Which was the better president? Obama, or Bush?

[sear]

Which was the better president? Obama 44, or Bush 43?

Ronald Reagan, the Republican demigod, after debating President Carter, turned to the camera and asked:

"Are you better off ..." (than you were 4 years ago)? Reagan

So that's the Republican party standard, unless & until it's replaced. But what Republican alive today can trump Reagan on that?

When President Bush was inaugurated in 2001, the U.S. was stable, we were safe, peaceful, and the economy was not in tatters. President Clinton had done fairly well, and handed off to Bush a nation in fair shape.

8 years later:
- the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history
- our nation at Wars, one of which we were lied into
- the destructive aftermath of hurricanes Rita & Katrina still fresh in the lives and newspapers of our culture
- the economy in shambles. Even Bush / Cheney / Paulson's $700 $Billion $TARP wasn't enough to resurrect it, but merely enough to keep it on life-support until they could dump it in Obama's lap.

In short, by most quantifiable standards that matter, after 8 years of Bush, we were certainly NOT better off.

Contrast that to Obama.
President Obama took command with our troops in combat in two different lands.
Our economy was losing ~800,000 private sector jobs per month.
Our banking infrastructure was fragile, costing us greats like Lehman Bros.
We might nearly have lost GM, a loss that could have turned the Bush recession into a depression.

8 years later:
- No major terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland from a foreign terrorist
- UBL = fish food
- unemployment cut nearly in half
- U.S. military use more parsimonious both in blood & treasure
- energy self-sufficiency, and strategic independence from OPEC et al

So who was the better president?
And if we use a standard other than Reagan's whose standard? What standard? Why?

“... Reince Priebus, the Republican National Chairman today said that 300K jobs ... aught to be expected every month ... and just a historical perspective:

- during the 8 years of President Bush (younger) there were 2.1 million net jobs created in the United States. Of the 2.1 million, 1.8 million of them were in the public sector ... that means there were 300,000 jobs in the private sector in 8 months, in 8 years rather, net ...

more jobs have been created in the United States in the last 4 years than in Europe, Japan, all the industrialized modern world combined. ...

70 years since WWII. 36 years of Republican presidents, 34 years of Democratic presidents. In those 70 years, there were 36.7 million jobs created under Republican presidents ... a little over half the time. In 34 years there were 63.7 million created by Democrats. That's 29 million more. You know, perhaps it's an accident once, or twice or what. But I mean at some point the Democrats ought to be comfort in the fact that they have been better the economy and job creation than have been the opposition.

...

It's 15 years since we've had 10 consecutive months of over 200,000 [job growth]. Just 15 years ago there was a fella from Arkansas ... there were more jobs created in Bill Clinton's 8 years than there were in Ronald Reagan's 8 years, and the 12 years of both Bush's combined. I mean 6 million more jobs created in those 8 years, ... policy does kick in, & is reflected in the results.” Mark Shields

[pete311]

You haven't been here long otherwise you wouldn't even bother with this question.

[Black Diamond]

Hitler.

[sear]

"You haven't been here long otherwise you wouldn't even bother with this question." p3 #2

So obviously partisan topics with predictably partisan answers are generally started by more-tenured posting members?

[Drummond]

Which was the better president? Obama 44, or Bush 43?

BUSH 43. Without a doubt.


Ronald Reagan, the Republican demigod, after debating President Carter, turned to the camera and asked:

"Are you better off ..." (than you were 4 years ago)? Reagan

'the Republican demigod'. This says volumes about what you yourself stand for. Your own biases are very evident.


When President Bush was inaugurated in 2001, the U.S. was stable, we were safe, peaceful, and the economy was not in tatters. President Clinton had done fairly well, and handed off to Bush a nation in fair shape.

What Clinton did was to turn the American Presidency into an international laughing-stock. We all understood that he had proven to be less than reputable !!

As for President Bush ... he started his Presidency with an inbuilt, and self-made, handicap .. he intended to make his Presidency one where foreign issues were put on a back burner. BUT, on 11th September 2001, he was proven wrong to adopt such thinking.

What in actuality marks out President Bush as a truly GREAT President, was that he adapted to the reality he understood, even belatedly, to exist. He understood that action HAD to be taken on the international stage against global terrorism. He did what he had to do. His Presidency was massively different to what he himself would've wished for. But, he knew his responsibility to the American People, and to Western allies ... and he took the only responsible actions possible against the terrorist threat.


8 years later:
- the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history
- our nation at Wars, one of which we were lied into
- the destructive aftermath of hurricanes Rita & Katrina still fresh in the lives and newspapers of our culture
- the economy in shambles. Even Bush / Cheney / Paulson's $700 $Billion $TARP wasn't enough to resurrect it, but merely enough to keep it on life-support until they could dump it in Obama's lap.

In short, by most quantifiable standards that matter, after 8 years of Bush, we were certainly NOT better off.

Bush was not running Fannie & Freddie, nor Lehmann Bros. Bush was not responsible for terrorism meted out by Al Qaeda. Bush was not responsible for the hurricanes you mention.

What he WAS responsible for, was his resolve in fighting Islamic terrorism. Which he did, and meritoriously.


Contrast that to Obama.

YES, INDEED.


President Obama took command with our troops in combat in two different lands.

.. and his imperative was to WITHDRAW them, whenever and wherever he could !!

His plans to withdraw from Iraq were publicly disseminated YEARS before they were enacted !! What better way to serve the interests of THE ENEMY, than to give them the fullest insight into your plans to stop fighting them, and well in advance !!!


8 years later:
- No major terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland from a foreign terrorist

.. due in large measure, I'm sure, to Homeland Security measures. So, who was it who set up that agency, and the powers they used for the good of the American People, anyway ? OBAMA ??


- UBL = fish food

.. thanks to agencies he did NOT set up himself. All he did was sanction actions advised to him.

He DID, however, issue a speech that was devoted to taking the fullest possible personal credit for it !!

By the way, as an aside ... how many chances did CLINTON have, to deal with bin Laden ? Why did he REFUSE to act on them ??


So who was the better president?
And if we use a standard other than Reagan's whose standard? What standard? Why?
[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

I'm only qualified to comment on international issues, but it's clear to me that Bush 43 was WAY, WAY, better. He launched the War on Terror. Obama backslid on it, disastrously. Disgustingly, in fact.

We have the power vacuum which ISIS later stepped into, to thank Obama for. Any and all terrorism ISIS has committed, has Obama at its root cause ... because if Obama had been as proactive as Bush was, ISIS would've been denied their chance at attaining any power in the first place ..

... in fact, would ISIS have even existed ???

[Black Diamond]

BUSH 43. Without a doubt.



'the Republican demigod'. This says volumes about what you yourself stand for. Your own biases are very evident.



What Clinton did was to turn the American Presidency into an international laughing-stock. We all understood that he had proven to be less than reputable !!

As for President Bush ... he started his Presidency with an inbuilt, and self-made, handicap .. he intended to make his Presidency one where foreign issues were put on a back burner. BUT, on 11th September 2001, he was proven wrong to adopt such thinking.

What in actuality marks out President Bush as a truly GREAT President, was that he adapted to the reality he understood, even belatedly, to exist. He understood that action HAD to be taken on the international stage against global terrorism. He did what he had to do. His Presidency was massively different to what he himself would've wished for. But, he knew his responsibility to the American People, and to Western allies ... and he took the only responsible actions possible against the terrorist threat.



Bush was not running Fannie & Freddie, nor Lehmann Bros. Bush was not responsible for terrorism meted out by Al Qaeda. Bush was not responsible for the hurricanes you mention.

What he WAS responsible for, was his resolve in fighting Islamic terrorism. Which he did, and meritoriously.



YES, INDEED.



.. and his imperative was to WITHDRAW them, whenever and wherever he could !!

His plans to withdraw from Iraq were publicly disseminated YEARS before they were enacted !! What better way to serve the interests of THE ENEMY, than to give them the fullest insight into your plans to stop fighting them, and well in advance !!!



.. due in large measure, I'm sure, to Homeland Security measures. So, who was it who set up that agency, and the powers they used for the good of the American People, anyway ? OBAMA ??



.. thanks to agencies he did NOT set up himself. All he did was sanction actions advised to him.

He DID, however, issue a speech that was devoted to taking the fullest possible personal credit for it !!

By the way, as an aside ... how many chances did CLINTON have, to deal with bin Laden ? Why did he REFUSE to act on them ??



I'm only qualified to comment on international issues, but it's clear to me that Bush 43 was WAY, WAY, better. He launched the War on Terror. Obama backslid on it, disastrously. Disgustingly, in fact.

We have the power vacuum which ISIS later stepped into, to thank Obama for. Any and all terrorism ISIS has committed, has Obama at its root cause ... because if Obama has been as proactive as Bush was, ISIS would've been denied their chance at attaining any power in the first place
You fed the troll. :)


I wish we had had bush 43 for 8 more years.

edit. I have the audacity of hope trump will undo the damage.

[sear]

"This says volumes about what you yourself stand for. Your own biases are very evident."

Deliberately so. Do you think I'd have put it in the Lead if that weren't my intention?

Perhaps you think "demigod" is pejorative.
I'd be amused to review your definition.

I had the 2nd definition in mind, but perhaps #1 applies for some.

demigod (dèm´ê-gòd´) noun
1. A deified man.
2. A person who is highly honored or revered.*

"Bush was not responsible"

My point precisely.

So that's your DEFENSE?

Turning Truman's ultimate vow of responsibility upside down?

The buck stops
over there someplace.

President Obama took command with our troops in combat in two different lands.

".. and his imperative was to WITHDRAW them, whenever and wherever he could !!"

That's extremely false.

a) It was the Bush administration that failed to re-negotiate a SOFA w/ Iraq. And so the terms and timing of the U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq which took place during the Obama administration, took place under terms set in international law by the Bush administration.

b) Have you forgotten that President Obama persuaded Bush administration Secretary of Defense Gates to stay on, and oversee the U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq?

c) The U.S. had a timetable for dialing back our forces in Afghanistan.
But President Obama believed the Afghanis needed more time; and so extended U.S. operations there.

"Any and all terrorism ISIS has committed, has Obama at its root cause ...
... in fact, would ISIS have even existed ???"

My sources indicate ISIL senior military command are mainly if not entirely former Saddam / Iraq military commanders.
It was the Bush administration that chose to fire them all.

Had the Bushies either:
let Saddam alone, or
toppled Saddam but left his military in place, how could ISIL have begun?

[Drummond]

You fed the troll. :)


I wish we had had bush 43 for 8 more years.

edit. I have the audacity of hope trump will undo the damage.

Points taken (I was in two minds about responding as I did, but still, if a good argument can be offered to counter ... well, why not ?).

I also agree with you 100 percent.

[Black Diamond]

Points taken (I was in two minds about responding as I did, but still, if a good argument can be offered to counter ... well, why not ?).

I also agree with you 100 percent.
You have more patience than some of us.

[Drummond]

"This says volumes about what you yourself stand for. Your own biases are very evident."

Deliberately so. Do you think I'd have put it in the Lead if that weren't my intention?

Perhaps you think "demigod" is pejorative.
I'd be amused to review your definition.

I had the 2nd definition in mind, but perhaps #1 applies for some.

demigod (dèm´ê-gòd´) noun
1. A deified man.
2. A person who is highly honored or revered.* Oh, I think we all know of your biases by now.


"Bush was not responsible"

My point precisely.

Also mine. Thank you for paying attention.


So that's your DEFENSE?

It's the TRUTH.


Turning Truman's ultimate vow of responsibility upside down?

The buck stops
over there someplace.

... ah. A much-preferred trick of the Left is to play games with context. I nonetheless stick with what I've said.


President Obama took command with our troops in combat in two different lands.

".. and his imperative was to WITHDRAW them, whenever and wherever he could !!"

That's extremely false.

a) It was the Bush administration that failed to re-negotiate a SOFA w/ Iraq. And so the terms and timing of the U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq which took place during the Obama administration, took place under terms set in international law by the Bush administration.

b) Have you forgotten that President Obama persuaded Bush administration Secretary of Defense Gates to stay on, and oversee the U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq?

c) The U.S. had a timetable for dialing back our forces in Afghanistan.
But President Obama believed the Afghanis needed more time; and so extended U.S. operations there.

Yes, he had difficulty in completing his 'cut and run' plan a quickly as he'd have liked !!

But see ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022700566.html

Dated 28th February 2009 ...


President Obama yesterday fulfilled a campaign promise by setting a date for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq, declaring that while the country they will leave behind will not be perfect, the United States will have reached its "achievable goals" and must move on.

By the August 2010 deadline he set, American troops will have been at war for nearly 7 1/2 years in Iraq, a duration surpassed only by that of the Vietnam War, at more than eight years, and the ongoing Afghanistan conflict, which began in 2001.

Just a day after he transformed the domestic political landscape with a breathtakingly bold budget plan, Obama chose a far more cautious approach to his administration's most momentous foreign policy decision thus far, adopting a timetable that positioned him squarely on the side of military commanders wary of pulling out too many troops, too soon.

"There are some Americans who want to stay in Iraq longer," Obama acknowledged in a speech to Marines at Camp Lejeune, N.C., "and some who want to leave faster."

Those who had sought a speedier withdrawal included many in the Democratic Party and, at one time, Obama himself, who pledged during the campaign that combat troops would depart Iraq at the rate of one brigade a month and would all be home within 16 months of his inauguration.

Obama eventually slowed the 'cut and run' intention down, so that it proceeded more slowly than originally planned. But, note ... his original intentions were a part of HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES, which allies AND ENEMIES ALIKE would have known of. That is how dedicated he was to getting American troops out of Iraq, reversing Bush's 'War on Terror' strategy in that part of the world.


"Any and all terrorism ISIS has committed, has Obama at its root cause ...
... in fact, would ISIS have even existed ???"

My sources indicate ISIL senior military command are mainly if not entirely former Saddam / Iraq military commanders.
It was the Bush administration that chose to fire them all.

Had the Bushies either:
let Saddam alone, or
toppled Saddam but left his military in place, how could ISIL have begun?

Had Bush left Saddam alone, this would have allowed Saddam to defy the UN indefinitely. He was leading Hans Blix's team a merry dance, directing them to inspect sites which HE permitted them to visit. Saddam even denied Blix's people unfettered access to his own scientists, insisting that all interviews undergo supervision by members of his regime.

The only proper answer to Saddam was to depose his regime. This, Bush arranged.



ISIL (as you call it) only attained the power they did, BECAUSE OBAMA WITHDREW AMERICAN TROOPS PREMATURELY. ISIS became what it was, with the power to terrorise as it did, because there was insufficient countering force to stop them. And, why ?

[B]BECAUSE OBAMA HAD REMOVED IT.

[sear]

"Obama eventually slowed the 'cut and run' intention down, so that it proceeded more slowly than originally planned. But ..." D

So you think the U.S. commander in chief should PREFER to have the troops he commands in harm's way?

I'm a vet.
Obama isn't.

BUT !!

I sincerely appreciate Obama's parsimony with the blood of our troops.
What a terrible tragedy the president before him wasn't so conscientious!

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

U.S. President Bush (the younger) lying in televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9807&stc=1


"Had Bush left Saddam alone, this would have allowed Saddam to defy the UN indefinitely."

piffle

Not only did (after some set-backs) Blix / Ritter (one or both) have unfettered access *.
We also retained useful clamps on Saddam by continuing to patrol both North and South no-fly zones.

It was a nearly ideal situation, compared to what we have now.

Once under U.N. control, Saddam kept Iraq passive, domestically.
The region was fairly peaceful.
And the cost of the U.N. inspections and no-fly zone patrols was a scant fraction of what the invasion and occupation have cost.

* I saw video of U.N. inspectors literally opening the freezer door in the kitchen of one of Saddam's numerous palaces.

[Elessar]

8 years later:
- the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history
- our nation at Wars, one of which we were lied into
- the destructive aftermath of hurricanes Rita & Katrina still fresh in the lives and newspapers of our culture



I was not going to mess with you any longer because you are like speaking to a petulant teenager,
but you opened a can of worms with this.

How much Disaster Preparedness experience have you got? I sat on the Humboldt County CA OES board
for 12 years and am quite well versed in Disaster Preparedness. I had to take 6 different levels of ICS
(Incident Command System) training just to hold my position as a USCG Search and Rescue and Maritime
Law Enforcement Controller.

After 911, the GWB Administration established the National Disaster Preparedness Plan, in which ALL levels
of government, from Federal all the way down to local had to submit their own preparedness plan and submit it
up the chain for approval. Why was this done? Because prior to 911 NYC had two separate Command Centers -
one for NYPD and one for NYFD. In the ensuing confusion, it took the mayor to pull them together under a Unified Command.

Prior to Katrina's landfall, the National Weather Service was issuing warnings to evacuate. The White House echoed those warnings.
The Federal Government cannot evacuate the population unless Martial Law is declared. Guess who did not have a plan on the books?
New Orleans City and Parish, or the State of Louisiana. No evacuation routes were identified and hundreds of school buses sat in
a parking yard and were flooded. The mayor, who should have been leading locally, skipped town.

The governor did not even know where her National Guard troops were, and no safe landing zones were identified as they should have
been in a DPP.

GWB fired FEMA Director Brown for incompetence and inserted USCG Vice Admiral Thad Allen as overall Incident Commander.

The USCG and USAF were able to go in right after the worst of the storm passed and begin surveying and start to assist people in need.
This is according to two Addendums to the National Search and Rescue Plan. The DOD was contacted to provide assistance and the
Pentagon complied.

The follow-up and clean up-should have been supported on the local level, but they did not have a DPP, so they depended on the Feds to
do it all.

Again, you are playing in a rodeo when you are like a fish out of water - unless you are trying to be a rodeo clown. How do you expect
anyone experienced to believe anything you say?

The other two items? I already told you the background problems of 911, but you do not think you have to listen to anyone.
I already told you Iraq was based on faulty intelligence that initially was supported by most nations on the planet until it was found
out to be untrue. So Bush did NOT lie about anything.

Go pound on your high chair.

[Black Diamond]

I was not going to mess with you any longer because you are like speaking to a petulant teenager,
but you opened a can of worms with this.

How much Disaster Preparedness experience have you got? I sat on the Humboldt County CA OES board
for 12 years and am quite well versed in Disaster Preparedness. I had to take 6 different levels of ICS
(Incident Command System) training just to hold my position as a USCG Search and Rescue and Maritime
Law Enforcement Controller.

After 911, the GWB Administration established the National Disaster Preparedness Plan, in which ALL levels
of government, from Federal all the way down to local had to submit their own preparedness plan and submit it
up the chain for approval. Why was this done? Because prior to 911 NYC had two separate Command Centers -
one for NYPD and one for NYFD. In the ensuing confusion, it took the mayor to pull them together under a Unified Command.

Prior to Katrina's landfall, the National Weather Service was issuing warnings to evacuate. The White House echoed those warnings.
The Federal Government cannot evacuate the population unless Martial Law is declared. Guess who did not have a plan on the books?
New Orleans City and Parish, or the State of Louisiana. No evacuation routes were identified and hundreds of school buses sat in
a parking yard and were flooded. The mayor, who should have been leading locally, skipped town.

The governor did not even know where her National Guard troops were, and no safe landing zones were identified as they should have
been in a DPP.

GWB fired FEMA Director Brown for incompetence and inserted USCG Vice Admiral Thad Allen as overall Incident Commander.

The USCG and USAF were able to go in right after the worst of the storm passed and begin surveying and start to assist people in need.
This is according to two Addendums to the National Search and Rescue Plan. The DOD was contacted to provide assistance and the
Pentagon complied.

The follow-up and clean up-should have been supported on the local level, but they did not have a DPP, so they depended on the Feds to
do it all.

Again, you are playing in a rodeo when you are like a fish out of water - unless you are trying to be a rodeo clown. How do you expect
anyone experienced to believe anything you say?

The other two items? I already told you the background problems of 911, but you do not think you have to listen to anyone.
I already told you Iraq was based on faulty intelligence that initially was supported by most nations on the planet until it was found
out to be untrue. So Bush did NOT lie about anything.

Go pound on your high chair.
You have much patience as well.

[LongTermGuy]

Very stupid question....the POS obama of course...was worse...

No Black Theology Garbage or stinkin Leftist Ignorance .......

[sear]

"How much Disaster Preparedness experience have you got?" E

sear is not the topic.
Thank you for your dedication to public service in the important area of disaster preparedness.

I'm not a newspaperman either.
But that didn't prevent me from following the reports of the progress of fortifying New Orleans flood defense, which neighborhoods were getting the better recovery treatment, and stories like the FEMA trailers (emergency shelters) which ended up being off-limits to those that needed them.

"Again, you are playing in a rodeo when you are like a fish out of water" E

Excellent!

Please quote me verbatim, and then correct me. Your metaphoric dismissal is completely unpersuasive. Neither this thread nor this topic is a rodeo.
And my underlying point stands unassailed.
By the Reagan standard, we were NOT better off after 8 years of Bush.

We remain substantially better off after 8 years of Obama.

[Gunny]

"You haven't been here long otherwise you wouldn't even bother with this question." p3 #2

So obviously partisan topics with predictably partisan answers are generally started by more-tenured posting members?

No. What he means is the question's already been answered. Only about 3 of you think Obama shouldn't be sharing a cell with Hitlery. The rest of us think he did his best to destroy the Constitution. William Henry Harrison was a better President than Obama and he lived for only 30 days in office. He was better bed-ridden and dead than Obama. Had O-blah-blah croaked in office the collective sigh of relief would have caused tornadoes.

Getting a picture here?

[Gunny]

"How much Disaster Preparedness experience have you got?" E

sear is not the topic.
Thank you for your dedication to public service in the important area of disaster preparedness.

I'm not a newspaperman either.
But that didn't prevent me from following the reports of the progress of fortifying New Orleans flood defense, which neighborhoods were getting the better recovery treatment, and stories like the FEMA trailers (emergency shelters) which ended up being off-limits to those that needed them.

"Again, you are playing in a rodeo when you are like a fish out of water" E

Excellent!

Please quote me verbatim, and then correct me. Your metaphoric dismissal is completely unpersuasive. Neither this thread nor this topic is a rodeo.
And my underlying point stands unassailed.
By the Reagan standard, we were NOT better off after 8 years of Bush.

We remain substantially better off after 8 years of Obama.

Dude, YOU made this about "sear". You're an arrogant ass trying to use big words to cover for your lack of cognitive reasoning. We are well-educated here. We also talk like normal people do. You ain't impressing us. We can each roll out more info than your mind can handle. Been my observation over the years that those who talk the most do the least.

Must suck you got to drag up Katrina as anything relevant. I live in San Antonio. Guess which major cities are on I-10 closest to NO? Houston and SA? Guess who took all those people in. Not a trick question. Guess who volunteered to unload all those trucks you say were off limits on their free time? Yet another not a trick question. You don't know jackass sh*t about down here, Chumley. If you're going tp live on the Coast below sea level, you earned what you got.

Now, Mr Mouth ... I've been through 4 hurricanes and 2 typhoons. You pick your ass up and help those in need. You don't sit around in some irrelevant region running your suck about what you know nothing about. You have ZERO idea what it's like down here you arrogant ass. We help each other. Yet your jack ass wants to come on here and tell us what we're all about. Here's a simple concept ... we help because it's the right thing to do. Try mindf*cking THAT idea to death.

Piss me off some more with your wannbe ass. You don't know jackass shit. In case your assumed brilliant mind hasn't figured it out ... you've offended a few people. We don't sit around and brag. But I WILL hammer the f*ck out of you for denigrating the bro's. You got option a ... tone yourself down. There's no option f-ing B.

I like to sit around here and play. I'll tear your ass apart and your faux intelligence don't sell here.

[pete311]

"You haven't been here long otherwise you wouldn't even bother with this question." p3 #2

So obviously partisan topics with predictably partisan answers are generally started by more-tenured posting members?

You should already know this is an extremely conservative community minus a few.

[sear]

" Only about 3 of you think Obama shouldn't be sharing a cell with Hitlery. " Kreskin #16

I don't know what "Hitlery" is.
But to my knowledge Hillery Clinton has never been U.S. president; EVEN if her legal address for 8 years was 1600 Penn. Ave.

But in my opinion all living U.S. presidents both current and former should either be incarcerated for life, or summarily executed for violating Art.3 Sect.3 of the United States Constitution. They are all conspirators to treason as defined by this Article. And to my knowledge, summary execution by firing squad is the appropriate penalty for conviction of conspiracy to treason in time of war.

So yet once again, you have guessed wildly, and (predictably) incorrectly about my position on Obama.

Don't you EVER tire of being wrong?

[sear]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by sear http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=861404#post861404) "You haven't been here long otherwise you wouldn't even bother with this question." p3 #2

"So obviously partisan topics with predictably partisan answers are generally started by more-tenured posting members?" s


"You should already know this is an extremely conservative community minus a few." p3

Yet you presume I don't?

I ABSOLUTELY don't understand the barbaric simplicity so prevalent at this site.

You think I posed the topic because I don't know the answer? Because I'm such a knuckle-dragging simpleton I need the 12 year olds to 'splain it to me?! http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9808&stc=1

Softball topics such as these are an opportunity at recreational boards such as this for posting members of all stripes to strut their stuff, to champion their cause, to join in the debate at the village square, and perhaps influence the thinking of one of their countrymen, their fellow tax-payer, fellow voter, and in many cases here, fellow U.S. military veterans.

If you leverage this topic for purpose of bias confirmation,

if your premise is sear is stupid, and you extrapolate that from premise to conclusion for self-pleasure; that's fine!!

But that doesn't reflect on me. That reflects on those that have INITIATED ad hom against posters here, instead of either:

- addressing the topic, - OR -

- not.

[Gunny]

Awww ,,did somebody wet his diaper and run? When you fuck with the Gunny guess what you get? A fucking Gunny. You asked for it now pay to play. You will NOT insult my friends nor talk down to them like you're some dumbass expert. I know who you are and from where. I just can't remember you ID or I'd out you ass in a second.

The people hear are good people. They're also smarter than you think you are. They just stay away when I get pissed. I don't take prisoners.

And you? You don't know jackass shit. If your ass was in the military you best be glad you weren't anywhere near ME. You'd be on Ship's Platoon. You wouldn't be anywhere near any of my Marines. You're an infection of miserableness.

The rest of us had jobs to do. Like taking care of people. Instead of talking down to them. Get back to me on that. If you come back you fucking wuss.

[jimnyc]

Not even a comparison, Bush wins easily.

[sear]

jc #22

Care to offer a reason?

A logical reason would be good; but any reason at all would be more interesting than an entirely unsubstantiated opinion.

[jimnyc]

jc #22

Care to offer a reason?

A logical reason would be good; but any reason at all would be more interesting than an entirely unsubstantiated opinion.

I know an attack thread when I see one.

Fact is - BOTH sides do GOOD, and both sides do BAD at times. You come in, create such a thread and offer nothing but talking points from what appears to be democratunderground vomit, IMO. I could sit here and list quite a few scandals that the democrats had their hands in within the past 8 years. Obama - why did you forget fast and furious, and the IRS of his targeting conservatives? I noticed you don't think Benghazi rates? Ignoring the law on ILLEGAL immigration...

When someone completely ignores those things, I have a feeling they aren't going to care much for my take. Therefore I simply answered your question.

[sear]

jc #24

I'll take that as a: "No."

[jimnyc]

jc #24

I'll take that as a: "No."

Did I not answer your question? And are you prepared to even acknowledge such things as I posted? It seemed to me like you ONLY want to list good things for Dems and bad things by republicans. A lot of folks prefer to zone in on a few talking points and run with it. I think both sides have their share of fuck ups and things to answer to. But it sounds as if you want it to be 100% to 0% when making any "comparison". I could just as easily make a list of 5 great things Bush did and 5 quite shitty things Obama did, and then declare victory. But let's see your honesty first.

[Black Diamond]

Obama is an asshole race baiting baby killing porch monkey who wants Israel annihilated. He wants niggers to destroy cities and kill cops. Bush didn't communicate effectively. I'll take the stuttering problem.

[BoogyMan]

You haven't been here long otherwise you wouldn't even bother with this question.

It isn't a question, it is trolling of a simplistic and infantile nature. The assertions made are without context and laughable.

[Gunny]

Obama is an asshole race baiting baby killing porch monkey who wants Israel annihilated. He wants niggers to destroy cities and kill cops. Bush didn't communicate effectively. I'll take the stuttering problem.Where's jimnyc? Can I kill this f*cker yet or what? You have to play nice cuz you're in charge. I don't.

And I'm thinking he picked on the wrong two M-Fers.

[Abbey Marie]

If you're Dem/Socialist, or black, or are here illegally, Obama was clearly better.

If you're Republican, believe in the Constitution and the military, clearly Bush was better.

Done.

As for me, just Obama's handling of the BLM folks vs his handling of the police, made him a very bad President. He was a divider of the people, and we are going to see the bad fruits of that for a very long time.

[Gunny]

You should already know this is an extremely conservative community minus a few.t
No Junior G-man. What do ythink my political opinions have to do with helping people? I've got 3 combat action ribbons. I have 4 Humanitarian Assist Medals.. Guess which ones mean the most. Grow the f*ck up and take that little boyfriend with you. You have no idea what it's like.

You two are in a fuckstorm here. Don't play victim. Man up. Take the Chief on. I'll watch this shit. I got fingernails and shit to clean like he needs my help. Oh ... this one looks dirty ....

[Drummond]

"Obama eventually slowed the 'cut and run' intention down, so that it proceeded more slowly than originally planned. But ..." D

So you think the U.S. commander in chief should PREFER to have the troops he commands in harm's way?

He shouldn't prefer it. BUT, troops have a task (or tasks) to perform. Military tasks. And, guess what ? Such situations DO frequently involve harm. It goes with the territory.

I suppose Churchill shouldn't have ever sent troops against Hitler, because he'd have 'preferred not to put his troops in harm's way' .. ?

Military personnel know what they risk by being a part of the Armed Services. They know what their duties are. And ... yes, it's to engage THE ENEMY, as and when circumstances call for it.


I'm a vet.
Obama isn't.

Then you, of all people, should know the truth of what I say. Better than I do, in fact !!


BUT !!

I sincerely appreciate Obama's parsimony with the blood of our troops.
What a terrible tragedy the president before him wasn't so conscientious!

Do you let your enemy win out, enjoy needless advantage, OR, do you DEAL with that enemy ?


"Had Bush left Saddam alone, this would have allowed Saddam to defy the UN indefinitely."

piffle

Show a brutal dictator some perceived lack of resolve, and it'll be taken to be, and exploited as, weakness. A Saddam not believing he had anything to fear from those opposing him would've shown nothing but contempt for others' wishes, and done whatever the hell he liked !!

In such a scenario, what would've persuaded him to do otherwise ?


Not only did (after some set-backs) Blix / Ritter (one or both) have unfettered access *.
We also retained useful clamps on Saddam by continuing to patrol both North and South no-fly zones.

Supervised access to scientists wasn't 'unfettered' .. also, Blix's people would only visit sites they knew about. ALSO under supervision, by the way.


It was a nearly ideal situation, compared to what we have now.

Leaving Saddam in power was far from ideal !! It's akin to saying that a latter-day Hitler must be tolerated and protected from harm.


Once under U.N. control, Saddam kept Iraq passive, domestically.
The region was fairly peaceful.

Saddam only opposed terrorist factions if those factions opposed HIM. He was known to be a Hamas bankroller. He was known to have given shelter to Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's 'chief man in Iraq'.

Such an opportunist leader could never have been trusted with WMD's. The issue of whether he had them, HAD to be finally resolved. Blix was getting nowhere in finally answering that question.


And the cost of the U.N. inspections and no-fly zone patrols was a scant fraction of what the invasion and occupation have cost.

A Saddam persuaded he could stockpile any number of WMD's without fear of reprisal would have been a far higher cost still. The invasion and so-called 'occupation' prevented that outcome.

That's to say, until Obama reversed all of that .. with ISIS stepping into the consequent power-vacuum !!

You want to claim you're not pro-Obama ? THEN CONCEDE THAT POINT. Obama DID prematurely withdraw troops, AND he gave criminally irresponsible latitude to THE ENEMY to plan for THEIR future in that territory !!


* I saw video of U.N. inspectors literally opening the freezer door in the kitchen of one of Saddam's numerous palaces.

If you were an unscrupulous dictator who'd want to stop others from finding the true locations of hidden WMD's ... wouldn't you do the same ? 'Don't look where I have some. Hey, check my freezer, instead (!!)'.

No. the whole point was to find WMD's .. if any were in Iraq. ONLY a military invasion stood a chance of settling the issue.

And GW Bush knew it, I'm sure .. so, he acted as he had to.

The Left, of course, don't appreciate his efforts.

Do you, Sear ?

[Elessar]

Hmmmm..... .No WMD's?

I wonder what those convoys going into Syria were carrying? Dairy Queen products?:laugh:

[gabosaurus]

Well, let look at the numbers...

Americans lost to terrorist attacks on U.S. soil: Bush 2,996, Obama 0
Large buildings lost: Bush 2, Obama 0
Illegal wars started: Bush 1, Obama 0
Al Qaeda leaders hunted down and killed: Obama 1, Bush 0

[NightTrain]

Well, let look at the numbers...

Americans lost to terrorist attacks on U.S. soil: Bush 2,996, Obama 0
Large buildings lost: Bush 2, Obama 0
Illegal wars started: Bush 1, Obama 0
Al Qaeda leaders hunted down and killed: Obama 1, Bush 0

Wrong again, moonbat. Read up :

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/american-attacks.aspx

[Black Diamond]

Well, let look at the numbers...

Americans lost to terrorist attacks on U.S. soil: Bush 2,996, Obama 0
Large buildings lost: Bush 2, Obama 0
Illegal wars started: Bush 1, Obama 0
Al Qaeda leaders hunted down and killed: Obama 1, Bush 0
Yeah. The victims of the Boston marathon bombings don't count. Fuck off.

[gabosaurus]

I am not reading your right-wing hate site. They are the same as Holocaust denial sites. Both run by sick crackpots. Same for the people who believe in them.

[Black Diamond]

I am not reading your right-wing hate site. They are the same as Holocaust denial sites. Both run by sick crackpots. Same for the people who believe in them.
Yeah. Stick to CNN which is a left-wing hate site and network.

[NightTrain]

I am not reading your right-wing hate site. They are the same as Holocaust denial sites. Both run by sick crackpots. Same for the people who believe in them.

Willful ignorance is a hell of a thing... but I enjoy you demonstrating it whenever you get cornered again. :thumb:

[aboutime]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by sear http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=861404#post861404) "You haven't been here long otherwise you wouldn't even bother with this question." p3 #2

"So obviously partisan topics with predictably partisan answers are generally started by more-tenured posting members?" s


"You should already know this is an extremely conservative community minus a few." p3

Yet you presume I don't?

I ABSOLUTELY don't understand the barbaric simplicity so prevalent at this site.

You think I posed the topic because I don't know the answer? Because I'm such a knuckle-dragging simpleton I need the 12 year olds to 'splain it to me?! http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9808&stc=1

Softball topics such as these are an opportunity at recreational boards such as this for posting members of all stripes to strut their stuff, to champion their cause, to join in the debate at the village square, and perhaps influence the thinking of one of their countrymen, their fellow tax-payer, fellow voter, and in many cases here, fellow U.S. military veterans.

If you leverage this topic for purpose of bias confirmation,

if your premise is sear is stupid, and you extrapolate that from premise to conclusion for self-pleasure; that's fine!!

But that doesn't reflect on me. That reflects on those that have INITIATED ad hom against posters here, instead of either:

- addressing the topic, - OR -

- not.



If you learned all of this in kindergarten, why haven't you received your Diploma from PRE-SCHOOL yet? That's a requirement for attending kindergarten.
Let us know when your brain catches up with your diaper changes.

[Kaimhel]

Bush was way better. No doubt about that.:salute:

[Elessar]

Well, let look at the numbers...

Americans lost to terrorist attacks on U.S. soil: Bush 2,996, Obama 0
Large buildings lost: Bush 2, Obama 0
Illegal wars started: Bush 1, Obama 0
Al Qaeda leaders hunted down and killed: Obama 1, Bush 0

Point 1 in error: Post #20, this thread: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?19413-The-Time-To-Gloat/page2

How about race riots ignored? Is it 7, 10, 12?

How about the destructive "Occupy Wall Street" movement ignored?

How about interfering with local Law Enforcement? How many times? Half a dozen?

How about voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia ignored?

What illegal war? Are you an expert on warfare? What made it illegal when The Congress
approved the action?

How about Al-Quida leaders trapped and killed in Iraq?

GWB for me.

[Gunny]

I am not reading your right-wing hate site. They are the same as Holocaust denial sites. Both run by sick crackpots. Same for the people who believe in them.Stay the f*ck out 0f it gabby. If the little man wants to play he can bring his sh*t. He's offended me and my friends. Game the fuck over.

[sear]

"troops have a task (or tasks) to perform." D #32

“You cannot have a moral duty to do the impossible.” George Will

I staunchly supported the Bush administration's invasion of Afghanistan.
I believe they handled the casus belli very skillfully; a Bush family trait perhaps.

BUT !!

They grotesquely mishandled that invasion literally from day one!

Ceding Tora Bora perimeter security to local mercenaries was stupid as a blacksmith's anvil.
We might have had UBL in less than a week if they hadn't pinched pennies like that. It's cost U.S. many $hundreds of $billions; a MONUMENTAL blunder.

"Such situations DO frequently involve harm. It goes with the territory." D

I have a sister that also
- states the perfectly obvious:
- pretends she is informing me of something I don't know, and then
- pretends that this renders her my benevolent superior, for informing me of fundamental realities.
Are you by any chance her, posting under pseud?

"Such situations DO frequently involve harm. It goes with the territory." D

I'm a former Cold Warrior, U.S. military veteran. I've read a newspaper. I'm fully aware of the hazards of War and military service.
But since it helps sooth your badly wounded ego to insult me by stating the obvious to me as justification for pretending you are my superior; I'm confident you'll continue the exercise. Who do you think you're fooling?

"I suppose Churchill shouldn't have ever sent troops against Hitler, because he'd have 'preferred not to put his troops in harm's way' .. ?"

In my amateur opinion, Sir Winston Churchill was helpful to Supreme Allied Commander (and future U.S. president) Eisenhower in defeating the megalomaniacal Axis conquest.
It was an accomplishable (aka "doable") goal. We won.

And we could render Afghanistan to stable democracy.

BUT !!

Governor Bush (R-"TX") campaigned for the Republican nomination in Y2K in part by eschewing nation-building.
Savor the irony.

The reality is, we can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
It would cost more $Hundreds of $Billions, or more likely $Trillions congress simply isn't willing to spend. THANK YOU FREEDOM CAUCUS !!

And so the U.S. operation in Afghanistan is now dubbed the longest U.S. war in history.

It's not going to work.

We lost the Vietnam War because we weren't going to make the North Vietnamese lose and go home. THEY WERE ALREADY HOME !!

The Talibans aren't going anywhere. THEY LIVE THERE !!

And they'll be there when we leave, no longer how long we delay our departure.

"We can't kill them all. When I kill one, I create three." Lt. Col Fredrick Wellman

"... When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains" (from the poem: The Young British Soldier by Rudyard Kipling)

[Drummond]

Yeah. Stick to CNN which is a left-wing hate site and network.

.. not forgetting Gabby's favourite Left wing propagandist paper, a foreign (UK) one .. the Guardian.

That's the same paper that arranged the contacting of citizens in Clark County, a swing State, back in the early 2000's, to help influence that County into voting more decisively for the Left.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1474828/Guardian-calls-it-quits-in-Clark-County-fiasco.html


The Guardian yesterday ran up the white flag and called a halt to "Operation Clark County", the newspaper's ambitious scheme to recruit thousands of readers to persuade American voters in a swing state to kick out President George W Bush in next month's election.

The cancellation of the project came 24 hours after the first of some 14,000 letters from Guardian readers began arriving in Clark County. The missives led to widespread complaints about foreign interference in a US election.

It also prompted a surge of indignant local voters calling the county's Republican party offering to volunteer for Mr Bush.

[Drummond]

"troops have a task (or tasks) to perform." D #32

“You cannot have a moral duty to do the impossible.” George Will

I staunchly supported the Bush administration's invasion of Afghanistan.
I believe they handled the casus belli very skillfully; a Bush family trait perhaps.

BUT !!

They grotesquely mishandled that invasion literally from day one!

Ceding Tora Bora perimeter security to local mercenaries was stupid as a blacksmith's anvil.
We might have had UBL in less than a week if they hadn't pinched pennies like that. It's cost U.S. many $hundreds of $billions; a MONUMENTAL blunder.

"Such situations DO frequently involve harm. It goes with the territory." D

I have a sister that also
- states the perfectly obvious:
- pretends she is informing me of something I don't know, and then
- pretends that this renders her my benevolent superior, for informing me of fundamental realities.
Are you by any chance her, posting under pseud?

"Such situations DO frequently involve harm. It goes with the territory." D

I'm a former Cold Warrior, U.S. military veteran. I've read a newspaper. I'm fully aware of the hazards of War and military service.
But since it helps sooth your badly wounded ego to insult me by stating the obvious to me as justification for pretending you are my superior; I'm confident you'll continue the exercise. Who do you think you're fooling?

"I suppose Churchill shouldn't have ever sent troops against Hitler, because he'd have 'preferred not to put his troops in harm's way' .. ?"

In my amateur opinion, Sir Winston Churchill was helpful to Supreme Allied Commander (and future U.S. president) Eisenhower in defeating the megalomaniacal Axis conquest.
It was an accomplishable (aka "doable") goal. We won.

And we could render Afghanistan to stable democracy.

BUT !!

Governor Bush (R-"TX") campaigned for the Republican nomination in Y2K in part by eschewing nation-building.
Savor the irony.

The reality is, we can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
It would cost more $Hundreds of $Billions, or more likely $Trillions congress simply isn't willing to spend. THANK YOU FREEDOM CAUCUS !!

And so the U.S. operation in Afghanistan is now dubbed the longest U.S. war in history.

It's not going to work.

We lost the Vietnam War because we weren't going to make the North Vietnamese lose and go home. THEY WERE ALREADY HOME !!

The Talibans aren't going anywhere. THEY LIVE THERE !!

And they'll be there when we leave, no longer how long we delay our departure.

You can't tell me from your own sister (.. you say ..) ? How bizarre ... :rolleyes:

No, I am not your sister :rolleyes:. Just so you know .... :laugh::laugh::laugh:

So, you 'support' invasions that you also strongly criticize ? How does that work in your mind, exactly ?

I'm happy that, as an alleged 'Cold Warrior, U.S. military veteran' ... you can know the realities of military conflict, and presumably, the need from time to time to see nations such as yours get involved in such things. Good. In which case ... you shouldn't be someone who consistently finds fault with any Administration choosing to do so ? You presumably see the good sense in DEFEATING a KNOWN ENEMY ... yes ?

I hope to see posting from you which represents and is supportive of that reality.

I don't 'pretend' to be your 'superior'. I'm not interested in such judgments or one-upmanship exercises at all (this is your problem, not mine - and those who insist upon such stupidity ultimately become extremely tiresome individuals to engage). The point on forums such as this is to test beliefs and views, to see which proves better or more meritorious. My suggestion ... leave such thoughts of ego-challenges aside in your further posting, and instead just represent your viewpoint(s) honestly and with as much credibility as you feel you can manage.

For example ... it'd help if you just categorically state that you're here to push a Left-wing agenda. I mean, why ever not ? It would be honest, it would ensure that we all know with certainty just where we stand with your future posting. Who knows ... maybe a display of such candid honesty might earn you some small degree of respect .. ?

[sear]

"you 'support' invasions that you also strongly criticize ?" D #46

I supported the casus belli. The grounds for the War were sound.

My posted words were these:

"I staunchly supported the Bush administration's invasion of Afghanistan.
I believe they handled the casus belli very skillfully; a Bush family trait perhaps.
BUT !!
They grotesquely mishandled that invasion literally from day one!" s

It was the execution, the strategy which fell woefully short.
The consequence is, what might have been one of the shortest, most brief U.S. Wars in history is now reportedly the longest;
all because of preposterously foolish strategy from day one.

D #46 further inquires:
"You presumably see the good sense in DEFEATING a KNOWN ENEMY ... yes ?" D

As well as you.

But in addition to that I equally appreciate the good sense in IDENTIFYING the enemy.

In the '30's & 40's Germany rose up to conquer the world.

BUT !!

FDR (& Truman, & Marshall) had the wisdom to understand the enemy was not Germany.
The enemy was Nazism.

We defeated the Nazi onslaught. But Germany not only continues, but thrives, and remains one of our most valuable allies.

President Bush (younger) said Islam isn't the enemy, that terrorism is the enemy.
Lefty though he may be, his perspective on that fine point may be worth consideration.

[Gunny]

"you 'support' invasions that you also strongly criticize ?" D #46

I supported the casus belli. The grounds for the War were sound.

My posted words were these:

"I staunchly supported the Bush administration's invasion of Afghanistan.
I believe they handled the casus belli very skillfully; a Bush family trait perhaps.
BUT !!
They grotesquely mishandled that invasion literally from day one!" s

It was the execution, the strategy which fell woefully short.
The consequence is, what might have been one of the shortest, most brief U.S. Wars in history is now reportedly the longest;
all because of preposterously foolish strategy from day one.

D #46 further inquires:
"You presumably see the good sense in DEFEATING a KNOWN ENEMY ... yes ?" D

As well as you.

But in addition to that I equally appreciate the good sense in IDENTIFYING the enemy.

In the '30's & 40's Germany rose up to conquer the world.

BUT !!

FDR (& Truman, & Marshall) had the wisdom to understand the enemy was not Germany.
The enemy was Nazism.

We defeated the Nazi onslaught. But Germany not only continues, but thrives, and remains one of our most valuable allies.

President Bush (younger) said Islam isn't the enemy, that terrorism is the enemy.
Lefty though he may be, his perspective on that fine point may be worth consideration.

You think you're so smart. Does the word "verbose" come to mind? 2 syllable word.

[sear]

"You think you're so smart." Kreskin #48

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9809&stc=1

[jimnyc]

Bush.

[aboutime]

For new rookie member 'sear'. Who died and left you here to decide anything? Other than showing the rest of the members the definition of IGNORANT, and ARROGANT?

[Drummond]

My posted words were these:

"I staunchly supported the Bush administration's invasion of Afghanistan.
I believe they handled the casus belli very skillfully; a Bush family trait perhaps.
BUT !!
They grotesquely mishandled that invasion literally from day one!" s

It was the execution, the strategy which fell woefully short.
The consequence is, what might have been one of the shortest, most brief U.S. Wars in history is now reportedly the longest;
all because of preposterously foolish strategy from day one.

To summarize, then ...

You supported the IDEA of the invasion .. the intention.

What you didn't support was the invasion itself (.. since it was 'mishandled' from 'day one').

Non-support from DAY ONE means ZERO support, ITSELF. Supporting an intention isn't the same as supporting the ACTUALITY ... and the truth here is, you had NO support to offer for the ACTUAL invasion.

How convenient.

Your splitting of hairs is something you no doubt think is clever, or to put it another way, you're trying to have your cake, and eat it. The truth is, though, that you're simultaneously trying to claim support, for something, but with NONE actually existing !!

You're arguing a nonsense. From its beginning to its end, you did not support the invasion. FACT. So stop trying to squirm out of it, as a Leftie trying (but failing, of course) to be 'clever'.


D #46 further inquires:
"You presumably see the good sense in DEFEATING a KNOWN ENEMY ... yes ?" D

As well as you.

But in addition to that I equally appreciate the good sense in IDENTIFYING the enemy.

Well done.

Are Al Qaeda enemies, or not ?

Are ISIS enemies, or not ?

Are Islamic terrorists enemies, or not ?

Do you have the smallest trouble in identifying enemies among that lot ??

And ... is what CREATES those enemies, your enemy ... or not ?

Think about it.


In the '30's & 40's Germany rose up to conquer the world.

BUT !!

FDR (& Truman, & Marshall) had the wisdom to understand the enemy was not Germany.
The enemy was Nazism.

We defeated the Nazi onslaught. But Germany not only continues, but thrives, and remains one of our most valuable allies.

More hair-splitting, combined with some tinkering with context.

Within the context of a Nazi-run Germany, for as long as it WAS Nazi-run, Germany WAS the enemy !!

German troops - just troops, themselves - in the main, weren't Nazis, per se (I'm sure that many were just ordinary soldiers, obeying orders, conscripted at a time of national need). However, Nazis directed all that they did.

So tell me, Sear. If Germany wasn't the enemy, and some soldiers weren't actually Nazis, were the Allies wrong to fight them ??

OR, was the reality that all such troops were directed by a Nazi-run Germany, they were loyal to their nation, and that therefore they had to be treated, not least because they acted like it (!!) .. as ENEMIES !!

Countries can become enemy countries at specific times, under specific conditions and circumstances. They ARE enemies at those times. No amount of Leftie equivalence-mongering changes that truth ... sorry.


President Bush (younger) said Islam isn't the enemy, that terrorism is the enemy.
Lefty though he may be, his perspective on that fine point may be worth consideration.

Bush #43 wasn't a Democrat President. Get your facts straight.

Propaganda derived from a political correctness directive is remarkably unworthy of respect or attention. TRUTH and REPUTABILITY should count for something, instead.

I know you're a Leftie. Even so ... try it sometime. Abandon propaganda .. adopt realism, instead.

[aboutime]

"troops have a task (or tasks) to perform." D #32

“You cannot have a moral duty to do the impossible.” George Will

I staunchly supported the Bush administration's invasion of Afghanistan.
I believe they handled the casus belli very skillfully; a Bush family trait perhaps.

BUT !!

They grotesquely mishandled that invasion literally from day one!

Ceding Tora Bora perimeter security to local mercenaries was stupid as a blacksmith's anvil.
We might have had UBL in less than a week if they hadn't pinched pennies like that. It's cost U.S. many $hundreds of $billions; a MONUMENTAL blunder.

"Such situations DO frequently involve harm. It goes with the territory." D

I have a sister that also
- states the perfectly obvious:
- pretends she is informing me of something I don't know, and then
- pretends that this renders her my benevolent superior, for informing me of fundamental realities.
Are you by any chance her, posting under pseud?

"Such situations DO frequently involve harm. It goes with the territory." D

I'm a former Cold Warrior, U.S. military veteran. I've read a newspaper. I'm fully aware of the hazards of War and military service.
But since it helps sooth your badly wounded ego to insult me by stating the obvious to me as justification for pretending you are my superior; I'm confident you'll continue the exercise. Who do you think you're fooling?

"I suppose Churchill shouldn't have ever sent troops against Hitler, because he'd have 'preferred not to put his troops in harm's way' .. ?"

In my amateur opinion, Sir Winston Churchill was helpful to Supreme Allied Commander (and future U.S. president) Eisenhower in defeating the megalomaniacal Axis conquest.
It was an accomplishable (aka "doable") goal. We won.

And we could render Afghanistan to stable democracy.

BUT !!

Governor Bush (R-"TX") campaigned for the Republican nomination in Y2K in part by eschewing nation-building.
Savor the irony.

The reality is, we can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
It would cost more $Hundreds of $Billions, or more likely $Trillions congress simply isn't willing to spend. THANK YOU FREEDOM CAUCUS !!

And so the U.S. operation in Afghanistan is now dubbed the longest U.S. war in history.

It's not going to work.

We lost the Vietnam War because we weren't going to make the North Vietnamese lose and go home. THEY WERE ALREADY HOME !!

The Talibans aren't going anywhere. THEY LIVE THERE !!

And they'll be there when we leave, no longer how long we delay our departure.



sear. Please answer a question for all of us veterans here on DP.
Since you sound like you are a self-proclaimed authority on Military operations.
Tell us HOW MUCH MILITARY SERVICE you have given, and What Branch?
You can solve a number of unanswered questions for us then.

[sear]

D #52

D:
Crashing 4 separate airliners on U.S. soil, destroying 2 of our office towers and damaging a third, had it been done by any nation State would be an "act of war".

Bush could simply have nuked Kabul & been done with it.
Instead what Bush did was he said to the Taliban (the de facto rulers of Afghanistan at that time):
- UBL is responsible for 09/11/01
- you're harboring him, giving him safe refuge
- you hand UBL over to U.S., or we'll come in and get him, and if we do that, while we're at it, we'll take you out too

They didn't.
You know the rest.

"Are Al Qaeda enemies, or not ?" D

At which point in time?

"al Qaida" means "the base". During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan the U.S. were allies to al Qaida. For example we supplied them with Stinger shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles, basically the only weapon the native Afghanis had to down the formidable Soviet Hind helicopter gunships.
Obviously things have changed.

"Are ISIS enemies, or not ?" D

At what time?
Armed Services Committee Chairman McCain (R-AZ) pleaded with President Obama for years to provide U.S. military assistance to the rebels fighting Assad in Syria. ISIL is now in Syria.
So you tell me. At what point did those anti-Assad forces transition from ostensible "moderates", to ISIL. I don't know the answer. But you asked the question. And the correct answer requires that information.

"Are Islamic terrorists enemies, or not ?" D

Define terrorist.
The ostensible moderates battling Assad in Syria, the ones McCain (R-AZ) wanted to support were called "terrorists" by Assad. Please be more specific.

"Do you have the smallest trouble in identifying enemies among that lot ??" D

None.
You?
All I need is a coherent question. Those you've posed so far are too vague.

"And ... is what CREATES those enemies, your enemy ... or not ?" D

In some cases yes. In other cases no. There are examples of both.
The most recent SUV attack in London? That guy was reportedly a British subject, converted to Islam there.
Does that mean Great Britain is our enemy?
Hardly.

"Think about it." D

My consideration of it had concluded long before you asked. I deduce you presume me ignorant.
Nope. No idea why.

"Lefty though he may be, his perspective on that fine point may be worth consideration." s

"Bush #43 wasn't a Democrat President. Get your facts straight." D

I didn't say Bush #43 was a Democrat. I referred to him as a lefty. It is a mistake to conflate "lefty" & "Democrat" as synonyms. They are not.

Get YOUR facts straight. Here's a primer for you.

Republican Presidential candidate former TX Governor George Bush "ran in 2000 promising to strengthen Social Security, the emblematic achievement of the New Deal, promising to enrich the entitlement menu of Medicare, the emblematic achievement of the Great Society. He has increased education spending and the federal involvement in education. He is the President who has increased the welfare state more than any President since 1965. Bill Clinton is the only modern President to repeal an entitlement program with the signing of welfare reform act. I do think the labels are considerably blurred." George Will / ABC-TV This Week
Compared to me, President Bush #43 is a lefty.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by sear http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=861404#post861404) "You haven't been here long otherwise you wouldn't even bother with this question." p3 #2

"So obviously partisan topics with predictably partisan answers are generally started by more-tenured posting members?" s


"You should already know this is an extremely conservative community minus a few." p3

Yet you presume I don't?

I ABSOLUTELY don't understand the barbaric simplicity so prevalent at this site.

You think I posed the topic because I don't know the answer? Because I'm such a knuckle-dragging simpleton I need the 12 year olds to 'splain it to me?! http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9808&stc=1

Softball topics such as these are an opportunity at recreational boards such as this for posting members of all stripes to strut their stuff, to champion their cause, to join in the debate at the village square, and perhaps influence the thinking of one of their countrymen, their fellow tax-payer, fellow voter, and in many cases here, fellow U.S. military veterans.

If you leverage this topic for purpose of bias confirmation,

if your premise is sear is stupid, and you extrapolate that from premise to conclusion for self-pleasure; that's fine!!

But that doesn't reflect on me. That reflects on those that have INITIATED ad hom against posters here, instead of either:

- addressing the topic, - OR -

- not.



I ABSOLUTELY don't understand the barbaric simplicity so prevalent at this site.

First, I have started off being civil and giving your a measure of respect, now you have gone an shot holes in that by your arrogant accusation that we are simpletons.
Which leads me to ask these relevant question questions ..

1. Could that be because you are in an enlightened state of ignorance yourself?
2. Could that be because you came here floating in a fantasy about your massively superior intellect?
3. Could that be because, your admitted knowledge that we are majority conservative has lead you to wrongly think we are savage , gun toting redneck idiots?

Dismiss us as ignorant clowns and then expect us to bow to your fantasy of being infinitely superior surely reveals that you yourself live in a fantasy world that lauds you and your godlike wisdom, IMHO..

NOW HOSS, I HAVE READ ALL YOUR COMMENTS HERE AND IT IS QUITE EVIDENT TO ME THAT YOU ARE.........

A. A BIT WARPED IN YOUR WORLD VIEW

B. TOO ARROGANT FOR YOUR OWN GOOD

C. Trying to impress by using certain words you think we simpletons will have to look up the definition to..

I dare to make an early judgement of your IQ based upon your posts presented up to date.
And that is, it is slightly above average..
If you have any desire to prove that judgment wrong, and me in error-then please do so by being far more civil, less biased and
more prone to posting without trying to impress with your thought to be superior writings skills and more prone to presenting points made in a much clearer way--with more facts.

I speak this for myself only, Hoss, were I not more educated and wiser than you are now, by the time I was 18 I'd shoot myself.
And 18 was 45 years ago for me.
I've never stopped or slowed down reading, studying and learning...... BOLD AND SOLID FACT..-- TYR

[Drummond]

D #52

D:
Crashing 4 separate airliners on U.S. soil, destroying 2 of our office towers and damaging a third, had it been done by any nation State would be an "act of war".

Bush could simply have nuked Kabul & been done with it.

There are a couple of problems with that.

One .. the US is STILL being castigated for dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki !! How do you think the world would react if you'd dropped a nuke on Kabul ?

Two .. Afghanistan itself never did declare war on the US, it was Al Qaeda operating from within Afghanistan, as guests of the Taliban, who effectively did.

What you've maybe not grasped (?) is that GW Bush acted correctly - and with some care - in launching, as he put it, a 'War on Terror'. This means what it says. An individual country (or countries) weren't held directly responsible for attacking the US ... but ... a terrorist group, WAS.

That's the truth of it.

Had the US dropped their bomb on Kabul as you suggest, THAT would've been an act of war against Afghanistan as a Nation State (.. even if also a failed one ..). I'm sure the world would've been completely outraged by it, maybe even branded America as a pariah State ...

...as you, as a Leftie, would've doubtless enjoyed ... ?? H'mm ?? ...


Instead what Bush did was he said to the Taliban (the de facto rulers of Afghanistan at that time):
- UBL is responsible for 09/11/01
- you're harboring him, giving him safe refuge
- you hand UBL over to U.S., or we'll come in and get him, and if we do that, while we're at it, we'll take you out too

They didn't.
You know the rest.

I do. As, evidently, you do, too. You make my point for me, don't you .... the Taliban were the DE FACTO rulers of Afghanistan, and they harbored Al Qaeda. The Taliban, ITSELF, did NOT launch the attack ... Al Qaeda DID.


Are Al Qaeda enemies, or not ?" D

At which point in time?

Throughout the whole of their existence, AS Al Qaeda ! They only became that, in the late Eighties ... before that, they (such as THEY were ..) were called the 'Mujahiddeen'. When the Mujahiddeen, they acted as freedom fighters. Al Qaeda, by total contrast, moved into terrorist territory once they became that.

At no point did the US ever support Al Qaeda, AS Al Qaeda.


"al Qaida" means "the base". During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan the U.S. were allies to al Qaida.

UTTER CRAP. Al Qaeda did NOT EXIST as Al Qaeda during the period you have in mind. Stop spreading Leftie propaganda !!


"Are ISIS enemies, or not ?" D


At what time?
Armed Services Committee Chairman McCain (R-AZ) pleaded with President Obama for years to provide U.S. military assistance to the rebels fighting Assad in Syria. ISIL is now in Syria.
So you tell me. At what point did those anti-Assad forces transition from ostensible "moderates", to ISIL. I don't know the answer. But you asked the question. And the correct answer requires that information.

When the situation became coherent enough for ISIS to be recognized for what they were, then recognition of them, as a terrorist ENEMY, was possible. The rest you know.


"Are Islamic terrorists enemies, or not ?" D


Define terrorist.

A subhuman (or subhumans) who indulge in terrorist acts of savagery, in defiance of all human standards and empathies.

How about that ?


"Do you have the smallest trouble in identifying enemies among that lot ??" D

Actually, you do, since you're confused about when Al Qaeda even BECAME Al Qaeda. Knowing who and what they are, definitely aids identification !!!!!


The most recent SUV attack in London? That guy was reportedly a British subject, converted to Islam there.
Does that mean Great Britain is our enemy?
Hardly.

Exactly the point.

In much the same way that the Taliban, and Afghanistan itself, could not be held responsible AS A NATION STATE, for 9/11 ... but, Al Qaeda terrorists could be and were ... GW Bush correctly identified who his enemies (and those of the US) really were. He took appropriate action. Namely, an attack on their terrorist training camps. The CORRECT enemy was targeted.


"Think about it." D

My consideration of it had concluded long before you asked. I deduce you presume me ignorant.
Nope. No idea why.

... Seriously ?

Well ... um ... getting your facts straight, might help !!


"Bush #43 wasn't a Democrat President. Get your facts straight." D

I didn't say Bush #43 was a Democrat. I referred to him as a lefty. It is a mistake to conflate "lefty" & "Democrat" as synonyms. They are not.

Rubbish, Sear. The spectrum of political representation is that the Democrats are on the Left, Republicans on the Right. GW Bush represented the Republicans ... just as THEY supported HIM.

He was, after all, their leader.

.. As you have tried to tell me ....


Get YOUR facts straight.

.... yes. Quite.

Tell you what ... stop attacking a former leader of the Republican Party, and a Republican President, by wrongly branding him a Leftie .. and it might help you to present some BELIEVABLE propaganda here.

Right wingers do not set out to attack Right wingers !! However .. LEFTIES do. In fact, more often than not, they usually can't contain their enthusiasm for it. Some do take it to evident and even ludicrous extremes ...

Tut tut.

[Drummond]

sear. Please answer a question for all of us veterans here on DP.
Since you sound like you are a self-proclaimed authority on Military operations.
Tell us HOW MUCH MILITARY SERVICE you have given, and What Branch?
You can solve a number of unanswered questions for us then.
sear ... I haven't seen your answer to Aboutime's query. Will you provide one ?

[Gunny]

There are a couple of problems with that.

One .. the US is STILL being castigated for dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki !! How do you think the world would react if you'd dropped a nuke on Kabul ?

Two .. Afghanistan itself never did declare war on the US, it was Al Qaeda operating from within Afghanistan, as guests of the Taliban, who effectively did.

What you've maybe not grasped (?) is that GW Bush acted correctly - and with some care - in launching, as he put it, a 'War on Terror'. This means what it says. An individual country (or countries) weren't held directly responsible for attacking the US ... but ... a terrorist group, WAS.

That's the truth of it.

Had the US dropped their bomb on Kabul as you suggest, THAT would've been an act of war against Afghanistan as a Nation State (.. even if also a failed one ..). I'm sure the world would've been completely outraged by it, maybe even branded America as a pariah State ...

...as you, as a Leftie, would've doubtless enjoyed ... ?? H'mm ?? ...



I do. As, evidently, you do, too. You make my point for me, don't you .... the Taliban were the DE FACTO rulers of Afghanistan, and they harbored Al Qaeda. The Taliban, ITSELF, did NOT launch the attack ... Al Qaeda DID.



Throughout the whole of their existence, AS Al Qaeda ! They only became that, in the late Eighties ... before that, they (such as THEY were ..) were called the 'Mujahiddeen'. When the Mujahiddeen, they acted as freedom fighters. Al Qaeda, by total contrast, moved into terrorist territory once they became that.

At no point did the US ever support Al Qaeda, AS Al Qaeda.



UTTER CRAP. Al Qaeda did NOT EXIST as Al Qaeda during the period you have in mind. Stop spreading Leftie propaganda !!





When the situation became coherent enough for ISIS to be recognized for what they were, then recognition of them, as a terrorist ENEMY, was possible. The rest you know.





A subhuman (or subhumans) who indulge in terrorist acts of savagery, in defiance of all human standards and empathies.

How about that ?



Actually, you do, since you're confused about when Al Qaeda even BECAME Al Qaeda. Knowing who and what they are, definitely aids identification !!!!!



Exactly the point.

In much the same way that the Taliban, and Afghanistan itself, could not be held responsible AS A NATION STATE, for 9/11 ... but, Al Qaeda terrorists could be and were ... GW Bush correctly identified who his enemies (and those of the US) really were. He took appropriate action. Namely, an attack on their terrorist training camps. The CORRECT enemy was targeted.



... Seriously ?

Well ... um ... getting your facts straight, might help !!



Rubbish, Sear. The spectrum of political representation is that the Democrats are on the Left, Republicans on the Right. GW Bush represented the Republicans ... just as THEY supported HIM.

He was, after all, their leader.

.. As you have tried to tell me ....



.... yes. Quite.

Tell you what ... stop attacking a former leader of the Republican Party, and a Republican President, by wrongly branding him a Leftie .. and it might help you to present some BELIEVABLE propaganda here.

Right wingers do not set out to attack Right wingers !! However .. LEFTIES do. In fact, more often than not, they usually can't contain their enthusiasm for it. Some do take it to evident and even ludicrous extremes ...

Tut tut.The word "terrorist" is misused. As are many other words. For the purpose of the content of this discussion, stick to the meaning, not the label. Anyone can be labeled a terrorist. All you have to do is inflict fear. Real or perceived, it's all the same. For the purpose of the topic, I don't know anyone on this board that forces anyone to believe in their religion or we chop your head off. THAT would be the current definition of "terrorism".

You call yourself a liberal. right? There's is NOTHING liberal about the left. Hitler Juniors. You are the antithesis of the the word "liberal".

Labels without the meaning of the words.

[Elessar]

sear ... I haven't seen your answer to Aboutime's query. Will you provide one ?


Don't hold your breath waiting!:laugh:

[Drummond]

The word "terrorist" is misused. As are many other words. For the purpose of the content of this discussion, stick to the meaning, not the label. Anyone can be labeled a terrorist. All you have to do is inflict fear. Real or perceived, it's all the same. For the purpose of the topic, I don't know anyone on this board that forces anyone to believe in their religion or we chop your head off. THAT would be the current definition of "terrorism".

You call yourself a liberal. right? There's is NOTHING liberal about the left. Hitler Juniors. You are the antithesis of the the word "liberal".

Labels without the meaning of the words.

I've never called myself a 'liberal' ... I don't know why you'd think I ever have. I call myself a CONSERVATIVE ... and a stauncher version than most of my compatriots, Gunny.

I agree that, potentially, anyone can be called a terrorist. But a true terrorist lacks all human empathy, therefore, is provably subhuman. I contend that nobody can truly be a terrorist and a human being simultaneously. It isn't possible.

The version that 'forces anyone to believe in their religion or we chop your head off'... is the worst manifestation of today's terrorist. As such, they prove my point.

[sear]

D #57

No thanks.

BUT !!

If it becomes relevant, I reserve the right to include such information as appropriate.

[jimnyc]

GWB by a mile!!

[Drummond]

D #57

No thanks.

BUT !!

If it becomes relevant, I reserve the right to include such information as appropriate.

I really don't see why you'd refuse to reply.

Naturally, though, I do concede that it's your right not to. Curious though that is ......

[Black Diamond]

GWB by a mile!!
And then some. Holy cow. Obama being this popular is incomprehensible.

[Elessar]

D #57

No thanks.

BUT !!

If it becomes relevant, I reserve the right to include such information as appropriate.

You threw it out there at least twice.

Simple question deserves a simple answer, and avoidance is a very weak reply.

[aboutime]

sear ... I haven't seen your answer to Aboutime's query. Will you provide one ?


Thanks for the backup Sir Drummond, but I fully do not expect to get any answers to my questions. I believe sear finds him/herself above responding to commonly asked questions...much like our Liberal, Democrats here in the USA. They prefer not to be cornered by telling the truth, or admitting they are something other than what they claim to be.
That is how Arrogance, combined with hypocrisy works for them. The sum of those two are lies, hiding behind the 1st amendment they use to defend their perpetual tactics of lies.

[sear]

"You threw it out there at least twice." E #65

Please quote me. I have no idea what "threw it out there" means.

Please quote my exact words, with link if you please, so we can review the context.

Thanks.

[aboutime]

"You threw it out there at least twice." E #65

Please quote me. I have no idea what "threw it out there" means.

Please quote my exact words, with link if you please, so we can review the context.

Thanks.


sear. Finally. You are telling us the truth. We all know "YOU have no idea what anything means!"

Pretending to be the only member here who has any intelligence....WILL NEVER WORK FOR YOU.

Liars always need to make up more lies to cover the previous ones...YOU FORGET.

[sear]

"Pretending to be the only member here who has any intelligence....WILL NEVER WORK FOR YOU." a #68

Sufficient reason for me to never have attempted it, though there are others.

"Liars always need to make up more lies to cover the previous ones...YOU FORGET." Kreskin #68

I accept your credentials as spokesperson for liars, and defer to you entirely in that regard.

I invite you to cite one example of what I have forgotten.

Thanks.

[Elessar]

"You threw it out there at least twice." E #65

Please quote me. I have no idea what "threw it out there" means.

Please quote my exact words, with link if you please, so we can review the context.

Thanks.

You posted them. Look them up yourself!

Once you said you were a cold-war vet.
Twice you said you were a vet, but left off the cold-war caveat.

Your posts - You find them. Not going to do your homework for you.

[aboutime]

"Pretending to be the only member here who has any intelligence....WILL NEVER WORK FOR YOU." a #68

Sufficient reason for me to never have attempted it, though there are others.

"Liars always need to make up more lies to cover the previous ones...YOU FORGET." Kreskin #68

I accept your credentials as spokesperson for liars, and defer to you entirely in that regard.

I invite you to cite one example of what I have forgotten.

Thanks.


Great. You have forgotten to answer my questions from a previous post..HONESTLY.

[Elessar]

Great. You have forgotten to answer my questions from a previous post..HONESTLY.

A hopeless case, mired in arrogance and denial.

[sear]

"A hopeless case" E #72

THANK YOU !!
I've been trying and failing to make that point for days!

"mired in arrogance ...." E #72

piffle

a) I, sear, am not the topic.

b) If a thread on sear was opened in this forum, I doubt I'd ever click it.
I obviously fascinate others here; but I'm old, dull news to me.

If that's what passes for arrogance in this forum, then I may be the most arrogant of all!

"mired in ... denial." E #72

I deny that.

btw
Can't help noticing, my harshest critics here are long on character disparaging accusations, and short on quotations of my posted words.
Do you need an education in how to form a persuasive argument?

"Words mean things." Rush Limbaugh

[Gunny]

I am not reading your right-wing hate site. They are the same as Holocaust denial sites. Both run by sick crackpots. Same for the people who believe in them.Really. I know exactly what a human life is worth. You preach hate about sitting in your comfy ass bled for by others home. You want to talk hate? Go to Africa. Then get back to me. I guarantee you you will learn a whole new meaning of "hate".

You don't want to go here.

[sear]

"I know exactly what a human life is worth." G #74

Then we are in desperate need of your wisdom.

Do you favor capital punishment?

And as you present yourself as either a current or ex, or former Marine, U.S. federal employees who by Rush Limbaugh's description have the job of killing people and breaking things, just what low price "exactly" is "a human life" "worth"?

[Gunny]

"I know exactly what a human life is worth." G #74

Then we are in desperate need of your wisdom.

Do you favor capital punishment?

And as you present yourself as either a current or ex, or former Marine, U.S. federal employees who by Rush Limbaugh's description have the job of killing people and breaking things, just what low price "exactly" is "a human life" "worth"?


I know how to kill things and break shit' Id suggest you shut the fucking hell up. You don't nothing about killing you pussy. And you don't live with it. You just run your goddamed mouth.

And I amI fucking United States Marine, pissant. There ain't no ex's.

[sear]

"I know how to kill things and break shit' Id suggest you shut the fucking hell up." G

I deduce that you wish to make an impression. You have succeeded.

Vulgar vocabulary is an inadequate substitute for forceful self-expression. Potty-mouth and persuasive logical argumentation are not synonymous.

"You don't nothing about killing you pussy." G

You flatter me sir. I LOVE pussy.
I don't wish to divulge the extent of my military, or martial arts training. But I'll tell you this. I've trained in techniques to with bar hands kill a man so quickly his corpse will be dead before it hits the ground.

"And you don't live with it. You just run your goddamed mouth." G

Do you actually have any logical basis for these dramatic, groundless fantasies about me? How could you POSSIBLY know what I know about killing?
Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for a specific answer to that one.

"And I amI fucking United States Marine, pissant. There ain't no ex's." G

A United States Marine is a member of the United States Navy's Marine Corp., in active service.
If you are in active, current service, then thank you for that service.

BUT !!

If you are in active, current U.S. Marine Corps service, how do you get so much spare time to post here so often?

No.
An active service Marine could go on leave, or even extended leave, with such leisure time to spare. But such free time is highly valued, and wouldn't be squandered in such pursuits as posting here.
So I believe / deduce the more likely explanation is that, if you were ever a United States Marine, and candidly with the irritable posting personality, and childish vocabulary of your posts, and ignorance of the Corps' traditions, I retain some doubt.

"And I amI fucking United States Marine, pissant. There ain't no ex's." G

a) A United States Marine is a member of the United States Navy's Marine Corp., in active service.

b) A former United States Marine is a person (usually but not always a citizen) whose active service has lapsed, via honorable discharge.

c) An "ex-Marine" is a person that served in the Marines, but whose service was terminated by dishonorable discharge.

That you did not know this raises serious questions about your understanding of the traditions of honor of U.S. military service. a, b, & c, above are basic distinctions that many civilians understand. And you would have us believe you reached the respectable high rank of Gunnery Sergeant, but yet would be so ignorant as to declare:

"And I amI fucking United States Marine, pissant. There ain't no ex's." G

In all candor, such vulgar, immature adamance is not consistent with either such respected rank, or with such honorable affiliation (The United States Marines).

[Abbey Marie]

Oh boy.

[Elessar]

"I know how to kill things and break shit' Id suggest you shut the fucking hell up." G

I deduce that you wish to make an impression. You have succeeded.

Vulgar vocabulary is an inadequate substitute for forceful self-expression. Potty-mouth and persuasive logical argumentation are not synonymous.

"You don't nothing about killing you pussy." G

You flatter me sir. I LOVE pussy.
I don't wish to divulge the extent of my military, or martial arts training. But I'll tell you this. I've trained in techniques to with bar hands kill a man so quickly his corpse will be dead before it hits the ground.

"And you don't live with it. You just run your goddamed mouth." G

Do you actually have any logical basis for these dramatic, groundless fantasies about me? How could you POSSIBLY know what I know about killing?
Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for a specific answer to that one.

"And I amI fucking United States Marine, pissant. There ain't no ex's." G

A United States Marine is a member of the United States Navy's Marine Corp., in active service.
If you are in active, current service, then thank you for that service.

BUT !!

If you are in active, current U.S. Marine Corps service, how do you get so much spare time to post here so often?

No.
An active service Marine could go on leave, or even extended leave, with such leisure time to spare. But such free time is highly valued, and wouldn't be squandered in such pursuits as posting here.
So I believe / deduce the more likely explanation is that, if you were ever a United States Marine, and candidly with the irritable posting personality, and childish vocabulary of your posts, and ignorance of the Corps' traditions, I retain some doubt.

"And I amI fucking United States Marine, pissant. There ain't no ex's." G

a) A United States Marine is a member of the United States Navy's Marine Corp., in active service.

b) A former United States Marine is a person (usually but not always a citizen) whose active service has lapsed, via honorable discharge.

c) An "ex-Marine" is a person that served in the Marines, but whose service was terminated by dishonorable discharge.

That you did not know this raises serious questions about your understanding of the traditions of honor of U.S. military service. a, b, & c, above are basic distinctions that many civilians understand. And you would have us believe you reached the respectable high rank of Gunnery Sergeant, but yet would be so ignorant as to declare:

"And I amI fucking United States Marine, pissant. There ain't no ex's." G

In all candor, such vulgar, immature adamance is not consistent with either such respected rank, or with such honorable affiliation (The United States Marines).

He's been proven and verified. You, on the other hand, have been not.
You are quite the Drama Queen.

[Black Diamond]

He's been proven and verified. You, on the other hand, have been not.
You are quite the Drama Queen.
You veterans have so much class. Such patience.

[Abbey Marie]

@sear (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3782) it is logical and wise to do some recon before running full
tilt into unknown territory. For example, had you done that here, you would never have challenged Gunny's service, or his veracity for that matter.

[sear]

"He's been proven and verified." E #79

By whom?
To what standard?
Has his DD-214 been authenticated?
Does he have some old uniforms in the closet?
And if that's the case, why would he deny the validity of the term "ex-Marine"? That doesn't make sense.
If you don't mind, I think I'll attend to my own proof & verification, thanks just the same.

"You, on the other hand, have been not." E

I'd like to keep it that way. sear is not the topic.
If I ever post an assertion based upon my numerous authorities, as a retail worker, as an entrepreneur, as a civilian federal employee, as military, etc., then you might have rational reason to wish to know.

I don't need any of that. I'm a disciple of psychologist Joy Browne.

"Ideas are not for believing. Ideas are for using." JB

I prefer to present ideas based upon their own merit, or facts which can be independently verified.
I can state the truth. That doesn't oblige anyone to believe it.

"You are quite the Drama Queen." E

That's flattering, but no. It's Gunny that has earned that distinction.
I don't have to cuss, or make wild assumptions about imagined shortfalls in the character or training of others.

He stated factual errors, and I corrected him.
That's about as undramatic as it gets.
Encyclopediae are widely used resources for facts, information. But dramatic they are not.

ONE OTHER THING:
MY INTEREST IS IN THE POSTED TOPIC. I ALLOW FOR TOPIC DRIFT IN LONG THREADS, AND AM WILLING TO RESPOND TO DEPARTURES WHERE I BELIVE I CAN POST AN INTERESTING CONTRIBUTION.
BUT BY AND LARGE I DO NOT INITIATE AD HOM, AS MY SIG-LINE REMINDS.
SO WHY IS IT EXACTLY YOU'RE CALLING ME THE "DRAMA QUEEN"?

* drama (drä´me, dràm´e) noun
The quality or condition of being dramatic: a summit meeting full of drama.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

PS
"You veterans have so much class. Such patience." BD #80

Yes indeed! Some of us do. Thanks for the acknowledgement.

[Black Diamond]

"He's been proven and verified." E #79

By whom?
To what standard?
Has his DD-214 been authenticated?
Does he have some old uniforms in the closet?
And if that's the case, why would he deny the validity of the term "ex-Marine"? That doesn't make sense.
If you don't mind, I think I'll attend to my own proof & verification, thanks just the same.

"You, on the other hand, have been not." E

I'd like to keep it that way. sear is not the topic.
If I ever post an assertion based upon my numerous authorities, as a retail worker, as an entrepreneur, as a civilian federal employee, as military, etc., then you might have rational reason to wish to know.

I don't need any of that. I'm a disciple of psychologist Joy Browne.

"Ideas are not for believing. Ideas are for using." JB

I prefer to present ideas based upon their own merit, or facts which can be independently verified.
I can state the truth. That doesn't oblige anyone to believe it.

"You are quite the Drama Queen." E

That's flattering, but no. It's Gunny that has earned that distinction.
I don't have to cuss, or make wild assumptions about imagined shortfalls in the character or training of others.

He stated factual errors, and I corrected him.
That's about as undramatic as it gets.
Encyclopediae are widely used resources for facts, information. But dramatic they are not.

ONE OTHER THING:
MY INTEREST IS IN THE POSTED TOPIC. I ALLOW FOR TOPIC DRIFT IN LONG THREADS, AND AM WILLING TO RESPOND TO DEPARTURES WHERE I BELIVE I CAN POST AN INTERESTING CONTRIBUTION.
BUT BY AND LARGE I DO NOT INITIATE AD HOM, AS MY SIG-LINE REMINDS.
SO WHY IS IT EXACTLY YOU'RE CALLING ME THE "DRAMA QUEEN"?

* drama (drä´me, dràm´e) noun
The quality or condition of being dramatic: a summit meeting full of drama.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

PS
"You veterans have so much class. Such patience." BD #80

Yes indeed! Some of us do. Thanks for the acknowledgement.
And you continue to prove you're a load that should have been spit. Trolling or not.

[sear]

PS

"@sear (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3782) it is logical and wise to do some recon before running full
tilt into unknown territory. For example, had you done that here, you would never have challenged Gunny's service, or his veracity for that matter." a #81

By "recon", I suspect you mean reconnaissance.
In this case "research" might be the better term.
Apparently you presume I leapt to conclusion as hastily as Gunny did about me.

ABSOLUTELY NOT !!

I'm vastly too mature for that.

You seem to have inferred what I do not recall asserting.
I never said "you are not a Marine".

My actual wording was:

"this raises serious questions about your understanding of the traditions of honor of U.S. military service." s

I sincerely do not care about others posting here, beyond their posted words.
It's the topic, not the poster that interests me.

I simply called attention to the fact that comments posted under the pseud Gunny often:

- demonstrate temperamental, emotional fragility (of school-girl scale)
- a conspicuous lack of military bearing & maturity
- and at least one obvious factual error about the Corps he wears on his sleeve.

I don't have to research his history. I've profiled his attitudes, his reactions, his maturity, his leadership skill.
I can tell you. They are not consistent with a battle-hardened, successful combat leader.

"Gunny" may be the exception. That's fine. But it would be at very least extremely unusual. We're talkin' 3 sigma territory here [1].

We expect calm under fire from our U.S. military troops, perhaps most of all from our well respected United States Marine Corps.

An entry level "knuckle-head" * might be prone to going to pieces as "Gunny" has.

But a Gunnery Sergeant from the United States Marine Corps that calls attention to killing, and the value of human life; allusion to martial combat without so far mentioning that to me, that I recall.

It's no big deal. Trust me on this. Can we please dispense with the ad hominem, and address the posted topics?

* A reference to what D.I.'s call new inductees at boot camp; thus named for their short crew-cut hair, exposing pale pate.

[1] This is a reference to statistical probability. 3 sigma extremes are quite rare.

[Abbey Marie]

Well, I tried.

[Gunny]

"I know how to kill things and break shit' Id suggest you shut the fucking hell up." G

I deduce that you wish to make an impression. You have succeeded.

Vulgar vocabulary is an inadequate substitute for forceful self-expression. Potty-mouth and persuasive logical argumentation are not synonymous.

"You don't nothing about killing you pussy." G

You flatter me sir. I LOVE pussy.
I don't wish to divulge the extent of my military, or martial arts training. But I'll tell you this. I've trained in techniques to with bar hands kill a man so quickly his corpse will be dead before it hits the ground.

"And you don't live with it. You just run your goddamed mouth." G

Do you actually have any logical basis for these dramatic, groundless fantasies about me? How could you POSSIBLY know what I know about killing?
Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for a specific answer to that one.

"And I amI fucking United States Marine, pissant. There ain't no ex's." G

A United States Marine is a member of the United States Navy's Marine Corp., in active service.
If you are in active, current service, then thank you for that service.

BUT !!

If you are in active, current U.S. Marine Corps service, how do you get so much spare time to post here so often?

No.
An active service Marine could go on leave, or even extended leave, with such leisure time to spare. But such free time is highly valued, and wouldn't be squandered in such pursuits as posting here.
So I believe / deduce the more likely explanation is that, if you were ever a United States Marine, and candidly with the irritable posting personality, and childish vocabulary of your posts, and ignorance of the Corps' traditions, I retain some doubt.

"And I amI fucking United States Marine, pissant. There ain't no ex's." G

a) A United States Marine is a member of the United States Navy's Marine Corp., in active service.

b) A former United States Marine is a person (usually but not always a citizen) whose active service has lapsed, via honorable discharge.

c) An "ex-Marine" is a person that served in the Marines, but whose service was terminated by dishonorable discharge.

That you did not know this raises serious questions about your understanding of the traditions of honor of U.S. military service. a, b, & c, above are basic distinctions that many civilians understand. And you would have us believe you reached the respectable high rank of Gunnery Sergeant, but yet would be so ignorant as to declare:

"And I amI fucking United States Marine, pissant. There ain't no ex's." G

In all candor, such vulgar, immature adamance is not consistent with either such respected rank, or with such honorable affiliation (The United States Marines).I have plenty of patience and discipline. You're still here, right? I can switch your unhappy little ass off in a second.

So tell us some more about being a Marine. I gotta hear THIS shit. You don't like the way I talk? Tough shit. You think you're so f-ing smart and all you do is talk AROUND everything. You couldn't stay on topic if it was Gorilla glued to your ass. And don't think I missed the explanation of a Marine I posted on a different board that you just blathered out. So tell me ... you're so smart ... what did I do in the Marine Corps?

What I DON'T do is sit around talking about how much I think I know on topics I know nothing about. You wouldn't make it through boot camp. You whine like a little bitch and can't focus. Your crybaby ass would be out the door by T-3. Now try to fuck with me some more you shit for brains clueless ass motherfucker. I'll sit here and wait ...

[sear]

"I have plenty of patience and discipline." G

But often fail to exercise it, as your posts of the most recent few days demonstrate.

"You're still here, right? I can switch your unhappy little ass off in a second." g

What does that have to do with you? If I decide to leave, I can do so without reservation.

"So tell us some more about being a Marine." G

Why the %$#@ would YOU as ME ?! ?! ?!

I don't recall ever having claimed an employer / employee relationship with the U.S. Navy.

"You don't like the way I talk?" G

I don't like trolls.
I've been pleading for posts addressing the topic. And yet the school-girl side-show persists.

"Tough shit." G

Chew harder.

"You think you're so f-ing smart" G

I have never made any such claim.
I have never asserted it.
I don't recall ever having implied it.
YOU are the one that has repeatedly made issue of my intelligence, & or education. I do not flaunt either. Neither do I hide either under a bushel. I express myself as my parents raised me to do; and in fact do so in their honor; god rest them both most comfortably.

"and all you do is talk AROUND everything." G

Right.
I get that a lot from those without benefit of university degree, and some that have neither a high school diploma or a GED.
"talk AROUND everything" G or so it may seem to you.
But know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; I'm deliberate about avoiding metaphor, and addressing points raised by previous posters.

"You couldn't stay on topic if it was Gorilla glued to your ass." G

I'm not clear on the connection, but I most eagerly accept your challenge sir. In THIS post I have QUOTED YOUR WORDS, and responded.
So I am NOT the one initiating ad hom here.

So starting RIGHT NOW, I'll commit to not INITIATING any ad hom between you and me. Let's see which of the two of us is the first to break the bargain.

"And don't think I missed the explanation of a Marine I posted on a different board that you just blathered out. So tell me ... you're so smart ... what did I do in the Marine Corps?" G

I don't know what you're referring to. But generally if I quote from another board, I'll include a link, as copyright law obliges.

"What I DON'T do is sit around talking about how much I think I know on topics" [b]

That and wearing trousers may be among the very few things we have in common.

[b]"You whine like a little bitch and can't focus. Your crybaby ass" G

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9815&stc=1 http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9815&stc=1 http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9815&stc=1

HYPOCRITE !!

It's been years since I've cyber-met anyone that so shrilly squeals like a stuck pig.

Posts in this forum are date & time stamped. We'll see which of the two of us breaks your bargain. We'll see how long you can go without addressing ad hom of other posters in this forum.

Good luck!

[Gunny]

"I have plenty of patience and discipline." G

But often fail to exercise it, as your posts of the most recent few days demonstrate.

"You're still here, right? I can switch your unhappy little ass off in a second." g

What does that have to do with you? If I decide to leave, I can do so without reservation.

"So tell us some more about being a Marine." G

Why the %$#@ would YOU as ME ?! ?! ?!

I don't recall ever having claimed an employer / employee relationship with the U.S. Navy.

"You don't like the way I talk?" G

I don't like trolls.
I've been pleading for posts addressing the topic. And yet the school-girl side-show persists.

"Tough shit." G

Chew harder.

"You think you're so f-ing smart" G

I have never made any such claim.
I have never asserted it.
I don't recall ever having implied it.
YOU are the one that has repeatedly made issue of my intelligence, & or education. I do not flaunt either. Neither do I hide either under a bushel. I express myself as my parents raised me to do; and in fact do so in their honor; god rest them both most comfortably.

"and all you do is talk AROUND everything." G

Right.
I get that a lot from those without benefit of university degree, and some that have neither a high school diploma or a GED.
"talk AROUND everything" G or so it may seem to you.
But know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; I'm deliberate about avoiding metaphor, and addressing points raised by previous posters.

"You couldn't stay on topic if it was Gorilla glued to your ass." G

I'm not clear on the connection, but I most eagerly accept your challenge sir. In THIS post I have QUOTED YOUR WORDS, and responded.
So I am NOT the one initiating ad hom here.

So starting RIGHT NOW, I'll commit to not INITIATING any ad hom between you and me. Let's see which of the two of us is the first to break the bargain.

"And don't think I missed the explanation of a Marine I posted on a different board that you just blathered out. So tell me ... you're so smart ... what did I do in the Marine Corps?" G

I don't know what you're referring to. But generally if I quote from another board, I'll include a link, as copyright law obliges.

"What I DON'T do is sit around talking about how much I think I know on topics" [b]

That and wearing trousers may be among the very few things we have in common.

[B]"You whine like a little bitch and can't focus. Your crybaby ass" G

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9815&stc=1 http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9815&stc=1 http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9815&stc=1

HYPOCRITE !!

It's been years since I've cyber-met anyone that so shrilly squeals like a stuck pig.

Posts in this forum are date & time stamped. We'll see which of the two of us breaks your bargain. We'll see how long you can go without addressing ad hom of other posters in this forum.

Good luck!
WTF are you blathering about now? I;m unaware of any "bargain". Let's see if you can remember your own words ... I destroy and kill shit. Right? Isn't that what I do according to you? You can't be first but you CAN be fucking next.

[Black Diamond]

WTF are you blathering about now? I;m unaware of any "bargain". Let's see if you can remember your own words ... I destroy and kill shit. Right? Isn't that what I do according to you? You can't be first but you CAN be fucking next.
I'll hold your jacket.

[aboutime]

NFG sear has taken over this thread, proving his/her ignorance is stronger when allowed to exercise, and defend the miserable, frustration of being alone, and impressed by ONE's self with the arrogance, hypocrisy, and stupidity of a Nancy Pelosi wannabe.

[sear]

" I destroy and kill shit. Right? Isn't that what I do according to you? " G #88

I quoted Rush Limbaugh: "The purpose of the U.S. military is to kill people and break things." Rush Limbaugh

[Black Diamond]

" I destroy and kill shit. Right? Isn't that what I do according to you? " G #88

I quoted Rush Limbaugh: "The purpose of the U.S. military is to kill people and break things." Rush Limbaugh
Trust me. He's a killer. And he's not the type to parrot.

[Gunny]

" I destroy and kill shit. Right? Isn't that what I do according to you? " G #88

I quoted Rush Limbaugh: "The purpose of the U.S. military is to kill people and break things." Rush LimbaughI know it may come as a shock to you but I don't listen to Rush. I served to save lives. Not take them. And yes I'm good at it. But if I can save 20 people from one dickhead? Guess who didn't walk out of the forest. I'm still here. So are the 20 pe0ple. You got another next better question?

[Black Diamond]

I know it may come as a shock to you but I don't listen to Rush. I served to save lives. Not take them. And yes I'm good at it. But if I can save 20 people from one dickhead? Guess who didn't walk out of the forest. I'm still here. So are the 20 pe0ple. You got another next better question?
Those who parrot talking points are so boring.

[Elessar]

I don't wish to divulge the extent of my military, or martial arts training. But I'll tell you this. I've trained in techniques to with bar hands kill a man so quickly his corpse will be dead before it hits the ground.



I have found in 9 times out of 10 that someone who brags of this openly does not know a thing about the "arts".

[sear]

"Trust me. He's a killer." BD

a) I never doubted it.

b) I have been explicit that I have NEVER disbelieved his USMC affiliation.

c) I've posted and re-posted my wording on it.

"And he's not the type to parrot." BD

"Parrot" what?

"I know it may come as a shock to you but I don't listen to Rush." G

Not a shock, but a point of note. I might have thought you would.
The truth is, since Rush's drug addiction scandal, I've only listened to him for an hour. Not an hour a day, or an hour a week, or an hour a year. For an hour. I was in the forest cooking a meal, and thought I'd check in on him again. But he's too much of a caricature to take seriously.
I heard his very first broadcast from NYC on AM in the AM. I thought he was pretty good back then.

" You got another next better question? " G

I wasn't aware I had the previous one (or even what it was for that matter).

"Those who parrot talking points are so boring." BD

Well, you claim he doesn't do it, so it's a moot point.

parrot
verb, transitive
parroted, parroting, parrots
To repeat or imitate, especially without understanding.

[Probably from French dialectal Perrot, diminutive of Pierre, Peter.]
- par´roter noun *

I catch TV news, and watch the Sunday interview shows. But apart from George Will, there's no one I particularly follow as a fan.

In any case, in my posts, if I quote, I also attribute. I don't "parrot" (perhaps a form of plagiarism if you think about it).

But yes. I would imagine it could be boring, though I wouldn't know. I might not recognize it in someone else if I saw it, unless I also recognized the parroted source; and I suspect that's not likely.

Doesn't anyone have a comment that addresses the posted topic to post?

[aboutime]

I have found in 9 times out of 10 that someone who brags of this openly does not know a thing about the "arts".


Elessar. Thanks for getting that phony info out of sear. As many of us Honest Veterans know. What we hear, and read from sear is...STOLEN VALOR.. Whenever anyone claims to have been in the military, in any branch, and they DO NOT WISH to disclose anything. That is a sure sign...they are WANNABE PHONIES.

Betcha sear eventually claims....he was with BLACK OPS, and all of his operations were Classified, and nobody is free to hear them.

[sear]

"phony" at #97

Do you have any basis for that assumption?

[aboutime]

"phony" at #97

Do you have any basis for that assumption?


NOT AN ASSUMPTION. Only You can prove otherwise. So, tell us the truth, and maybe, just maybe, we'll believe you, and your claims. Otherwise. STOLEN VALOR applies.

[sear]

That's fine.
Is there a do jong you'd like to meet me at in Syracuse NY? As long as you're paying the bill, you can pick any one you like.

It's been a while since I've worked a heavy-bag, but we can compare techniques, and perhaps even swap a few.
And if the do jong master will permit it, we might be able to spar as well.

But I warn you, Master Chung Ma didn't run a sport school. Master Ma was a traditionalist, an 8th degree black-belt w/ the World Tae-Kwan-Do Federation.
Of course, I'll go easy on you; adhere to the rules of the school you choose. But if you're advanced, you won't be able to keep up.

I eagerly await your invitation. I'll be in Syracuse on the 5th. Why not meet then?

[sear]

Correction:

sear previously posted: "But if you're advanced, you won't be able to keep up" in error.

The correct wording is: But unless you're advanced, you won't be able to keep up.

Please pardon my error.

[Russ]

Which was the better president? Obama 44, or Bush 43?

Ronald Reagan, the Republican demigod, after debating President Carter, turned to the camera and asked:

"Are you better off ..." (than you were 4 years ago)? Reagan

So that's the Republican party standard, unless & until it's replaced. But what Republican alive today can trump Reagan on that?

When President Bush was inaugurated in 2001, the U.S. was stable, we were safe, peaceful, and the economy was not in tatters. President Clinton had done fairly well, and handed off to Bush a nation in fair shape.

8 years later:
- the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history
- our nation at Wars, one of which we were lied into
- the destructive aftermath of hurricanes Rita & Katrina still fresh in the lives and newspapers of our culture
- the economy in shambles. Even Bush / Cheney / Paulson's $700 $Billion $TARP wasn't enough to resurrect it, but merely enough to keep it on life-support until they could dump it in Obama's lap.

In short, by most quantifiable standards that matter, after 8 years of Bush, we were certainly NOT better off.

Contrast that to Obama.
President Obama took command with our troops in combat in two different lands.
Our economy was losing ~800,000 private sector jobs per month.
Our banking infrastructure was fragile, costing us greats like Lehman Bros.
We might nearly have lost GM, a loss that could have turned the Bush recession into a depression.

8 years later:
- No major terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland from a foreign terrorist
- UBL = fish food
- unemployment cut nearly in half
- U.S. military use more parsimonious both in blood & treasure
- energy self-sufficiency, and strategic independence from OPEC et al

So who was the better president?
And if we use a standard other than Reagan's whose standard? What standard? Why?
[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]


If you have aspirations to be future speech-writer for Obama, then this post would be a great audition. You definitely cherry-pick statistics that on the surface make Obama sound good, and on the surface make Bush sounds bad - essentially Politics 101. As long as your audience has no knowledge of history or facts, and puts blind faith in your statements, you will be in good shape. It won't work that well with the audience here, though.

Just selecting some of the easier to refute statements you made:

Bush & pre-Bush:

1. President Clinton had done fairly well - The best economic policy Clinton ever had was just to be President when the Internet came along. Dems love to credit Clinton with a good economy, but if it hadn't been for the Internet, (not invented by Al Gore, btw) the economy in 2001 would have been in semi-bad shape. Just as a guess, I'll bet you can't name a single economic policy Clinton ever had, without doing a Google search.

2. Blaming Bush for the 2001 terrorist attack - Sure, it happened 8 months into Bush's watch, but it had been in planning for years, and Clinton was warned in 1998 that Al Qaida was planning an attack on America. And how valid is it to blame Bush for us getting attacked? Was FDR a bad President because of Pearl Harbor? Was Lincoln bad because of Fort Sumter?

3. Blaming Bush for the Katrina aftermath - I'm still amazed at how well Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin refused assistance from the federal government for a long time, and then blamed Bush for the problems that resulted. Katrina was one of the biggest instances ever of politicians using a humanitarian disaster for political gain. Incredibly disgusting.

4. Economy in shambles at the end of Bush's administration - It was in shambles, I'll give you that. Did Bush cause it? I don't think so. Congress had created banking rules that literally forced banks to make a certain percentage of risky loans, in order to help bad neighborhoods. The result once again proved the laws of economics, and why the government shouldn't make business decisions.
Obama:

5. No major terror attacks - there was no major attack like 2001, but then again Bush prevented any more attacks for 7 years. Do we credit Obama, or Bush, for this? And don't forget that there were plenty of lone-wolf attacks, like the Boston Marathon, San Bernardino, Orlando, and a whole slew of attacks on and killings of our nation's policemen.

6. Osama bin Laden dead - I do give credit to Obama for this - along with credit to the soldiers that did it. Obama gets credit for giving the order, which took some political guts.

7. Unemployment cut nearly in half - This is really you trying to give Obama credit just for coming into office during high unemployment. He just had to stand still and let the economy do its natural recovery. His biggest strategy to help the economy was just to print a lot of money. I won't even mention how his "stimulus bill" spent a lot of the printed money on total crap and Dem pork projects. (sorry for being redundant there)

8. Energy self-sufficiency - Hah! What a joke that you mentioned this. The US became energy self-sufficient for one reason - fracking. And Obama got in the way of fracking, not to mention cancelling the almost-completed Keystone Pipeline. I'm surprised you mentioned this point.


And here's a bunch of Obama points you were afraid to bring up:
- despite being the first black President, he set back race relations in this country 80 years
- even while printing a lot of money, he borrowed so much money on top of that that he doubled our national debt, borrowing more that all previous Presidents in history
- Obamacare helped a small number of people get health insurance at the cost of making health insurance almost unaffordable for a large number of people that already had it
- Obama's clumsy and hasty retreat out of Iraq is essentially what created ISIS. How much would it be worth to us today if we could go back and prevent ISIS from getting started?


To add it all up... Bush WINS! And Obama just sucks!!! Just sayin' :)

[aboutime]

That's fine.
Is there a do jong you'd like to meet me at in Syracuse NY? As long as you're paying the bill, you can pick any one you like.

It's been a while since I've worked a heavy-bag, but we can compare techniques, and perhaps even swap a few.
And if the do jong master will permit it, we might be able to spar as well.

But I warn you, Master Chung Ma didn't run a sport school. Master Ma was a traditionalist, an 8th degree black-belt w/ the World Tae-Kwan-Do Federation.
Of course, I'll go easy on you; adhere to the rules of the school you choose. But if you're advanced, you won't be able to keep up.

I eagerly await your invitation. I'll be in Syracuse on the 5th. Why not meet then?



sear. You don't need to keep coming here to CONVINCE yourself how wonderful you think you are. Phonies always look for new excuses, then challenge others as a means of building your own phoniness to keep you interested in YOURSELF.

[Elessar]

SEAR....You are starting to cross the line by calling someone out.

He's a 70 year old Vet. Does that make you feel great and tough?

[Balu]

Obama is better. He is the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. In advance. Nobody but him has ever managed so.
Any objections? http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)

[sear]

R #102

First of all R, thank you so very much for posting a comment on the actual topic of the thread. I most sincerely appreciate it.

"The best economic policy Clinton ever had was just to be President when the Internet came along. Dems love to credit Clinton with a good economy, but ..." R #102

That's fine.
But I rely on objective standards. We play the [card] hand we're dealt; a truism for commoners like me, and commoners like Clinton alike.

Quibble all you like. I've been explicitly open about the standard I use. It's the Ronald Wilson Reagan standard.
You can accuse me of being partisan all you like, though my party is Libertarian (check us @LP.org).
But I use the same Reagan standard on Democrats and Republicans alike. I'd be amused if you would attempt to explain to me how that could be partisan bias.

Beyond that, other Republican excuse makers credit the DOTcom bubble, which iirc had the NASDAC up to 8K or so (don't remember, I'm an S&P investor).

But Reagan didn't quibble like that about it.
Instead Reagan very simply looked straight into the TV camera and asked: "Are you better off ...?"

To criticize me about it is to criticize the Reagan standard.

And it's an analysis that can be done with arithmetic precision. Check the stock market at noon the day the president is replaced.
Subtract the stock market at noon that president took office. The difference is the net market impact of that president's administration.

I acknowledge, it's also the Truman standard: "THE BUCK STOPS HERE"

So I combine two presidential standards, and apply them both. For the most part, I credit or blame the president in office for the affects, the consequences of the policies he implemented; whether they actually take place during his administration, or not.

"2. Blaming Bush for the 2001 terrorist attack - Sure, it happened 8 months into Bush's watch, but it had been in planning for years, and Clinton was warned in 1998 that Al Qaida was planning an attack on America."

This is a familiar refrain.

News Flash!! There's nothing President William Jefferson Clinton could have done his last 7 months in office to foil UBL's merry marauders, that President George Walker Bush couldn't have done in his first 7 months in office.
GWB was inaugurated at noon. If the attacks had happened at 3 minutes past noon, I'd cut you some slack on it. But GWB had plenty of time to get a good night's rest, sharpen his pencil, insult his national security advisor, and fold a paper airplane.
The attacks of 09/11/01 happened on GWB's watch. And to give you an idea about how woefully unprepared he was:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9816&stc=1

This ding-a-ling reportedly sat on his @$$ for 7 minutes before he decided to get up and grab a cup of coffee.

"And how valid is it to blame Bush for us getting attacked? Was FDR a bad President because of Pearl Harbor? Was Lincoln bad because of Fort Sumter?"

Understood. I agree with you that the question is worth considering.

But if we're going to contrast presidents, then it is essential to apply the same standard. Let the chips fall where they may.

"3. Blaming Bush for the Katrina aftermath -"

I thought my posted comment referred to it being prominently featured in the news afterward. If so was it me that's criticizing? Or is it me merely that reports that others were criticizing?

"4. Economy in shambles at the end of Bush's administration - It was in shambles, I'll give you that. Did Bush cause it?"

Actually, I think Clinton caused it.
I KNOW !! That might superficially seem like hypocrisy on my part. It isn't. My previously posted comment was:

"I credit or blame the president in office for the affects, the consequences of the policies he implemented; whether they actually take place during his administration, or not." s

iirc Clinton teamed w/ Speaker Gingrich to repeal Glass-Steagel; the predicate act for the Bush administration's "sub-prime mortgage melt-down", often credited with having started the Bush recession.

"7. Unemployment cut nearly in half - This is really you trying to give Obama credit just for coming into office during high unemployment."

Gosh! Those Democrats sure do have excellent timing! Don't they?

Lookit: I appreciate your feeble attempt at objective analysis. But who do you think you're kiddin'?

Think it through.

Who is the better man? Senator McCain, or Senator Obama? Which of the two would have been the better candidate to vote for in 2008?
Why do you suppose the better man lost?
Some say it was because of Palin.
I suppose she might have had something to do with it.

But Ockham's razor. I think the electorate was punishing the Republican brand for Bush lying U.S. into War.


"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
U.S. President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003


That is a lie. How could a falsehood POSSIBLY be beyond doubt? Bush lied. And in so doing, he killed off more innocent Americans during his 8 year tenure than UBL did during the same 8 years.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9817&stc=1

I can't prove it. But I suspect McCain lost in '08, and Romney lost in '12 because the electorate was punishing the Republican party for the Bush administration.

YOU figure it out. Do you really think Obama was better than both McCain, and Romney?!

Well, in both cases the better men lost. So you tell me why. & my sincere thanks again for addressing the topic!

[Gunny]

Elessar. Thanks for getting that phony info out of sear. As many of us Honest Veterans know. What we hear, and read from sear is...STOLEN VALOR.. Whenever anyone claims to have been in the military, in any branch, and they DO NOT WISH to disclose anything. That is a sure sign...they are WANNABE PHONIES.

Betcha sear eventually claims....he was with BLACK OPS, and all of his operations were Classified, and nobody is free to hear them.

Black ops. That cracked me up.:laugh:

[Black Diamond]

How many dead again? I have forgotten the first 18 times he has posted it.

[Gunny]

How many dead again? I have forgotten the first 18 times he has posted it.Did I miss something? He listed a number? Here's a big word for you .. I remember the people I saved. The ones that deserved to be hurt got what they earned.

[Kaimhel]

*grabs popcorn and settles into a front row seat* This is gonna be good!

[Gunny]

*grabs popcorn and settles into a front row seat* This is gonna be good!better have a big bucket. Share? I like popcorn. :)

[Kaimhel]

better have a big bucket. Share? I like popcorn. :)


You can have all the popcorn you want! :laugh:

[Drummond]

Obama is better. He is the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. In advance. Nobody but him has ever managed so.
Any objections? http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)

- A joke ? I'd hope so ...

[Drummond]

R #102

First of all R, thank you so very much for posting a comment on the actual topic of the thread. I most sincerely appreciate it.

"The best economic policy Clinton ever had was just to be President when the Internet came along. Dems love to credit Clinton with a good economy, but ..." R #102

That's fine.
But I rely on objective standards. We play the [card] hand we're dealt; a truism for commoners like me, and commoners like Clinton alike.

Quibble all you like. I've been explicitly open about the standard I use. It's the Ronald Wilson Reagan standard.
You can accuse me of being partisan all you like, though my party is Libertarian (check us @LP.org).
But I use the same Reagan standard on Democrats and Republicans alike. I'd be amused if you would attempt to explain to me how that could be partisan bias.

Beyond that, other Republican excuse makers credit the DOTcom bubble, which iirc had the NASDAC up to 8K or so (don't remember, I'm an S&P investor).

But Reagan didn't quibble like that about it.
Instead Reagan very simply looked straight into the TV camera and asked: "Are you better off ...?"

To criticize me about it is to criticize the Reagan standard.

And it's an analysis that can be done with arithmetic precision. Check the stock market at noon the day the president is replaced.
Subtract the stock market at noon that president took office. The difference is the net market impact of that president's administration.

I acknowledge, it's also the Truman standard: "THE BUCK STOPS HERE"

So I combine two presidential standards, and apply them both. For the most part, I credit or blame the president in office for the affects, the consequences of the policies he implemented; whether they actually take place during his administration, or not.

"2. Blaming Bush for the 2001 terrorist attack - Sure, it happened 8 months into Bush's watch, but it had been in planning for years, and Clinton was warned in 1998 that Al Qaida was planning an attack on America."

This is a familiar refrain.

News Flash!! There's nothing President William Jefferson Clinton could have done his last 7 months in office to foil UBL's merry marauders, that President George Walker Bush couldn't have done in his first 7 months in office.
GWB was inaugurated at noon. If the attacks had happened at 3 minutes past noon, I'd cut you some slack on it. But GWB had plenty of time to get a good night's rest, sharpen his pencil, insult his national security advisor, and fold a paper airplane.
The attacks of 09/11/01 happened on GWB's watch. And to give you an idea about how woefully unprepared he was:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9816&stc=1

This ding-a-ling reportedly sat on his @$$ for 7 minutes before he decided to get up and grab a cup of coffee.

"And how valid is it to blame Bush for us getting attacked? Was FDR a bad President because of Pearl Harbor? Was Lincoln bad because of Fort Sumter?"

Understood. I agree with you that the question is worth considering.

But if we're going to contrast presidents, then it is essential to apply the same standard. Let the chips fall where they may.

"3. Blaming Bush for the Katrina aftermath -"

I thought my posted comment referred to it being prominently featured in the news afterward. If so was it me that's criticizing? Or is it me merely that reports that others were criticizing?

"4. Economy in shambles at the end of Bush's administration - It was in shambles, I'll give you that. Did Bush cause it?"

Actually, I think Clinton caused it.
I KNOW !! That might superficially seem like hypocrisy on my part. It isn't. My previously posted comment was:

"I credit or blame the president in office for the affects, the consequences of the policies he implemented; whether they actually take place during his administration, or not." s

iirc Clinton teamed w/ Speaker Gingrich to repeal Glass-Steagel; the predicate act for the Bush administration's "sub-prime mortgage melt-down", often credited with having started the Bush recession.

"7. Unemployment cut nearly in half - This is really you trying to give Obama credit just for coming into office during high unemployment."

Gosh! Those Democrats sure do have excellent timing! Don't they?

Lookit: I appreciate your feeble attempt at objective analysis. But who do you think you're kiddin'?

Think it through.

Who is the better man? Senator McCain, or Senator Obama? Which of the two would have been the better candidate to vote for in 2008?
Why do you suppose the better man lost?
Some say it was because of Palin.
I suppose she might have had something to do with it.

But Ockham's razor. I think the electorate was punishing the Republican brand for Bush lying U.S. into War.

That is a lie. How could a falsehood POSSIBLY be beyond doubt? Bush lied. And in so doing, he killed off more innocent Americans during his 8 year tenure than UBL did during the same 8 years.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9817&stc=1

I can't prove it. But I suspect McCain lost in '08, and Romney lost in '12 because the electorate was punishing the Republican party for the Bush administration.

YOU figure it out. Do you really think Obama was better than both McCain, and Romney?!

Well, in both cases the better men lost. So you tell me why. & my sincere thanks again for addressing the topic!

If my own timezone were to be used to judge the issue, I'd find myself wondering if what you'd posted was an extremely verbose April Fools' joke ...

... but I somehow doubt it. Given that your biases are Left wing, that you don't account for your own alleged bona fides when questioned, given your fondness for pedantry, and for attacking fellow Conservatives here ... yes. I think you're serious. Seriously Left wing, peddling Leftie propaganda ...

Just a couple of points.

One -- your picture of the moment Bush learned of the 9/11 attack ... bear in mind that he was attending a pre-arranged visit to a school with young kids at the time, and that he had them as his audience .. doesn't it occur to you that his manner might've been one of not wanting to exhibit any display which would alarm those around him ?

Two -- my understanding is that Bush, being approached at that moment, was being UPDATED on what he already knew was ongoing. In fact, he was already on top of the situation, having already ordered his people to update him.

Three -- here's something for you to consider. You claim, do you, that Bush lied about WMD's ? Well ...it's been pointed out elsewhere that convoys went from Iraq to Syria. Carrying ... what ? This was done during a six-month window, between a rebuff Saddam had given the UN, to the implementation of their Res 1441. Plenty of time for Saddam to arrange and carry out the shipping of a WMD stockpile out of Iraqi territory.

Even despite that, though ... SOME WERE FOUND. Not in pristine condition, maybe ... but found, all the same. Nowhere in UN Res 1441 was the discovery of WMD weapons in pristine condition required, in order for them to qualify as the only WMD's the UN wanted to know about.

Check this out ...

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

... then tell me that the Iraq invasion wasn't fully justified !!!!

[sear]

"One -- your picture of the moment Bush learned of the 9/11 attack ... bear in mind that he was attending a pre-arranged visit to a school with young kids at the time, and that he had them as his audience .. doesn't it occur to you that his manner might've been one of not wanting to exhibit any display which would alarm those around him ?" D

It occurred to me before any Republican Bush administration apologist offered it as an excuse; exceedingly lame though it is. It is not a rational explanation.

a) That would mean the Republican president of the United States didn't have the presence of mind to interrupt the reading of My Pet Goat with a charming smile, explain that U.S. presidents are busy, and that he would have to leave with this nice man that just whispered in my ear.
But after the reading is over, you can each draw me a picture of the story, and send it to me at The White House.
And then turn around and get his @$$ OUT OF THE ROOM !!

b) As I understand the timing of events, Bush's schedule was for him to remain there longer than the 7 minutes he did.
So he cut his stay short anyway. So if he cut his stay short anyway, what did his 7 minute delay accomplish?
Do you have any rational explanation for why the exit that actually happened would be any less traumatic than a nearly identical exit 7 minutes earlier?

c) Bush was not the president of the kindergarten class of the United States of America. He was president of the United States.
Which of the two priorities do YOU think is more important? And there's no reason serving the latter should harm the former. And by that same logic, there' equally no reason the former should impinge on the latter, which it did, reportedly by 7 minutes.

"Three -- here's something for you to consider. You claim, do you, that Bush lied about WMD's ?"

Absolutely, and have quoted him. Here's a reprise:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
U.S. President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003


"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." U.S. President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, 2002


D also posted:

"Well ...it's been pointed out elsewhere that convoys went from Iraq to Syria. Carrying ... what ?"Quotation A

Exquisite!!
However, such mystery convoy is not sufficient for U.N. authorization of a regime-changing invasion & occupation.
It is at very best "circumstantial". It wouldn't even suffice in a U.S. court of law. The case would be dismissed if that was the evidence.

And if that was their real reason, why was it not a prominent feature of their casus belli presented to the U.S., the U.N., & beyond?

I don't recall Secretary Powell mentioning it during his presentation to the U.N. General Assembly. But if he did, I suspect it would have been only in passing. It is at best a suspicion, without substantial corroborating evidence, such as shipping manifests, Syrian military signature validating delivery, etc.

What I do remember was the Bush / Cheney / Powell / Rice / Rumsfeld mantra:
- it's a certitude
- it's classified
- trust us

And that region has been in turmoil ever since!!

"This was done during a six-month window, between a rebuff Saddam had given the UN, to the implementation of their Res 1441. Plenty of time for Saddam to arrange and carry out the shipping of a WMD stockpile out of Iraqi territory."

Translation: time went by.
Again, that is not evidence. If it were, why would the U.S. not be equally justified in toppling every other government on Earth? Time passed in each of them as well!

I understand D.
You're doing what Bush apologists do, fighting a frantic rear-guard action to try to defend the indefensible. Perhaps you actually believe your own story. Perhaps not. Either way, I'll walk you through it logically.

a) From July 2000, to July 2001 (spanning two presidential administrations), Iraq / Saddam was contained.
- there were U.N. sanctions
- there were both North & South no-fly zones, patrolled and enforced
- and U.N. weapons inspectors Blix & Ritter had been combing Iraq for years, and had purged Saddam of just about everything but the kitchen cutlery.

b) Even if you are right about "Quotation A" above, the Bush invasion was already too late to stop it; and therefore pointless.
At that point the Bushies could have declared victory, and thrown a party on the white house lawn. "Mission Accomplished" before boot one stepped onto Iraqi sand.

c) There was virtually no U.N. approvable justification for Saddam / Iraq to have WMD.
The only conceivable legitimate justification for Iraq to have WMD would have been for the national defense of Iraq.
Yet no WMD defense of Iraq was offered during this Bush invasion, or the occupation. What more conclusive proof can there be than that? They had LEGITIMATE justification to use them. If they had them, why would they not have?
They didn't.
They didn't.

d) Syria's Assad is in a ruthless, vicious, protracted War in Syria.
If Assad had procured WMD from Saddam / Iraq, don't you think Assad would have used them by now?

Even despite that, though ... SOME WERE FOUND. Not in pristine condition, maybe ... but found, all the same. Nowhere in UN Res 1441 was the discovery of WMD weapons in pristine condition required, in order for them to qualify as the only WMD's the UN wanted to know about.

Check this out ...

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...classified.pdf (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf)

... then tell me that the Iraq invasion wasn't fully justified !!!!

I've read accounts of weapons dumps being excavated, and finding remnants of weapons.
But that's not what Bush was talking about.
It was not battle-ready weaponry.
It was nothing that matches Bush's rhetoric in his SOU.

"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." U.S. President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, 2002
The refuse you refer to does not rise to Bush's dramatic description of gathering danger, and peril drawing closer and closer. It was a dump, so irrelevant neither Blix nor Ritter bothered with it.

One other important detail.
It's not only the Valerie Plame / Ambassador Wilson scandal (put VP Cheney's COS in prison iirc).

Secretary Powell's presentation to the U.N. general assembly included drawings of mobile WMD labs, ostensibly located inside the trailers of tractor-trailer trucks.
Where did that artwork Secretary Powell used come from?

During the Cuban missile crisis, JFK declassified U2 photos of Soviet missiles on Cuban soil. PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES !!
And what did Secretary Powell use? U.S. government computer generated artwork? Fantasy?

How could that POSSIBLY have not been a deliberate Bush administration fraud? SOMEBODY had to draw those pretty pictures!

Maybe you think it was worth it.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9818&stc=1

I doubt those that lost family, or limbs, or brain-function there do.
It has been EXTREMELY costly to destabilize the region this way; all for a lie, and perhaps a Bush family vendetta.

[Gunny]

If my own timezone were to be used to judge the issue, I'd find myself wondering if what you'd posted was an extremely verbose April Fools' joke ...

... but I somehow doubt it. Given that your biases are Left wing, that you don't account for your own alleged bona fides when questioned, given your fondness for pedantry, and for attacking fellow Conservatives here ... yes. I think you're serious. Seriously Left wing, peddling Leftie propaganda ...

Just a couple of points.

One -- your picture of the moment Bush learned of the 9/11 attack ... bear in mind that he was attending a pre-arranged visit to a school with young kids at the time, and that he had them as his audience .. doesn't it occur to you that his manner might've been one of not wanting to exhibit any display which would alarm those around him ?

Two -- my understanding is that Bush, being approached at that moment, was being UPDATED on what he already knew was ongoing. In fact, he was already on top of the situation, having already ordered his people to update him.

Three -- here's something for you to consider. You claim, do you, that Bush lied about WMD's ? Well ...it's been pointed out elsewhere that convoys went from Iraq to Syria. Carrying ... what ? This was done during a six-month window, between a rebuff Saddam had given the UN, to the implementation of their Res 1441. Plenty of time for Saddam to arrange and carry out the shipping of a WMD stockpile out of Iraqi territory.

Even despite that, though ... SOME WERE FOUND. Not in pristine condition, maybe ... but found, all the same. Nowhere in UN Res 1441 was the discovery of WMD weapons in pristine condition required, in order for them to qualify as the only WMD's the UN wanted to know about.

Check this out ...

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

... then tell me that the Iraq invasion wasn't fully justified !!!!Couple of points ...

One, how did this get to be about Bush? THAT desperate?

Two .. want to talk WMDs? WE SOLD THEM TO SADDAM. THE CIA TAUGHT THE IRAQS HOW TO USE THEM. How hard is the math here?

Three, I didn't agree with going into Iraq. Dumb move strategically. I DO agree Saddam was despot. But he stood between the Sunni and Shia. Personally? He cost me a promotion and over a year of not seeing my kids. I was on my way home when they turned the boat around and sent us back.

I carry a military ID. It doesn't say "Monday Morning Quarterback" on it. It says "Fix this shit". And just to be clear on the topic ... My best friend and roomate got shot dead right next to me. Brilliant since I was the target. I watched him bleed out. I had 12 other Marines I needed to bring home. And I fucking brought them home. You don't tell me what I'm about asshole.

You don't tell me WTF it's like. Your pussy ass probably had your last "battle" at McDonalds. Don't fuck with me.

Oh ... and I know tae guek. And I know how to beat it. Got anything else?

[Drummond]

"One -- your picture of the moment Bush learned of the 9/11 attack ... bear in mind that he was attending a pre-arranged visit to a school with young kids at the time, and that he had them as his audience .. doesn't it occur to you that his manner might've been one of not wanting to exhibit any display which would alarm those around him ?" D

It occurred to me before any Republican Bush administration apologist offered it as an excuse; exceedingly lame though it is. It is not a rational explanation.

a) That would mean the Republican president of the United States didn't have the presence of mind to interrupt the reading of My Pet Goat with a charming smile, explain that U.S. presidents are busy, and that he would have to leave with this nice man that just whispered in my ear.
But after the reading is over, you can each draw me a picture of the story, and send it to me at The White House.
And then turn around and get his @$$ OUT OF THE ROOM !!

b) As I understand the timing of events, Bush's schedule was for him to remain there longer than the 7 minutes he did.
So he cut his stay short anyway. So if he cut his stay short anyway, what did his 7 minute delay accomplish?
Do you have any rational explanation for why the exit that actually happened would be any less traumatic than a nearly identical exit 7 minutes earlier?

c) Bush was not the president of the kindergarten class of the United States of America. He was president of the United States.
Which of the two priorities do YOU think is more important? And there's no reason serving the latter should harm the former. And by that same logic, there' equally no reason the former should impinge on the latter, which it did, reportedly by 7 minutes.

"Three -- here's something for you to consider. You claim, do you, that Bush lied about WMD's ?"

Absolutely, and have quoted him. Here's a reprise:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
U.S. President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003


"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." U.S. President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, 2002


D also posted:

"Well ...it's been pointed out elsewhere that convoys went from Iraq to Syria. Carrying ... what ?"Quotation A

Exquisite!!
However, such mystery convoy is not sufficient for U.N. authorization of a regime-changing invasion & occupation.
It is at very best "circumstantial". It wouldn't even suffice in a U.S. court of law. The case would be dismissed if that was the evidence.

And if that was their real reason, why was it not a prominent feature of their casus belli presented to the U.S., the U.N., & beyond?

I don't recall Secretary Powell mentioning it during his presentation to the U.N. General Assembly. But if he did, I suspect it would have been only in passing. It is at best a suspicion, without substantial corroborating evidence, such as shipping manifests, Syrian military signature validating delivery, etc.

What I do remember was the Bush / Cheney / Powell / Rice / Rumsfeld mantra:
- it's a certitude
- it's classified
- trust us

And that region has been in turmoil ever since!!

"This was done during a six-month window, between a rebuff Saddam had given the UN, to the implementation of their Res 1441. Plenty of time for Saddam to arrange and carry out the shipping of a WMD stockpile out of Iraqi territory."

Translation: time went by.
Again, that is not evidence. If it were, why would the U.S. not be equally justified in toppling every other government on Earth? Time passed in each of them as well!

I understand D.
You're doing what Bush apologists do, fighting a frantic rear-guard action to try to defend the indefensible. Perhaps you actually believe your own story. Perhaps not. Either way, I'll walk you through it logically.

a) From July 2000, to July 2001 (spanning two presidential administrations), Iraq / Saddam was contained.
- there were U.N. sanctions
- there were both North & South no-fly zones, patrolled and enforced
- and U.N. weapons inspectors Blix & Ritter had been combing Iraq for years, and had purged Saddam of just about everything but the kitchen cutlery.

b) Even if you are right about "Quotation A" above, the Bush invasion was already too late to stop it; and therefore pointless.
At that point the Bushies could have declared victory, and thrown a party on the white house lawn. "Mission Accomplished" before boot one stepped onto Iraqi sand.

c) There was virtually no U.N. approvable justification for Saddam / Iraq to have WMD.
The only conceivable legitimate justification for Iraq to have WMD would have been for the national defense of Iraq.
Yet no WMD defense of Iraq was offered during this Bush invasion, or the occupation. What more conclusive proof can there be than that? They had LEGITIMATE justification to use them. If they had them, why would they not have?
They didn't.
They didn't.

d) Syria's Assad is in a ruthless, vicious, protracted War in Syria.
If Assad had procured WMD from Saddam / Iraq, don't you think Assad would have used them by now?

Even despite that, though ... SOME WERE FOUND. Not in pristine condition, maybe ... but found, all the same. Nowhere in UN Res 1441 was the discovery of WMD weapons in pristine condition required, in order for them to qualify as the only WMD's the UN wanted to know about.

Check this out ...

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...classified.pdf (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf)

... then tell me that the Iraq invasion wasn't fully justified !!!!

I've read accounts of weapons dumps being excavated, and finding remnants of weapons.
But that's not what Bush was talking about.
It was not battle-ready weaponry.
It was nothing that matches Bush's rhetoric in his SOU.

The refuse you refer to does not rise to Bush's dramatic description of gathering danger, and peril drawing closer and closer. It was a dump, so irrelevant neither Blix nor Ritter bothered with it.

One other important detail.
It's not only the Valerie Plame / Ambassador Wilson scandal (put VP Cheney's COS in prison iirc).

Secretary Powell's presentation to the U.N. general assembly included drawings of mobile WMD labs, ostensibly located inside the trailers of tractor-trailer trucks.
Where did that artwork Secretary Powell used come from?

During the Cuban missile crisis, JFK declassified U2 photos of Soviet missiles on Cuban soil. PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES !!
And what did Secretary Powell use? U.S. government computer generated artwork? Fantasy?

How could that POSSIBLY have not been a deliberate Bush administration fraud? SOMEBODY had to draw those pretty pictures!

Maybe you think it was worth it.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9818&stc=1

I doubt those that lost family, or limbs, or brain-function there do.
It has been EXTREMELY costly to destabilize the region this way; all for a lie, and perhaps a Bush family vendetta.

Here's a task for you ... prove to us that UN Resolution 1441 required WMD's to be 'battle ready'.

This is a line that you people on the Left insist upon. But I think you should be prepared to back that up. I say you can't. Prove me wrong !

And if you can't, then those ones which WERE found, themselves provide all the necessary basis for military intervention.

As for the rest ... I note the determination you have in rejecting anything that interferes with the bog-standard Leftie account of indecision and incompetence on GW Bush's part. You're really pulling out all the stops to attack him, aren't you ? I understand, of course .. it's in the nature of that propaganda that no variation be conceded ... much like tugging on a single loose strand from a pullover ... tug on it, and maybe the whole thing would unravel ...

You're going to hate this, then ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-new-photos-show-george-w-bushs-response-to-september-11-attacks-a7021971.html


It was during his visit to the Brooker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, when Mr Bush learnt of the attacks on the World Trade Center.

He and his staff, including press secretary Ari Fleischer, moved to another room in the school to watch footage of the planes hitting the towers and to prepare an address the nation.

Mr Bush then flew to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, before moving on to another air base in Nebraska.

Inaction ? Indecision ? REALLY ?

Sorry if this bursts a propaganda bubble, Sear.

[sear]

"Two .. want to talk WMDs? WE SOLD THEM TO SADDAM. THE CIA TAUGHT THE IRAQS HOW TO USE THEM. How hard is the math here?"

I'll leave the math to G.
But I believe he's right on this point.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9819&stc=1

iirc it was during the Iran / Iraq War. Iran had substantial battlefield advantage, and might have changed the map.
But the U.S. wanted to preserve the status quo, so provided Iraq / Saddam just enough for the war to fizzle in bloody stalemate.

The WMD that comes to mind is Anthrax. I've independently confirmed that years ago. Whether there were others I don't recall.

"Three, I didn't agree with going into Iraq. Dumb move strategically. I DO agree Saddam was despot." G

ditto
Stalinist dictator he surely was!

"American people are friends of Liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own." John Adams
"You don't tell me what I'm about asshole." G addressing a separate poster

But "you tell me what I'm about" Gunnery Sergeant?!

Your double-standard is absolutely acrobatic! You have clue zero about my résumé. And the character you degrade with gratuitous insult is your own. "All honors wounds are self-inflicted." Andrew Carnegie

"Here's a task for you ... prove to us that UN Resolution 1441 required WMD's to be 'battle ready'." D #117

a) An assigned "task" implies a relationship between a superior, and a subordinate. You are my peer, not my superior.

b) You're asking me to prove something I've never asserted. I thought you were smarter than that. I can see I was wrong.
Perhaps you have conflated me with the president of the United States; perhaps because of my presidential bearing?
I'm not the one that said it. Bush is the one that said it in his SOU.

"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." U.S. President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, 2002

Whatever the reality, that presidential comment, carefully worded and delivered, does not summon to mind weapons components and junk buried in a dump.

If that were the case, why didn't Bush say:

"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with" [i]a bunch of worthless junk buried in the sand. alternate of U.S. President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, 2002

He didn't. The accurate quotation is above.

"You're going to hate this, then ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7021971.html

I don't follow un-teased links. If it's not important enough for you to include enough of it to arouse interest, then it's quite likely a waste of my time and bandwidth.

"It was during his visit to the Brooker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, when Mr Bush learnt of the attacks on the World Trade Center.

He and his staff, including press secretary Ari Fleischer, moved to another room in the school to watch footage of the planes hitting the towers and to prepare an address the nation.

Mr Bush then flew to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, before moving on to another air base in Nebraska.
Inaction ? Indecision ? REALLY ?

Sorry if this bursts a propaganda bubble, Sear."

1) If it did burst anything of mine I might consider letting you know, but I don't have a propaganda bubble. If I'm factually in error, correct me. You haven't. Every comment I've posted is true.

2) "Inaction ? Indecision ? REALLY ?"
Did I not make that clear previously?
Do you think I've changed my mind since then?

It's widely reported that 7 minutes elapsed between time of first notification, and Bush arising from his chair.

I'm not saying it had any affect on the outcome.

I'm not saying it matters at all.

My comment is that it is reported that it happened. If it is incorrect, please correct it. But that he did something afterward is immaterial. I made no comment about afterward. And candidly, if he didn't, he'd still be in that school building.
I suspect Bush has left the building by now.
So I'm sorry to burst YOUR propaganda scam D.

It should be too obvious to necessitate saying that it's an alarming indication that the president of the United States of America is so witless a leader that it took him 7 minutes to realize he had a higher, more immediate priority than My Pet Goat, when what was reportedly the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history was underway. Were there still two planes in the air when Bush finally stood up?
Might those 7 minutes have been useful in getting scrambled F-16's to intercept the skyjacked airliner bombs? Or perhaps a bird already in the air on a training or other mission, available for diversion? A competent military commander would be on that like white on fresh snow.

But not Bush.

[Elessar]

News Flash!! There's nothing President William Jefferson Clinton could have done his last 7 months in office to foil UBL's merry marauders, that President George Walker Bush couldn't have done in his first 7 months in office.
GWB was inaugurated at noon. If the attacks had happened at 3 minutes past noon, I'd cut you some slack on it. But GWB had plenty of time to get a good night's rest, sharpen his pencil, insult his national security advisor, and fold a paper airplane.
The attacks of 09/11/01 happened on GWB's watch. And to give you an idea about how woefully unprepared he was:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9816&stc=1

This ding-a-ling reportedly sat on his @$$ for 7 minutes before he decided to get up and grab a cup of coffee.



Let me give YOU a News Flash based on the thousands of Search and Rescue Cases I managed.

In a decision-making matrix, there are several different approaches:

One is immediately reactive. If I had a report of people in the water or a boat taking on water, I would launch in an instant
because I do not mess with 53F degree water. All I need is a location, whether it be GPS, Lat/Long, or geographic, and a quick description
of the target(s). We had one staff member that would always ask permission from the command to launch, even in these kinds of
cases. I did NOT do that. I reacted in an instant.

Another is a more measured reaction, especially when the object is not in immediate danger, i.e boat disabled offshore, for example.
Or if search planning was necessary. Develop the scenario and proceed from there.

One other is a combination of the above. Something is going on, but you cannot tell exactly what until you investigate. That could
be getting reliable eyes on scene to report back conditions or send a unit, usually a helicopter, do an initial search (V/S) and see
what develops.

In GWB's case as you illustrated above, I think it quite likely he was gathering as much as he could before responding. It would look
mighty stupid for him to jump up as if his hair was on fire and demonstrate panic. A more measured response was appropriate.
NYC is surrounded by airports. Remember the one that ditched in the Hudson? Who's to say initially that the first plane into the WTC
did not experience a bird strike as well?

Every time you put an asset in the air, on the surface or even a land response, you are assuming risk for that crew. That is not
something taken lightly by Search and Rescue planners and responders.

[gabosaurus]

https://i.imgflip.com/1mi6xy.jpg

[Gunny]

"Two .. want to talk WMDs? WE SOLD THEM TO SADDAM. THE CIA TAUGHT THE IRAQS HOW TO USE THEM. How hard is the math here?"

I'll leave the math to G.
But I believe he's right on this point.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9819&stc=1

iirc it was during the Iran / Iraq War. Iran had substantial battlefield advantage, and might have changed the map.
But the U.S. wanted to preserve the status quo, so provided Iraq / Saddam just enough for the war to fizzle in bloody stalemate.

The WMD that comes to mind is Anthrax. I've independently confirmed that years ago. Whether there were others I don't recall.

"Three, I didn't agree with going into Iraq. Dumb move strategically. I DO agree Saddam was despot." G

ditto
Stalinist dictator he surely was!

"You don't tell me what I'm about asshole." G addressing a separate poster

But "you tell me what I'm about" Gunnery Sergeant?!

Your double-standard is absolutely acrobatic! You have clue zero about my résumé. And the character you degrade with gratuitous insult is your own. "All honors wounds are self-inflicted." Andrew Carnegie

"Here's a task for you ... prove to us that UN Resolution 1441 required WMD's to be 'battle ready'." D #117

a) An assigned "task" implies a relationship between a superior, and a subordinate. You are my peer, not my superior.

b) You're asking me to prove something I've never asserted. I thought you were smarter than that. I can see I was wrong.
Perhaps you have conflated me with the president of the United States; perhaps because of my presidential bearing?
I'm not the one that said it. Bush is the one that said it in his SOU.

"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." U.S. President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, 2002

Whatever the reality, that presidential comment, carefully worded and delivered, does not summon to mind weapons components and junk buried in a dump.

If that were the case, why didn't Bush say:

"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with" [i]a bunch of worthless junk buried in the sand. alternate of U.S. President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, 2002

He didn't. The accurate quotation is above.

"You're going to hate this, then ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7021971.html

I don't follow un-teased links. If it's not important enough for you to include enough of it to arouse interest, then it's quite likely a waste of my time and bandwidth.

"It was during his visit to the Brooker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, when Mr Bush learnt of the attacks on the World Trade Center.

He and his staff, including press secretary Ari Fleischer, moved to another room in the school to watch footage of the planes hitting the towers and to prepare an address the nation.

Mr Bush then flew to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, before moving on to another air base in Nebraska.
Inaction ? Indecision ? REALLY ?

Sorry if this bursts a propaganda bubble, Sear."

1) If it did burst anything of mine I might consider letting you know, but I don't have a propaganda bubble. If I'm factually in error, correct me. You haven't. Every comment I've posted is true.

2) "Inaction ? Indecision ? REALLY ?"
Did I not make that clear previously?
Do you think I've changed my mind since then?

It's widely reported that 7 minutes elapsed between time of first notification, and Bush arising from his chair.

I'm not saying it had any affect on the outcome.

I'm not saying it matters at all.

My comment is that it is reported that it happened. If it is incorrect, please correct it. But that he did something afterward is immaterial. I made no comment about afterward. And candidly, if he didn't, he'd still be in that school building.
I suspect Bush has left the building by now.
So I'm sorry to burst YOUR propaganda scam D.

It should be too obvious to necessitate saying that it's an alarming indication that the president of the United States of America is so witless a leader that it took him 7 minutes to realize he had a higher, more immediate priority than My Pet Goat, when what was reportedly the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history was underway. Were there still two planes in the air when Bush finally stood up?
Might those 7 minutes have been useful in getting scrambled F-16's to intercept the skyjacked airliner bombs? Or perhaps a bird already in the air on a training or other mission, available for diversion? A competent military commander would be on that like white on fresh snow.

But not Bush.Oh you mean that attack planed during the Clinton administration? Wonder who was asleep at the wheel on THAT mfer ...

[sear]

"Oh you mean that attack planed during the Clinton administration? Wonder who was asleep at the wheel on THAT" G #121

I've already addressed that.
So you tell me.

Just what was it about the attack plan President Clinton should have done in his last 6 months in office
that President Bush should not have done in his first 6 months in office?

Richard Clarke was widely regarded as the U.S. federal intelligence infrastructure's leading expert on UBL.
According to multiple reports, plus his own account, Clarke tried to warn the Bushies about UBL.

BUT !!

According to Clarke he was very quickly marginalized, excluded from security meetings, etc; effectively preventing him from advising President Bush about it.

And you want to blame Clinton ?! I'll BET you do! If I was a Bush apologist, I would too!

"I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue ..." Richard Clarke http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/ (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)HYPERLINK (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)"http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/ (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)001375 (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php).php" (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)001375 (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)HYPERLINK (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)"http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/ (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)001375 (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php).php" (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php).php (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)

[aboutime]

Let me give YOU a News Flash based on the thousands of Search and Rescue Cases I managed.

In a decision-making matrix, there are several different approaches:

One is immediately reactive. If I had a report of people in the water or a boat taking on water, I would launch in an instant
because I do not mess with 53F degree water. All I need is a location, whether it be GPS, Lat/Long, or geographic, and a quick description
of the target(s). We had one staff member that would always ask permission from the command to launch, even in these kinds of
cases. I did NOT do that. I reacted in an instant.

Another is a more measured reaction, especially when the object is not in immediate danger, i.e boat disabled offshore, for example.
Or if search planning was necessary. Develop the scenario and proceed from there.

One other is a combination of the above. Something is going on, but you cannot tell exactly what until you investigate. That could
be getting reliable eyes on scene to report back conditions or send a unit, usually a helicopter, do an initial search (V/S) and see
what develops.

In GWB's case as you illustrated above, I think it quite likely he was gathering as much as he could before responding. It would look
mighty stupid for him to jump up as if his hair was on fire and demonstrate panic. A more measured response was appropriate.
NYC is surrounded by airports. Remember the one that ditched in the Hudson? Who's to say initially that the first plane into the WTC
did not experience a bird strike as well?

Every time you put an asset in the air, on the surface or even a land response, you are assuming risk for that crew. That is not
something taken lightly by Search and Rescue planners and responders.


FOR sear:
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Clinton did nothing after the USS COLE was bombed, and 17 American sailors were killed...other than say whoever was responsible should pay in a court. NEWSFLASH. Any attack on any US Naval Ship IS an attack on the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...and that means...WAR. REF: December 7, 1941.

[Gunny]

"Oh you mean that attack planed during the Clinton administration? Wonder who was asleep at the wheel on THAT" G #121

I've already addressed that.
So you tell me.

Just what was it about the attack plan President Clinton should have done in his last 6 months in office
that President Bush should not have done in his first 6 months in office?

Richard Clarke was widely regarded as the U.S. federal intelligence infrastructure's leading expert on UBL.
According to multiple reports, plus his own account, Clarke tried to warn the Bushies about UBL.

BUT !!

According to Clarke he was very quickly marginalized, excluded from security meetings, etc; effectively preventing him from advising President Bush about it.

And you want to blame Clinton ?! I'll BET you do! If I was a Bush apologist, I would too!

"I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue ..." Richard Clarke (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/HYPERLINK (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)"http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/ (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)001375 (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php).php" (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)001375 (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)HYPERLINK (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)"http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/ (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)001375 (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php).php" (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php).php (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001375.php)

Is there a point here? Bush does nothing and he's wrong. Bush does something and he is wrong. Your criminals get voted out by we, the people and it's Bush's fault. Getting a picture on the theme here broken record? You going to drag up Bush, I'm going to drag up Clinton. At least Bush acted. Those 2 camels and a tent Clinton killed after the USS Cole mattered a whole bunch.

Then we can talk about Fearless Leader #2. Oh look we won this war. Let's snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Was Obama coaching the Falcons?

[sear]

"WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Clinton did nothing after the USS COLE was bombed, and 17 American sailors were killed..." at #123

What would you have had him do?
If it had been an attack from a nation State we could have nuked their capital.
I thought they were basically terrorists, dead terrorists before the blast front reached the Cole hull.

I'm no expert on this specific case.
But I gather harbor protocols were revised to stand-off potential threats like that which totaled the Cole.

Nothing?
He rebuilt it, put it back in service, even though I gather we might have saved a little to replace it rather than repair it.

Whatever diplomatic changes w/ our handling of Yemen and Somalia, I'm not sure. But I gather efforts to monitor and gain intelligence from there were modified.

"Is there a point here?" G

Several I suppose.

[jimnyc]

I'm going to have to go with GWB on this one.

[Black Diamond]

I'm going to have to go with GWB on this one.
Easily.

[aboutime]

"WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Clinton did nothing after the USS COLE was bombed, and 17 American sailors were killed..." at #123

What would you have had him do?
If it had been an attack from a nation State we could have nuked their capital.
I thought they were basically terrorists, dead terrorists before the blast front reached the Cole hull.

I'm no expert on this specific case.
But I gather harbor protocols were revised to stand-off potential threats like that which totaled the Cole.

Nothing?
He rebuilt it, put it back in service, even though I gather we might have saved a little to replace it rather than repair it.

Whatever diplomatic changes w/ our handling of Yemen and Somalia, I'm not sure. But I gather efforts to monitor and gain intelligence from there were modified.

"Is there a point here?" G

Several I suppose.


Spoken like the TRUE Bullshit artist you obviously are. I am now almost certain...YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN IN UNIFORM..except, maybe...behind a garbage truck.

Thank you Bubba Clinton.

[sear]

Spoken like the TRUE Bullshit artist you obviously are. I am now almost certain...YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN IN UNIFORM..except, maybe...behind a garbage truck.

Thank you Bubba Clinton.

The amusing thing is, I sense you're actually fooling yourself with this.

There's no logical refutation here, just vulgar insult and groundless dismissal.

If you wish to perceive me as a "sanitation engineer" I welcome it.

But the fact is, what your venom-dripping hostility demonstrates is that you are motivated by envy, an indication that my résumé has so impressed you and your rude ad hom chums; that you simply assume a flesh & blood human couldn't have so impressive a résumé as I do.

I don't deny your mode of expression is rude.

BUT !!

I know of no more sincere flattery than grudging flattery. And you and your fellow losers are obviously overwhelmed, out of your own minor league by my (upon reflection) impressive list of accomplishments. It's kind of cute I suppose.

As a reminder:

If YOU don't start no spit, there won't be no spit. It's the nail that pops its head up that gets hammered down.

[jimnyc]

And you and your fellow losers

I replied to you a couple of times and got ignored. Methinks you don't want normal discussions. Outside of that, in longer threads that I come to a little late, that are pages long already - I'm being honest when I say it's difficult to catch up due to the manner in which you are "quoting" people. My first instinct is WHY are you already assuming and calling people here losers. I assure you, none are here. I don't know how you got to that point though, and that brings me back to the point about trying to catch up.

There's a thread in the cage... is it true you take issue with or mock anyone with ptsd, whether here or elsewhere, whether in general or whatever? I'm curious, based on that, not only your stance on that, but how you feel about our soldiers in general, and also our veterans of course?

[sear]

"WHY are you already assuming and calling people here losers." jc #130

I'm extremely hesitant to assume, and have assumed nothing in this case.

Accusing an honorable man a liar, with absolute zero legitimate evidence to base it on doesn't undermine the honorable. If you were an honorable man you would understand that. Clearly you do not.

"All honors wounds are self-inflicted." Andrew Carnegie

[jimnyc]

"WHY are you already assuming and calling people here losers." jc #130

I'm extremely hesitant to assume, and have assumed nothing in this case.

Accusing an honorable man a liar, with absolute zero legitimate evidence to base it on doesn't undermine the honorable. If you were an honorable man you would understand that. Clearly you do not.

WTF? Who are you referring to? Me?

[jimnyc]

"I know how to kill things and break shit' Id suggest you shut the fucking hell up." G

I deduce that you wish to make an impression. You have succeeded.

Vulgar vocabulary is an inadequate substitute for forceful self-expression. Potty-mouth and persuasive logical argumentation are not synonymous.

"You don't nothing about killing you pussy." G

You flatter me sir. I LOVE pussy.
I don't wish to divulge the extent of my military, or martial arts training. But I'll tell you this. I've trained in techniques to with bar hands kill a man so quickly his corpse will be dead before it hits the ground.

"And you don't live with it. You just run your goddamed mouth." G

Do you actually have any logical basis for these dramatic, groundless fantasies about me? How could you POSSIBLY know what I know about killing?
Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for a specific answer to that one.

"And I amI fucking United States Marine, pissant. There ain't no ex's." G

A United States Marine is a member of the United States Navy's Marine Corp., in active service.
If you are in active, current service, then thank you for that service.

BUT !!

If you are in active, current U.S. Marine Corps service, how do you get so much spare time to post here so often?

No.
An active service Marine could go on leave, or even extended leave, with such leisure time to spare. But such free time is highly valued, and wouldn't be squandered in such pursuits as posting here.
So I believe / deduce the more likely explanation is that, if you were ever a United States Marine, and candidly with the irritable posting personality, and childish vocabulary of your posts, and ignorance of the Corps' traditions, I retain some doubt.

"And I amI fucking United States Marine, pissant. There ain't no ex's." G

a) A United States Marine is a member of the United States Navy's Marine Corp., in active service.

b) A former United States Marine is a person (usually but not always a citizen) whose active service has lapsed, via honorable discharge.

c) An "ex-Marine" is a person that served in the Marines, but whose service was terminated by dishonorable discharge.

That you did not know this raises serious questions about your understanding of the traditions of honor of U.S. military service. a, b, & c, above are basic distinctions that many civilians understand. And you would have us believe you reached the respectable high rank of Gunnery Sergeant, but yet would be so ignorant as to declare:

"And I amI fucking United States Marine, pissant. There ain't no ex's." G

In all candor, such vulgar, immature adamance is not consistent with either such respected rank, or with such honorable affiliation (The United States Marines).

Gunny is 100% verified MARINE. As he said it, there IS no "ex" in Marine. "Once a Marine, always a Marine" as the Marines state it. Gunny served his time, as have others here. That is NOT in dispute. You can get into a pissing war all you like, and disagree with the way he said something, and swear from the rafters about anything. But Gunny is a Marine. Now you know, and now you know it's been backed up and verified by other members that know him.

[aboutime]

The member who calls him/herself "sear" is a proven "PHONY!"
I will continue to call him/her that UNTIL he/she proves otherwise.


http://youtu.be/JHeLg1AmmGM

[Black Diamond]

The member who calls him/herself "sear" is a proven "PHONY!"
I will continue to call him/her that UNTIL he/she proves otherwise.


http://youtu.be/JHeLg1AmmGM

Maybe sear is questioning.

[Drummond]

"Two .. want to talk WMDs? WE SOLD THEM TO SADDAM. THE CIA TAUGHT THE IRAQS HOW TO USE THEM. How hard is the math here?"

I'll leave the math to G.
But I believe he's right on this point.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9819&stc=1

iirc it was during the Iran / Iraq War. Iran had substantial battlefield advantage, and might have changed the map.
But the U.S. wanted to preserve the status quo, so provided Iraq / Saddam just enough for the war to fizzle in bloody stalemate.

The WMD that comes to mind is Anthrax. I've independently confirmed that years ago. Whether there were others I don't recall.

"Three, I didn't agree with going into Iraq. Dumb move strategically. I DO agree Saddam was despot." G

ditto
Stalinist dictator he surely was!

"You don't tell me what I'm about asshole." G addressing a separate poster

But "you tell me what I'm about" Gunnery Sergeant?!

Your double-standard is absolutely acrobatic! You have clue zero about my résumé. And the character you degrade with gratuitous insult is your own. "All honors wounds are self-inflicted." Andrew Carnegie

"Here's a task for you ... prove to us that UN Resolution 1441 required WMD's to be 'battle ready'." D #117

a) An assigned "task" implies a relationship between a superior, and a subordinate. You are my peer, not my superior.

b) You're asking me to prove something I've never asserted. I thought you were smarter than that. I can see I was wrong.
Perhaps you have conflated me with the president of the United States; perhaps because of my presidential bearing?
I'm not the one that said it. Bush is the one that said it in his SOU.

"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." U.S. President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, 2002

Whatever the reality, that presidential comment, carefully worded and delivered, does not summon to mind weapons components and junk buried in a dump.

If that were the case, why didn't Bush say:

"Time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with" [i]a bunch of worthless junk buried in the sand. alternate of U.S. President Bush (the younger) in his State of the Union speech Jan. 29, 2002

He didn't. The accurate quotation is above.

"You're going to hate this, then ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7021971.html

I don't follow un-teased links. If it's not important enough for you to include enough of it to arouse interest, then it's quite likely a waste of my time and bandwidth.

"It was during his visit to the Brooker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, when Mr Bush learnt of the attacks on the World Trade Center.

He and his staff, including press secretary Ari Fleischer, moved to another room in the school to watch footage of the planes hitting the towers and to prepare an address the nation.

Mr Bush then flew to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, before moving on to another air base in Nebraska.
Inaction ? Indecision ? REALLY ?

Sorry if this bursts a propaganda bubble, Sear."

1) If it did burst anything of mine I might consider letting you know, but I don't have a propaganda bubble. If I'm factually in error, correct me. You haven't. Every comment I've posted is true.

2) "Inaction ? Indecision ? REALLY ?"
Did I not make that clear previously?
Do you think I've changed my mind since then?

It's widely reported that 7 minutes elapsed between time of first notification, and Bush arising from his chair.

I'm not saying it had any affect on the outcome.

I'm not saying it matters at all.

My comment is that it is reported that it happened. If it is incorrect, please correct it. But that he did something afterward is immaterial. I made no comment about afterward. And candidly, if he didn't, he'd still be in that school building.
I suspect Bush has left the building by now.
So I'm sorry to burst YOUR propaganda scam D.

It should be too obvious to necessitate saying that it's an alarming indication that the president of the United States of America is so witless a leader that it took him 7 minutes to realize he had a higher, more immediate priority than My Pet Goat, when what was reportedly the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in history was underway. Were there still two planes in the air when Bush finally stood up?
Might those 7 minutes have been useful in getting scrambled F-16's to intercept the skyjacked airliner bombs? Or perhaps a bird already in the air on a training or other mission, available for diversion? A competent military commander would be on that like white on fresh snow.

But not Bush.

Sear, arguing with you is a waste of time. You have your Leftie agenda to follow, and regardless of what you're told, nothing will sway you from it.

I'm always struck by the double standards the Left have to employ to try and make their 'case' stick. On the one hand ... time after time, we're told that deposing Saddam was wrong, that the invasion should've never happened. That we can 'know' that Saddam didn't have WMD's. That people like Bush 'lied' in claiming he has some.

YET ... there will also be the 'admission' that America SOLD some WMD's to Saddam's regime !!

How did anyone 'know' Iraq was 'free' of WMD's ? Only one way ... because Saddam claimed it !! Yes, if Saddam said so, It Had To Be True ...

I see that you've chosen not to take notice of the link I provided to the Independent. Why ? Because, in truth, it conveyed truth you don't want to accept. Therefore, you'll ignore it.

Bush wasn't nearly as 'indecisive' as was claimed. But, it suits the Left to insist he was. So, they're blind to any truth that doesn't fit their propaganda.

Sear, you have your agenda. Nothing, including TRUTH, will sway you one millimetre from doggedly keeping to that agenda. Well ... I face truth.

I'd invite you to do the same, Sear, if I had any hope that you would ....

[Drummond]

Maybe sear is questioning.

Nope. No chance of that.

[sear]

WTF? Who are you referring to? Me?
Please pardon me sir.
I may have made a terrible, if not inexcusable error in conflating you with a.t., a different poster at this site.

If I have lapsed, I offer you my most sincere apology, and would welcome your offering me a limited opportunity to redeem myself.

"Gunny is 100% verified MARINE."

You're not the first to have said so, though I do wonder about the protocols used to verify this conclusion.

No matter.

a) I never asserted otherwise.

b) It was G that repeatedly assailed my character.
My counter to him was merely that his panicky demeanor was not fully consistent with a battle-hardened United States Marine Corps gunnery sergeant, and that I questioned his military bearing. I never questioned his affiliation with the department of the U.S. Navy.

"As he said it, there IS no "ex" in Marine."

Right.
And I corrected him.

"Once a Marine, always a Marine"

"Once a Marine, always a Marine" as long as honor is preserved.
My sources assure me:

- A Marine is a member of the Corps on active service.
- A former Marine is a former member of the Corps, that has been honorably discharged.
- An ex-Marine is a former member of the Corps that has been dishonorably discharged.

"as the Marines state it. Gunny served his time, as have others here. That is NOT in dispute."

Not by me. Not by you. It's long past time to move on.

"You can get into a pissing war all you like"

Indeed! And I EXTREMELY don't!!

Were it otherwise, why would I continue to display, and even repeat my sig-line? I've been pleading in this forum for on-topic comments for days.

"Now you know, and now you know it's been backed up and verified by other members that know him."

Right.
You couldn't possibly have me more wrong.
It is transcendently beneath my nature to question such thing. I don't care if he's a 12 year old girl scout. WHY ON EARTH WOULD I CARE ?!?!

They're the ones that started questioning me. Doubting me. And I can tell you as a person of integrity. I adhere to the ancient Latin legal maxim that no reputation is a good reputation. Unless you KNOW something bad about a person, they are to be treated with respect, and presumed to be honorable.

That has been my approach here from the start; and have only been dragged down into the disgusting mire in defense of attacks initiated against me.

You don't have to take my word for that. The record is absolutely unmistakably clear and verifiable.

BTW
My original sig-line here was different. I only switched it after I was mobbed by hostile accusations deriding my integrity.

[Drummond]

Couple of points ...

One, how did this get to be about Bush? THAT desperate?

Two .. want to talk WMDs? WE SOLD THEM TO SADDAM. THE CIA TAUGHT THE IRAQS HOW TO USE THEM. How hard is the math here?

Three, I didn't agree with going into Iraq. Dumb move strategically. I DO agree Saddam was despot. But he stood between the Sunni and Shia. Personally? He cost me a promotion and over a year of not seeing my kids. I was on my way home when they turned the boat around and sent us back.

I carry a military ID. It doesn't say "Monday Morning Quarterback" on it. It says "Fix this shit". And just to be clear on the topic ... My best friend and roomate got shot dead right next to me. Brilliant since I was the target. I watched him bleed out. I had 12 other Marines I needed to bring home. And I fucking brought them home. You don't tell me what I'm about asshole.

You don't tell me WTF it's like. Your pussy ass probably had your last "battle" at McDonalds. Don't fuck with me.

Oh ... and I know tae guek. And I know how to beat it. Got anything else?

Gunny, your reply surprises me. Did you think you were replying to Sear ?

Regardless ... we have genuine disagreement. To me, it's very simple. Saddam's regime was said to have WMD's. He'd never accounted for them, since the time he was definitely known to have them. He'd also proven himself to be a rogue leader, one who couldn't be trusted with such weaponry. So ... if he had them, he had to be dealt with.

Nothing short of an invasion (Blix's efforts were pathetic) could get near to resolving that issue. Therefore, one had to happen. Bush duly ordered it.

On a more personal note ... as I've said before, and will make clear again if I must, I am not a military man. I have no military experience. I never claimed to have had. I also have never claimed to have any conception of what people such as yourself experienced when in active service. So, yes, if you feel entitled to look down on me from a great height because of my so-called 'pussy ass' ... I'm not going to argue against you to any real extent. I don't claim to be a military man's equal. I NEVER HAVE.

As for what I do have .. well, I have my own mind, and my own right to express it. As a Conservative (yes, I am one, though at one time a highly misguided individual tried to claim otherwise) ... I have a right to what I think of a a superior mindset.

What makes it superior ?

I am loyal to truth. I will argue in defence of it. I will be the realist that my beliefs demand me to be. I will hold to decent values, and defend them as I choose. I will respect the right of the individual to always BE one.

Not for me mindless propaganda, nor its incessant propagation. I adapt to reality as reality demands.

I have my own mind, my beliefs, and I will always defend them. Not having a military background is wholly immaterial to that effort. Either I am RIGHT in what I say or do, or, I'm not. Only proof of my error(s) will see me back down.

Nothing else will.

If that qualifies me for 'pussy ass' labelling .. well, I'm not seeing it. 'Sorry'.

[Russ]

I have edited your response to just those items I'm going to respond to...




First of all R, thank you so very much for posting a comment on the actual topic of the thread. I most sincerely appreciate it.

"The best economic policy Clinton ever had was just to be President when the Internet came along. Dems love to credit Clinton with a good economy, but ..." R #102

Quibble all you like. I've been explicitly open about the standard I use. It's the Ronald Wilson Reagan standard.
You can accuse me of being partisan all you like, though my party is Libertarian (check us @LP.org).
But I use the same Reagan standard on Democrats and Republicans alike. I'd be amused if you would attempt to explain to me how that could be partisan bias.

Beyond that, other Republican excuse makers credit the DOTcom bubble, which iirc had the NASDAC up to 8K or so (don't remember, I'm an S&P investor).

But Reagan didn't quibble like that about it.
Instead Reagan very simply looked straight into the TV camera and asked: "Are you better off ...?"

To criticize me about it is to criticize the Reagan standard.

"2. Blaming Bush for the 2001 terrorist attack - Sure, it happened 8 months into Bush's watch, but it had been in planning for years, and Clinton was warned in 1998 that Al Qaida was planning an attack on America."

This is a familiar refrain.

News Flash!! There's nothing President William Jefferson Clinton could have done his last 7 months in office to foil UBL's merry marauders, that President George Walker Bush couldn't have done in his first 7 months in office.
GWB was inaugurated at noon. If the attacks had happened at 3 minutes past noon, I'd cut you some slack on it. But GWB had plenty of time to get a good night's rest, sharpen his pencil, insult his national security advisor, and fold a paper airplane.
The attacks of 09/11/01 happened on GWB's watch. And to give you an idea about how woefully unprepared he was:

This ding-a-ling reportedly sat on his @$$ for 7 minutes before he decided to get up and grab a cup of coffee.

"7. Unemployment cut nearly in half - This is really you trying to give Obama credit just for coming into office during high unemployment."

Gosh! Those Democrats sure do have excellent timing! Don't they?

Lookit: I appreciate your feeble attempt at objective analysis. But who do you think you're kiddin'?

Think it through.

Who is the better man? Senator McCain, or Senator Obama? Which of the two would have been the better candidate to vote for in 2008?
Why do you suppose the better man lost?
Some say it was because of Palin.
I suppose she might have had something to do with it.

But Ockham's razor. I think the electorate was punishing the Republican brand for Bush lying U.S. into War.

I can't prove it. But I suspect McCain lost in '08, and Romney lost in '12 because the electorate was punishing the Republican party for the Bush administration.

YOU figure it out. Do you really think Obama was better than both McCain, and Romney?!

Well, in both cases the better men lost. So you tell me why. & my sincere thanks again for addressing the topic!

First of all, I think you can admit to using the "Reagan" standard mostly just because it suits your argument, not because it is the best way to evaluate a President. You also quote Reagan because you think conservatives have to go along with it because Reagan is a revered conservative. I'm not buying the argument - it's not the best way to judge. I would also point out the many liberals have used that same talking point when running for President, both before and after Reagan. It should also be mentioned that extraordinary events, like 2011, are outlier events that skew the fairness of even trying to use that standard.

Second, as I mentioned, Clinton was warned of an Al Qaida attack on US soil in 1998, about 16 months before he left office. I'm not sure where you got the 7 months for Clinton. But just admit that Clinton shares the blame for not stopping the attack. It will feel good to finally admit that.

One thing I have no patience for is people that try to cackle about Bush getting the news about the first plane crashing, and staying in the classroom for 7 minutes before he got up to leave and deal with it. What would you have done if you got the news that a plane crashed into a skyscraper? Run out of the classroom and mobilize the military? I doubt it. That news was one of the biggest "What the hell?!" moments in world history. I remember that day, and between the first and second planes hitting the towers Aaron Brown on CNN was saying that he thought the first plane accidentally flew into the WTC. And if Bush had jumped up and left, the media probably would have been attacking him for leaving the kids. The media (and I guess you) like to attack George Bush.

In regard to your point about the electorate punishing Republicans when they voted for Obama, I don't agree. I think that the media was punishing Republicans, as they continue to do today.

Finally... "feeble attempt at objective analysis"? Do you want to have an objective debate or not? I don't appreciate that.

[sear]

"First of all, I think you can admit to using the "Reagan" standard mostly just because it suits your argument" R

"Argument" in this assertion is a euphemism for partisan political agenda.
The proof it is wrong is simply that I don't have a partisan political agenda. I'm a utilitarian pragmatist. Let the chips fall where they may.

"not because it is the best way to evaluate a President." R

EXCELLENT!!
I call your bluff.
You post "the best way to evaluate a president" and I'll switch to that instantaneously. OK?

"You also quote Reagan because you think conservatives have to go along with it because Reagan is a revered conservative." R

I don't have time to clean this mess up, so I'll just outline the most conspicuous error.

"because you think" Kreskin aka R

If you had a legitimate logical case, you could post a logical argument refuting my position.
You don't.
So instead you play mind-reading games. "because you think" Kreskin aka R

And therefore you lose.

Here's a tip for you sweetheart. If you want to score a valid point, do so on merit the way I do. OK?

"I'm not buying the argument" R

It's YOUR argument.

"- it's not the best way to judge." R

Right.
I NEVER asserted it's the best way to judge.

Instead I observed that Reagan is the Republican demigod, and that "are you better off ..." is the Reagan standard.
That's all.
I called it "the Reagan standard". That's all.

But we crave your expertise!
Please specify "the best way to evaluate a President."

Thanks.

"I'm not sure where you got the 7 months for Clinton." R

It's a dark and mysterious black art known as "arithmetic", taught in U.S. "public" (meaning -government-) schools nation-wide.
Clinton left office inauguration day, 2001. The attacks of 09/11/01 occurred on 09/11/01. "7 months" generously accounts for that time period.
And by "coincidence" that adds to my credibility. The time elapsed between inauguration day and the attacks of 09/11/01 is marginally above that same 7 month duration.

"But just admit that Clinton shares the blame for not stopping the attack." R

Shares as much blame as President Washington I suppose. OK. I'll play your silly little game. I admit it. OK. Your turn.
When do I get to pass GO and collect $200.oo?

"It will feel good to finally admit that." R

You're right! I think I may have pee'd myself a little bit!

"One thing I have no patience for is people that try to cackle about Bush getting the news about the first plane crashing, and staying in the classroom for 7 minutes before he got up" R

I COMPLETELY understand. The truth is very annoying to Bush apologists.
T or F. Was it approximately 7 minutes or not?
If not you have a valid case.
But if it was approximately 7 minutes, what have you got?
Would you like some nice ripe Camembert with your whine?

"What would you have done if you got the news that a plane crashed into a skyscraper? Run out of the classroom and mobilize the military? I doubt it." R

The office title is "president". That's what I would have done, I'd have presided.

BUT !!

Your doubt is well founded. It wouldn't occur to me to serve as POTUS; not even at gunpoint. [the LBJ standard *]

"In regard to your point about the electorate punishing Republicans when they voted for Obama, I don't agree. I think that the media was punishing Republicans, as they continue to do today." R

"The media" don't vote. The electorate does.
"The media" may help shape the opinion of the electorate. But it's the electorate directly (albeit with the electoral college two-step) that makes the final decision.

* "Accordingly, I shall not seek-and will not accept-the nomination of my party for another term as your president." LBJ

[Drummond]

"Argument" in this assertion is a euphemism for partisan political agenda.
The proof it is wrong is simply that I don't have a partisan political agenda. I'm a utilitarian pragmatist.

Offering this in passing ... Sear, you claim pragmatism ?

.. Well ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism#cite_note-Project_Gutenberg_.282015.29-3


Pragmatism rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality

QUITE.

This is the big difference between us, Sear. I note reality ... respect it, represent it, bend to it as and when necessary. You, from your own claim, REJECT representation of it.

This is why, of course, you rejected the evidence I gave you from my 'Independent' link from several posts ago. It didn't fit the line of propaganda you'd already wedded yourself to. No doubt you'll also reject whatever other realities that intrude upon it, too ...

[sear]

Offering this in passing ... Sear, you claim pragmatism ?

.. Well ...

Pragmatism rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism#cite_note-Project_Gutenberg_.282015.29-3


Thank you D.
You make a sharp point.
I'm not only a pragmatist, but also a realist, an idealist, among other -ists.
I'm not devoted to an ideology slavishly serving against my own best interest.

According to plan, I do what works. It's no more complicated than that; aware of ideologies, but not devoted to any of them.

"This is the big difference between us, Sear. I note reality ... respect it, represent it, bend to it as and when necessary." D

Ah!
So the difference between us is we're identical?

GOT IT!

"You, from your own claim, REJECT representation of it.

This is why, of course, you rejected the evidence I gave you from my 'Independent' link from several posts ago." D

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9820&stc=1

I don't recall having rejected anything.
My posted comment was that I rarely follow un-teased links.
It's not, as you seem to imply, out of aversion to truth.
Instead it's out of aversion to $100.+ / month broadband bills.

If you have something you want to tell me, POST IT. Posting an unteased link to me is tantamount to you pissing into the wind.

"It didn't fit the line of propaganda you'd already wedded yourself to." D

I appreciate your best effort to make a coherent picture out of the evidence you can perceive.
With practice, and time, perhaps you'll eventually reach a valid conclusion.

"No doubt you'll also reject whatever other realities that intrude upon it, too ..."

"No doubt" in your mind perhaps.

But in your post, each of these other opinions / conclusions has also been wrong. The quotation above is no exception.

[Russ]

"First of all, I think you can admit to using the "Reagan" standard mostly just because it suits your argument" R

"Argument" in this assertion is a euphemism for partisan political agenda.
The proof it is wrong is simply that I don't have a partisan political agenda. I'm a utilitarian pragmatist. Let the chips fall where they may.

"not because it is the best way to evaluate a President." R

EXCELLENT!!
I call your bluff.
You post "the best way to evaluate a president" and I'll switch to that instantaneously. OK?

"You also quote Reagan because you think conservatives have to go along with it because Reagan is a revered conservative." R

I don't have time to clean this mess up, so I'll just outline the most conspicuous error.

"because you think" Kreskin aka R

If you had a legitimate logical case, you could post a logical argument refuting my position.
You don't.
So instead you play mind-reading games. "because you think" Kreskin aka R

And therefore you lose.

Here's a tip for you sweetheart. If you want to score a valid point, do so on merit the way I do. OK?

"I'm not buying the argument" R

It's YOUR argument.

"- it's not the best way to judge." R

Right.
I NEVER asserted it's the best way to judge.

Instead I observed that Reagan is the Republican demigod, and that "are you better off ..." is the Reagan standard.
That's all.
I called it "the Reagan standard". That's all.

But we crave your expertise!
Please specify "the best way to evaluate a President."

Thanks.

"I'm not sure where you got the 7 months for Clinton." R

It's a dark and mysterious black art known as "arithmetic", taught in U.S. "public" (meaning -government-) schools nation-wide.
Clinton left office inauguration day, 2001. The attacks of 09/11/01 occurred on 09/11/01. "7 months" generously accounts for that time period.
And by "coincidence" that adds to my credibility. The time elapsed between inauguration day and the attacks of 09/11/01 is marginally above that same 7 month duration.

"But just admit that Clinton shares the blame for not stopping the attack." R

Shares as much blame as President Washington I suppose. OK. I'll play your silly little game. I admit it. OK. Your turn.
When do I get to pass GO and collect $200.oo?

"It will feel good to finally admit that." R

You're right! I think I may have pee'd myself a little bit!

"One thing I have no patience for is people that try to cackle about Bush getting the news about the first plane crashing, and staying in the classroom for 7 minutes before he got up" R

I COMPLETELY understand. The truth is very annoying to Bush apologists.
T or F. Was it approximately 7 minutes or not?
If not you have a valid case.
But if it was approximately 7 minutes, what have you got?
Would you like some nice ripe Camembert with your whine?

"What would you have done if you got the news that a plane crashed into a skyscraper? Run out of the classroom and mobilize the military? I doubt it." R

The office title is "president". That's what I would have done, I'd have presided.

BUT !!

Your doubt is well founded. It wouldn't occur to me to serve as POTUS; not even at gunpoint. [the LBJ standard *]

"In regard to your point about the electorate punishing Republicans when they voted for Obama, I don't agree. I think that the media was punishing Republicans, as they continue to do today." R

"The media" don't vote. The electorate does.
"The media" may help shape the opinion of the electorate. But it's the electorate directly (albeit with the electoral college two-step) that makes the final decision.


Your statements are starting to descend into babbling, and your counter-posts are starting to remind to me of that guy sitting by himself at the old folks home, quietly arguing with himself and once in a while chuckling for no apparent reason.

It's kind of funny how you pause at various times in your post to congratulate yourself on what a great point you just made, or on how you think I somehow proved your points. It's like you're in a world of your own. :) You should pour yourself a drink and give a toast to how clever you are! :beer: :rolleyes:

[Elessar]

Just impressing himself, Russ.

He has failed to impress this audience.

[Gunny]

[QUOTE=Drummond;861950]Gunny, your reply surprises me. Did you think you were replying to Sear ?

Regardless ... we have genuine disagreement. To me, it's very simple. Saddam's regime was said to have WMD's. He'd never accounted for them, since the time he was definitely known to have them. He'd also proven himself to be a rogue leader, one who couldn't be trusted with such weaponry. So ... if he had them, he had to be dealt with.

Nothing short of an invasion (Blix's efforts were pathetic) could get near to resolving that issue. Therefore, one had to happen. Bush duly ordered it.

On a more personal note ... as I've said before, and will make clear again if I must, I am not a military man. I have no military experience. I never claimed to have had. I also have never claimed to have any conception of what people such as yourself experienced when in active service. So, yes, if you feel entitled to look down on me from a great height because of my so-called 'pussy ass' ... I'm not going to argue against you to any real extent. I don't claim to be a military man's equal. I NEVER HAVE.

As for what I do have .. well, I have my own mind, and my own right to express it. As a Conservative (yes, I am one, though at one time a highly misguided individual tried to claim otherwise) ... I have a right to what I think of a a superior mindset.

What makes it superior ?

I am loyal to truth. I will argue in defence of it. I will be the realist that my beliefs demand me to be. I will hold to decent values, and defend them as I choose. I will respect the right of the individual to always BE one.

Not for me mindless propaganda, nor its incessant propagation. I adapt to reality as reality demands.

I have my own mind, my beliefs, and I will always defend them. Not having a military background is wholly immaterial to that effort. Either I am RIGHT in what I say or do, or, I'm not. Only proof of my error(s) will see me back down.

Nothing else will.

If that qualifies me for 'pussy ass' labelling .. well, I'm not seeing it. 'Sorry'.[/QUOTE Drummond. I have zero problem with you. You're one of the most well-mannered posters I know. Note that I rarely create. I respond to what is there. If you are offended, I apologize. Nothing derogatory was aimed at you.

[Gunny]

Just impressing himself, Russ.

He has failed to impress this audience.I'm just wondering why he can't speak English. He's got his little personal code going on. Yeah. I'm going to sit here and read through a bunch of incoherent rants. Daughter's in the hospital. My legs are jacked. And I got granddaughters hanging off the ceiling fans. Sure. I got all kinds of time to read War and Peace over and over again from Mr Expand a Post so I can take everything anyone says out of context. Let's discuss every damned thing but ...wait for it ..... the topic. Oh crap. There's a novel notion.

[Russ]

Please pardon me sir.
I may have made a terrible, if not inexcusable error in conflating you with a.t., a different poster at this site.

If I have lapsed, I offer you my most sincere apology, and would welcome your offering me a limited opportunity to redeem myself.

"Gunny is 100% verified MARINE."

You're not the first to have said so, though I do wonder about the protocols used to verify this conclusion.

No matter.

a) I never asserted otherwise.

b) It was G that repeatedly assailed my character.
My counter to him was merely that his panicky demeanor was not fully consistent with a battle-hardened United States Marine Corps gunnery sergeant, and that I questioned his military bearing. I never questioned his affiliation with the department of the U.S. Navy.

"As he said it, there IS no "ex" in Marine."

Right.
And I corrected him.

"Once a Marine, always a Marine"

"Once a Marine, always a Marine" as long as honor is preserved.
My sources assure me:

- A Marine is a member of the Corps on active service.
- A former Marine is a former member of the Corps, that has been honorably discharged.
- An ex-Marine is a former member of the Corps that has been dishonorably discharged.



I just re-read this post, and I have to wonder what kind of banned substance you were smoking just before you posted it. Gunny is 100% Marine; you, on the other hand, are 100% something, but it ain't Marine.

Frankly, I suggest you change the subject, or else claim that Russians hacked your computer and made the posts in your place.

[Black Diamond]

I just re-read this post, and I have to wonder what kind of banned substance you were smoking just before you posted it. Gunny is 100% Marine; you, on the other hand, are 100% something, but it ain't Marine.

Frankly, I suggest you change the subject, or else claim that Russians hacked your computer and made the posts in your place.
Amazing the power of the Russians.

[Abbey Marie]

I just re-read this post, and I have to wonder what kind of banned substance you were smoking just before you posted it. Gunny is 100% Marine; you, on the other hand, are 100% something, but it ain't Marine.

Frankly, I suggest you change the subject, or else claim that Russians hacked your computer and made the posts in your place.

Mind-boggling, isn't it?

[Black Diamond]

Mind-boggling, isn't it?
He may not have broken any laws. He may have picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

[Abbey Marie]

PS

"@sear (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3782) it is logical and wise to do some recon before running full
tilt into unknown territory. For example, had you done that here, you would never have challenged Gunny's service, or his veracity for that matter." a #81

By "recon", I suspect you mean reconnaissance.
In this case "research" might be the better term.
Apparently you presume I leapt to conclusion as hastily as Gunny did about me.

ABSOLUTELY NOT !!

I'm vastly too mature for that.

You seem to have inferred what I do not recall asserting.
I never said "you are not a Marine".

My actual wording was:

"this raises serious questions about your understanding of the traditions of honor of U.S. military service." s

I sincerely do not care about others posting here, beyond their posted words.
It's the topic, not the poster that interests me.

I simply called attention to the fact that comments posted under the pseud Gunny often:

- demonstrate temperamental, emotional fragility (of school-girl scale)
- a conspicuous lack of military bearing & maturity
- and at least one obvious factual error about the Corps he wears on his sleeve.

I don't have to research his history. I've profiled his attitudes, his reactions, his maturity, his leadership skill.
I can tell you. They are not consistent with a battle-hardened, successful combat leader.

"Gunny" may be the exception. That's fine. But it would be at very least extremely unusual. We're talkin' 3 sigma territory here [1].

We expect calm under fire from our U.S. military troops, perhaps most of all from our well respected United States Marine Corps.

An entry level "knuckle-head" * might be prone to going to pieces as "Gunny" has.

But a Gunnery Sergeant from the United States Marine Corps that calls attention to killing, and the value of human life; allusion to martial combat without so far mentioning that to me, that I recall.

It's no big deal. Trust me on this. Can we please dispense with the ad hominem, and address the posted topics?

* A reference to what D.I.'s call new inductees at boot camp; thus named for their short crew-cut hair, exposing pale pate.

[1] This is a reference to statistical probability. 3 sigma extremes are quite rare.

Everyone here can readily see that you more than implied that Gunny is lying about his service and status as a Marine. In several different sentences, actually. I couldn't let this lie there without pointing that out. I get why you would want to backpedal on what you said, but that's not going to fly here.

Btw, Bush; no contest. :batteyes:

[Black Diamond]

Everyone here can readily see that you more than implied that Gunny is lying about his service and status as a Marine. In several different sentences, actually. I couldn't let this lie there without pointing that out. I get why you would want to backpedal on what you said, but that's not going to fly here.

Btw, Bush; no contest. :batteyes:
He's a scumbag. He also made snide remarks about ptsd. Maybe this is the true face of the left?? I don't know. Trumps election has brought out a lot of hidden truth, I find.

[sear]

"Everyone here can readily see that you more than implied that Gunny is lying" a #152

You can misinterpret my posted words any way you like.

But know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; I try to choose my words carefully. I say what I mean, and mean what I say; or strive to it even if imperfectly.

I NEVER said G was not a Marine. My assertion was unambiguously clear. And I stand by it 100%, no disrespect to ANYone that posts here intended. They don't pay me extra to be insulting.

G has often posted extremely hostile, insulting comments to me. He started this hideous mess. Blame me all you like. Who do you think you're kidding?

I get it! sear is the bad guy! My thanks to you all. It makes me feel right at home.

And further, thank you for affirming that few if any of you have the wherewithal to actually concisely quote an assertion that I've made, and than factually or logically refute it.

Inadvertently though it apparently is, it's convincing evidence that the fundamental essence of my posts is indisputable.

Thank you for your inadvertent affirmation.

[Black Diamond]

"Everyone here can readily see that you more than implied that Gunny is lying" a #152

You can misinterpret my posted words any way you like.

But know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; I try to choose my words carefully. I say what I mean, and mean what I say; or strive to it even if imperfectly.

I NEVER said G was not a Marine. My assertion was unambiguously clear. And I stand by it 100%, no disrespect to ANYone that posts here intended. They don't pay me extra to be insulting.

G has often posted extremely hostile, insulting comments to me. He started this hideous mess. Blame me all you like. Who do you think you're kidding?

I get it! sear is the bad guy! My thanks to you all. It makes me feel right at home.

And further, thank you for affirming that few if any of you have the wherewithal to actually concisely quote an assertion that I've made, and than factually or logically refute it.

Inadvertently though it apparently is, it's convincing evidence that the fundamental essence of my posts is indisputable.

Thank you for your inadvertent affirmation.
We saw through you. You're a piece of crap. You may be the face of the modern left.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Mind-boggling, isn't it?

Well you know, we simpletons are not expected to understand..:rolleyes:
We are expected to be awed by the big words, clever quips and the infinity minutiae style in which our posts are dissected and ridiculed.
Has to be the most abrasive and massive case of covering for not presenting substance and solid concrete easy to be understood counter points, I have ever seen.
Now you all may bow and applaud me for using the word- "minutae".
For surely a backward simpleton such as I, had to look up the meaning!-:laugh:
As my being a writer, voracious reader, and my being devoted to --"lifetime continued learning"-- does nothing to give credence to my comprehension abilities and
overall intelligence level(IQ).. - ;) --Tyr

[aboutime]

We recently began to watch FOX NEWS, and we enjoy Tucker Carlson at 9:00 P.M.

Discovered, after seeing his guests over the past few weeks. His guests are intentionally LIBERAL, and he enjoys allowing them to make Honest Fools of themselves.
That instantly reminded me...'sear' could be one of the students of the LEFT-DNC arrogance squads, or members of the OBAMA cheaters, and Liars administration.
Which explains....everything we need to know about 'sear'.

He/she has yet to answer several of the questions I posed to him/her, which also makes me honestly believe sear is a PHONY, STOLEN VALOR, WANNABE hero (in his/her EMPTY mind only).

[Black Diamond]

We recently began to watch FOX NEWS, and we enjoy Tucker Carlson at 9:00 P.M.

Discovered, after seeing his guests over the past few weeks. His guests are intentionally LIBERAL, and he enjoys allowing them to make Honest Fools of themselves.
That instantly reminded me...'sear' could be one of the students of the LEFT-DNC arrogance squads, or members of the OBAMA cheaters, and Liars administration.
Which explains....everything we need to know about 'sear'.

He/she has yet to answer several of the questions I posed to him/her, which also makes me honestly believe sear is a PHONY, STOLEN VALOR, WANNABE hero (in his/her EMPTY mind only).
Some of the ass clowns he brings on his show are US Congressmen. :scared:

[aboutime]

Some of the ass clowns he brings on his show are US Congressmen. :scared:


EXACTLY......which adds more bang to TRUMP'S buck about DRAINING THE SWAMP.

[Drummond]

[QUOTE=Drummond;861950]Gunny, your reply surprises me. Did you think you were replying to Sear ?

Regardless ... we have genuine disagreement. To me, it's very simple. Saddam's regime was said to have WMD's. He'd never accounted for them, since the time he was definitely known to have them. He'd also proven himself to be a rogue leader, one who couldn't be trusted with such weaponry. So ... if he had them, he had to be dealt with.

Nothing short of an invasion (Blix's efforts were pathetic) could get near to resolving that issue. Therefore, one had to happen. Bush duly ordered it.

On a more personal note ... as I've said before, and will make clear again if I must, I am not a military man. I have no military experience. I never claimed to have had. I also have never claimed to have any conception of what people such as yourself experienced when in active service. So, yes, if you feel entitled to look down on me from a great height because of my so-called 'pussy ass' ... I'm not going to argue against you to any real extent. I don't claim to be a military man's equal. I NEVER HAVE.

As for what I do have .. well, I have my own mind, and my own right to express it. As a Conservative (yes, I am one, though at one time a highly misguided individual tried to claim otherwise) ... I have a right to what I think of a a superior mindset.

What makes it superior ?

I am loyal to truth. I will argue in defence of it. I will be the realist that my beliefs demand me to be. I will hold to decent values, and defend them as I choose. I will respect the right of the individual to always BE one.

Not for me mindless propaganda, nor its incessant propagation. I adapt to reality as reality demands.

I have my own mind, my beliefs, and I will always defend them. Not having a military background is wholly immaterial to that effort. Either I am RIGHT in what I say or do, or, I'm not. Only proof of my error(s) will see me back down.

Nothing else will.

If that qualifies me for 'pussy ass' labelling .. well, I'm not seeing it. 'Sorry'.[/QUOTE @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287). I have zero problem with you. You're one of the most well-mannered posters I know. Note that I rarely create. I respond to what is there. If you are offended, I apologize. Nothing derogatory was aimed at you.

Ok, fine, Gunny. I appreciate your reply. Don't concern yourself about this any further. :salute:

[Drummond]

Thank you D.
You make a sharp point.
I'm not only a pragmatist, but also a realist, an idealist, among other -ists.

From what I can see, you now need to make up your mind as to which of your claims is the truth, and which is untrue.

Are you -- 1. a pragmatist, or 2. a realist ?

You've seen what's been said about pragmatism. I fail to see how you can reconcile that with any claim to be a realist.


I'm not devoted to an ideology slavishly serving against my own best interest.

I disagree, on two counts. One, you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination. In doing so, you're showing devotion to an ideology which DOES act against your best interests !! And, two .. if by any chance you want to push the idea that you're somehow a 'right' wing thinker ... then, how does your slavish efforts to annoy and disparage decent Conservatives - starting with GWB, and going on to continue such an effort against at least one poster here, this being predominantly a Conservative board .. act FOR your interests ??


"This is the big difference between us, Sear. I note reality ... respect it, represent it, bend to it as and when necessary." D

Ah!
So the difference between us is we're identical?

GOT IT!

If you've 'got it' , then do your very best not to infect anybody else with it ....

You're talking rubbish, though. We are not remotely alike. In fact, considering what I've been witnessing, I believe I can take great pride in being as little like you as it's possible to be.


I don't recall having rejected anything.
My posted comment was that I rarely follow un-teased links.
It's not, as you seem to imply, out of aversion to truth.
Instead it's out of aversion to $100.+ / month broadband bills.

If you have something you want to tell me, POST IT. Posting an unteased link to me is tantamount to you pissing into the wind.

Your excuse to not accept what I'd posted was pathetic, frankly. You DID reject it without attempting to consider it ... and, why ? Because the version of events reported disagreed with the line you were intent upon taking.

Your problem was that the Independent - a newspaper of some repute (yes, it was a British publication, nonetheless, it was also a mainstream one for a considerable period, AND, one which had never openly declared any allegiance to Left wing biases) .. had printed a version of events defying your own. You chose to ignore it rather than tackle it.

Of course you did. You did what any myopic Left-wing propaganda-pusher would've done, when confronted with unwelcome truth. You just cast it aside, rather than allow it to gain any traction in your thinking.

But then ... for a dedicated Leftie propagandist, you took a pragmatic course. One defying realism.

[Russ]

Some of the ass clowns he brings on his show are US Congressmen.

Hah! Exactly! What a great quote! :laugh:

[sear]

"From what I can see, you now need to make up your mind as to which of your claims is the truth, and which is untrue." D #161

They're not mutually exclusive in aggregate.
You are correct in that in any one particular decision, one might not be able to be both.

But as a broader personality profile, the standard I was addressing because that's the standard that's been addressed to me here:

"You're a piece of crap." BD flattering sear earlier in this thread

That's not a critical refutation of any specific position I have taken here.
Instead it's a school-yard insult without any explicit foundation.

"Are you -- 1. a pragmatist, or 2. a realist ?" D

Yes!
Absolutely.

You see D, ideologues latch to an ideology, and then adhere to it.
I treat science that way.
But I don't approach all in my life scientifically. I have friends that I've known for half a century or more.
When I see them, I don't analyze their quantifiable characteristics at the expense of the emotional joy of the reunion.
I hug and kiss them, and progress from there.

Please dispense with the notion that any human can ONLY apply one discipline. It may be true for the other 7,000,000,000+ on the planet. I don't speak for them.

Need a simple example?
Bruce Lee was a spectacular martial artist.

BUT !!

His style was not pure jujitsu or tai chi chuan. It was a skillful melding of multiple disciplines. It made him a martial arts movie star, may have paved the way for Jackie Chan.
That proves we can diversify with our bodies. So why should we not also do so with our minds?


"No discipline has all the answers." Physicist & Theologian Ian Barbour Ph.D & recipient of the Templeton Prize for Religion; on science & religion


"You've seen what's been said about pragmatism. I fail to see how you can reconcile that with any claim to be a realist."

OK.
You can disbelieve it about me alone. Or you can disbelieve it as a universality.
Your state of mind does not define reality. And your opinion does not define me.

"I disagree, on two counts. One, you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination. In doing so, you're showing devotion to an ideology which DOES act against your best interests !!" D

I'll tell you how much of a leftist I am.
- I'm a ferocious deficit hawk, and would without hesitation endorse a balanced budget amendment (BBA).
- I'm fundamentally opposed to government "entitlements", and would end them all if I could.
"... everyone's for big government. The American People say we hate big government, but we like our social security and medicare. That's 38% of government right there. The biggest components of government are the most popular components of government." George Will Nov 30, 2003

Can you imagine!? Slashing back the size of the U.S. federal government by over 1/3 with a single slice ?!?!

Here's a snippet from my favorite presidential candidate of all time.

The following excerpted from U.S. Presidential candidate Libertarian Andre Marrou's

1992 stump speech.



"... the United States is increasingly socialistic under the Democrats & Republicans.
The Democrats are essentially left wing socialists. The Republicans are right wing

socialists. How do you define socialism? More money to government, more power to
government, more bureaucrats, and more regulations, and on and on ... .
The federal government spends 25% of the Gross National Product. State, county, and
local government spend another 22%. That's 47% of the Gross National Product of this
country being spent by the government bureaucrats primarily on themselves. That

leaves 53% in your pockets. You're the people who earn it. 47% vs 53%; how can we

get your 53% up to 90%? One and only one way, we must reduce the 47% the

government spends, down to 10%. That is the only way it can be done."

That's how much of a leftie I am.

They pretend Trump is a "conservative". How much is he going to dial back government? 0.3%? Don't bet on it.
Trump is a flaming liberal compared to me.
And instead of dialing back $spending, the Republicans in full leadership control of the U.S. federal government are planning to before the end of this month raise the U.S. federal debt ceiling yet once again.

"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D

I invite you and all others to quote me in so doing.
But I know you won't
because I know you can't
because I know I haven't
because I'm not.

Go ahead. QUOTE ME!!

"What's pernicious about deficits for conservatives is this. It makes big government cheap. What we're doing, we're turning to the country, the "conservative" administration turns to the country and says: We're going to give you a dollar's worth of government, we're going to charge you seventy five cents for it. And we're going to let your kids pay the other quarter." George Will Nov 30, 2003

"We are not remotely alike." D

I'm glad you admit it.

"Your excuse to not accept what I'd posted was pathetic, frankly. You DID reject it without attempting to consider it ... " D

You imply I rejected it on ideological basis. It's impossible.
You yourself admit I didn't read it. How could I reject on ideological basis something I haven't read?

I told you why.
You can harbor and flaunt any character disparaging fantasy substitute explanation you like. Your fantasies do not define me.

"Because the version of events reported disagreed with the line you were intent upon taking." D

If you post them here, we can check it out. But posting a link alone won't do it.


"Of course you did." Kreskin

OF COURSE I did, and have acknowledged it multiple times!!
I wasn't aware that was in dispute.
The issue you raise is why. You insists it's because my ideological disagreement with something you also admit I haven't read. And yet somehow that makes sense to you.

You pretend it's for partisan reason. You couldn't possibly be more wrong about it.
No matter. It's obviously more important to you to be disparaging to me than to be factually accurate. That doesn't disparage me. That undermines YOUR character.

[Black Diamond]

I see sear still doesn't know how to use the quoting function. And i wasn't attempting to refute anything. I was stating a fact.

[aboutime]

I see sear still doesn't know how to use the quoting function. And i wasn't attempting to refute anything. I was stating a fact.



I now suspect. 'sear' may be related to this guy...http://icansayit.com/images/unibomberted.jpg
Better known as the UNIBOMBER...Teddy Boy.

[sear]

You're right as usual at. We are the bloodiest of kin!


"There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer's orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else's employee."


Excerpt from Unabomb Manifesto: author convict Theodore Kaczynski; sentenced to Lifetime imprisonment without possibility of parole

[Drummond]

"From what I can see, you now need to make up your mind as to which of your claims is the truth, and which is untrue." D #161

They're not mutually exclusive in aggregate.
You are correct in that in any one particular decision, one might not be able to be both.

A Left winger propagandist is capable of being pragmatic. As for being a realist ... at best, highly selectively. When inconvenient truth is evident, a Left wing propagandist will be anything BUT realistic in recognising it for what it is.

That was true where my Independent link was concerned. It had to be. Evidence refuting your own self-serving account was summarily disregarded. Better that, than concede anything at all ....


But as a broader personality profile, the standard I was addressing because that's the standard that's been addressed to me here:

"You're a piece of crap." BD flattering sear earlier in this thread

That's not a critical refutation of any specific position I have taken here.
Instead it's a school-yard insult without any explicit foundation.[/quote

It's all you can reasonably expect, when you set out to encourage such a reaction to you. If you don't want that reaction -- don't cause it.

"Are you -- 1. a pragmatist, or 2. a realist ?" D

Yes!
Absolutely.

You see D, ideologues latch to an ideology, and then adhere to it.

So do brainwashed Lefties.

But no brainwashed Leftie is objective, nor even truthful to any meaningful degree.

So, what good are they ???


Please dispense with the notion that any human can ONLY apply one discipline. It may be true for the other 7,000,000,000+ on the planet. I don't speak for them.

Need a simple example?
Bruce Lee was a spectacular martial artist.

BUT !!

His style was not pure jujitsu or tai chi chuan. It was a skillful melding of multiple disciplines. It made him a martial arts movie star, may have paved the way for Jackie Chan.
That proves we can diversify with our bodies. So why should we not also do so with our minds?

Orwell would've recognised not only that approach, but where it leads if taken to extremes. To dysfunctionality. To outright insanity. Or, as his novel '1984' depicted, an insane world in which reality was never grasped by any citizen with any hope of long-term survival, but instead where a ruling elite fed delusion to its subjects, and demanded infinite malleability in its acceptance from one moment to the next.

It was a fictional world where repressive brutality was the norm. It was not healthy. It did nothing to improve the human condition .. exactly the opposite, in fact.

It was a world where the propagandists were king. It was ... SOCIALIST, taken to the ultimate extreme, one of total thought (therefore opinion) control.

I suspect, Sear, that you'd be happy in such a world.



"You've seen what's been said about pragmatism. I fail to see how you can reconcile that with any claim to be a realist."

OK.
You can disbelieve it about me alone. Or you can disbelieve it as a universality.
Your state of mind does not define reality. And your opinion does not define me.

QED.


"I disagree, on two counts. One, you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination. In doing so, you're showing devotion to an ideology which DOES act against your best interests !!" D

I'll tell you how much of a leftist I am.
- I'm a ferocious deficit hawk, and would without hesitation endorse a balanced budget amendment (BBA).
- I'm fundamentally opposed to government "entitlements", and would end them all if I could.
"... everyone's for big government. The American People say we hate big government, but we like our social security and medicare. That's 38% of government right there. The biggest components of government are the most popular components of government." George Will Nov 30, 2003

Can you imagine!? Slashing back the size of the U.S. federal government by over 1/3 with a single slice ?!?!

I can imagine Left wingers slashing Government expenditures massively ... but only in preferred areas.

Being the traitors to the common good that they are, they'd slash it in areas to do with national security. The military, if they had their way, would be crippled.

Happily, the current President - who is NOT a Leftie - has the very opposite in mind.


Here's a snippet from my favorite presidential candidate of all time.

The following excerpted from U.S. Presidential candidate Libertarian Andre Marrou's

1992 stump speech.



"... the United States is increasingly socialistic under the Democrats & Republicans.
The Democrats are essentially left wing socialists. The Republicans are right wing

socialists. How do you define socialism? More money to government, more power to
government, more bureaucrats, and more regulations, and on and on ... .
The federal government spends 25% of the Gross National Product. State, county, and
local government spend another 22%. That's 47% of the Gross National Product of this
country being spent by the government bureaucrats primarily on themselves. That

leaves 53% in your pockets. You're the people who earn it. 47% vs 53%; how can we

get your 53% up to 90%? One and only one way, we must reduce the 47% the

government spends, down to 10%. That is the only way it can be done."

That's how much of a leftie I am.

You quote from a Libertarian ? Did that Libertarian intend to spread a self-serving message ? One intended to make people think as he wanted them to think ?

So did Hitler. So what ? When Hitler gave his speeches, did he promise Germany a war-torn hell on earth, and genocidal actions that would claim millions of lives ? Somehow, I don't think so.

Give your Libertarian chum real power, and how much of his promises would ever amount to anything ?


They pretend Trump is a "conservative". How much is he going to dial back government? 0.3%? Don't bet on it.
Trump is a flaming liberal compared to me.
And instead of dialing back $spending, the Republicans in full leadership control of the U.S. federal government are planning to before the end of this month raise the U.S. federal debt ceiling yet once again.

... says A LEFTIE.


"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D

I invite you and all others to quote me in so doing.
But I know you won't
because I know you can't
because I know I haven't
because I'm not.

Go ahead. QUOTE ME!!

"What's pernicious about deficits for conservatives is this. It makes big government cheap. What we're doing, we're turning to the country, the "conservative" administration turns to the country and says: We're going to give you a dollar's worth of government, we're going to charge you seventy five cents for it. And we're going to let your kids pay the other quarter." George Will Nov 30, 2003

As a Leftie, you'll say and do whatever it will take to fill the minds of your audience with the beliefs you want them to have. What really testifies to the truth about you is how you behave.

And, how HAVE you behaved ? WITH HOSTILITY TOWARDS CONSERVATIVES, TAKEN TO A DISREPUTABLE LEVEL.

Against GWB. Against even board members. Well, you've seen what it's brought you thus far. If you were being realistic, you'd quit now.

But, you won't. You're a prisoner of your propagandist agenda, and you can't see anything beyond that with useful clarity.


"We are not remotely alike." D

I'm glad you admit it.

I AM PROUD OF IT.


"Your excuse to not accept what I'd posted was pathetic, frankly. You DID reject it without attempting to consider it ... " D

You imply I rejected it on ideological basis. It's impossible.

It's what you DID.


You yourself admit I didn't read it. How could I reject on ideological basis something I haven't read?

DID I say you didn't read it ?

My point was that you disregarded it; which you did. You had to, to continue your propaganda unhindered.


"Because the version of events reported disagreed with the line you were intent upon taking." D

If you post them here, we can check it out. But posting a link alone won't do it.

No need. Just recap, and face that which you chose NOT to face, before.

Of course, you'll do no such thing.


It's obviously more important to you to be disparaging to me than to be factually accurate. That doesn't disparage me. That undermines YOUR character.

Since all I've said is true, the only disparagement lies firmly at YOUR door, not mine.

[Black Diamond]

You're right as usual at. We are the bloodiest of kin!


His IQ is triple yours.

[Elessar]

His IQ is triple yours.

Personality, too!

[aboutime]

His IQ is triple yours.



Black Diamond. So... sear has reached the highest of 3? :laugh:THREE?:laugh: As in 3 Stooges?:stooges:

How impressive is that?

[Balu]

His IQ is triple yours.
As to IQ, I would be very careful to use it as a universal indicator. Everything depends on criteria.
Example. A task.
Given: 18 big wheels and 21 small ones.
Question: How many trikes can be assembled?
Answers:
1. - 10;
2. - None.

My question - Whose IQ is higher, one of the first, or that of the second respondent? http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)

[Black Diamond]

As to IQ, I would be very careful to use it as a universal indicator. Everything depends on criteria.
Example. A task.
Given: 18 big wheels and 21 small ones.
Question: How many trikes can be assembled?
Answers:
1. - 10;
2. - None.

My question - Whose IQ is higher, one of the first, or that of the second respondent? http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)
Any test you use, Ted will crush sear.

[Balu]

Any test you use, Ted will crush sear.
It seems to me that you didn't get the point of my post. And the point is that a test system in a form it exist now CAN NOT determine a mental level of an individual. It determines only the degree of correspondence and fitness to the requirements of today's life and his ability to fulfill certain tasks which usually are of respectively narrow range.

[aboutime]

You're right as usual at. We are the bloodiest of kin!



sear. Your bloody kin must have arranged for you and your sister
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTf3rAB3AADpgRLukJbvTuYo1DWdf1dP iwYiI4dBTBCF77I63C3WQ to come here and make us all laugh at both of you.

[Black Diamond]

It seems to me that you didn't get the point of my post. And the point is that a test system in a form it exist now CAN NOT determine a mental level of an individual. It determines only the degree of correspondence and fitness to the requirements of today's life and his ability to fulfill certain tasks which usually are of respectively narrow range.
I got the point. You're ruining a good slam. Maybe you should put me back on ignore if you're going to screw things up in this fashion.

[Balu]

I got the point. You're ruining a good slam. Maybe you should put me back on ignore if you're going to screw things up in this fashion.

I've just expressed my thoughts in aloud with no intention to ruin anything. It is you play, not mine to hound anybody. This forum is yours with your rules and habits. And I have to respect all your traditions here. :slap:

[Black Diamond]

I've just expressed my thoughts in aloud with no intention to ruin anything. It is you play, not mine to hound anybody. This forum is yours with your rules and habits. And I have to respect all your traditions here. :slap:
Lol. I will let Jim know I own the board. I don't think he got the memo. :)

[Balu]

Lol. I will let Jim know I own the board. I don't think he got the memo. :)

Saying 'your' I meant not you personally, but Americans, the users of this board.:laugh:

[Gunny]

I see sear still doesn't know how to use the quoting function. And i wasn't attempting to refute anything. I was stating a fact.I'm just trying to figure out what I'm lying about. I make one lousy-ass civilian. :laugh: This crap has me incredulous actually. I don't even know what to say. There's stupidity and then beyond stupidity. I'm suspecting we got to the beyond part.

Tactically, he's trying to divide and conquer. Turn us on each other. Thinks he's so damned smart yet he's rather simple.

[Black Diamond]

I'm just trying to figure out what I'm lying about. I make one lousy-ass civilian. :laugh: This crap has me incredulous actually. I don't even know what to say. There's stupidity and then beyond stupidity. I'm suspecting we got to the beyond part.

Tactically, he's trying to divide and conquer. Turn us on each other. Thinks he's so damned smart yet he's rather simple.
Yeah by playing on our anger. I am over him.

[Gunny]

Yeah by playing on our anger. I am over him.I don't even read his long winded ass shit. I come on here to play. Not be an asshole 24-7. Hell, I didn't even know jackass said I wasn't a Marine. Got a couple of boxes of paperwork that begs to differ. Alphas hanging in the closet. They mean nothing to me. They're my daughter's because they mean something to HER. I could care less.

But let's clear this up. I know 4 martial arts. Asswipe tried to pull that tae kwon do bullshit on me and he;s gong to be sitting in a wheelchair. I'll break his legs in a second. And one of those black belts? Thai gueh. When I walk into a dojo ... my belt is white. I'm trained in Shorin Riu from Oki by Matsubayshi. All this fucker and his big mouth will do is lose. And I know Kung Fu. So he can bring his game.

[sear]

"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D #163

Candidly D, I remain baffled and intrigued by this.

I'll grant you benefit of doubt. It wouldn't make sense for a man of sense (I presume) to simply make up an obvious lie, and post it, thus publicly undermining his own credibility.

BUT !!

I've reviewed your quotation, and don't recall a single alleged example of this "leftie" "agenda" which you attribute to me.
If it was an exception, a fluke, a sensible man might overlook it, and contend with the rule rather than the exception.

BUT !!

As I read your comment:

"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D #163

You imply it's the rule, not the exception.

PERFECT!!

Then I ask, not as a competitive challenge for combative or abusive exchange. But I request as a favor to me, and a delight for my numerous other critics that post in this forum.

While I would be orgasmic if you'd post a comprehensive list of agenda items that in your opinion satisfy the criteria of this alleged "leftie" "agenda"; I would eagerly welcome even one.

And my request is not confined to you D. It is a standing invitation to all humanity, to all extraterrestrials, and non-human species on Earth, as well as any robots willing to contribute.

My sincere thanks in advance.

HOWEVER !!

If you don't, it will be tacit admission that you simply lied; made a libelous claim against me, but cannot quote a single sentence I've previously posted, to support it. The forum awaits your dazzling victory!

[Drummond]

"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D #163

Candidly D, I remain baffled and intrigued by this.

I'll grant you benefit of doubt. It wouldn't make sense for a man of sense (I presume) to simply make up an obvious lie, and post it, thus publicly undermining his own credibility.

BUT !!

I've reviewed your quotation, and don't recall a single alleged example of this "leftie" "agenda" which you attribute to me.
If it was an exception, a fluke, a sensible man might overlook it, and contend with the rule rather than the exception.

BUT !!

As I read your comment:

"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D #163

You imply it's the rule, not the exception.

PERFECT!!

Then I ask, not as a competitive challenge for combative or abusive exchange. But I request as a favor to me, and a delight for my numerous other critics that post in this forum.

While I would be orgasmic if you'd post a comprehensive list of agenda items that in your opinion satisfy the criteria of this alleged "leftie" "agenda"; I would eagerly welcome even one.

And my request is not confined to you D. It is a standing invitation to all humanity, to all extraterrestrials, and non-human species on Earth, as well as any robots willing to contribute.

My sincere thanks in advance.

HOWEVER !!

If you don't, it will be tacit admission that you simply lied; made a libelous claim against me, but cannot quote a single sentence I've previously posted, to support it. The forum awaits your dazzling victory!

What a weird posting !!

I share Gunny's view about long winded posts ... and that's considering that I make them as well !! It's a habit I maybe need to break myself of .. and you're not helping !

Sear, I'll simply say in reply to you that I have a great many years of blogging experience, on sites such as this. Over those years I've come to recognise the methodologies Lefties employ. Believe me when I say that your Leftie bona fides are particularly obvious.

Sear, you attack Conservatives. I've seen no comparable attack from you against anyone from the Left. This itself is instructive.

You're VERY determined and forthright in your anti-Conservative attacks. As any agenda-driven Leftie would be. You ignore anything that might even give you pause for alternative thought.

Lefties are propagandists who will only see the world in their own preferred way -- as is true for you. They insist upon making (to the extent they ever can) people see things as they do -- as is true for you. Tellingly ... they ignore and reject realities that might intrude on that -- as is true for you.

So you're definitely not fooling me, and it appears you're not fooling anyone else here, either.

So ... why don't you just give it up ?

I'll tell you, shall I?

BECAUSE YOUR AGENDA, AND YOUR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW IT THROUGH, WILL NOT LET YOU !

Fact is, Sear, you're your own worst enemy .. and you've no capacity to see that for yourself.

[sear]

"I share Gunny's view about long winded posts ... and that's considering that I make them as well !! It's a habit I maybe need to break myself of .. and you're not helping !

Sear, I'll simply say in reply to you that I have a great many years of blogging experience, on sites such as this. Over those years I've come to recognise the methodologies Lefties employ. Believe me when I say that your Leftie bona fides are particularly obvious.

Sear, you attack Conservatives. I've seen no comparable attack from you against anyone from the Left. This itself is instructive.

You're VERY determined and forthright in your anti-Conservative attacks. As any agenda-driven Leftie would be. You ignore anything that might even give you pause for alternative thought.

Lefties are propagandists who will only see the world in their own preferred way -- as is true for you. They insist upon making (to the extent they ever can) people see things as they do -- as is true for you. Tellingly ... they ignore and reject realities that might intrude on that -- as is true for you.

So you're definitely not fooling me, and it appears you're not fooling anyone else here, either.

So ... why don't you just give it up ?

I'll tell you, shall I?

BECAUSE YOUR AGENDA, AND YOUR DETERMINATION TO FOLLOW IT THROUGH, WILL NOT LET YOU !

Fact is, Sear, you're your own worst enemy .. and you've no capacity to see that for yourself." D #183
Just as I thought.
Not ONE single quotation!
Anyone else?

"If you don't, it will be tacit admission that you simply lied; made a libelous claim against me, but cannot quote a single sentence I've previously posted, to support it. The forum awaits your dazzling victory!" s

Anyone else? It is a standing invitation open to all.

[Gunny]

Just as I thought.
Not ONE single quotation!
Anyone else?

"If you don't, it will be tacit admission that you simply lied; made a libelous claim against me, but cannot quote a single sentence I've previously posted, to support it. The forum awaits your dazzling victory!" s

Anyone else? It is a standing invitation open to all.What's to quote? You talking in circles yet saying nothing?

[Balu]

Just as I thought.
Not ONE single quotation!
Anyone else?

"If you don't, it will be tacit admission that you simply lied; made a libelous claim against me, but cannot quote a single sentence I've previously posted, to support it. The forum awaits your dazzling victory!" s

Anyone else? It is a standing invitation open to all.
Tell me please. You have nothing to do or to speak about but this? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dntknw.gif

[Black Diamond]

I don't even read his long winded ass shit. I come on here to play. Not be an asshole 24-7. Hell, I didn't even know jackass said I wasn't a Marine. Got a couple of boxes of paperwork that begs to differ. Alphas hanging in the closet. They mean nothing to me. They're my daughter's because they mean something to HER. I could care less.

But let's clear this up. I know 4 martial arts. Asswipe tried to pull that tae kwon do bullshit on me and he;s gong to be sitting in a wheelchair. I'll break his legs in a second. And one of those black belts? Thai gueh. When I walk into a dojo ... my belt is white. I'm trained in Shorin Riu from Oki by Matsubayshi. All this fucker and his big mouth will do is lose. And I know Kung Fu. So he can bring his game.
For me, It was that coupled with the snide remark about ptsd. Trolling or not, no one should go there or use it as a weapon in a fight imo. But I am back to normal nonetheless.

But where did you learn all the martial arts? Military or on your own ?

[jimnyc]

Oh it's GWB for shirley. Obama shouldn't even rank in the top 20 presidents ever, IMO. He'll get a higher rating due to Osama Bin Laden, which he doesn't deserve. He'll get credit for being the first black president, which shouldn't change anything. He'll get credit for a HUGE racial division in our country, which everyone will now mysteriously admit exists...

[Elessar]

Oh it's GWB for shirley. Obama shouldn't even rank in the top 20 presidents ever, IMO. He'll get a higher rating due to Osama Bin Laden, which he doesn't deserve. He'll get credit for being the first black president, which shouldn't change anything. He'll get credit for a HUGE racial division in our country, which everyone will now mysteriously admit exists...

The Bin Laden mission was a success due to the mechanisms the prior administration created. Prior
to that, the agencies were a disjointed bunch of independent-minded private empires. He does get
credit for the 'green light' on it but should also be recognized for the 'red light' that was Benghazi.

Nobel Prize for what? Potential? Bullshit! Cheapened the award 100 fold.

Primary factor in sending race relations back 80 years. Turned his back on riots, injury, and destruction
by black mobs and the 'Occupy' movement.

[Black Diamond]

Oh it's GWB for shirley. Obama shouldn't even rank in the top 20 presidents ever, IMO. He'll get a higher rating due to Osama Bin Laden, which he doesn't deserve. He'll get credit for being the first black president, which shouldn't change anything. He'll get credit for a HUGE racial division in our country, which everyone will now mysteriously admit exists...
Affirmative action curve will continue to make Obama a god.

[Balu]

For me, It was that coupled with the snide remark about ptsd. Trolling or not, no one should go there or use it as a weapon in a fight imo. But I am back to normal nonetheless.

But where did you learn all the martial arts? Military or on your own ?
Good approach!
There are only 2 possible versions - either he is a serviceman and know all this by definition, or he thoroughly studied the subject to details and the features of the specific terminology to be able constantly playing a role on the board. And there is no the third version. So, anybody can come to own conclusion.
Personally for me 2-3 his posts were enough even to determine his rank. http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)

[jimnyc]

The Bin Laden mission was a success due to the mechanisms the prior administration created. Prior
to that, the agencies were a disjointed bunch of independent-minded private empires. He does get
credit for the 'green light' on it but should also be recognized for the 'red light' that was Benghazi.

Nobel Prize for what? Potential? Bullshit! Cheapened the award 100 fold.

Primary factor in sending race relations back 80 years. Turned his back on riots, injury, and destruction
by black mobs and the 'Occupy' movement.

I wasn't even looking to give credit for either administration - all the credit goes to the Seals IMO. All dodo head did was say "ok" and then THEY placed their lives on the line with THEIR mission, THEIR goals and THEIR plans I'm sure.


Affirmative action curve will continue to make Obama a god.

That's what I'm afraid. He got many more votes, NO DOUBT, because he was the first black president elect. And I do think he'll continue to get various credits solely due to his race.

[sear]

"Tell me please. You have nothing to do or to speak about but this?" B #186

I was libeled.

"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D #163

You might as well call a butterfly a battleship.

If it were true, and it isn't; but IF it were true, SURELY
SOMEbody could quote ONE assertion I've ever posted that advocates a "leftie" "agenda".
No one has.
Would YOU care to try sir?

Candidly I'm baffled. I don't make up lies about people. Why would this knuckle-dragger do that about me?

[jimnyc]

I was libeled.

"Almost" anything goes here SO LONG as within the written rules for the board. I'm doubting what you say here, but am willing to look into it if you're correct. You can send me a link via PM if more comfortable.

But I'll say this much now... I doubt you were based on your username alone. It takes a lot for 'real' libel to have happened, and no one even knows your real name...

[Balu]

"Tell me please. You have nothing to do or to speak about but this?" B #186

I was libeled.

"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D #163

You might as well call a butterfly a battleship.

If it were true, and it isn't; but IF it were true, SURELY
SOMEbody could quote ONE assertion I've ever posted that advocates a "leftie" "agenda".
No one has.
Would YOU care to try sir?

Candidly I'm baffled. I don't make up lies about people. Why would this knuckle-dragger do that about me?

I would say only one thing - "Take it easy!" You are too serious and too sensitive in this virtual "board life" where everybody stay for a joy. http://s.rimg.info/83d91a5b1e68c306bea5c23f9bc21630.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-90186951.html)

[sear]

" I'm doubting what you say here, but am willing to look into it " jc #194

See post #193. There's a reprise of the libel there.
The original is D #163.
Same words. Different post.

No matter.

He lied.
I called his bluff.

He folded like a cheap camera.

I win.

NEXT !!

All ANYONE has to do is to prove me wrong by quoting me once.
Quote my posted words that:

"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D #163

Is a valid accusation.
Please pardon me if I don't hold my breath.

[jimnyc]

" I'm doubting what you say here, but am willing to look into it " jc #194

See post #193. There's a reprise of the libel there.
The original is D #163.
Same words. Different post.

No matter.

He lied.
I called his bluff.

He folded like a cheap camera.

I win.

NEXT !!

All ANYONE has to do is to prove me wrong by quoting me once.
Quote my posted words that:

"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D #163

Is a valid accusation.
Please pardon me if I don't hold my breath.

That's a very long post with some back and forth. I assume the bold stuff is yours. Either way, I went down, and didn't see anything remotely near libel. Again, they would need to know/post your name, and also somehow damage your reputation. I've heard this before. Yes, it sucks when things go south and names and such come out. Anything going away from a good discussion sucks. But none of it is actual libel. Nothing in there really even breaks the rules. And if you knew me, you would know I'm VERY fair with the rules - to a fault.

[Balu]

" I'm doubting what you say here, but am willing to look into it " jc #194

See post #193. There's a reprise of the libel there.
The original is D #163.
Same words. Different post.

No matter.

He lied.
I called his bluff.

He folded like a cheap camera.

I win.

NEXT !!

All ANYONE has to do is to prove me wrong by quoting me once.
Quote my posted words that:

"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D #163

Is a valid accusation.
Please pardon me if I don't hold my breath.

You wanted to win and think that you won? - Fine!
Take a cake from a shelf and feel happy!... If this is enough for you to be happy. :slap:

[Gunny]

You wanted to win and think that you won? - Fine!
Take a cake from a shelf and feel happy!... If this is enough for you to be happy. :slap:Let's try the keep it simple method here? WHAT have I lied about? Is that AKA for you don't agree with me? Or you don't like me because I hammer and nail your ass to the wall at every turn because you're nothing?

Yes I am proud I spent 21 years in the Corps. Big damned deal? Yet you turn around in the same breath and brag about your alleged tae kwon do skills. What school did you go to? What's your sensei's name? Where's your certificates?

See how this shit works? The roads have lanes that run in BOTH directions. And you don't have to answer the questions since I don't give a crap. Point made. I guess we should all post our birth certificates and resumes for YOU to look at?

I don't lie and I don't cheat and I don't steal. Not out of some moral superiority. It's bad business and jail sucks. And calling anyone any of those things where I come from? It'll get your ass handed to you in a basket.

[aboutime]

I love that you claimed Liable against someone. In order for you to honestly do that here...ON DP. You should first, disclose your REAL NAME, no alias' like 'sear'.
Second. Get educated....What is LIABLE? definition of LIABLE (Black's Law Dictionary)
thelawdictionary.org/liable/
Definition of LIABLE: 1. Bound or obliged in law or equity; responsible; chargeable; answerable; compellable to make satisfaction, compensation, or restitution.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1151

Often confused with another word...Like SLANDER....which can only be disputed if the slander is FALSE.

[Drummond]

" I'm doubting what you say here, but am willing to look into it " jc #194

See post #193. There's a reprise of the libel there.
The original is D #163.
Same words. Different post.

No matter.

He lied.
I called his bluff.

He folded like a cheap camera.

I win.

NEXT !!

All ANYONE has to do is to prove me wrong by quoting me once.
Quote my posted words that:

"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D #163

Is a valid accusation.
Please pardon me if I don't hold my breath.

I've folded like a cheap camera ? Really ?

There's a saying. It goes like this ...

" If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck"

Personally, I'm more inclined to think it's a Leftie with severe personal problems .. but that's just me ....

But you get the point (.. unless it's one of those times when you're suddenly, 'conveniently', blind to it ? ..).

You argue as a Leftie would, advancing a 'case' which those on the Left would fully identify with, even loudly applaud. You reject consideration of any evidence which counters you, out of hand. You question others on here, in a manner - again - consistent with a Leftie who's showing opposition to those who defy its thinking (in the Left's case, it's done for effect).

You have claimed things for yourself here, been challenged to provide more detailed information, but fought shy of doing so. That you don't like to be pinned down on matters which might confirm your veracity, is perfectly clear.

All of this - every bit of it - is totally consistent with what I've observed of LEFTIES over a period of DECADES.

But, you still claim that such a charge is unfounded ??

-- OK. Here's a challenge. Try opening up arguments, or arguing in a manner, NOT consistent with a Leftie's modus operandi. Just for a change .. TRY IT. If you're not one, it should be easy for you to prove you're not. So, go to it. PROVE ME WRONG.

I look forward to your weak excuse to, ahem, 'duck' this challenge (or seeing you ignore it entirely).

Come on, Mr Leftie. DEMOLISH MY CASE ... PROVE ME WRONG. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Drummond]

- Sear. I'm posting this again. I want to see if you're still determined to reject an account which defies your own, concerning the fact of GW Bush's LACK of indecision and 'dithering' ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-new-photos-show-george-w-bushs-response-to-september-11-attacks-a7021971.html

Come on ... what's your excuse this time .. ?

[aboutime]

http://icansayit.com/images/ducklook.jpg

[sear]

The text in bold, with attribute are quotations to which the non-bold text that follows is a response.

[b]"I went down, and didn't see anything remotely near libel. Again, they would need to know/post your name, and also somehow damage your reputation." jc

libel (lì´bel) Law. noun
A false publication in writing, printing, or typewriting or in signs or pictures that maliciously damages a person's reputation. *
If you will examine the dictionary definition you will see that a pseudonym does not nullify libel.
I've been posting under pseud sear since 1998. If it was a separate person, that person (sear) would be old enough to vote today.
It is my Internet identity.
I'll own up to ANY legitimate comment. But accusing me of:

"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D #163

That's just malicious, AND entirely groundless!
My invitation stands. QUOTE ME !!!

" none of it is actual libel. " jc

I recommend American Heritage®. But you might prefer Blacks (available in many law libraries.

" You should first, disclose your REAL NAME, no alias' like 'sear'. " at #200

piffle
As I've already demonstrated, there is NOTHING in the definition of "libel" that requires that.
If you wish to be priggish, then he libeled my pseud. Does that make you happy?
It may make a difference to you. It makes no difference to me. "A rose by any other name ..." Billy S.

"what's your excuse this time .. ?" D

Same as last. I don't follow un-teased links.
Post the text and I'll review it. Post a link without text, and I'll bypass it virtually all the time.

* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

[Drummond]

The text in bold, with attribute are quotations to which the non-bold text that follows is a response.

[B]"I went down, and didn't see anything remotely near libel. Again, they would need to know/post your name, and also somehow damage your reputation." jc

If you will examine the dictionary definition you will see that a pseudonym does not nullify libel.
I've been posting under pseud sear since 1998. If it was a separate person, that person (sear) would be old enough to vote today.
It is my Internet identity.
I'll own up to ANY legitimate comment. But accusing me of:

"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D #163

That's just malicious, AND entirely groundless!
My invitation stands. QUOTE ME !!!

" none of it is actual libel. " jc

I recommend American Heritage®. But you might prefer Blacks (available in many law libraries.

" You should first, disclose your REAL NAME, no alias' like 'sear'. " at #200

piffle
As I've already demonstrated, there is NOTHING in the definition of "libel" that requires that.
If you wish to be priggish, then he libeled my pseud. Does that make you happy?
It may make a difference to you. It makes no difference to me. "A rose by any other name ..." Billy S.

"what's your excuse this time .. ?" D

Same as last. I don't follow un-teased links.
Post the text and I'll review it. Post a link without text, and I'll bypass it virtually all the time.

* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

Very good !! You've ADMITTED in your last post, here, that you ARE employing an EXCUSE to avoid considering the link I've posted !!

So tell me. If you're not operating according to an agenda, how is it that you're so determined not to be knocked off course, by ... TRUTH ???

Your excuse is no less pathetic this time around. Would you have me believe that you're incapable of opening up a link that's posted ?? You can read all the link has to offer, and presumably you HAVE, except, you're utterly determined to reject all it says, by not even acknowledging what that is.

This is the blogging equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, and going 'La La La La La La La' .....

Here's the thing. The more you post, so the more you illustrate to all of us what it is that's driving you. You are, in fact, slowly but surely, making my case for me !! All I need do is sit back and watch you do it.

So ... carry on !!

[Gunny]

The text in bold, with attribute are quotations to which the non-bold text that follows is a response.

[B]"I went down, and didn't see anything remotely near libel. Again, they would need to know/post your name, and also somehow damage your reputation." jc

If you will examine the dictionary definition you will see that a pseudonym does not nullify libel.
I've been posting under pseud sear since 1998. If it was a separate person, that person (sear) would be old enough to vote today.
It is my Internet identity.
I'll own up to ANY legitimate comment. But accusing me of:

"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D #163

That's just malicious, AND entirely groundless!
My invitation stands. QUOTE ME !!!

" none of it is actual libel. " jc

I recommend American Heritage®. But you might prefer Blacks (available in many law libraries.

" You should first, disclose your REAL NAME, no alias' like 'sear'. " at #200

piffle
As I've already demonstrated, there is NOTHING in the definition of "libel" that requires that.
If you wish to be priggish, then he libeled my pseud. Does that make you happy?
It may make a difference to you. It makes no difference to me. "A rose by any other name ..." Billy S.

"what's your excuse this time .. ?" D

Same as last. I don't follow un-teased links.
Post the text and I'll review it. Post a link without text, and I'll bypass it virtually all the time.

* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.


1996 dictionary? I want to know besides you who still owns one of them. :laugh: I had an encylopedia back in the early 80s. :laugh:

[Gunny]

And BTW "Billy S" --funny name for a Russian -- Jim can get into my account anytime he wants. He set it up for me after I got out of the hospital. So what's to hide?

[sear]

"You've ADMITTED in your last post, here, that you ARE employing an EXCUSE to avoid considering the link I've posted !!" D #205

"Excuse" means an explanation offered to solicit pardon.
There's nothing to pardon here. I'm 100% apologetic about it. I don't follow un-teased links.

If you want me to read the text, post the text. You've posted the link, and I read that!

And you posted your words quoted above, and I read them too.

I don't follow un-teased links.
It's not an excuse. It's a strategy for pragmatism developed over decades. I do it because it's what works best.

[sear]

Correction to #208.

sear previously posted:
"I'm 100% apologetic about it." s

The correct wording is: "I'm 100% unapologetic about it."

Please pardon the Freudian penis.

[aboutime]

Correction to #208.

sear previously posted:
"I'm 100% apologetic about it." s

The correct wording is: "I'm 100% unapologetic about it."

Please pardon the Freudian penis.

sear....next time...SPIT that Freudian thingy out before typing.

[Gunny]

"You've ADMITTED in your last post, here, that you ARE employing an EXCUSE to avoid considering the link I've posted !!" D #205

"Excuse" means an explanation offered to solicit pardon.
There's nothing to pardon here. I'm 100% apologetic about it. I don't follow un-teased links.

If you want me to read the text, post the text. You've posted the link, and I read that!

And you posted your words quoted above, and I read them too.

I don't follow un-teased links.
It's not an excuse. It's a strategy for pragmatism developed over decades. I do it because it's what works best.WTF is a d205? THAT is a strategy? Hell I should of thought of that shit. Running in circles saying nothing. There's a fucking plan. Hell. I'd let you come come home and screw my wife. Cept I ain't seen her in 10 years. Guess you'll have to get her address on your own.

You can't win but you're fucking with fire. Leave me the fuck alone. If you make me gear up on your ass there won't be shit left of you when I get done.

You ever talk to any of these people you talk at? Fucking with me ain't in your best interest. penis head. I'll clock your shit right the fuck up. You're stupid and can't make a coherent point. Now fuck with me some more asswipe. I'll turn your crybaby ass into ash.

[Balu]

http://icansayit.com/images/ducklook.jpg


This is not a duck this is a drake. THIS is a duck.

http://vasi-miro.ucoz.ru/_pu/0/13907.jpg

See the difference! Sometimes it matters (hen or cock) http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)

http://www.nnzoo.ru/file/watermark/vzntr/oveqf/81088-xelnxin-xelnxbinln-hgxn-nanf-cyngleulapubf/843392437/398847982.wm.jpg

[Balu]

http://icansayit.com/images/ducklook.jpg


I guessed! It is a hunter with a decoy. ;)
You reminded me that the spring duck hunting season with a decoy will come soon.
In Russia it is forbidden to shoot ducks during this season. Only drakes.

http://megaohota.ru/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/493308-600x450.jpg

https://ohota-magazin.ru/wa-data/public/shop/products/79/56/5679/images/4238/4238.970.jpg

http://megaohota.ru/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/utka03-300x225.jpg

[sear]

"WTF is a d205?" G #211

Seriously?

"D" is the initial of the poster's pseudonym, and #211 is the specific post the quotation was taken from.
In posts where multiple poster's words are included this can distinguish who said what, where; and makes cross-reference as easy as pi.

I never really thought of it as mysterious code. I thought it was rather obvious notation, particularly as it's so easily verified. The quotation is after all in "quotation marks". Just see who posted it.

[Drummond]

"WTF is a d205?" G #211

Seriously?

"D" is the initial of the poster's pseudonym, and #211 is the specific post the quotation was taken from.
In posts where multiple poster's words are included this can distinguish who said what, where; and makes cross-reference as easy as pi.

I never really thought of it as mysterious code. I thought it was rather obvious notation, particularly as it's so easily verified. The quotation is after all in "quotation marks". Just see who posted it.

Here's a suggestion. Instead of trying to be 'clever' (and failing !), try instead to follow the posting etiquette that everybody else here follows. If you want to refer to someone else's post, quote from it ... post a link to it if 'need' be, using the tools provided to you for that purpose. Some of us just don't have either the time or patience to bend to YOUR chosen blogging preferences.

In fact, isn't this a part of your - OBVIOUSLY LEFTIE - psychology, Sear ? We must all bend to your posts, your propaganda. Be it something as fundamental as blogging 'code', which you AND NOBODY ELSE uses ... or, your viewpoints (invariably anti-Conservative), which you'll wax lyrical about, never bending whatever to anything which actually defies your viewpoint.

... that's the difference between you and I. If I was proved wrong (rare, but it's been known to happen), I'd acknowledge it. You have proved you never will.

[sear]

"isn't this a part of your - OBVIOUSLY LEFTIE - psychology, Sear ?" D

No.
But for the purposes of this thread, YES!

Chairman Mao will be SO PROUD OF ME when we next meet!

"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." Mao's Little Red Book

"We must all bend to your posts, your propaganda." D

A N D ! !
My worst than the worst posting format as well!

"... that's the difference between you and I. If I was proved wrong (rare, but it's been known to happen), I'd acknowledge it. You have proved you never will." D #215

Piffle.
I've already profusely apologized to jc for conflating his post with someone else's; perhaps yours.

[Gunny]

"isn't this a part of your - OBVIOUSLY LEFTIE - psychology, Sear ?" D

No.
But for the purposes of this thread, YES!

Chairman Mao will be SO PROUD OF ME when we next meet!

"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." Mao's Little Red Book

"We must all bend to your posts, your propaganda." D

A N D ! !
My worst than the worst posting format as well!

"... that's the difference between you and I. If I was proved wrong (rare, but it's been known to happen), I'd acknowledge it. You have proved you never will." D #215

Piffle.
I've already profusely apologized to jc for conflating his post with someone else's; perhaps yours.Do you ever just shut the f*ck up? I wouldn't mind you so much of you were coherent and made points. But Geez dude, you're a waste of bandwith to me. All you do is rant incoherently. Do you even know anything about politics? Please direct me to that board cuz you sure as Hell ain't shown it here.

[sear]

"Do you ever just shut the f*ck up?" G #217

At a message board?!

a) Yes. But:

b) How would you know how many comments I do NOT post? I've already done so today.

"I wouldn't mind you so much of you were coherent and made points." G #217

That's precisely the kind of comment I'd expect from someone not sufficiently intellectually agile to understand my posted comments.

I have posting friends with advanced degrees. One has a PhD in mathematics* for example.
None of them has ever complained.

"Do you even know anything about politics?" G #217

It's a flavor of diet ice cream. RIGHT ?!

"Please direct me to that board cuz you sure as Hell ain't shown it here." G #217

Which board?

* Three travelers stop at a motel for the night.
They split the $30.oo room fee three ways; $10.oo each.

The room phone is broken, so the owner decides to give them a $5.oo discount, saying:
"Since $5.oo cannot be divided evenly between 3 people, I'll give you each back $1.oo, and keep $2.oo as a tip.
The trio each paid $10 originally. ($30)
They each received $1.oo back ($9.oo each)
$9 x 3 = $27.oo
The owner kept $2.oo ($27 + $2 = $29).
What happened to the other dollar?
Answer Pending

[jimnyc]

I read the reasoning told to DMP elsewhere, but I still don't like it.... - no offense sear but I just read the last 2 pages of this thread and it's a pain in the ass to keep up with - while I NEVER had an issue reading and keeping up when they used the board's intended and built in quoting and multiquoting function.

And you were right with what you wrote, but I don't want to see a thread where there are 650 quotes in someone's reply. Your choice to adapt and/or post like others, or take your chances getting replies. I'm glad to if it's you as the OP or without all that bolding crap. A shame too, as I like some of your posts.

[Drummond]

"isn't this a part of your - OBVIOUSLY LEFTIE - psychology, Sear ?" D

No.
But for the purposes of this thread, YES!

Chairman Mao will be SO PROUD OF ME when we next meet!

Oh, you claim to have already met him ? Why am I not surprised ?


I've already profusely apologized to jc for conflating his post with someone else's; perhaps yours.

You're addressing a mere technicality. I refer to your requirement that we believe all of your propaganda, and that there can be no question of your deviating from it for any reason. Least of all when inconvenient TRUTH rears its ugly head ...

[sear]

"I refer to your requirement that we believe all of your propaganda" D #220

No such thing.

a) As always when these bizarre lies are posted about me, my perpetual challenge: QUOTE ME !!

b) In a thread where my military experience was germane, I disclosed my veteran's status. From there it was a vicious downward spiral of numerous demands for more information, and more insults when it was provided.

c) I NEVER required, or even requested that the truth be believed. I was asked. I answered. Whomever wishes to believe or disbelieve, it's entirely up to them. BUT !!

d) While I NEVER "required" "belief", I did offer to prove it in person, in Syracuse, to anyone that would wish to attend. I'll be there late tomorrow morning. And while I initially extended the invitation to one specific poster, all are welcome, including trusted surrogates, for those that live in Denmark, or whatever.

So far, no takers.

So my critics here are long on groundless insults, but exceedingly short getting to the bottom of it once and for all.

No worries. Clearly my critics are very much more deeply emotionally involved with me than I am with any of them; or all of them combined for that matter. I'm here for concepts, not personalities.

Does anyone here have anything INTERESTING to post?

[Drummond]

"I refer to your requirement that we believe all of your propaganda" D #220

No such thing.

a) As always when these bizarre lies are posted about me, my perpetual challenge: QUOTE ME !!

Do you deny misrepresenting the real reaction of GWB to the news of the 9/11 attack happening ? You insist that your version - a highly unflattering one, and one entirely consistent with what THE LEFT has always maintained - is accurate. I've posted, TWICE now, a link showing that your version is incorrect. You've rejected all consideration for it, also twice. Why ? Because you have your propaganda to stick to !!


b) In a thread where my military experience was germane, I disclosed my veteran's status. From there it was a vicious downward spiral of numerous demands for more information, and more insults when it was provided.

You provided information about your 'veteran's status' ? Really ? H'm -- I must've missed it. Care to run that 'information' by us 'again', then ? My belief was that you'd ducked that challenge ...


c) I NEVER required, or even requested that the truth be believed. I was asked. I answered. Whomever wishes to believe or disbelieve, it's entirely up to them. BUT !!

No, you didn't. Point well taken, Sear. You have put a lot of determination into an effort to have UNtruth believed !! So, well done .. thanks for that honesty from you.


d) While I NEVER "required" "belief", I did offer to prove it in person, in Syracuse, to anyone that would wish to attend. I'll be there late tomorrow morning. And while I initially extended the invitation to one specific poster, all are welcome, including trusted surrogates, for those that live in Denmark, or whatever.

So far, no takers.

So, tell me. Why do you require such personalised attention from fellow blog-members, anyway ?

All that I, or other posters here, require of you is that you post honestly and reasonably. This SHOULD require you to be totally loyal to truth, as you know it to be, at all times.


Clearly my critics are very much more deeply emotionally involved with me than I am with any of them; or all of them combined for that matter. I'm here for concepts, not personalities.

Does anyone here have anything INTERESTING to post?

-- Certainly. A piece of advice, Sear. Seek professional help !!:tinfoil::tinfoil:

[sear]

"require" D #222

Offered.

You just don't get it. I COULD NOT POSSIBLY CARE LESS WHAT YOU THINK. Why on Earth would I? What POSSIBLE difference could it make to me? Or perhaps more to the point, of what conceivable interest could my details be to those of you that made issue of it?

[Elessar]

Now Drummond, my friend.

I recall in one of sear's opening posts that he as here to PERSUADE other members -

as if that is likely to happen

Just a narcissistic ego in action with this one.

[Drummond]

Now @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287), my friend.

I recall in one of sear's opening posts that he as here to PERSUADE other members -

as if that is likely to happen

Just a narcissistic ego in action with this one.

... and then some, Elessar ... :goodposting:

[sear]

"Just a narcissistic ego in action with this one." E #224

Actually no. But thanks.

Actually if you review that posted comment I believe you'll find the phrase I used was: "to inquire, inform, or persuade".

While in college one of my courses included public speaking.
And our instructor taught us those are the 3 reasons for a public address.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It's elemental.
I love concepts.

So on a topic of interest I'll present a perspective perhaps not well represented here. Target-rich environments are fun.

I've already gotten some positive feedback.

But you imply persuasion is the shallow egotistical axis about which my world pivots.
Why don't you just go on thinking that? OK?

[Drummond]

"require" D #222

Offered.

You just don't get it. I COULD NOT POSSIBLY CARE LESS WHAT YOU THINK. Why on Earth would I? What POSSIBLE difference could it make to me? Or perhaps more to the point, of what conceivable interest could my details be to those of you that made issue of it?

I think you've just ducked my challenge to supply that 'veteran's information' ... again ?

Oh, well.

Sear, be honest. You wouldn't put so much effort into trying to persuade others of your point of view, unless you DO care what others think. You want your propaganda to be swallowed. You've posted many, and highly verbose, messages here in pursuit of that effort ! Of course you care !

[Drummond]

"Just a narcissistic ego in action with this one." E #224

Actually no. But thanks.

Actually if you review that posted comment I believe you'll find the phrase I used was: "to inquire, inform, or persuade".

While in college one of my courses included public speaking.
And our instructor taught us those are the 3 reasons for a public address.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It's elemental.
I love concepts.

So on a topic of interest I'll present a perspective perhaps not well represented here. Target-rich environments are fun.

I've already gotten some positive feedback.

But you imply persuasion is the shallow egotistical axis about which my world pivots.
Why don't you just go on thinking that? OK?

Good grief.

I'm probably not the best person to preach about verbosity !! But really, Sear ... why can't you just give concise answers, instead of forever using wording meant to have us see you as some kind of, ahem, 'intellectual giant' ... ?

Trust me .. you aren't one.

An elementary yardstick for a sound intellect would be to concede truth, once it's offered. You've twice REJECTED it from me. Why ? Because your intellect is mired in the fossilised loop of propaganda spreading.:tinfoil:

[aboutime]

Good grief.

I'm probably not the best person to preach about verbosity !! But really, Sear ... why can't you just give concise answers, instead of forever using wording meant to have us see you as some kind of, ahem, 'intellectual giant' ... ?

Trust me .. you aren't one.

An elementary yardstick for a sound intellect would be to concede truth, once it's offered. You've twice REJECTED it from me. Why ? Because your intellect is mired in the fossilised loop of propaganda spreading.:tinfoil:

Sir Drummond. I suspect 'sear' is under his/her own impression that his arrogance,
and superiority over everyone else here, was learned in a LIBERAL setting where he/she was convinced...attending a college was the answer to everything, and he/she instantly became much more highly educated than everyone else on Earth.
That's basically how LIBERAL, DEMOCRAT, SOCIALISTS operate here in the USA, under the guise of Superior Intelligence...but they are unable to tie shoes, and must mark socks, gloves, and their hands with BIG Letters "R", and "L", to prevent them from getting confused.

[sear]

"Sear, be honest." D #227

Quote me! I leave a standing invitation to anyone and everyone to quote one assertion I've ever made in this forum that is not honest; excluding the very few jokes I've posted recently.

"You wouldn't put so much effort into trying to persuade others of your point of view, unless you DO care what others think." D

I care a great deal. They're my countrymen. And they vote. If this were the 18th century I'd be standing on a soap-box in the village square.
It's the 21st. So I'm sitting at my desk, enjoying a refreshing adult beverage, and addressing the world.

"You wouldn't put so much effort into trying to persuade others of your point of view, unless you DO care what others think." D

If I didn't care about what they thought about the issues I wouldn't post here at all.
I just couldn't care less what they think about me.
How they vote determines who is elected. Who is elected influences the kind of government I get stuck with.
What they think about me could not POSSIBLY matter to me less. I invited all comers to Syracuse tomorrow not because I want to strut my stuff; but simply because I want to end the ad hom. These groundless attacks against me are the epitome of stupidity.

"You want your propaganda to be swallowed." D

What propaganda?

propaganda (pròp´e-gàn´de) noun
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those people advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine or cause: the selected truths, exaggerations, and lies of wartime propaganda.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Nope.
No such thing; not posted under my pseud in this forum. None.

Prove me wrong! QUOTE ME !!