What bothers me about the Dems right now....

How can Bush look any worse than he does now? The majority of Americans disapprove of the way Bush has managed this war. Bush is now working on his legacy; probably hit the bottom of the pile in two more years of incompetence and mismanagement.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

No way will I let you assign 50% to Bush without protest.

Come on Foxy, the vast majority of the peanut gallery was wagging their heads like bobblehead dolls trying to catch a ride on number 43's popular post 9-11 coattails. That's no secret, but Saddam did the dirty deeds and Bush made the decision to hold him accountable. 50/50 is plenty fair.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
No way will I let you assign 50% to Bush without protest.
Come on Foxy, the vast majority of the peanut gallery was wagging their heads like bobblehead dolls trying to catch a ride on number 43's popular post 9-11 coattails. That's no secret, but Saddam did the dirty deeds and Bush made the decision to hold him accountable. 50/50 is plenty fair.

Well if you put it like that, i.e Bush did the right thing in holding Saddam accountable, then I'll accept the 50/50.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

How can Bush look any worse than he does now? The majority of Americans disapprove of the way Bush has managed this war. Bush is now working on his legacy; probably hit the bottom of the pile in two more years of incompetence and mismanagement.

I'd ask you to, rather than talk about polls, debate exactly what Bush has done wrong, and actually support your points, but I know what sort of evasive response I'd get - the kind of answer liberals virtually always give when asked this question, a subject change.

0 Replies

If the war ends tomorrow and every american comes home safe and sound and in time Iraq becomes a beacon of democracy bush will still have started a war, mishandled it , wasted billions of dollars and human lives, polarized this country like no one before him and will never have taken any responsibility or paid any price for it. he'll go back to Crawford a mega rich, super entitled and spoiled rich boy and the war he started will have never been necessary.

Meanwhile the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden are rising and now we must deploy and surge in Afghanistan because he's failing there too. What a dick.

Why should I give him any accolades, respect or credit for anything? Why should anyone?

He made his bed, but it's others that have to lie in it. Some lie in the dirt.

0 Replies

OK, two of the approximately dozen or so dems who responded to my post actually answered the question. They both said they hope the US military succeeds with the surge.

The others? I'll give them the benefit of the doubt; maybe they haven't had the time to respond?

But can I really expect those people to come out and say they hope the military fails? Other then our resident anarchist?

Much simpler to remain silent, isn't it?

Their silence is thundering.

I'll come back tomorrow and see if they did any better...

0 Replies

Anybody who's watched Bush create all the problems for Americans and many around this world, no amount of detailed list of Bush failures will mean anything to the likes of Brandon.

It isn't enough that the majority of Americans view Bush as incompetent and a failure in his execution of the Iraq war.

0 Replies

A Lone Voice wrote:

parados wrote:
A Lone Voice wrote:

I take it that is your responses?

Most impressive.

And typical. In your arrogance, have you forgot how to reason?

Did you forget how to read as well as reason?

Read my second post before you post such nonsense.

When you can point to the logical conclusions based on sound reasoning in your original post we can discuss reason and arrogance. Until then you don't have much of a leg to stand on and deserve the ridicule you are getting.

parados wrote:
Quote:
Tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me what happens, if Petraeus begins to find success, and it looks like our military is starting to turn a corner.

This would be which number corner that we are starting to turn? 12? 48?

This boondoogle has been nothing but "turning the corner" which keeps taking us right back to nowhere.

We have heard the "starting to turn the corner" nonsense far too many times to accept it on face value. The violence calmed for a week before picking up again this weekend. Did we turn another corner?

This would be your paragon of insightfulness?

And you seem to not understand one bit of it. Tell us how many times this administration has promised we have turned the corner. Tell us how many times they have been right. Why is this time different?

Quote:

Are you avoiding my question?

Do you beat your wife? Why are you avoiding my question? Your original supposition is a false one.

Quote:

The change in topic you are trying to invoke in my post is obvious; I'll even agree with you for a moment; how many times will the military try to turn the corner?

Who said anything about the military turning the corner?

Quote:

Being the military, they will continue to try to turn the corner until they win, or are ordered to retreat. We would expect nothing less.

Being the military they will keep marching off the cliff as long as the idiots in the administration keep ordering them too. That is what the military does. They try to follow orders. I have a problem with the idiots that fail to plan and then promise a glowing outcome. The military seemed to be against the present surge until ordered to support it.

Quote:

But how about we return to my topic, your efforts at avoidance not withstanding.

Return to what topic? Your complete lack of any logical argument? You deny it when it is pointed out to you.

Quote:

How will you react IF 'the corner is turned'?

I will be elated and astounded. There is one small problem with the supposition. It fails the test of a logical evaluation. Previous surges didn't work. Every time we have been told the "next thing that happens will turn the corner", it hasn't worked. Your argument is not from strong position but one of "sooner or later we have to get lucky'. It doesn't work that way in planning. Following a plan that didn't work before doesn't give you a much of chance for it to work now.

Quote:

What if the US military starts winning?

The problem has nothing to do with the US military losing. It has to do with the politicians losing. The military isn't going to lose its battles but they can't force democracy on anyone.

Quote:

Will you rejoyce? Will you panic? Will you say it doesn't make any difference at this point, the war was wrong to begin with and winning isn't justified?

You are confused. Tell me when the military has lost. I am happy when they win. I am tired of them winning at the present cost when there is no reasonable political plan to make Iraq stable.

Quote:

I can understand dems rallying against 'The Surge.' Really. Mostly for the reasons you state; how many more people are going to be killed and injured in a losing cause? I think they are being disingenueous, though, by making their vote non-binding.

But since they seem to not have the gumption to cut funding for the war (an interesting strategy in itself), the surge will happen. Petraeus will take command.

And this being war and all, we really don't know what will happen.

But I think I know what some of you will be rooting for.

No? Splain me...

You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Do you think it is OK to say someone supports something when you have no evidence that they are? Your entire supposition is stupid. Your arguments show a complete lack of any intelligence. Do you support the killing American troops? That is the reverse of your silly argument. Should we discuss how your goal is to get thousands upon thousands of US troops killed and there is no other possible reason for you to support the surge? You obviously are so blinded by your idealogy you can't see the complete lack of any integrity in your original statements.

0 Replies

The next corner always has another corner. Smart people knows when they've been around the block a few times, and no progress is observed.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
How can Bush look any worse than he does now? The majority of Americans disapprove of the way Bush has managed this war. Bush is now working on his legacy; probably hit the bottom of the pile in two more years of incompetence and mismanagement.

I'd ask you to, rather than talk about polls, debate exactly what Bush has done wrong, and actually support your points, but I know what sort of evasive response I'd get - the kind of answer liberals virtually always give when asked this question, a subject change.

1. Bush failed to look ALL the evidence on WMD in Iraq or inform the public of that evidence. (See the many reports since that point to the failure to consider the evidence that didn't support the invasion.)
2. Bush failed to listen to military commanders that said he needed MORE troops for the war. (See the testimony to Congress before the war.)
3. Bush failed to implement a reasonable plan for securing Iraq after the invasion. (The plans existed but were ignored and not implemented. They call for 1 soldier for every 50 inhabitants for security.) See this from 2004
Bosnia to Belfast
4. Bush kept incompetent people in positions after they obviously failed and let them continue with their failed policies.

Why don't you do your usual schtick Brandon... We all know it well.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

A Lone Voice wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
BPB, Hurray! These war-mongers know how to twist things around to make it seem that the anti-war group wants us to fail, and our soldiers killed and maimed, while spending two billion every week in a failed war. They don't understand anything about what and who took us into this war on false information, then changed their justifications so many times, it's now become "the democrats don't offer any solutions!"

This from the president that made light of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, and refuses to negotiate with Iran.

That's chutzpah!

I happen to agree with you, in some respects.

I don't like the bad intel, I don't like the way Rumsfield shut out his military staff, and I don't like the fact we are failing.

But you are showing your ignorance by stereotyping me.

I'm "twisting things around" by asking a simple question?

Why do you people refuse to answer this rather simple question? What is about this that is causing such hatred on your part?

Can't some of you answer me? Or is it too hard to answer the question and face yourself?

Will you rejoice if Iraq is stable in two months?

Your silence is thundering...

I will certainly rejoice when every last american in Iraq is laid to waste from an IED or a snipers bullet, I will dance in the streets and sacrifice a goat. That's how much I hate Bush and america and every thing it stands for? Why you ask? Why just because I'm a LIBERAL.

At least you are honest enough to admit it.
You may claim that you are being "tongue in cheek",but your honest answer comes through anyway.

For that I applaud you,even though you are dead wrong.

0 Replies

I've never claimed to be tongue-in-cheek, nor have I ever claimed to be honest. So MM you're wrong on both counts, as usual. Your applause is shrill din to my ears.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

I've never claimed to be tongue-in-cheek, nor have I ever claimed to be honest. So MM you're wrong on both counts, as usual. Your applause is shrill din to my ears.

Then we are to believe that everything you have said or will say is a lie?
Since you never claimed to be honest,that must mean that you are an admitted liar,and everything you have ever said is to be considered a lie.

Now we all know what kind of person you actually are.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
I've never claimed to be tongue-in-cheek, nor have I ever claimed to be honest. So MM you're wrong on both counts, as usual. Your applause is shrill din to my ears.

Then we are to believe that everything you have said or will say is a lie?
Since you never claimed to be honest,that must mean that you are an admitted liar,and everything you have ever said is to be considered a lie.

Now we all know what kind of person you actually are.

snicker snicker

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
I've never claimed to be tongue-in-cheek, nor have I ever claimed to be honest. So MM you're wrong on both counts, as usual. Your applause is shrill din to my ears.

Then we are to believe that everything you have said or will say is a lie?
Since you never claimed to be honest,that must mean that you are an admitted liar,and everything you have ever said is to be considered a lie.

Now we all know what kind of person you actually are.

I also never claimed to be a white man, does that make me african-american or are you just a logic idiot?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
I've never claimed to be tongue-in-cheek, nor have I ever claimed to be honest. So MM you're wrong on both counts, as usual. Your applause is shrill din to my ears.

Then we are to believe that everything you have said or will say is a lie?
Since you never claimed to be honest,that must mean that you are an admitted liar,and everything you have ever said is to be considered a lie.

Now we all know what kind of person you actually are.

I also never claimed to be a white man, does that make me african-american or are you just a logic idiot?

The difference is,you never claimed what race or sex you are,so there is nothing to judge you by.

However,on a forum lik this,one is considered to be honest until proven otherwise.
You have just proven otherwise.

You cant escape that neither will I let you forget it.

0 Replies

Hey, dys, did you get that? He's not going to let you forget it! The boogy man is after you. LOL

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
I've never claimed to be tongue-in-cheek, nor have I ever claimed to be honest. So MM you're wrong on both counts, as usual. Your applause is shrill din to my ears.

Then we are to believe that everything you have said or will say is a lie?
Since you never claimed to be honest,that must mean that you are an admitted liar,and everything you have ever said is to be considered a lie.

Now we all know what kind of person you actually are.

I also never claimed to be a white man, does that make me african-american or are you just a logic idiot?

The difference is,you never claimed what race or sex you are,so there is nothing to judge you by.

However,on a forum lik this,one is considered to be honest until proven otherwise.
You have just proven otherwise.

You cant escape that neither will I let you forget it.

well yes I suppose so, I am sure your are 100% honest as well as 100% idiot. But, you needn't believe me I may very well be a black woman.

0 Replies

Of course on a forum like this, one is assumed to be intelligent until proven otherwise.

And the record for the fewest posts required to get to "otherwise" is........

0 Replies

until proven otherwise MM I will operate under the assumption you are a eunuch as I have no evidence that you are not. (it's sometimes quite difficult to mimic your logic MM, it's just too irrational, even for me)

0 Replies

What bothers me about the Dems right now....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know