AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Your opinion is noted Cyclop. You still have not even come close to articulating an argument against the argument Dr. Sowell made. All you have done is accuse him of making an argument he didn't make and/or criticize the way he made it and the way I have defended it.

Those not cognitively challenged know the difference between those two things, so if you do not put yourself in the cognitively challenged group, then you know that.

No I was essentially saying what I said. If you had ever had an American class in education methods, you would likely have had extensive training in the concept as an effective teaching tool. So, you're wrong. Parados is wrong. Cyclop is wrong. Wandel is wrong in your analysis of what Sowell is saying.

Addendum to Dr. Sowell's comments, he forwarded a subsequent e-mail to clarify further re Sharia law and added: "It is a possibility after surrender, though not as something that we are likely to drift into otherwise."

He at other times has also noted that the final column as printed is somewhat different from the one he submitted. In our recent correspondence, he couldn't say for sure whether the 'debt' vs 'deficit' issue was his mistake or the editors, but he emphasized again that he intended to say 'deficit'. But phrases are omitted or restructured to fit a given space in the newspaper and, while editors do attempt to keep the integrity of the writer's intent, they do sometimes confuse things, and the writer has little control over that. (I can testify to that from my own newspaper experience when what I thought was a necessary paragraph or phrase was cut in the interest of allotted space.)

Attacking the form of the argument, as long as it is legal, is not permitted in formal debate, Cyclop. You have to attack the substance of the argument.

Did we really send 8 BILLION to combat the H1N1 flu? Are you F'ing kidding me.

And I agree with RP. A vote to send money to Iraq is a vote in favor of Iraq.

I told people during the campaign who said that they were voting for Obama because McCain "wanted to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years", that they were clueless and that with either McCain or Obama the troops were going to be there regardless.

Another Obama lie.

Obama officially announces Iraq troop withdrawals
Buzz up!
Like this story? Share it with Yahoo! Buzz

Q1x00102_9 USA TODAY's Tom Vanden Brook reports that President Obama has officially announced his plans for a sharp cutback in troops in Iraq. He says Obama, in a trip to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, said the U.S. combat mission in Iraq will end in August 2010 with the removal of about 90,000 troops.

Here's Vanden Brook's file:

The president plans to leave a force of about 50,000 to advise and support Iraqi security forces and conduct counter-terrorism missions. By removing most troops from Iraq over the next 18 months, Obama will free up forces to fight in Afghanistan and relieve stress on Marine and Army forces that have been repeatedly deployed. There are about 142,000 troops in Iraq, where violence has fallen sharply to 2004 levels. Last week, Obama ordered 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan to bolster the U.S. force of 38,000 fighting a growing insurgency there.

About two brigades per month can be removed from Iraq. Brigades consist of about 3,500 troops. However, the pace of withdrawal will likely be dictated by security concerns in Iraq. U.S. commanders, for instance, have maintained high levels of forces during elections there. National elections in Iraq are scheduled at the end of this year.

Obama's plan has drawn criticism from leaders of his own party. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters that the residual force of 50,000 U.S. troops is too large.

Update at 12:22 p.m. ET: Obama tells the troops: "Let me say this as plainly as I can -- by Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." He also said all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

"America’s men and women in uniform have fought block by block, province by province, year after year, to give the Iraqis this chance to choose a better future," the president said. "Now, we must ask the Iraqi people to seize it."

Update at 2:18 p.m. ET: Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, says he supports the president for "taking a step in the right direction in Iraq, but I do not think that his plan goes far enough."

"You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war," the Ohio Democrat says. "You can’t be in and out at the same time."

US reneges on Iraq withdrawal promises
Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:48:24 GMT

The United States retracts its initial promise of commitment to withdrawing its troops from Iraqi cities by the end of the month of June.

On Wednesday, a spokesman for the US military in Iraq, Brigadier General Steve Lanza, said a number of the country's troops are to remain in the urban areas after the June 30 deadline, Reuters reported.

Earlier, the US commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, had claimed that the military was 'absolutely committed' and had largely honored the US security agreement signed with Baghdad.

The security agreement envisages a withdrawal from the war-torn country.

Lanza cited "stability" concerns for maintaining some troop level in "Joint Security Stations" to train and advise Iraqi security forces.

The remaining contingents are to be 'extremely small", he claimed.

The US official added that "on 1 July we're not going to see this big black puff of smoke as everybody leaves the cities" based on the military's claim that it had managed to bring about a respite in al-Qaeda-linked attacks.

This is while Pentagon officials have been using "rises in violence" to prolong the US military presence in the oil-rich country.

Late last month, US Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said Washington was to maintain its combat troops in Iraq for another 10 years despite the agreement.

He cited global trends which were "pushing in the wrong direction" to explain potential "fundamental changes" in the Army.

The military's recurrent decision changes have put an end to Iraq's hopes of regaining its sovereignty and the complete US troop withdrawal which the US had vowed would take effect by 2011.
http://presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=99036&sectionid=3510203

But if this is true, I bet the true disciples will nevertheless go right on trusting and believing everything they're being spoon fed about government healthcare, deficits, spending, stimulus, new jobs, and all the other stuff.

Thomas Sowell, who is on the record that he is NOT a registered Republican, presented a column this week that could have been written specifically for this thread. I hope all who think the stability of our nation may depend on the Democratic majority being defanged in 2010 and President Obama defeated in 2012 will read this and think about what he is saying.

Dr. Sowell wrote and wrote and wrote during the campaign valiantly attempting to warn us what we were getting with Barack Obama, but he went largely unheeded. So far, just about everything he warned us about has come true or is coming true. That, in my opinion, greatly increases the odds that he is correct about this too:

Thomas Sowell wrote:

Both the domestic and the foreign policy direction of the current administration in Washington are leading this country into dangerous waters, from which we may or may not be able to return. . . . a nuclear-armed sponsor of international terrorism like Iran are not things from which any country is guaranteed to recover.

Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II. It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender " especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago.

Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their grand-daughters to live under sharia law.

The glib pieties in Barack Obama's televised sermonettes will not stop Iran from becoming a nuclear terrorist nation. Time is running out fast and we will be lucky if it doesn't happen in the first term of this president....

Thomas Sowell, who is on the record that he is NOT a registered Republican ...