With all due respect to Bill and CI and Cyclop, this thread is drifting. That is fine but it does mean that the original title of it is for naught. McCain etc.
If a person believes a gun is a fake by 90%, and later proves it's plastic and a fake, it only proves he was right in the first place. No amount of josling of words will change that fact. He made his decision on his confidence level of 90%; that to most says he believes it's true.
The other 10% is useful only to people like you who wish to continue the argument.
I iterated my desire not to even begin the argument pages ago, and for a while even ignored the off-topic chatter until I got tired of seeing my name quoted as responsible for the off-topic discussion. 90% is an arbitrary figure (rather unrealistic one at that), but none of that changes the fact that the statement I made, that was blamed as the catalyst, was in no way out of line... and every subsequent attempt to prove otherwise has been in vain. Every honest person should have no trouble admitting their degree of surety has indeed benefited from hindsight. Hence, all of this whining is not only unnecessary, but certainly no fault of my own.
2 more pages of off topic nonsense. None of which disproved anything I said to any degree.
georgeob1 wrote:I don't think Bush was a puppet, and I don't think that Tony Blair's "legacy" is either particularly important or even destroyed. Moreover Bush had very little to do with it compared to the actions of Tony himself. Both were to a degree propelled by a reaction to the harmful effects of a delayed and timid European response to the aggressive actions of the Serbian government under Milosevich. History offers many often contradictory lessons, and it is often difficult to contemporaneously make a wise determination of just which lessons best apply to an unfolding and not perfectly understood new situation. Everything, however, becomes clear in retrospect.
I am apparently more confident than you about the internal political limitations of the Democrat candidates themselves. I agree that current polls suggest a large loss of popular support for Republicans. However I don't yet know how this will play out among voters when they are given a concrete choice in 2008.
Very true. Given a choice between an unpalatable Democrat and an unpalatable Republican, who do you vote for? The one representing the least unpalatable ideology? I think that's the way it often goes.
But when the area voters were asked who would be the safest choice to lead the country in these uncertain times, nearly all, including Democrats and independents, picked Republicans: former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Sen. John McCain or former Gov. Mitt Romney
Link
(Only two out of this small focus group chose a Democrat and when asked who they trusted, most of the Dems picked a Republican). No one picked Hilary
HokieBird wrote:I think I could trust Giuliani, Obama and probably McCain... but I'd vote for a Martian before Hillary.(Only two out of this small focus group chose a Democrat and when asked who they trusted, most of the Dems picked a Republican). No one picked Hilary
Interesting strategy, that.
