Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Nate Silver and the 538 blog

Nate Silver Elections 2012 538 blog NYTimes

  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#41 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 03:02 PM

View PostDarthMarley, on 04 November 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

People have died under every president.
Does that make them responsible?


Of course they are, deaths occur in any war. Each president is responsible for his orders as Commander and Chief.  Who else would be responsible but the Commander and Chief?  I think every President I've read about has agonized over the fact that when a nation goers to war [for good or bad reasons] men and women die.   That this  is, in fact, exactly the nature of war.  People die.

View PostDarthMarley, on 04 November 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

So, you are saying that since people died in a war Democrats started (to appease the French) Nixon is responsible?
Is that what you mean to say?
Do you really believe that or is it just an irrational hate filled screed?

The Democrats did not start the war to appease the French.  Eisenhower refused to sign the Geneva Accords after the Battle Dien Bien Phu in 1956. The domino theory was a popular foreign policy stance and the US refused to sign the accords.  Eisenhower sent US advisers after the French left.   Kennedy sent more,  Johnson sent troops.  Nixon sent more troops.  The war ended when the US capitulated.  Each President followed the policy and the momentum of his predecessor.  Viet Nam  was a collaborative effort and a foreign policy nightmare, based on a policy that was magnified by the Cold War.  Viet Nam has to be seen in that context, and understand that no political Party gets off on this one.

One of the reasons this period of time was such an era of unrest and anti-war sentiment is precisely because the foreign policy of Democrats and Republicans were virtually indistinguishable during the Viet Nam war.  To see this brought into a partisan debate is actually amusing given the history of the time.


Quote

Quote

People have died under every president.
Does that make them responsible?

Oh yes.

Again, you betcha.  As Commander and Chief every President is responsible for his orders as Commander, and the subsequent deaths of our soldiers.  It's the nature of the job for crying out loud.  We bandy this about as if it's not a serious job.  Presidents understand that with each order, men and women may die.  I'll wager there has never been a President Republican, Democratic, Whig, Federalist, etc who did not understand that as Commander and Chief when an order is given for combat that Americans will die.

It's also a given that not every President has been a good Commander, but good or bad doesn't mitigate responsibility now does it?

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#42 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 03:46 PM

Quote

GW Bush lied us into a decade long war that killed thousands of our soldiers and hundred's of thousands of civilians in Iraq.  But, the way you tell it, this would be just a footnote in history. The right wing radio and TV would deny it even happened.
Good Lord...I'm going to be shooting down the Bush lied" canard from now until the end of goddamned eternity...

Quote

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Liars all? Oh wait...they all have letter "D" next to their names...so THEY were just acting on the best available information. Bush on the other hand was making sh*t up when he talked about Iraq.  Having been here many times before, I know the dedicated leftist will at this point try to convince me of exactly that. Out of ALL the people warning about Saddam's WMD(including foreign intelligence agencies)BUSH was the one knowingly  hiding the truth.

Yes Cait I know. Very evil man Bush. You don't have to post again.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#43 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:02 PM

Quote

Good Lord...I'm going to be shooting down the Bush lied" canard from now until the end of goddamned eternity...
.

You'll be *trying*, perhaps, but we were all there.  There's a reason the last republican president is persona non grata in the republican party.  No republican wants to remind people what he did.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#44 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:18 PM

Quote

Oh, right. Because the hard right just loves FACTS. Until those facts roundly disprove their entire argument, typing typing typingness...blah blah...hard right etc...
Dev the "entire argument" has to do with way more now than just the 0bama administration's sloppy cover-up. It's clear now the deaths of our people there could have been prevented entirely with some common sense and professionalism. But since you're now sourcing YOURSELF with what you obviously consider an absolute deathblow to critics of 0bama's Libya deception, I'll graciously comment.

Team 0bama very specifically downplayed the possibility of terrorist involvement in Benghazi. Even your WSJ link acknowledges that the President's daily intelligence briefings were not the only information the White House had on the subject. We know for certain now that by the time Susan Rice took to the airwaves with the party line, Team 0bama had swaths of data concerning likely al Qaeda involvement. Had they simply come clean with EVERYTHING they knew, the cover-up aspect of this incident wouldn't be a subject of discussion.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#45 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:21 PM

View Postscherzo, on 04 November 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:


Yes Cait I know. Very evil man Bush. You don't have to post again.

As usual. you missed the point of bringing up Bush   You opened the door yourself kind Sir.  I only answered that given the record of the Bush administration it was hardly a stretch to not want to put the reins of power back into the same hands that got us into the mess called the Bush years.  

I feel for Republicans because the Bush years just won't die, but come on, it's just so relevant to this election. It actually is.  I know you want to think I'm blaming Obama's record on Bush, but I'm not.  Obama has his own record and it's his.  He owns it.  Just like Bush owns his record.  That's not partisan politics my friend, that's history.

What remains relevant to this election is the fact that some of the same advisers and policies are now with the Romney campaign, and if elected would go back to the WH.  Oh joy.  The same mess we had with the 8 LONG Bush years will be back for part deux [or is it trois].  No thank you.

The Bush Administration was a mess of incompetence   Or is the absence of Bush during this campaign because he is ill and can't help the GOP get elected this term?  I should send a "get well soon" card to him.  Too bad he couldn't help out because those 8 years were just wonderful.  So wonderful, no Republican will whisper his name.

And a voter should vote for Romney because he has attached himself to the same Neo-con policies?  Some of the same advisers?  You want to tell me you are tired of hearing about Bush, and that Bush and his mess of an administration, has no relevance in 2012?  Even though those same advisers are now entrenched in the Romney campaign?  

Please.  Then tell the Bush people to get out of politics. That's when Bush's name won't be brought up again.  Quit trying to put the same advisers, and the same policies into play again.  All the GOP did was change the name of Bush to Romney, everything else is the same.  That's a relevant thing to bring up when discussing voting in 2012.  

Sorry I triggered your knee jerk reaction.  Oh wait, no I'm not.

I don't blame you for running away from the Bush years.  I'd do it to, if I were a Republican.  But please don't bore me with how bored you are when his name comes up.   His name is going to come up as long as the same advisers are in play.

And, since we're having so much playing with each other in the sandbox.  I know I don't have to post again, but given your reaction, it's just so much fun.  ;)

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#46 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:23 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 04 November 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

Quote

Good Lord...I'm going to be shooting down the Bush lied" canard from now until the end of goddamned eternity...
.

You'll be *trying*, perhaps, but we were all there.  There's a reason the last republican president is persona non grata in the republican party.  No republican wants to remind people what he did.

Exactly!

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#47 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:24 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 04 November 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

Quote

Good Lord...I'm going to be shooting down the Bush lied" canard from now until the end of goddamned eternity...
.

You'll be *trying*, perhaps, but we were all there.
I lay out the facts fully aware that immunity to new information remains a problem for some
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#48 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:28 PM

Quote

I only answered that given the record of the Bush administration it was hardly a stretch to not want to put the reins of power back into the typing typing type-tastical type-anism....
No. You said Bush lied us into war...and I mowed that canard down...as is my obligation. The End.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#49 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:34 PM

This is what is going on NOW.  These guys are advising the Romney campaign-NOW.  We're not talking about Bush and history per se, we're talking about who will advise Romney.  That should be something any voter would be interested in knowing.  Of course if you think these advisers were A-OK for Bush [and for Americans], then no problem, vote for Romney and you can enjoy the work of these guys for another 4 years.

http://abcnews.go.co...foreign-policy/

Quote

Senor is the former spokesman for the American government in Iraq (the Coalition Provisional Authority at the beginning of the Iraq war under George W. Bush) and is a particularly close adviser to Romney on the Middle East. (He has traveled with Romney to Israel three times, as well as written a book on Israel that Romney often cites). With Ryan, he consults on domestic and foreign policy issues.

http://www.huffingto..._b_2070191.html

Quote

Because the truth is that Romney's economic advisers, led by Glenn Hubbard, were also George W Bush's economic advisers. Not surprisingly, they have the same plan: tax cuts for the wealthy, de-regulation, subsidies for oil companies, ending subsidies for alternative energy, tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas and skyrocketing defense spending. Lurking not too deep behind the surface are plans to hand Social Security to Wall Street.

http://www.policymic...re-bush-neocons

Quote

Any foreign policy advisory board that seeks the counsel of Cofer Black, Michael Hayden, Dan Senor or John Lehman, to name just a select few, is a real cause for concern. Of that crowd, Black is the most worrying. Cofer “the gloves come off” Black was one of the most brutal figures in CIA history, heading the agency’s Counterterrorism Center at the time of the 9/11 attacks. Think Obama’s counterterrorism program is perverse? Black is about as “dark side” as you get, an American exceptionalist in the worst sense of the word, and perhaps the most vocal advocate for extraordinary renditions and so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
The public may have trouble with Obama’s use of armed drones, but with Black whispering in his ear, Romney’s counterterrorism policy would be a frightening true return to those heady, Bush-era days of CIA black sites and waterboarding sessions.
Michael Hayden you will remember was at the helm of the National Security Agency during the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping and Dan Senor, one of the most right-wing pundits on Romney’s list, is a regular contributor to Fox News. From 2003 to 2004 he was the spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority and managed to paint one of the rosiest pictures of a post-Saddam Iraq that in reality was rapidly descending into chaos (thanks, in large part, to the incompetence of the CPA itself).
Former Secretary of the Navy, under Reagan, John Lehman fits in well with the above crowd, though he may be the principal neoconservative behind Mitt Romney’s belief that the greatest strategic threat to the United States at the present time is… Russia.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#50 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 04:47 PM

View Postscherzo, on 04 November 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Quote

I only answered that given the record of the Bush administration it was hardly a stretch to not want to put the reins of power back into the typing typing type-tastical type-anism....
No. You said Bush lied us into war...and I mowed that canard down...as is my obligation. The End.

Damn this is fun.  No, you said,

Quote

For the record...few things piss-off the hard left more than FACTS. A "fact-based" world couldn't possibly excuse an administration whose incompetence caused the death of an American ambassador, or vote for a POTUS who deliberately deceived the public about who was responsible.

And I responded with a list of things that occurred under Bush, one of them being "he lied us into war". Something we can debate until the cows come home and you will never really win because the entire Iraq war was a lie.  Since Bush was Commander and Chief, it was his orders that took us there.  End. Of. Story.

But it was one of many things I listed, and the purpose of the list was to demonstrate what using the same advisers Bush employed might bring us, since they were advising Romney. See how that worked.  You take a fact and you bring it forward showing its relevance to today.  Today, Romney is using many of the same advisers.  Voters might want to know that.  Since you brought up who to vote for NOW, and said look at the public record, YOU made the Bush record relevant NOW regarding a vote for Romney.

I know it is important for you to believe you have made some spectacular point, what with the mowing down thing, but all you actually did was avoid the point I was making and send us reeling down the black hole of "Bush lied-no he didn't"  A tied and true method of deflection, but I shall not be deterred.  

Meanwhile, you missed the point regarding who is advising Romney NOW.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#51 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 06:46 PM

View PostMr. Synystyr, on 03 November 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

Here's an even more cynical thought - it makes it harder for the GOP to believably steal the election themselves.

Look at the voting machine stories in Ohio.

Look at the lengths the GOP has gone through to attempt to win the election by manipulating who will be able to vote in the first place.

Look at the stories about "poll watchers" GOP groups are planning to have at the polls on election day.

I'm not trying to out-cynical you, just voicing my concern.

I'm with both of you. I've already voted, so at least I don't have to suffer through the polls. I'm a cynical optimist - I believe that the best in people sometimes triumphs, but I am NEVER surprised when it doesn't. ;)

Edited by Rhea, 04 November 2012 - 06:48 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#52 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:04 PM

Quote

And I responded with a list of things that occurred under Bush, one of them being "he lied us into war". Something we can debate until the cows come home and you will never really win because the entire Iraq war was a lie.
One of the beautiful things about leftist dogma is, it requires absolutely no facts, logic, or even coherence, to pass muster with most audiences. So a leftist can claim with complete confidence that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD...even after he's shown to be repeating the identical argument of several VERY high profile Democrats. Being a leftist means never being distracted by information that contradicts your faith.(see my earlier point about "facts")

I do agree this is an argument I cannot "win". The contention that George W. Bush is "lying", while everyone else on my list is not...defies rational discussion altogether. But I nuked your reboot of the "Bush lied" meme, because a canard of this magnitude needs nuking wherever and whenever it appears. I don't expect to actually deter true believers from the path, but potential outside observers might not know that Iraq's WMD ambitions were conventional wisdom well before Bush.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#53 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:14 PM

View Postscherzo, on 04 November 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

Quote

And I responded with a list of things that occurred under Bush, one of them being "he lied us into war". Something we can debate until the cows come home and you will never really win because the entire Iraq war was a lie.
One of the beautiful things about leftist dogma is, it requires absolutely no facts, logic, or even coherence, to pass muster with most audiences. So a leftist can claim with complete confidence that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD...even after he's shown to be repeating the identical argument of several VERY high profile Democrats. Being a leftist means never being distracted by information that contradicts your faith.(see my earlier point about "facts")

I do agree this is an argument I cannot "win". The contention that George W. Bush is "lying", while everyone else on my list is not...defies rational discussion altogether. But I nuked your reboot of the "Bush lied" meme, because a canard of this magnitude needs nuking wherever and whenever it appears. I don't expect to actually deter true believers from the path, but potential outside observers might not know that Iraq's WMD ambitions were conventional wisdom well before Bush.

*shakes head*  This would be an interesting statement to debate if it bore even the slightest resemblance to anything I'd said, but OK, you can argue in your alternate reality thread, where I get mowed down, and you can be "Super Conservative" and defend the country from an uncomfortable reality.  I applaud your dedication.  You are an interesting character scherzo.  Really interesting.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#54 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:47 PM

No, a lie is a deliberate distortion.
Bush, HRC, Al Gore, and our wester allies covert services all agreed that it looked like Saddam had WMD.
None of them were using it as a false pretext.
Saddam after being captured admitted it was a bluff that worked too well.
but it wasn't based on a lie.
Some might try to claim "But the claim that AQ and Saddam were involved together, that was a lie!"
No, there were a scattered few operatives with AQ connections that met with Iraqi government officials. They were not in bed together, but there were credible bits of evidcence that made such a case.
Being wrong is not the same thing as telling a lie.

And besides, didn't Powell endorse Obama?
Hasn't Obama followed large parts of the Bush era war plan?

And what does that matter?
Obama claimed things that were not true.
We can try the same defense.
Maybe he didn't know that the consulate attack was not caused by the ever so popular "Innosence of Muslims" youtube clip.
Maybe he, as commander in chief, didn't know what journalists have found out regarding cables, cries for assistance, etc.
So, if not a liar, then an incompetent.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#55 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 07:49 PM

View PostCait, on 04 November 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

View Postscherzo, on 04 November 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

Quote

And I responded with a list of things that occurred under Bush, one of them being "he lied us into war". Something we can debate until the cows come home and you will never really win because the entire Iraq war was a lie.
One of the beautiful things about leftist dogma is, it requires absolutely no facts, logic, or even coherence, to pass muster with most audiences. So a leftist can claim with complete confidence that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD...even after he's shown to be repeating the identical argument of several VERY high profile Democrats. Being a leftist means never being distracted by information that contradicts your faith.(see my earlier point about "facts")

I do agree this is an argument I cannot "win". The contention that George W. Bush is "lying", while everyone else on my list is not...defies rational discussion altogether. But I nuked your reboot of the "Bush lied" meme, because a canard of this magnitude needs nuking wherever and whenever it appears. I don't expect to actually deter true believers from the path, but potential outside observers might not know that Iraq's WMD ambitions were conventional wisdom well before Bush.

*shakes head*  This would be an interesting statement to debate if it bore even the slightest resemblance to anything I'd said, but OK, you can argue in your alternate reality thread, where I get mowed down, and you can be "Super Conservative" and defend the country from an uncomfortable reality.  I applaud your dedication.  You are an interesting character scherzo.  Really interesting.

What a non-excellent condecending tone.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#56 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 08:19 PM

View PostDarthMarley, on 04 November 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:


Maybe he didn't know that the consulate attack was not caused by the ever so popular "Innosence of Muslims" youtube clip.
Maybe he, as commander in chief, didn't know what journalists have found out regarding cables, cries for assistance, etc.
So, if not a liar, then an incompetent.

No, I don't think you can use the same defense?  Why?  Because I don't think it can be used for any President. I don't think the excuses are good ever.   I've said repeatedly that Obama owns his record.  Does that look like some kind of defense?  I only said I'm not ready to concede that Obama made mistakes equal to Watergate?  But, who knows, we may get evidence that it was as bad as Watergate.  I was and am still making comparison of magnitude NOT right and wrong.  It's all wrong.  Any President that lies, evades the truth or misinforms the public is wrong, whether it is deliberate or incompetence [or both].

One of the problems I have in discussions with partisans is that they reduce everything to a partisan argument.  Assumptions are made that I [or anyone else] am making a partisan argument against the GOP.  I'm not.  I'm certainly making an argument against them, but partisanship isn't what motivates me.  Historical record is all I need.  I don't need to be partisan to remember the Bush years, or to complain about Obama, or to make a case regarding Romney.  I don't have to be an ideologue to make my own personal political observations and decisions.

Consequently I don't think the guy I voted for [I did not vote for Obama in 2008, but I did this year] is innocent as the driven snow.  I've been critical of Obama since way before he was elected, but it's much easier just to lump anyone challenging an opinion into some "partisan" catch all label, and come back with the partisan quips that are suppose to razzle dazzle us into submission, and make the onlookers swoon.  It's much easier, and you don';t have to think. You can let your knee jerk and the post practically writes itself for you. [2nd person plural "you"]

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#57 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 08:41 PM

For some reason I'm reminded of trying to put like poles together, no matter how hard you try they just repel each other.

"All presidents make difficult decisions, it's by those decisions that they are judged."
Doctor Who: The Deadly Assassin
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#58 Bobby

Bobby

    FKA LiberalBob

  • Islander
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 08:46 PM

View PostDWF, on 04 November 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

For some reason I'm reminded of trying to put like poles together, no matter how hard you try they just repel each other.

"All presidents make difficult decisions, it's by those decisions that they are judged."
Doctor Who: The Deadly Assassin

I like this, DWF!

#59 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 08:53 PM

LOL, and back to Nate Silver..

http://fivethirtyeig...r-pennsylvania/




Quote


What Mr. Romney will want to see are national polls showing him a point or so ahead in the race, as was the case just after Denver.

If the national polls show a tie on average, then Mr. Romney will be more of an underdog than you might think, since that is when Mr. Obama’s Electoral College advantages will tend to give him their greatest benefit. In the FiveThirtyEight simulation on Saturday, Mr. Obama won the Electoral College about 80 percent of the time when the national popular vote was tied.


Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#60 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 09:11 PM

View PostDarthMarley, on 04 November 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

No, a lie is a deliberate distortion.
Bush, HRC, Al Gore, and our wester allies covert services all agreed that it looked like Saddam had WMD.
None of them were using it as a false pretext.
Saddam after being captured admitted it was a bluff that worked too well.
but it wasn't based on a lie.
Some might try to claim "But the claim that AQ and Saddam were involved together, that was a lie!"
No, there were a scattered few operatives with AQ connections that met with Iraqi government officials. They were not in bed together, but there were credible bits of evidcence that made such a case.
Being wrong is not the same thing as telling a lie.

And besides, didn't Powell endorse Obama?
Hasn't Obama followed large parts of the Bush era war plan?

And what does that matter?
Obama claimed things that were not true.
We can try the same defense.
Maybe he didn't know that the consulate attack was not caused by the ever so popular "Innosence of Muslims" youtube clip.
Maybe he, as commander in chief, didn't know what journalists have found out regarding cables, cries for assistance, etc.
So, if not a liar, then an incompetent.

That's rich.  I have no interest in rearguing the propaganda of 2002-3 but with time comes more clarity, and I'm gratified, at least, that the history of that time will be written by the clear-eyed.  

Again, though, there is a reason that George W Bush & Dick Cheney are persona non grata in the Republican Party now.  I mean, they are simply not discussed.  It's like they're dead... except that their 8 years are not discussed, either.  Because they were an unmitigated disaster and everyone knows it.  They inherited a country at peace and a balanced budget with surplus projected.  They left their successors a house on fire.  Two endless wars -- TWO!  Our alliances and credibility in the world in tatters.  The economy literally falling apart.  (Talk about an intelligence failure.  How about the inability to see that  coming?  Maybe it had something to do with this whole letting industry regulate itself deal, huh?)

Hm.  Guess I can't blame Republicans for wanting to pretend those 8 years never happened.  But they did.  And we remember.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Nate Silver, Elections, 2012, 538 blog, NYTimes

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users