Iraq victory without the Surge? Petraeus thinks so... - Page 13

Deson · 08-27-2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otis

And then went ahead pointed it out yourself. I could have simply cut and pasted your text into my reply. Would that have worked for you? You just choose to forgive him because his name is John McCain, yeah, I get it.

Which is why I shouldn't even be getting into it with you. How someone can type those words in that order and not think there's something inherently wrong with that picture is completely beyond me.

Sorry, man.

I disagree with the last statement. I'll amend it as follows:

If you can't sufficiently dumb down the core of your position, you fail

If you believed in the invasion for any reason other than WMD and watched as the administration fucked it up beyond belief, what mistake are you going to admit? When you have been a constant critic (granted not quite in the respect he places it) of how things are executed, what is there to apologize for? When what you asked for is finally at least partially implemented and pays dividends, what is there to apologize for?

Your bias is clear as is mine. I laid out clearly that while I do not like McCain as he is now, he has a past I can appreciate; Obama has nothing comparable and I don't like him. You are arguing something different, so be it. Let us not pretend that this is anything more than posturing and intentionally ignoring what's said for what wants to be heard-- politics.Let us just go back to agreeing to disagree and drop this pretense of discussion.

Separate point to discuss:

Corollary to your, "dumb down" statement: If you can't make people understand what you're saying, you fail.

Otis · 08-27-2008, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deson

Corollary to your, "dumb down" statement: If you can't make people understand what you're saying, you fail.

If the capacity to understand is present, then your statement is accurate.

Deson · 08-27-2008, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otis

If the capacity to understand is present, then your statement is accurate.

I can't really argue against that statement having said it (and the prior ones you posted even) too many times myself but I can say I haven't seen a candidate in a long, long time that's been clear, concise, not full of shit and able to provide what should be a graspable, manageable message. I'd say Bill in 1992 when he ran his New Democrat deal but while I think he behaved has he presented himself, the bullshit part of my statement would be hard to defend.Not indefensible mind you but I'm loathe to get into the stupid discussions on health care, gays in the military and other issues the "left" has overblown. It may not be you but someone always brings that shit up when talking about the Clinton's, to say nothing of his... personal behavior which is at best tangentially relevant to his politics.