance of the Internet and technology in general.
It's one of the many gifts to American culture produced by that same awesome genius guy who thought invading Iraq was such an awesome idea - George W. Bush.
But don't take my word for it - look it up on the Internets.
And here's a suggestion for you. I'm not one of the clueless cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion and occupation, who will agree with you just to get you to shut up.
All I'm asking is that you pay attention - to the facts. And admit when you are wrong - as you provably are. Then we can move forward. Ball's in your court.
Equally inexperienced is not the opposite of more experienced.
Of course not. Equally inexperienced is functionally equivalent to equally experienced. So?
Palin is running for vice president, not president.
And? Once again, take that up with Alti, because that's who I was responding to, with a list of Obama's qualifications as opposed to Palin's.
My post starts off on the miracle image you gave Obama that he simply does not deserve.
What, in that he's done X, Y and Z? Well, he's done X Y and Z. If you want to write about how X Y and Z really aren't that important, that's fine - that's just a separate argument.
I'm just trying to get YOU to realize that it doesn't prove Obama is less experienced than Palin - which was my original disagreement with Alti.
You hav a hard time when someone turns the lights out don't you.
Oh, come on yourself. It seems you have a hard time when you think you've turned out the lights on someone else - and it turns out you haven't even been addressing the same argument.
The blowing smoke comment was about your delusions of Obama.
Right. And the smokestack up your own ass, is how you were responding to ***an entirely different argument than what I was making, which is entirely of your own imagination***.
Is that point clear for you yet?
In fact, I only wasted a few sentences on Palin in the entire post and now your so scared of her, that your attempting to make my entire reply about her?
LOL!!!!!!
MY response to Alti, which YOU were criticizing, was about OBAMA vs. PALIN.
So the fact that you barely mentioned Palin, further shows exactly how you are off point, for the purpose of **my* post that you were responding to.
You dumbfuck, Obama wasn't a US senator when we went to war.
Nice show of maturity and logic, tiger. And? so?
YOU had previously stated:
It wasn't until he had ambitions for the white house that he took a negative stance on it and he has been publicly proven wrong every time by the course of the war.
I showed you that Obama ***had*** take a negative stance on before he had ambitions for the White House. And he took this stance in the middle of his primary election to the US Senate - at a time in which even suggesting it might be a bad idea to invade Iraq was a very politically risky thing to do.
Therefore, if you are interested in being intellectually honest, please admit that you were wrong. As I said in my previous reply to you,
If you can do the above, I'll be happy to wander through the weeds to show you what is provably and factually wrong with the rest of what you wrote.
I just want to see that you **can** admit when you are wrong first. So neither of us are wasting our time.
Is that all clear? If it is not, please tell me which part of it isn't, and I'll be happy to go over that part again as well.
Your comment on Palin as if she is campaigning against Obama himself is flawed
No, if you read just 2 spots up the chain, the user Attila Dimedici (1036002) compared Obama and Palin, by calling them equally inexperienced.
I posted the above to show that Palin and Obama are clearly **not**. That's my whole point. So your entire post is starting off on the wrong assumption.
Not only are you wrong here, it seems that you have had so much smoke blown up your ass that your brain is foggy too.
Since you are responding to my post without even reading or knowing what *I was responding to*, that's a pretty funny statement.
Jesus would say, "Don't worry about the smoke blown up your brother's ass. Worry about the belching smokestack shoved up your own."
Obama was never right on the Iraq war while he was a US senator.
Interesting qualification. What he **WAS** right about, was while he was still running for election. He stated that the Iraq war was a bad idea. He was right. McCain was wrong. And so was Hillary, for that matter.
For the first 18 months in office, he didn't stand in opposition or approval of the war, he just silently voted for all funding.
And?
He's supposed to deny money to troops in the field, once we've committed? Riiiiiight. I'm sure all conservatives would have loved and respected him for that.
It wasn't until he had ambitions for the white house that he took a negative stance on it
I could go in and dispute the disputing of those examples, but that's getting a bit in the weeds.:)
But I do think it's stretching things a bit to interpret Palin's comment of "In what respect, Charlie?" as asking *which definition* of the Bush Doctrine Charlie was asking about.
It seemed pretty clear, at least from where I was sitting, that she had no idea what any one of the 4 possible definitions were. And it sure seemed to me like Gibson had to spoon-feed her the whole definition.
But, regardless of all that - I do think an item-by-item comparison of Obama and Palin in any category relevant to government, will show Obama as more experienced. And also smarter, better educated, and more honest.
But we can agree to disagree.
I didn't say McCain chose poorly overall. McCain chose well *politically* - he made the only choice he could to get his party behind him again.
But calling Obama "no more qualified" than Palin to be President is really ignoring the record.
Obama:
- since in the US senate authored 152 bills, sponsored 427
- has met with and impressed the heads of state of Germany, France, the UK, and Iraq
- has been on Senate Foreign Relations committee
- has some idea of what the Bush Doctrine is
- has proven himself right on the Iraq war, the needs of the US economy, and other positions far earlier than anyone else, including other Democrats
- can use the Internets
Palin:
- can see Russia from one tiny island in her state
- just got a passport for the first time last year
- can field-dress a moose
You see what I'm saying?
And considering that McCain's 70, has already had cancer **3 times*** and has a 1 in 3 chance of dying in office, that was a very irresponsible choice as far as the country is concerned.
Let's look at this past election. The Democratic candidate was able to choose a VP based on his experience. The Republican candidate actually **wanted** a VP with experience - Joseph Lieberman - but had to go with someone he didn't even know, who was completely unqualified, just to pacify his right-wing base.
And the kicker for why he had to do this, was that they didn't think he was right-wing enough himself.
It is a fact that artists, nerds and techies tend to be more mentally shall I say, weird, than the rest of the population.
Mmm; I don't know if that's such a fact, actually. We're talking anecdotal info, of course; but I've known plenty of autistic and near-autistic nerds. They've generally tended towards being more right-wing, as libertarians or full conservatives.
And it also depends on how you define "weird". For example, I think that thinking homosexuality is evil is pretty weird.
And then there's all kinds of things which are de facto mental illness but don't necessarily show up as such. Like drinking problems, xenophobia, OCD, all of which are easily camouflaged by a quiet conservative exterior.
Slashdot Mirror
But Bush not only did nothing, he did several things which actually worked against the US being able to stop the 9/11 attacks:
- he effectively demoted Richard Clarke, a bipartisan terrorism expert, from cabinet meetings and put no one in his place
- he completely ignored Clarke's anti-terrorism proposal and put nothing in it's place
- he held not one single meeting about terrorism in his first 8 months in office
- he then went on an unprecedented month-long vacation in August, during which he got the PDB about Bin Laden, and responded by clearing some more brush for the cameras.
Then with the Anthrax attacks, we get another total clusterfrak of an investigation which may have found the right guy - after he committed suicide and can't actually defend himself.
Way to go.
I'm really tired of excuses for GWB. He simply didn't do his job. It would be bad enough if he tried and failed - but he doesn't even try.
And it's the same way he didn't do his job, that gave us the disastrous Katrina 'response'(where he ignored the problem and did **nothing** for an entire weekend), turned our first surplus in decades into the 4th-largest deficit in US history, and most recently fiddled while our economy melted down.
He's got jsut a few months left in office, thank God! But it's important to remember just how bad a President he was - so we don't ever elect anyone as terrible as him again.
GWB really is a complete and total, objectively verifiable disaster.
Perhaps more precisely, Gore might have cared that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan/Pakistan, not Iraq.
I'm interested in a list of Bush's possible successes. And "not having more than two terrorist attacks" - 9/11 and then the Anthrax terrorism - doesn't count.
Thank you for proving that you can't even adjust one simple incorrect sentence so that it's actually correct - even if you adjust it in a way that supports the point you were trying to make.
That shows very precisely how any further political discussion would go.
Cheers and good luck, ~j : )
In your original comment on this chain, on Sunday September 21, @12:17AM (#25090231), in a paragraph attemption to show Obama is against the Iraq war solely for political gain, you wrote this sentence that was wrong:
It wasn't until he had ambitions for the white house that he took a negative stance on it
I showed you how he had a negative stance against the war before we invaded, which was also before he was a Senator.
So all you have to make this sentence accurate and truthful, and defuse my complaint, is to add "*Once he was a Senator*, it wasn't until he had ambitions for the white house that he took a negative stance on it ". But **without** that precision, this sentence is inaccurate and misleading.
Why is that difference important? Because:
a) the point you are trying to make in your original paragraph, is that Obama is only against the Iraq war for political gain.
b) Without "Once he was a Senator", your statement is absolute - it states that Obama was **never** against the Iraq invasion. As I've shown you, this statement is contrary to reality.
c) with Obama's pre-Iraq war speech - all of which shows great judgement, btw, as all of his warnings have basically come true - the record of Obama's Iraq stance becomes much more clear.
Obama was against the war before we invaded, and when it was quite unpopular to be against it. But once we invaded and troops were on the ground, he gave the troops and the effort every chance he could. Then when the Bush administration's failures and deceptions about the war became more and more clear, Obama turned more and more against the war.
Is that clear to you?
I'm not taking your sentence out of context - that sentence **clashes** with the context. It is inaccurate and wrong.
Now, again, all you have to do to proceed and defuse my argument, is to agree that your sentence should read "*Once he was a Senator*, it wasn't until he had ambitions for the white house that he took a negative stance on it. " Or any similar variation that you feel still supports your point, but is actually truthful. So the point is not actually **wrong**.
I'll go that far, if you really are genuinely interested in a discussion.
I'm not even sure why I'm going through all this effort. I guess it's that I don't like inaccurate communication. It's simple lack of clarity like this which can make it difficult or impossible for things to move forward in any useful direction. In all walks of life, not just user forums.
If that seems pedantic to you, that's fine, and that's your privilege. I consider it necessary, especially in something that's already as subjective and subject to personal interpretation as a political discussion.
That's because, as I've said repeatedly, I wanted to make sure you would actually admit it when you were wrong. So far you clearly have shown you won't.
You had some points but they were off in lalla land
Eve if they were all "off in lala land" as you say - then all you had to do was acknowledge them or disprove them for us to move forward.
That way, even if you really thought I was doing this as a dodge, then you would have called my bluff. And I would know that you are actually able to admit it when you're wrong, which to me is the hallmark of a good-faith discussion.
It leave us with the impression that you are the fucked up person who just cant get it. It isn't hard but for some reason, you just don't get it.
You're entitled to your opinion.
My opinion of you is somewhat different. My opinion of you is that you have an extreme difficulty admitting that you can possibly be wrong. This means that any discussion with you is not one that we are both actually likely to benefit from.
So, you're also entitled to go troll somewhere else, as you see fit. Just expect that when you make statements that are clearly wrong, and people call you on it and demand better of you, it may actually benefit you to admit it.
Avoiding admitting that you're wrong can work OK in some circumstances in the short term, but in the long term it's a pretty terrible policy. In fact, that's probably what's handicapped GWB himself more than any other factor.
You can't even admit that you misread my original post, in which I was answering Alti's equating of Obama and Palin.
I mean, you can't even admit you didn't understand "the internets" was mocking Bush. I'm supposed to interpret from your original statement, which mentions neither Bush nor Obama, that you were mocking my mocking of Bush, by mocking Obama?
Quoted below - remember this?
"can use the Internets" All of them or just some of them? I'm not sure if this is an honest typo or if he has convinced you that there are more then one internet that he knows how to use.
Come on. Would you believe that excuse, if our positions were reversed? I really don't think you would. And you'd be right not to.
And I understand exactly what you're saying, and in context. Where we differ, is how you are trying to assign to me the job of re-interpreting your words beyond their basic literal meaning.
It's not up to me to straighten out your words so that they actually fit the points you're trying to make. Either words mean something, or they don't. Either you take responsibility for what your words actually mean, or you do not.
Apparently you would rather not. So, in essence you do not appear to me to be interested in an actual good-faith discussion.
So, have a nice day, and if McCain actually gets in, I hope for all our sakes he's the leader you think he is, and not the disaster which I think his record proves he will be. best. ~j : )
The part of your metaphor that doesn't map: "gets arrested with powder on his hands." Saddam Hussein was never found to have ***any indication*** of WMD's in the run-up to the 2nd Gulf War. In fact, the direct opposite was continually found. So, to expand your metaphor: We know a guy killed 3000 of ***our*** people. We get him pinned down in one neighborhood. Then, rather than finish this job, we send our police into a neighboring village that had ***nothing to do with this***, because the chief of police has a problem with him that has ***nothing to do with any evidence*** that he intends us harm. As a result of this, the guy who actually killed 3000 of our people gets away. Was this operation a success?
It's a good thing there's other corporate empires the size of Disney, so that this can be fought and won. Otherwise it would be Disney vs. rights of the average US citizen- which would basically be a replay of Godzilla vs. Bambi.
Also that "soggy liberal nonsense" gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity under Clinton. And the last 7 years of non-"soggy liberal nonsense" has given us a list of foreign and domestic policy disasters that now include the worst stock crash since the Great Depression.
So for McCain to be change from GWB, and Obama to be more of the same - well, that actually doesn't logically connect in any way. Really, it doesn't.
And of course all tie-breakers are to be settled by Darth Cheney, once he emerges from his pixellated bunker.
I've generally considered it the "Contract ON America".
It sucks that we have to make a choice between two imperfect parties and their imperfect candidates. But that doesn't change the fact that they're the only real choices before us.
I'd love it if we had a viable third party. But to do that, we need candidates who are actually dedicated to building a third party - and not just pushing themselves. We need something with a structure - candidates at teh state senate level, mayors, lietenant governors and then governors - and federal congressmen and senators - **then** a third-party would actually have some power and some purpose.
Otherwise it's like having to pick between which of 2 muggers in an alleyway will rob you, by choosing a priest. Guess what? The priest isn't there, and isn't strong enough to help if he was.
One of the main reasons this is so is that a hallmark of conservative policy, "supply-side economics", where you cut taxes for the rich and hope that they spend it and juice the economy, simply doesn't work in practice.
- I show you how my use of the phrase "Internets" is not either a typo or my ignorance, but an intentional mocking of GWB which you weren't aware of.
Rather than admit you were wrong in your categorization of me as mistaken or stupid for using the phrase "internets" as I did, you careen sideways to find a way to interpret what GWB said so it isn't wrong, by adding words he didn't actually say into the conversation.
- Then you say,
I'm not sure when or how you got the Idea that I supported the Iraq war. I definately havn't showed that in my posts with you. I do support the war
So in other words my guess is correct - you **do** support the war. You just seem to think that because (according to you) I "shouldn't" know this, this somehow makes my guess wrong?
You then take my correct statement of this as "trying to change the topic" - when in fact I'm responding to one of your statements, in which you implied that I was "one of those clueless supporters" of Obama.
- I prove you wrong about Obama's stance on the Iraq war and occupation, and ask you to acknowledge this fact before we continue. I give you an easily confirmable citation. I tell you repeatedly that I'll be happy to wander into the other points that you mention - once you address this fact.
You steadfastly refuse to address this fact.
Now, that's of course fine, that's your privilege. But if you can't admit it when you're so clearly proven wrong even on such a minor point, the rest of our discussion is clearly destined to go nowhere.
Now you're using the excuse that it isn't something "substantial" - as defined by you. Well, if you can't even admit it when you're wrong on something insubstantial, how much more likely are you to admit it when I prove you wrong on something more "important"?
So, as I've said before, repeatedly, once you have shown you are able to admit you're wrong, I'll be happy to discuss all the other things in your posts that I think you're wrong about.
Until then, have a good day, good luck, vote for the candidate of your choice, and I hope that whoever gets will do well for America and all our futures.
- completely ignored all warnings from the intelligence community for his first 8 months in office
- demoted bipartisan Richard Clarke from cabinet meetings and put no one in his place;
- refused Clarke's intelligence plan and put nothing in it's place,
- held **not one** meeting on terrorism **and**
- took a one-month vacation in August of 2001 - where he received a briefing specifically mentioning Bin Laden and did, you guessed it, nothing?
I'd think that Bush is responsible for what Bush did in office. Or in this case, didn't do. I'd think that was in line with the conservative principle of personal accounability, wouldn't you?
My use of the phrase "the internets". No, it was not a typo, nor do I think there's a bunch of them. As I'm rather surprised you don't realize, "internets" is a stock phrase to poke fun at ignorance of the Internet and technology in general.
It's one of the many gifts to American culture produced by that same awesome genius guy who thought invading Iraq was such an awesome idea - George W. Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internets
But don't take my word for it - look it up on the Internets.
And here's a suggestion for you. I'm not one of the clueless cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion and occupation, who will agree with you just to get you to shut up.
All I'm asking is that you pay attention - to the facts. And admit when you are wrong - as you provably are. Then we can move forward. Ball's in your court.
Of course not. Equally inexperienced is functionally equivalent to equally experienced. So?
Palin is running for vice president, not president.
And? Once again, take that up with Alti, because that's who I was responding to, with a list of Obama's qualifications as opposed to Palin's.
My post starts off on the miracle image you gave Obama that he simply does not deserve.
What, in that he's done X, Y and Z? Well, he's done X Y and Z. If you want to write about how X Y and Z really aren't that important, that's fine - that's just a separate argument.
I'm just trying to get YOU to realize that it doesn't prove Obama is less experienced than Palin - which was my original disagreement with Alti.
You hav a hard time when someone turns the lights out don't you.
Oh, come on yourself. It seems you have a hard time when you think you've turned out the lights on someone else - and it turns out you haven't even been addressing the same argument.
The blowing smoke comment was about your delusions of Obama.
Right. And the smokestack up your own ass, is how you were responding to ***an entirely different argument than what I was making, which is entirely of your own imagination***.
Is that point clear for you yet?
In fact, I only wasted a few sentences on Palin in the entire post and now your so scared of her, that your attempting to make my entire reply about her?
LOL!!!!!!
MY response to Alti, which YOU were criticizing, was about OBAMA vs. PALIN.
So the fact that you barely mentioned Palin, further shows exactly how you are off point, for the purpose of **my* post that you were responding to.
You dumbfuck, Obama wasn't a US senator when we went to war.
Nice show of maturity and logic, tiger. And? so?
YOU had previously stated:
It wasn't until he had ambitions for the white house that he took a negative stance on it and he has been publicly proven wrong every time by the course of the war.
I showed you that Obama ***had*** take a negative stance on before he had ambitions for the White House. And he took this stance in the middle of his primary election to the US Senate - at a time in which even suggesting it might be a bad idea to invade Iraq was a very politically risky thing to do.
Therefore, if you are interested in being intellectually honest, please admit that you were wrong. As I said in my previous reply to you,
If you can do the above, I'll be happy to wander through the weeds to show you what is provably and factually wrong with the rest of what you wrote.
I just want to see that you **can** admit when you are wrong first. So neither of us are wasting our time.
Is that all clear? If it is not, please tell me which part of it isn't, and I'll be happy to go over that part again as well.
No, if you read just 2 spots up the chain, the user Attila Dimedici (1036002) compared Obama and Palin, by calling them equally inexperienced.
I posted the above to show that Palin and Obama are clearly **not**. That's my whole point. So your entire post is starting off on the wrong assumption.
Not only are you wrong here, it seems that you have had so much smoke blown up your ass that your brain is foggy too.
Since you are responding to my post without even reading or knowing what *I was responding to*, that's a pretty funny statement.
Jesus would say, "Don't worry about the smoke blown up your brother's ass. Worry about the belching smokestack shoved up your own."
Obama was never right on the Iraq war while he was a US senator.
Interesting qualification. What he **WAS** right about, was while he was still running for election. He stated that the Iraq war was a bad idea. He was right. McCain was wrong. And so was Hillary, for that matter.
For the first 18 months in office, he didn't stand in opposition or approval of the war, he just silently voted for all funding.
And?
He's supposed to deny money to troops in the field, once we've committed? Riiiiiight. I'm sure all conservatives would have loved and respected him for that.
It wasn't until he had ambitions for the white house that he took a negative stance on it
No.
You are absolutely, completely, totally wrong.
Here's the proof that you are wrong: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech
Go read the above speech. It was made in 2002. If you are one of those who don't trust anything Wiki, go google it elsewhere. See if I'm right.
Then, once you have verified this fact, please have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
If you can do the above, I'll be happy to wander through the weeds to show you what is provably and factually wrong with the rest of what you wrote.
I just want to see if you can admit you were wrong at this point, before I continue.
I could go in and dispute the disputing of those examples, but that's getting a bit in the weeds. :)
But I do think it's stretching things a bit to interpret Palin's comment of "In what respect, Charlie?" as asking *which definition* of the Bush Doctrine Charlie was asking about.
It seemed pretty clear, at least from where I was sitting, that she had no idea what any one of the 4 possible definitions were. And it sure seemed to me like Gibson had to spoon-feed her the whole definition.
But, regardless of all that - I do think an item-by-item comparison of Obama and Palin in any category relevant to government, will show Obama as more experienced. And also smarter, better educated, and more honest.
But we can agree to disagree.
But calling Obama "no more qualified" than Palin to be President is really ignoring the record.
Obama:
- since in the US senate authored 152 bills, sponsored 427
- has met with and impressed the heads of state of Germany, France, the UK, and Iraq
- has been on Senate Foreign Relations committee
- has some idea of what the Bush Doctrine is
- has proven himself right on the Iraq war, the needs of the US economy, and other positions far earlier than anyone else, including other Democrats - can use the Internets
Palin: - can see Russia from one tiny island in her state - just got a passport for the first time last year - can field-dress a moose
You see what I'm saying?
And considering that McCain's 70, has already had cancer **3 times*** and has a 1 in 3 chance of dying in office, that was a very irresponsible choice as far as the country is concerned.
Just to roll back with the sarcasm: the ironic beauty of that is, they wouldn't listen to me because I'm clear-headed. :)
Let's look at this past election. The Democratic candidate was able to choose a VP based on his experience. The Republican candidate actually **wanted** a VP with experience - Joseph Lieberman - but had to go with someone he didn't even know, who was completely unqualified, just to pacify his right-wing base.
And the kicker for why he had to do this, was that they didn't think he was right-wing enough himself.
It is a fact that artists, nerds and techies tend to be more mentally shall I say, weird, than the rest of the population. Mmm; I don't know if that's such a fact, actually. We're talking anecdotal info, of course; but I've known plenty of autistic and near-autistic nerds. They've generally tended towards being more right-wing, as libertarians or full conservatives. And it also depends on how you define "weird". For example, I think that thinking homosexuality is evil is pretty weird. And then there's all kinds of things which are de facto mental illness but don't necessarily show up as such. Like drinking problems, xenophobia, OCD, all of which are easily camouflaged by a quiet conservative exterior.
And in some cases, a re-elected president.