Because he's EVIL, Bob!

Exactly, but you didnt address the original point: Even Jay Rockefeller, certainly sometimes suspect and certainly NO friend of Dubya, realized the problems as I set them out before.

Are you suggesting that it was the Senate Dems turn to be the good guys and House Dems turn to be the tort lawyers' sockpuppets?

And you freakin' KNOW I aint naive. But most walk a thin line of avarice balanced against service...as in the thread on the turmoil in Pakistan, I expect elected folks to do the right thing in the end. Why am I not seeing that?

 

How about if, before changing the subject, you acknowledge that you were wrong that I wouldn't provide specifics to back up my assertion, and that I was right about the Republicans' scaremongering? You're very good at changing the subject when it looks like you're wrong, 'fog.

 

'fog - is there a point you're trying to make there? You expected better from Congress than you saw...you're surprised? Both parties do it, just on different issues. What's your point?

 

Where'd you go, 'fog? I see you on the board starting and posting in other threads, and yet you're nowhere to be found in the one where you've been proven wrong and asked to admit as much.

 

Hey i found a new avatar for fog!

 

I made all the points once.

You call me twisted in knots, because I wont run in circles? PELOSI PREFERS LAWYER MONEY to security.
P-E-R-I-O-D
Scaremongering?
If I gave you a list of the known plots -stupid or not- you would still call it scaremongering, right?

 

You come from a strange school of thought about discussion, if you believe that the way discussion works is that you make points once, and then nobody else can respond to them and expect you to read them.

Here, let me help, because apparently you're too busy starting new threads to pay attention when people are proving you wrong in existing ones.

I said (facetiously):

You responded:

After changing the subject within the same post, you concluded by saying:

The implication, clearly, is that I was not prepared to back up my point with facts. Now, it's certainly true that some people make points that they're not willing or able to back up with facts, but I was not one of those people. As a result, I backed up my point with facts. In one post I said:

And then in a second post I said:

Clearly, I was backing up my earlier assertion with facts. And yet, strangely, once it appeared that you were wrong, despite making five other unrelated posts in this thread and starting at least three new ones, you were nowhere to be found. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm holding your hand through this discussion, but if a child is unwilling to cross the street, sometimes you've got to hold that child's hand.

 

I dont really know what to do with this... should I link it to Pelosi's current stand on FISA.. or the Earlier statements by Obama that he would pull out of Iraq 'soonest'.

Or should I point to both candidates non-related over the top statements on immigration and border security... and call it empty rhetoric?

Fact: Obama did indeed once say he would attack Taliban and Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan, even if Pak government didnt give permission
added: Do I have to explain what that would do to the delicate politics in Pakistan? It's not the same as our tacit approval of Turkish strikes into Iraq to go after the PKK. The Kurds trust us.

Which Obama has been saying throughout. And Iran IS developing nuke weapons, right now, as we argue!
All this dialogue has been done.. to death. We had France and Germany negotiating for years, to keep the resonance low, and they came away empty.

Both Syria and Iran do it JUST like N Korea, as a stall tactic and bargaining chip, then they renege and go back to the table. THAT is FACT!

What's worse is this last is not campaign rhetoric: so far three of his high profile policy advisors, Z Brzinski, Susan E Rice and Samatha Powers are all in favor of this judging from their past writings and statements.
Rice and Powers think we'll have everything on the right track if Israel just gives up East Jerusalem to Palestine, then they'll have a state and everything will be hunky dory with all the rest of the middle east. But the REST of the middle east doesnt want the palestinian thing solved!
Because it keeps their people stirred up about 'atrocities over there' and not focusing on them.

And ZB is among the worst: Still champing at the bit to justify his Carter administration failures, he's still at it... complaining about the 'climate of fear' just because he has to pass through rent-a-cop checkpoints in federal buildings... yet he does not have one concrete suggestion on the alternatives, other than renew dialogue with the offending sponsor-states.
Read this piece of drivel and tell me what he says.Then tell me McCain went over the top!
You dont have to be a terrorist to aid terrorism you only have to be incapable of learning from past mistakes. Like ZB and Jimmy Carter.

Let me further inflame the passions, here. I have no degrees in anything. But I made a living on observing cause and effect in the workplace, and applying practical technology to it. That means I observed human nature and cause and effect, and acted on them with what was available, rather than construct and propose theoretical solutions. And I have always had a natural curiosity on why people do what they do.

And having observed that cause and effect from the Bay of Pigs fiasco to today., I can tell you that words cannot express fully my utter contempt for 'Learned and Informed Academic Think Tank 'Progressives' such as those I named in this post. And most of all, Noam Chomsky*, and anyone who who follow that 'Chance-like' idiot.

That is my statement now, that will be my statement next year.

The ONLY reason you see me as 'twisted in a pretzel' is that you are incapable of dealing with my views... which sometimes seem illogical because they dont follow some 'party line' But I offer examples in 'contrarian' pretzel logic such as my lack of concern over our Chinese trade relations, and my long expressed opinion that Cuba sanctions and embargoes should have ended decades ago.

* Who, as far as I know, has no more credentials in 'International Relations' than I do. He is an expert in the meaning of words and word constructs.

 

I'm not sure what Pelosi has to do with anything, since she's not running for President. And I'm not sure what Iraq has to do with anything since, in case you've forgotten, there were no WMDs in Iraq, and therefore, pulling out of Iraq != "surrender to terror". (Like, for instance, how Obama advocated striking at terrorists within Pakistan. That's also not "surrender to terror." Now, Bush saying Bin Laden is not a priority, that sounds like surrender to terror.)

Yes, because Obama doesn't want to "surrender to terror" despite the fact that the Republicans want to imply that he does. Saying so is scaremongering. Pakistan is home to Taliban and Al Qaeda, not Iraq. Obama: "Let's attack terrorists because Pakistan isn't doing a good job of it."
Bush: "Don't look over there, look at Iraq! Look at me deposing a SECULAR dictator in Iraq, who had no weapons of mass destruction and no plans to attack us. But this is important because I have to finish the job that Daddy didn't!"

And definitely, talking to them is going to ruin everything. Blowing them up, that's what's going to make them not hate us.


So on the one hand, Obama wants to attack the Taliban and Al Qaeda (you know, actual terrorists) in Pakistan but that's bad, because Pakistan, despite being every bit as oppressive as Iran, Iraq and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, is "our ally", even though THEY'RE apparently not getting the job done. But on the other hand, Obama wants to surrender to terrorists. Which is it? I can see why Spencer picked that image, you'd have to be a contortionist to support all that self-contradiction.

 

jmh:
I can explain MY OPINION, as I just did.. extensively.. but I refuse to yank your head out of your own ass.
That's up to you, I'm done trying to make you see what I'm talking about.

I SUSPECT because you're scared to death of realpolitik and would rather blame something or someone you think you understand. And I'm NOT wasting anymore time trying to explain THAT to you, either. Figure it out for yourself.

 

'fog. Sorry, but as a relatively impartial observer (my politics are between yours and Dons), JMH addressed every point you made and your reply comes off as "you just don't understand what I'm saying." Sorry, but that's discussion-speak for "you win, but I don't want to admit it."

 

What.. on 'style points'?

Why do I have to draw a dotted line between what Prime Minister Pelosi is doing right now on FISA and how Dubya is responding and what Obama might do? The point is WE DONT KNOW!

Perhaps I am delusional, it's always possible... maybe you can point where -specifically- I fail to make the point about Democrats aiding terrorism, by negligence!

Isnt that what his complaint is about? It's NOT about your freakin viewpoint it's about what Romney was referring to, though that is more rhetorical... and specifically what McCain said and why he said it.

 

Update: Bob and Dubya On The Road

Time Magazine, Feb 28

Ummmm, yep. Sounds right!