Originally Posted By ecdc >>Sure we did. The U.N. didn't approve it. Tell me one other country that had veto power over this that Bush would have heeded.<< There isn't one, of course, and Douglas knows it (that's why he ignored your question). When the argument needs to be that it wasn't unilateral, then we hear all about the U.N. resolutions and how we have Poland and [Insert Your Own Tiny Token Country Here] on our side. When the argument needs to be its about our security, then we hear about how the U.N. doesn't matter and how we don't need anyone's permission to defend ourselves. It's tough to keep track of all the arguments we hear, even the ones that entirely conflict with the others.
Originally Posted By jonvn I don't know anyone who wasn't for the invasion of afghanistan. ANd that's around here....in SF. LIberal capital.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Does this mean that you were in favor of the initial operations in Afghanistan?" You bet. If you had been on these boards back in 2001 through, say, the 2004 elections, I was still defending Bush right along with beau, more or less, believe it or not. But Cheney Bush has lost me completely. I voted for the guy, twice, but that doesn't mean I have to keep blindly defending the guy. He's revealed himself to be one of the worst military presidents in history, if not THE worst. Cheney and him had their minds made up to get Hussein well before the first campaign stop in Iowa way back when, and as it turns out, opportunists that they are, 9/11 dropped right in their laps and gave them the out to do it. Everything we've ever heard about terrorist justification is nothing more than lies. Shame on guys like me for falling for it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<We differ in our opinion on how obtuse you are. Others here share my opinion, however, which is what I pointed out.>> <Again, that a few other posters share your opinion is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Repeating a pejoritive does not advance an argument.> It was never more than a mini-argument/sidelight topic. Just pointing out that your own opinion on your own obtuseness is decidedly in the minority. Doesn't mean you're wrong and we're right - just that that's how it stacks up. <<You tried to use those raw figures to show that the average of Dem/Dem Congresses/white houses had higher average deficits than Bush/DeLay. I pointed out that including the WWII years, when deficits were necessarily through the roof, threw off the numbers and made your attempt at manipulation dishonest.>> <I didn't try; I did. Your "pointing" something out doesn't make it true.> Except that what I pointed out WAS true. That once you remove the WWII years (as anyone intellectually honest would do), the Dem/Dem years look better than Bush/DeLay. What you claim you "did" was show that Dem/Dem deficits exceeded Bush/DeLay on average. But that's only if you include WWII - in other words, a technically true claim, but in context not one that says what you claim it does, and in fact is dishonest manipulation. You do this often. <<I believe YOUR site showed the numbers for Bush/DeLay higher than 1.18, did they not?>> <No, it didn't. It didn't include numbers for the last few years.> But for the years it included, did it not show this? So you can't say "no, it didn't" - that's obviously your knee jerking again. Besides, here are the CBO numbers that include the last couple of years. 2005 and 2006 are 2.6 and 1.9 respectively. Gee, both higher than 1.18. Game over. <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7679&sequence=0" target="_blank">http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm ?index=7679&sequence=0</a> <<Trying to pretend WWII was anything but an aberration is what's dishonest.>> <Nobody's trying to pretend that.> Sure, you were. You tried to claim that the Dem/Dem governments of the past 65 years had a higher average deficit than Bush/DeLay. That's only true if you include the WWII years. <<And, as we've seen, Dem/Dem congresses, once you take away the WWII years, did a better job of that than Bush/DeLay.>> <But we haven't seen that.> Yes, we did. I asked you what the average was once WWII was taken away and YOU told me it was 1.18. Lower than any year of Bush/DeLay. <<Could you be more vague, please? LOL! You're getting desperate.>> <Of course I'm not. Please stop blaming me for your failures.> LOL!! Really, Doug, sometimes all I can do is laugh, I'm sorry. But you're cute when you project. <<You have provided NOTHING to make that claim credible. Nothing. You simply assume it as a given. That is called treating an opinion as a fact. That is, in fact, the definition of it.>> <Whether or not a supply evidence has nothing to do with whether or not something is a fact.> But I've asked you to supply backup for your "fact" and you couldn't. <It is a fact that the Mt Hood is the highest mountain in Oregon. I don't need to link to anything for that to be a fact.> That's true. However, that fact can be verified. It can be researched and corroborated. That's very different from what you were claiming as "fact." <Conversely, no amount of evidence can make an opinion a fact. It only shows that a few people share it.> Let's get real here. What you claimed was a "simple fact" was that "the Democrats' health plan would have cost more." That's not like Mt. Hood. In fact, it is by definition an opinion. Only in Dougworld is that a "fact." I asked you to back up that "simple fact" and you can't. Of course you can't. It's an opinion. You really don't seem to understand the difference between an opinion and a fact here. In fact, I almost can't BELIEVE that material you're supplying me with here. <<More projecting.>> <I disagree. > You're cute when you're hapless.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I voted for the guy, twice, but that doesn't mean I have to keep blindly defending the guy." I didn't vote for him, because I don't care for his social stances, but even so, I supported him in doing this originally. I didn't think that the President of the United States would be this baldly inept in either the estimation of the threat against us, or in the prosecution of the war to a worthwhile ending for the United States. He's still the President, so even though I didn't vote for him, he was accorded the respect and the support he deserved in that position, holding knowledge and keeping his responsibility sacred in protecting us and the nation. He failed on all accounts. All of them. And if there has been a leader worse than this guy, there's not been many. He's going down with Buchanan as likely the most destructive President we've had, and perhaps along side Grant as the most otherwise inept. I won't say he's the MOST corrupt, because that title goes to Nixon. But the level of corruption here just about matches that, and perhaps surpasses it in some ways. Given all the different things he's fumbled he probably will likely be seen as the worst all around President. I don't see too easily how many others could be considered worse.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Maybe you are too young to remember Carter? And yes I am a native Georgian.
Originally Posted By jonvn No, I am not too young to remember him. He was terrible. I would say he rates as "ONE of the worst." But I think he's not in the running to be THE worst.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer I'm old enough to remember back to Kennedy, and minored in American history, so I know quite a bit about the others. Carter was inept, but not corrupt. Nixon was corrupt, but not inept. With Bush and friends, you've got both.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So I take it you're not much on military history?> Sounds to me like he is more of one than some here.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Except I don't. So, your little post is pointless. Once again.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There isn't one, of course, and Douglas knows it (that's why he ignored your question).> Douglas ignored it because it was irrelevant. Whether or not a country has "veto power" over US policy has nothing to do with whether an action is unilateral. <When the argument needs to be that it wasn't unilateral, then we hear all about the U.N. resolutions and how we have Poland and [Insert Your Own Tiny Token Country Here] on our side.> Nice way to disparage our allies. Frankly, I'd rather have Britain and Australia on our side than any other two countries. <It's tough to keep track of all the arguments we hear, even the ones that entirely conflict with the others.> Yes, I really don't understand the fluidity of the left's viewpoint. It's like they'll say anything to try to make Republicans look bad.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this thread. It's been an exhausting week. I'd like to go back and respond to what Dabob said in post 124. <Except that what I pointed out WAS true.> No, it wasn't. <But that's only if you include WWII - in other words, a technically true claim, but in context not one that says what you claim it does, and in fact is dishonest manipulation. You do this often.> It's not only true if you include WWII, but even if it was, it's not fair to exclude WWII but include every other war. I'm fine if you want to compare non-military spending under Republican administrations to that under Democrat administrations, or non-military spending under Republican congresses to Democrat congresses, but otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges. <I asked you what the average was once WWII was taken away and YOU told me it was 1.18. Lower than any year of Bush/DeLay.> Lower than any year of Bush/DeLay except the first. In fact the average deficit for Clinton's first two years of office, in terms of percentage of GDP, was 3.35%, while the average deficit for Bush's first two years was 0.12%. The difference, of course, was that when Clinton took office the economy was recovering, and when Bush took office, the economy was declining. Again, just looking at deficits isn't a good way to measure fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatives believe that low taxes and in minimal government intrusion in the free markets keep the economy strong. <I've asked you to supply backup for your "fact" and you couldn't.> Because I didn't doesn't mean I couldn't. It just means I haven't. <However, that fact can be verified. It can be researched and corroborated. That's very different from what you were claiming as "fact."> No, it's not. <What you claimed was a "simple fact" was that "the Democrats' health plan would have cost more." That's not like Mt. Hood. In fact, it is by definition an opinion. Only in Dougworld is that a "fact."> Did anyone predict that the Democrats' health plan would cost less than the Republicans when it was being debated? I sure don't remember that. <You're cute when you're hapless.> Actually, I'm always cute and never hapless.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>Frankly, I'd rather have Britain and Australia on our side than any other two countries.<<< Why, cause they speak English? Aren't there any more powerful and influential countries to have on our side besides AUSTRALIA? Gee, Canada's full of nice folk too, but I can think of several armies I'd rather be fighting side by side with. Oh yeah, and Doug...you have some nerve calling other peoples ideas "the usual nonsense" when you yourself pretty often "back up" your position with nothing more than "no, it wasn't", "no, it's not", and other simple contradictions.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why, cause they speak English?> No, because if it comes down to it, they'll stand and fight. <Aren't there any more powerful and influential countries to have on our side besides AUSTRALIA?> Of course. But I'd still rather have Australia. <Oh yeah, and Doug...you have some nerve calling other peoples ideas "the usual nonsense" when you yourself pretty often "back up" your position with nothing more than "no, it wasn't", "no, it's not", and other simple contradictions.> No, I "back up" my positions with facts. I use simple contradictions when people state opinions that can't be backed up with any facts.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this thread. It's been an exhausting week. I'd like to go back and respond to what Dabob said in post 124.> <<Except that what I pointed out WAS true.>> <No, it wasn't.> Yes, it was. That if you don't include WWII, Dem/Dem White Houses/Congresses had a better deficit record than Bush/DeLay on average. That was based on YOUR figures, bucko. <<But that's only if you include WWII - in other words, a technically true claim, but in context not one that says what you claim it does, and in fact is dishonest manipulation. You do this often.>> <It's not only true if you include WWII, but even if it was, > According to your figures, it was. I asked you what the average was excluding WWII, and YOU told me 1.18. That's higher than Bush/DeLay on average. <it's not fair to exclude WWII but include every other war. I'm fine if you want to compare non-military spending under Republican administrations to that under Democrat administrations, or non-military spending under Republican congresses to Democrat congresses, but otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges.> I'd be happy to see the figures. Of course, all I originally claimed is that there were Dem/Dem, GOP/GOP, GOP/Dem and Dem/GOP combinations that had better averages than Bush/DeLay. I didn't say they all did, only that you could find some combination of any of the above that was better than Bush/DeLay. Can you show me that's not true? <<I asked you what the average was once WWII was taken away and YOU told me it was 1.18. Lower than any year of Bush/DeLay.> > <Lower than any year of Bush/DeLay except the first.> And lower than their average. Game over. <In fact the average deficit for Clinton's first two years of office, in terms of percentage of GDP, was 3.35%, while the average deficit for Bush's first two years was 0.12%. The difference, of course, was that when Clinton took office the economy was recovering, and when Bush took office, the economy was declining.> Or the difference was that Clinton needed a couple of years to get over the hangover of Bush I, and Bush II needed a couple of years of Bush/DeLay fiscal imprudence to really come home to roost. <Again, just looking at deficits isn't a good way to measure fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatives believe that low taxes and in minimal government intrusion in the free markets keep the economy strong. > Of course, when your stats have shown you to be wrong, you can talk about what you "believe." <<I've asked you to supply backup for your "fact" and you couldn't.>> <Because I didn't doesn't mean I couldn't. It just means I haven't.> ROTFLMAO!!!! I'll remember that next time you ask for proof for something. "Um, I could show you that, I just choose not to." LOL! <<However, that fact can be verified. It can be researched and corroborated. That's very different from what you were claiming as "fact.">> <No, it's not.> And here you lose any shred of credibility you had left. You're trying to say that "Mt. Hood is the tallest peak in Oregon" and "The Democrats' drug plan would have cost more" are the same kind of facts. They are not. One is a simple, corroboratible fact. One is an opinion. It's amazing (but instructive) that you really don't see the difference. <<What you claimed was a "simple fact" was that "the Democrats' health plan would have cost more." That's not like Mt. Hood. In fact, it is by definition an opinion. Only in Dougworld is that a "fact.">> <Did anyone predict that the Democrats' health plan would cost less than the Republicans when it was being debated? I sure don't remember that.> A fact is not a fact based on who predicts something. It is certainly not based on your memory. <<You're cute when you're hapless.>> <Actually, I'm always cute and never hapless. > Actually, you're often hapless. Maybe that's why you're so cute.
Originally Posted By DAR >>>>Frankly, I'd rather have Britain and Australia on our side than any other two countries.<<<< <<<Why, cause they speak English?>>> I'm glad Britain and Australia are on our side. I'm glad that Israel sides with us. It would be nice if Russia and France weren't so selfish they could be on our side. I would love it if most of the world would be on our side. But that's not going to happen because of the internal bickering that's going on between both parties. This is simply embolding our enemies and confusing the heck out our remaining allies.
