Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

No you didn't. You expressed a willingness to try to spread the blame onto people who aren't responsible, in order to dilute the blame that falls on Bush. When the dollar falls, you blame on the Democrats who control the Senate by one vote, instead of the President who has turned surpluses into record deficits over six prior years. The blame falls squarely on Bush and the Republicans, and on those who supported them, and you are just trying to dodge it.

Er, what? You said that Americans wanted to turn the whole Middle East into a parking lot or some such nonsense. And I said it was nonsense. I stand by that. Good luck finding a survey that says the majority of Americans ever wanted to turn the Middle East into a parking lot.

Right here: "You apparently could not see the result of over 12 years of failed economic sanctions serving only to starve hundreds of thousands to death, rendering the UN a wholly ineffectual and powerless institution." How can you call me inconsistent when you switch your argument at every post?

This sounds like shorthand for "I can't think of any good reason." That's fine. If you could think of some reason, that would be better. You yourself gave this ridiculous justification---let's start a war so the UN doesn't seem powerless---and now you are trying to back step. Don't blame me for calling you on it.

In your last post, you tried to say that I am inconsistent because I am not willing to start a $3 trillion war in order to defend the US dollar. I don't know how to respond to this. I propose sensible fiscal policies and sensible military policies. I am not concerned enough to kill 700,000 people in order to defend the dollar.

Is that clear? I would never start a $3 trillion war in order to defend the UN's reputation, nor would I start a $3 trillion war in order to defend the value of the dollar---when the effect of the war would just weaken the dollar. I kind of thought that this was obvious.

Exactly, we've seen your track record. When you say that you are willing "to charge all responsible with the result of their policies," you'll have to start with charging yourself.

Not always. I think I remember him doing th same mistake in the heat of the battle trolling.

-t

Yeah, you're right.

Are you having a good night?

That we know of. Remember the military always covers up the true numbers

No. I said that the market will correct an overvalued dollar. S&P predicted the continued decline of an overvalued dollar back in 2004. I then said that Bush and Co. have been part of the problem and Congress has not been part of the solution.

I did not blame Democrats for the problem, I blame them for the lack of solutions. Read my post. You're arguing against yourself again.

If your argument is that we're spending too much on action in Iraq, you'll have to also look to those who hold the purse. Feingold understands this, but tie doesn't?

Naive and ignorant partisan quackery of the highest order.

Better yet, find a survey of Americans from 2001 to 2004 that shows opposition to action in Iraq.

I brought up hundreds of thousands dead due to inaction as a response to your hundreds of thousands dead due to action. For whatever reason you're into counting one, but not the other. This is inconsistent. It does you no good to rehash what I've already addressed. A new tactic please.

This isn't the "list of reasons for invading Iraq" thread. It does you no good to rehash what I've already addressed. No one suggested we "start a war so the UN doesn't seem powerless", but if you threaten serious consequences for non-compliance through 12 years of failed economic sanctions and 13 resolutions, you'd better be prepared to change the course. I called you out for derailing the thread. There's nothing to back step from.

I propose sensible fiscal policies and sensible military policies. Well... shoot dang! Me too!!! Why didn't you use this meaningless platitude in the first place? Can't argue with that. I also propose not beating up little puppy dogs.

In what instances would you support war?



Charge myself??? Eureka! A new tactic. Your lack of confidence in the US economy and our dollar (assuming you know something about economics) is also part of the problem. Tell ya what; I'll accept my part of the falling US dollar if you accept yours. We're actually all to blame. The interest rates are everything. They ebb and flow. Our dollar will rise again when interest rates are raised, there will be less home ownership, more import, less manufacturing, higher unemployment, and recession. You'll be fine with this as long as there's a (D) after their name. Partisan quackery gives you an out every time contingent upon whether or not your preferred governance is in place. You'll either cry over inflation or recession. Take your pick and be consistent.

Unfortunately, there isn't any better solution when you have a slim margin of control and can't override a veto.

I say that the blame falls squarely on Republicans and you deny it out of hand---"quackery of the highest order"!---and say it is the Democrats' fault. I'm afraid that makes you a partisan quack.

Why? You claimed that Americans broadly supported turning the whole Middle East region into a parking lot. Two posts later you still haven't come up with any evidence and are now trying to change the subject. Why don't you just concede that your original claim was nonsense? When you sad that I was being inconsistent, that was also nonsense.

I don't know what you are saying. You wrote, "It seems only you and lefty are slobbering over body-counts" before slobbering over body counts yourself. Read your own post.

Hmm, you did.

I would never start a war in order to weaken the US dollar. You would and you also think we should spend trillions of dollars "so the UN doesn't seem powerless." I get it. I guess.

Nonsense. I've always supported financial prudence and I've always opposed the Iraq war. You've always supported Bush. If it weren't for you, we wouldn't need to be picking between inflation and recession right now.

ebuddy, we discussed the effect of taxes on gas prices in another thread. I actually do know something about economics, and this theory of yours is pretty ignorant. Check an economics textbook out of the library, is all I can suggest.

FPIF Report, May 31st 2007; The capitulation of the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership to the Bush administration’s request for nearly $100 billion of unconditional supplementary government spending, primarily to support the war in Iraq, has led to outrage throughout the country. In the Senate, 37 of 49 Democrats voted on May 24 to support the measure. In the House, while only 86 of the 231 Democratic House members voted for the supplemental funding, 216 of them voted in favor of an earlier procedural vote designed to move the funding bill forward even though it would make the funding bill’s passage inevitable (while giving most of them a chance to claim they voted against it).

Funny. That blasted veto pen! Using your logic of upholding partisan quackery no matter what; Our dependance on foreign oil is entirely the Democrats' fault for hamstringing any notions of drilling domestically.

I say both parties are to blame. You say "just the Republicans". This is partisan quackery of the highest order, but at least you're getting more consistent.

Oh, I'm sorry. I meant "sandbox". Americans broadly supported turning the whole Middle East region into a sandbox.

You seem to be slobbering over body counts. It's pathetic and makes people think you're anti-American and want dead troops for nothing more than to make an "I told you so" political statement.

If you're going to be hyper-literal, be consistent. I said nothing of the sort.

Your reading comp is hanging out again.

No. You don't get it. You never will.

When did I support Bush??? I supported Kerry, both Clintons, Kennedy, Pelosi, Graham, Waxman, Rockefeller, Byrd, Gore, Levin, Albright, Berger, Daschle, etc...

Yeah, you had nothing more than meaningless platitudes, unsubstantiated BS, and partisan quackery to offer in that thread too.

Really? Prove it. You seem to be pretty confused here.

Um, okay. I guess the Democrats wanted to turn the entire Middle East into a parking lot, too. Making up nonsense doesn't really help your argument.

No, right now control is split. But the Republicans had total control when they created the problems. So they clearly deserve more of the blame. Claiming that the Democrats now share the blame equally when they barely even control the Senate and the problem came entirely out of the Republican party, is "partisan quackery of the highest order." Fallout from Iraq will haunt us for the next twenty years, and yes I will continue to blame Bush for creating the problem even when Obama is president and is struggling to clean it up.

You've been arguing for "parking lot" for three posts now. You don't really want to change your position now, do you? Are you sure you don't mean "toy store"? This style of argument, of posting something completely nonsensical, defending it all at costs, and then abruptly changing it to some different, but equally nonsensical position, is fun for me, but you can't expect to get anywhere with it.

Did I say parking lot? I meant sandbox.

It doesn't matter. I rattled off a short list of names of Democrats who (along with the majority of them) supported action in Iraq.

No they don't. There's absolutely nothing to suggest they'd have acted any differently. You can deny history, but it's pretty recent and people might think you have a problem. I know it for what it is; partisan quackery.

I'll post this report again. I think you missed it because you didn't address it?

FPIF Report, May 31st 2007; The capitulation of the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership to the Bush administration’s request for nearly $100 billion of unconditional supplementary government spending, primarily to support the war in Iraq, has led to outrage throughout the country. In the Senate, 37 of 49 Democrats voted on May 24 to support the measure. In the House, while only 86 of the 231 Democratic House members voted for the supplemental funding, 216 of them voted in favor of an earlier procedural vote designed to move the funding bill forward even though it would make the funding bill’s passage inevitable (while giving most of them a chance to claim they voted against it).

Not so much. I'm inclined to believe your arguments will haunt you in twenty years though.

Did I say parking lot? I meant sandbox.

I feel twisted like I'm toying with the mentally ill or something. I shouldn't feel this way tie. This isn't good.

No need to waste the entire ME, Mecca and Medina will suffice. It would not surprised if that has been quietly relayed to those who pull the strings

Someone should have countered with Righty MacRighty

Why did you say parking lot if you meant sandbox? Are you sure you didn't mean toy store? I'm thinking you meant toy store. (Actually, you wrote and meant parking lot. Sandbox makes no sense.)

Er, of course it matters who makes a mistake. They are politicians and should be held accountable.

Maybe post it again? I did address it. If they don't have control, then there isn't really a choice.