Originally posted by zeeblebotTrouble is zeeblebot, if Bush isn't stupid then he's evil, there is no other explanation.
"While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terroris ...[text shortened]... ces. It ended with the strong belief of President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH. "
I'm not republican hating, I see the "peace through strength" argument. I didn't moan at Clinton because I think that the US does some brave and noble things in the world. Bosnia and Serbia was one of them. Africa is a mess, but no change there.
I realise that although you forget Reagans acting roots, his approach to the USSR helped bring down the cold war. I share your scorn of the idiots that wanted to unilaterally disarm back then.
BUT the war on terror? Saddam would certainly used WMD's on our cities???????
Open your eyes zeeblebot. Look at Vietnam, look at Iraq, listen to the world. Hearts and minds, Americans were cheered as they liberated Europe, I don't hear much cheering now.
Your president is a fool OR he is evil. Why else is he creating a war he cannot win?
Huge chunks of the british diplomatic service warned with an unprecedented letter at the start of the war: the policy on Iraq was "doomed to failure". Everything in their open letter has been proved true.
Check out their qualifications if you want. Check out their experience of the middle east.
Listen to Colin Powell, he knew more about Iraq than anybody in power yet he was ignored and sidelined.
Just how wrong does Bush have to be before you stop blindly following him?
You rightly condemn the left for their blindness and then show the same blindness yourself.
Originally posted by zeeblebotThat's the right way to handle this sort of issue. Either prove that some of the offered facts are false, or offer additional facts that will bring the hypothetical trend towards the true trend.
a list that excludes Kucinich on the Democrat side and Colin Powell on the Republican side? and you still try to claim it's not cherrypicked? are you not familiar with these two people?
no one said the facts are false.
the facts were selectively chosen to prove something they don't.
if you cherrypick your list of Democrats to mostly exclude non-veterans and cherrypick your list of Republicans to mostly exclude veterans, you should expect the results you get.
what you should not expect is everyone to just roll over and say "wow, look at the correlation."
unless they were biased to believe the premise in the first place. thus the 420 hits.
Originally posted by rubberjaw30FDR was way smarter than that.
judgement:
democrats never go to war b/c they have theis mindset that the best way to deal with terrorists is to "negotiate" with them, and have a "let's be friends" attitude... Billy Boy being the class example...
bull
heck, FDR had to have a flippin attack on hawaii before confronting hitler...
He saved Britain by escorting our merchant navy across the Atlantic.
Sent us arms, ships and agreed loans with us. Not bad considering we looked on the way out at the time and the very definition of a bad credit risk.
Hitler declared war on the US not the other way around. He did it because he understood the help the US was already giving us.
The Japs attacked because of the sanctions and embargoes the US placed on Japan.
He also prepared the US for the massive arms build up that won the war.
FDR wasn't as soft as you make out.
Originally posted by zeeblebotwhat you should not expect is everyone to just roll over and say "wow, look at the correlation."
no one said the facts are false.
the facts were selectively chosen to prove something they don't.
if you cherrypick your list of Democrats to mostly exclude non-veterans and cherrypick your list of Republicans to mostly exclude veterans, you should expect the results you get.
what you should not expect is everyone to just roll over and say "wow, l ...[text shortened]... n."
unless they were biased to believe the premise in the first place. thus the 420 hits.
I expect them to either refute the correlation with additional facts or accept it.
Originally posted by Hank ReardenI'll make it easy for you...ok, easier.
Another point what the hell does it matter if someone fought or didn't fight in WWII or korea? When the hell has the war in Iraq or Afganistan been in any way like either of those wars. There are completly different.
I mean really thats like saying well the guy down my street one time fixed his lawnmower so I think he sould be able to work on my BM ...[text shortened]... you all need to seriously shut the hell up and quit acting like a bunch of god damned retards.
If you're watching a football game on TV, do you want the analyst on TV to have played football before and knows what actually happens on the field, or just someone who studied the history and rules of football?
Do you not agree that maybe the football analyst who actually played football might be able to give you a better idea of why things happend and what the other team might need to do in order to fix their mistakes, or take advantage of the mistakes the other team is making?
The list is supposed to show you the military experience of the MOST INFLUENTIAL people in each party. (Mostly present, but some past) Since these are the people who actually make decisions in the party, it makes sense to include the influential. There may be someone missing on each side that should be there (i'd like to see you take the time to do this kind of list) but the overall point shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
But hey, why analyze when you can just criticize.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWould it be acceptable to not bother refuting it? Such drivel should hardly be honored with refutation.
[b]what you should not expect is everyone to just roll over and say "wow, look at the correlation."
I expect them to either refute the correlation with additional facts or accept it.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkIf they didn't, I'd point out that they are saying nothing of substance and tell them why.
Would it be acceptable to not bother refuting it? Such drivel should hardly be honored with refutation.
Apparently "such drivel" warrants a lot of attention from you, but only useless babble without content.
Originally posted by MerkKeep voting republican. We gotta keep those commie liberals out of power. All they do is fight our wars and make balanced budgets. Screw that! I want trillion dollar tax cuts for the top 10% income earners causing an even bigger national debt. Who cares if that just means the average american taxpayer is basically just going into more debt to give to rich people. Some day I'll be rich too!
Would it be acceptable to not bother refuting it? Such drivel should hardly be honored with refutation.
Merk, you are a secret genius.
Originally posted by uzlessJoe Buck never played professional football and he is a fantastic commentator (in my opinion).
I'll make it easy for you...ok, easier.
If you're watching a football game on TV, do you want the analyst on TV to have played football before and knows what actually happens on the field, or just someone who studied the history and rules of football?
Do you not agree that maybe the football analyst who actually played football might be able to give you ...[text shortened]... t shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
But hey, why analyze when you can just criticize.
Bill O'Reilly never served in public office but many people value his opinions too (not me, but I'm just one guy).
I'm putting together an Excel chart about this issue. I'll check it and make sure that there are no duplicates. Once I've polished it a bit, I'll offer the data here and people may criticise it, add to it, or whatever. Specific facts will lead to me modifying the table if necessary. Vague, empty comments, especially if phrases like "everyone knows XXX" without support, will be ignored as they lack useful content.
Originally posted by Turtlestackone can always find exceptions. Of course there will be a guy here and there who does a good job even though he has no experience.
Joe Buck never played professional football and he is a fantastic commentator (in my opinion).
Bill O'Reilly never served in public office but many people value his opinions too (not me, but I'm just one guy).
But look at the whole big picture! Take 20 broadcasters without experience vs 20 broadcasters with experience...as a group, which one do you think will do a better job?