Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Nov 10, 2008.
and once again you have shown no understanding of the points being made.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Mr. Buffalo, you continue with your straw man attacks on me and others. Obviously the discussion about straw man arguements/falacies went way over your head again, as is the norm with you. I asked you to show proofs and of course you have failed to do so. Why am I not suprised?
p/s You do not like being called Buffie. So you should not be referring to others as "grasshopper". I hope you can understand that reasoning.
Just maybe you need to learn how to make a point.
If your the only one who knows what you mean, that is no point.
joe you have gone beyond the sublime to the absolutly ridicolus, you have truely become boreing in your partisan insanity, the only straw men here are you.
Can you understand the difference, if I had wanted to really use some form of pjdudes handle as a diminuitive to insulte, I would have used....piddledude, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! as suggested by my spell checker.
The Urban Dictonary
Term that refers to one who is a novice, a greenhorn, a student/disciple.
Seem to describe both you and pj, quite well.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are funny Mr. Buffalo Roam.
Actually, yes I am, and I have a large and broad based audience, I am on the radio 5 days a week now.
Back to the original point, I'm not quite sure Bush is the worst ever. There have been some monumental mistakes made by Presidents past, and there's no way really to tell how Bush's will measure up yet.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been complete disasters to this point, and his leadership in both will go down as abhorrent. That much we know. But will the decision to go into either make the global terrorism problem better or worse? That something we won't be able to answer for a while. Perhaps not until both of the wars are over.
The economic disaster isn't just Bush's fault, but also the fault of his party, but his handling of all things economic have to put him near the bottom, at least in that category. After 9/11, his plan to fix the economy was to urge people to "go out and shop", which in an era of predatory credit companies is the worst advice perhaps ever given by a sitting president. Follow that up with the economic stimulus that provided a check to every tax-paying American that made under a certain amount of money per year...sigh...again advising us to go out and spend it. We did, but only on gas and groceries, which were both at all-time highs. How far will the economy fall? Will we enter a depression? We've already nationalized the banks, will we now nationalize the auto industry, thereby crushing the slightest notion of a free market that we've held on to? These are questions that will have to be answered before we can make a final judgment on him.
Militarily and economically, though, he's at least the worst of the modern era. With the exception of the surge in Iraq, not one strategy has worked on the ground, and the case can be made that Iraq, regardless of the outcome, was a strategic blunder on the scale of Vietnam. Maybe worse. Then there's Afghanistan, which he basically abandoned after the invasion of Iraq.
You'd have to go way back to find someone on Bush's level, I think. But the worst? We can't know that yet.
Bush's key failure is leadership. He exercised little leadership over his party or anything else. He outsourced the leadership function to special interests. And you cannot govern a country by appeasing every special interest that is padding your wallet or the wallets of your friends. And the otther thing that bugs me about George II is his failure to accept accountability. The war disasters he blames on his generals. The Katrina disaster on his subordinates, all these disasters and he always has someone else to blame. Well you the hell is the president?
What region of the country are you gracing with your presence Mr. Buffalo? If you are on the radio it is certian you do not have a "broad" range of audience...mostly koolaid drinkers I am sure.
Unfortunately, that's the case for a lot of Presidents. Hell, look at Obama. You think he's going to select Hillary because she's the best one for the job? No, he's going to select her because she campaigned for him after he won the primary.
I think that is a little different. Obama has not yet blamed a failure on any subordinate. And several times during his campaign when asked if racism could cause him to loose the election, he said no that if he lost the election it would because he did not run the campaign well enough. That is impressive, especially after eight years of George II who is never accountable for anything.
Well, isn't that exactly what democrats do?
Hell, Obama promised everybody, every thing, now let see how he delivers, there are going to be a lot of pissed off people.
It went over your head again Mr. Buffalo Roam or should I say grasshopper.
If Obama promised everyone everything and does not deliver, then you can be happy. But I don't think that is going to happen. As for one he has never promised everything to everyone. But makes good with the kookaid crowd I am sure.
In the case of Hillary it might be along the lines of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.
I do think he will have a more balanced administration as he appears to be reaching to those to his right including republicans like Hagel, Nunn and McCain. That is very wise. I think it will make it more difficult to label the administration as far left and I think there are many good people on the other side like the ones mentioned above. I would not expect him to pursue any social conservatives though.
When you look at the Bush administration, any moderate republican that was chosen quickly found themselves disillusioned and either resigned or was asked to leave.
That's true. I just wonder if it's worth putting a person who completely disagrees with him on foreign policy in that position.
That's very true.
that's funny because you seem to be the only person who doesn't understand what I am trying to say.
Just put him on ignore. Save the arguments for the smart conservatives, rather than the "I repeat whatever Rush says" conservatives.
I'm sorry I cannot ethically deny myself the humor he provides with his posts.
Yes, you are funny in your overreaching reaching, the grasshopper is you my friend, yes a the looks of a silver dollar, with the clunk of lead when dropped to the table, not the ring of a true silver, the ring of truth.
And who just might those people be, who understand what your points are?
Other Kool Aid drinkers, like joe and jdawg?
The only thing they cans do is run their tounges like the fish wives of Chesil Beach, 'Down Corner
Separate names with a comma.