What is ?really? going on with the Republicans

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
You could...but it wouldn't necessarily be the truth in my case now would it? BTW...I loved this part "...nitpicking petty assholes who attack and attack..." Damn that sounds familiar....can anybody help me with this? My memory is not what it used to be...lol.

I'm not sure. I find myself on the opposing side of many topics with you, yet I haven't exactly analyzed it closely. Or should I say as closely as you?

I tend to think individuals rarely line-up 100% behind either party. I know as a registered independent (socially liberal/fiscally moderate-to-conservative) I find myself disagreeing with both sides quite frequently. Of the two, I find the GOP the most distasteful, but truly neither side represents me adequately.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume you judge each issue on its own merits.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Oh CAD. Do you do this on purpose? Slap yourself. Please.

1.) How does Iraq being authorized by Congress prevent Bush from being criticized for it? That means you can criticize Congress as well as Bush, but it does nothing to change his culpability. Did Congress force him to invade Iraq against his will?

2.) You should definitely tell the former DHS that. Michael Chertoff seems to be under the impression that there were large scale failures on the part of FEMA and other federal agencies. Once again though, the failure of other agencies would be cause to criticize them as well, but would in no way absolve Bush's administration's response. (what's strange about this one is that even the Bush administration admitted its response was shit, why are you still arguing it?)

3.) I meant ignoring standing federal law, yes.

Most importantly though: My post was referring to the SCALE of criticisms levied against Bush. Agree with them or not, they are major, major issues to criticize someone about. Since the statement I was taking issue with was the complaints of 'nitpicking', they seem to show otherwise.

Oh, and McCain did not start his campaign in April of 2007. That might have been the day he officially filed, but as anyone who knows even the slightest thing about presidential campaigns knows, you lay the groundwork for your run years in advance. Oh, and so now your argument is "I'm not saying I know how liberals think, I'm just saying that my theory for what they think is the only one that makes sense." ahahahahaha. You're a special flower.

I didn't say Bush couldn't be criticized for Iraq. Try actually reading for once instead of stuffing straw.

I didn't say there wasn't some failure with the Feds regarding Katrina. The local and state were more of a failure- not the Feds. The feds could have done more(not that they should have) but most of the failure stems from the pitiful local and state action(or lack there of) - not the Feds. Again - Try actually reading for once instead of stuffing straw.

Federal law? Puhleeze, wasn't this taken care by the court who authorizes these things recently?

So again, you can pick certain things out of all 3 of those to criticize Bush but your list was hyperbole - not criticism.

Yes, troll, I expressed my opinion. You expressed yours and tried to provide an excuse with that list but your list couldn't hold up to the truth. Sorry you can't handle the facts but it doesn't surprise me you can't admit the truth...

Your post makes me think you don't understand the definition of hyperbole, a straw man (what I assume you meant by 'stuffing straw'), or that you don't understand how English works.

You responded to my post by labeling it hyperbole. Your stated justification for #1 was that Congress authorized the invasion. I would LOVE to hear how Congressional authorization of Bush's actions in any way relates to branding the statement "Bush led us into a calamitous foreign war of choice" hyperbole. Are you trying to state that because Congress authorized it, Bush was not the leader and so I was exaggerating his leadership to the point in which the statement was hyperbolic? Are you stating that because of Congressional authorization the war was not calamitous? That it was not of choice? You're really going to have to clear this one up for me.

Same goes for #2. Are you saying that the larger failure by state and local governments (highly debatable) somehow changes the nature of FEMA's response from incompetent to competent? If so, you will have to explain this to me as well.

As for #3, action by the FISA court is fairly irrelevant. (and the decision secret, so it is not possible to know what action was taken) The issue was unilaterally deciding to break federal law. You've got your hands full with #1, #2, and the English language though, so lets take things slowly.

Lets see here, I posted against your 3 hyperbolic whines with fact and my opinion. No where did I stated there weren't valid criticism within those 3 but I merely pointed out that reality shows them to merely hyperbolic - not real criticisms. I offered the counter point to your hyperbole. Iraq - Dems were fully on board and offered little/no resistance and voted to authorize the use of force. What else is one supposed to think is going to happen when you authorize something like that? Katrina - no one rationally looking at it can state the local and state weren't worse failures. Also, I didn't state there was nothing to criticize - just that your whining was hyperbolic. Spy - yeah, the court is irrelevant...:roll: Way to back up your BS.

Again, there may be valid criticisms within those 3 topics but your post was nothing but hyperbole. Furthermore most of the time with these sorts of topics you libs truly are nit picking or rather just partisanpicking. Likely due to your obviously severe case of BDS.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Furthermore most of the time with these sorts of topics you libs truly are nit picking or rather just partisanpicking. Likely due to your obviously severe case of BDS.

Text

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Lets see here, I posted against your 3 hyperbolic whines with fact and my opinion. No where did I stated there weren't valid criticism within those 3 but I merely pointed out that reality shows them to merely hyperbolic - not real criticisms. I offered the counter point to your hyperbole. Iraq - Dems were fully on board and offered little/no resistance and voted to authorize the use of force. What else is one supposed to think is going to happen when you authorize something like that? Katrina - no one rationally looking at it can state the local and state weren't worse failures. Also, I didn't state there was nothing to criticize - just that your whining was hyperbolic. Spy - yeah, the court is irrelevant...:roll: Way to back up your BS.

Again, there may be valid criticisms within those 3 topics but your post was nothing but hyperbole. Furthermore most of the time with these sorts of topics you libs truly are nit picking or rather just partisanpicking. Likely due to your obviously severe case of BDS.

You also will need to go learn what a 'counterpoint' is.

Counterpoints refute the substance of a statement. The only way you could be offering a counterpoint to #1 was if you were to refute the idea the Bush was the one that led us into the war, that it was calamitous, or that it was a war of choice. "The Democrats were on board" does none of these things. It is therefore not a counterpoint. Why you even brought up the Democrats is beyond me, as their actions had absolutely no bearing on what I was talking about. So again, please explain what part of my statement your 'counterpoint' was addressing.

The statement that the federal government's response to Katrina was incompetent is hardly hyperbolic, it is the mainstream opinion. Hell, a Republican controlled House inquiry into the federal Katrina response said it was marked by 'fecklessness, flailing, and organizational paralysis'. That's the administration's defenders talking! Since the definition of incompetent is "not meeting requirements, unequal to the demands put upon him", I think that an agency's response that is feckless, flailing, and paralyzed meets that definition mighty well. Again though, saying that the state and local governments were worse is not a counterpoint. If I say the Detroit Lions suck as a football team, pointing out that the Cincy Bengals suck too doesn't change anything in regards to the assessment of Detroit's performance.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Lets see here, I posted against your 3 hyperbolic whines with fact and my opinion. No where did I stated there weren't valid criticism within those 3 but I merely pointed out that reality shows them to merely hyperbolic - not real criticisms. I offered the counter point to your hyperbole. Iraq - Dems were fully on board and offered little/no resistance and voted to authorize the use of force. What else is one supposed to think is going to happen when you authorize something like that? Katrina - no one rationally looking at it can state the local and state weren't worse failures. Also, I didn't state there was nothing to criticize - just that your whining was hyperbolic. Spy - yeah, the court is irrelevant...:roll: Way to back up your BS.

Again, there may be valid criticisms within those 3 topics but your post was nothing but hyperbole. Furthermore most of the time with these sorts of topics you libs truly are nit picking or rather just partisanpicking. Likely due to your obviously severe case of BDS.

You also will need to go learn what a 'counterpoint' is.

Counterpoints refute the substance of a statement. The only way you could be offering a counterpoint to #1 was if you were to refute the idea the Bush was the one that led us into the war, that it was calamitous, or that it was a war of choice. "The Democrats were on board" does none of these things. It is therefore not a counterpoint. Why you even brought up the Democrats is beyond me, as their actions had absolutely no bearing on what I was talking about. So again, please explain what part of my statement your 'counterpoint' was addressing.

The statement that the federal government's response to Katrina was incompetent is hardly hyperbolic, it is the mainstream opinion. Hell, a Republican controlled House inquiry into the federal Katrina response said it was marked by 'fecklessness, flailing, and organizational paralysis'. That's the administration's defenders talking! Since the definition of incompetent is "not meeting requirements, unequal to the demands put upon him", I think that an agency's response that is feckless, flailing, and paralyzed meets that definition mighty well. Again though, saying that the state and local governments were worse is not a counterpoint. If I say the Detroit Lions suck as a football team, pointing out that the Cincy Bengals suck too doesn't change anything in regards to the assessment of Detroit's performance.

:roll:
Just because you bought into the media's hysteria about katrina does not mean it's fully true. You libs had an agenda after katrina and the media set the narrative for you. Afterwards - when people looked at the truth of the situation they saw that it was more a failure of local and state than feds. However, the time had passed and the narrative set. And it is hyperbolic as it is merely tries to blame things on the fed that may not. Mostly too broad of brush and emotional whining.

And yes, it was a counterpoint. Obviously you want to excuse or ignore it but it doesn't change the facts. your whining about iraq was supposedly a criticism yet I offered that your libs were right there at the front of the charge and fully supported the authorization. Do you forget all the speaches by your libs? Likely so....it's what you libs do...


So anyway, it's quite clear you have no intention of ever accepting the truth of either of the two things we've tangled over so it'd likely be wise of you to think next time before you post so you don't look the fool like so many of your lib friends do here...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

:roll:
Just because you bought into the media's hysteria about katrina does not mean it's fully true. You libs had an agenda after katrina and the media set the narrative for you. Afterwards - when people looked at the truth of the situation they saw that it was more a failure of local and state than feds. However, the time had passed and the narrative set. And it is hyperbolic as it is merely tries to blame things on the fed that may not. Mostly too broad of brush and emotional whining.

And yes, it was a counterpoint. Obviously you want to excuse or ignore it but it doesn't change the facts. your whining about iraq was supposedly a criticism yet I offered that your libs were right there at the front of the charge and fully supported the authorization. Do you forget all the speaches by your libs? Likely so....it's what you libs do...


So anyway, it's quite clear you have no intention of ever accepting the truth of either of the two things we've tangled over so it'd likely be wise of you to think next time before you post so you don't look the fool like so many of your lib friends do here...

Now your posts are just becoming nonsensical. I can't for the life of me tell what you're trying to say. I'm referring to Republican controlled House hearings that determined the federal response was 'flailing', the statements of the DHS himself at hearings, and you're babbling about the media? Seriously? Are you drunk?

As for Iraq, you're just repeating yourself. You have been repeatedly asked to show me what parts of my statement were 'countered' by your 'counterpoint', and you can't. My sentence was not long, and it was not complex.

What you did was try and mitigate the criticism of Bush for his handling of the Iraq war, but you didn't realize that my statement never addressed his degree of culpability. Same goes for your Katrina bit. If I had been arguing degrees of fault, your points would have been perfectly serviceable to refute mine, but you just took aim at the wrong target, and now you're trying to figure out how to get out of it.

 

[artikk]

Why do people attribute economic success of a country to its president during the relevant time frame. If anything during the Clinton years, the only reason US prospered was because of the tech boom as someone suggested. Now after spending by the Republican congress and irresponsible spending by the American people, ie spending beyond their own means, during Obama's term and the remaining months of lame duck president were spent cleaning up or more correctly put assessing the depressing economic outlook and position of US on the global stage. From another point of view, the republicans as reps of the people represented the americans' own voracious greed and financial irresponsibility. Now democrats are doing the same thing. I'm not too sure that the new deal type programs instituted by the stimulus bill as well the increased spending introduced will solve the economic problem anytime soon.
The american people need a reevaluation of their own values when it comes to money as well as a realization that protectionism in the global economy that was tried in the early 20th century will only hurt both sides of the issue. Laissez faire is a good suggestion but a moderately regulated version would control things from tipping over into any extreme.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
You could...but it wouldn't necessarily be the truth in my case now would it? BTW...I loved this part "...nitpicking petty assholes who attack and attack..." Damn that sounds familiar....can anybody help me with this? My memory is not what it used to be...lol.

I'm not sure. I find myself on the opposing side of many topics with you, yet I haven't exactly analyzed it closely. Or should I say as closely as you?

I tend to think individuals rarely line-up 100% behind either party. I know as a registered independent (socially liberal/fiscally moderate-to-conservative) I find myself disagreeing with both sides quite frequently. Of the two, I find the GOP the most distasteful, but truly neither side represents me adequately.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume you judge each issue on its own merits.

Politically, I think we've become polarized to the point where it's ridiculous. This board is full of nitpicking, petty attacks by both liberals and conservatives...plenty of that crap on both sides. I just happen to find it ironic to see Libs pointing fingers and crying foul for the very things they did the past several years. Now don't get me wrong...I'm no Bush apologist...but the BDS was pervasive and way outside of the realm of rational thought.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot...it's much easier to see nitpicking, petty attacks for what they are...funny how that works.

 

[lokiju]

Holy f'ing shit people.

Roughly 50% of the country votes for one side and the other votes for another.

It's not like 95% of the country voted for Bush or Obama.

People disagree on politics, end of story.

Just learn to accept it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: lokiju
Holy f'ing shit people.

Roughly 50% of the country votes for one side and the other votes for another.

It's not like 95% of the country voted for Bush or Obama.

People disagree on politics, end of story.

Just learn to accept it.

You're right. All points of view are equally valid, there are no objective right and wrong decisions for our country, and so people should just ignore it.

Thanks for your insightful commentary.