The Mid-Term Election thread

[donner]

No you should stop believing all the BS you read... I guess if it benefits your spin or Clinton in this case it's okay. We have the ability to put on thru your window and in your living room before it explodes and we don't have the ability to take him out. You need to go back to collage because you don't have a clue about the real world.

Again, i have no dog in this fight but there are some issues with the logic here.

1) precision weapons have improved vastly from the 90s. Just because we could do it now, doesn't mean we could then

2) If people aren't supposed to believe what they read, then what other information should they believe in these matters? With all those Generals in the room during this decision, are there any that have come forward to say 'oh we totally could have put a missile through his window' without the collateral damage? Seems like someone would have by now. Also, weren't we told that Patriot missiles were highly effective, only to be told later that our technological superiority was slightly exaggerated from that time period? Not a direct comparison, but it gets to the fact that what we are told about what our missiles can do isn't always 100% true.

3) Just because we could have put a bomb through his window doesn't mean that he wasn't surrounding himself with human shields (either those knowingly shielding him or unknowingly)

4) Judging Clinton's decision now has the benefit of hindsight. It's easy to say we should have killed him and prevented 9/11 now. At the time, Clinton (love him or hate him) had no way of knowing what was to come. He could just have easily thought we'd get another shot at OBL in a week, month or year or that he'd get taken out by Israel. I'm not justifying his decision, but pointing to something after the fact (such as 9/11) is an oversimplification of the situation at the time.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

No you should stop believing all the BS you read... I guess if it benefits your spin or Clinton in this case it's okay. We have the ability to put on thru your window and in your living room before it explodes and we don't have the ability to take him out. You need to go back to collage because you don't have a clue about the real world.

As I say, you live, wallow, in willful ignorance. You have provided not a shred of proof or source for your inane statements. And your only retort to my well-sourced statements is to yell "spin." I can only assume you never darkened the doorway of a collage classroom or you might have learned that yelling BS and spin instead of proving your case would get you a F. As in you failed.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

This medium is not for you, Ace. You do your best work in collage. LOL

You are correct. I use facts, logic, reasoning and critical thinking. Most in "this medium" use fallacies, straw-men, ad hominem attacks and groupthink. In fact OSA would be a great case study of groupthink.

 

[Lurker66]

You are correct. I use facts, logic, reasoning and critical thinking. Most in "this medium" use fallacies, straw-men, ad hominem attacks and groupthink. In fact OSA would be a great case study of groupthink.

I'd volunteer.

 

[Glocktogo]

You are correct. I use facts, logic, reasoning and critical thinking. Most in "this medium" use fallacies, straw-men, ad hominem attacks and groupthink. In fact OSA would be a great case study of groupthink.

LOL, I've caught you out SEVERAL tomes using these dishonest debate tactics. Your sources are frequently so poor that they wouldn't get you any further in a college course than using Wikipedia.

Mind the plank in your eye there AotT.

 

[Glocktogo]

i really don't want to be in this argument, but does anyone think that W's wars helped our economy/national debt?

Not in the slightest. Both Clinton and Bush made mistakes that cost us economically, but Bush definitely ran up the deficit more than any previous president.

However, Obama's answer to Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, was to prove that a GOP president couldn't possibly be as fiscally irresponsible as a Democrat. He then proceeded to make Bush look like a rank amateur on spending money you don't have.

Now that the GOP has control of Congress, I fully expect them to play if foolish and screw everyone. Obama will make sure they don't have any other viable choices, because he'll play to his own Id, rather than place the welfare of the nation first. The man wouldn't know compromise if it slapped him in the face.

There are plenty of opportunites on the table to go in the correct direction for the country. I just haven't seen anything from Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner or McConnell to indicate they'll stop being selfish little children about it all.

 

[TerryMiller]

Never ever will a party claim me as one of theirs. Tea baggers are just a bunch if far right radicals carrying the R banner.

Kindly change that phraseology to "Tea Party Participants" instead of "Tea Baggers." "Tea Baggers has consistently been a liberal terminology of hatred towards Americans (both Republican and Democrat) that felt that Obama and the Democratic Party leadership were promoting legislation, regulations and new taxes that the citizens didn't want.

I was one of those participants that saw the horror that was headed our way with Democratic Party leadership. So many people on the extreme left want to paint us all as extremists. Basically, they do their normal thing by calling their opposition nasty names. Calling me a "Tea Bagger" indicates you are falling into the exact same category of the extremist liberals.

The House of Representative sent something like 360 to 370 bills to the Senate that went nowhere. I wonder where Harry Reid has all of those stored? In spite of that, the extreme liberals (including Obumbo) and the press still wanted to paint the Republicans as the "do-nothing Congress" and that they also wanted to shut down the government. Well, the House passed legislation to help fund the government, but because it wasn't what Harry Reid wanted, those bills died in the Senate. Then we all saw Obummer order National Park employees (who weren't supposed to be working at that time) to actually close Park facilities that are normally open 24/7, 365 days a year, just to make it difficult for average Americans, but still blamed the Republicans.

If you don't see that as obvious, then I guess I can't expect an apology for calling me a "Tea Bagger."

For what?

That.

I have noticed that you've dropped "tea bagger" in most of your comments to "tea party" or "tea partier."

 

[TerryMiller]

You are correct. I use facts, logic, reasoning and critical thinking. Most in "this medium" use fallacies, straw-men, ad hominem attacks and groupthink. In fact OSA would be a great case study of groupthink.

I seem to remember that you were pretty well taken to task on the "sources" for your facts, which would likely also affect your logic, reasoning and critical thinking.

I wonder if I could find those threads again?

 

[Lurker66]

That.

I have noticed that you've dropped "tea bagger" in most of your comments to "tea party" or "tea partier."

Referring to them as Tea baggers ain't any different than being refered to as a libtard or dumocrat. Either way I ain't apologizing for that. Skin needs to be just a little thicker in political threads.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

The House of Representative sent something like 360 to 370 bills to the Senate that went nowhere. I wonder where Harry Reid has all of those stored? In spite of that, the extreme liberals (including Obumbo) and the press still wanted to paint the Republicans as the "do-nothing Congress" and that they also wanted to shut down the government. Well, the House passed legislation to help fund the government, but because it wasn't what Harry Reid wanted, those bills died in the Senate. Then we all saw Obummer order National Park employees (who weren't supposed to be working at that time) to actually close Park facilities that are normally open 24/7, 365 days a year, just to make it difficult for average Americans, but still blamed the Republicans.

The government shutdown was entirely, not partly, not kind of, but entirely the responsibility of the Ted Cruz and his minions. It's not even debatable.

Friday was the fourth day of the government shutdown, and there’s still no sign of an exit. What’s surprising about the ongoing fight is how a small group of members of Congress have managed to bring Washington to a halt. Just months ago, Speaker John Boehner was warning that forcing the government to shut down over Obamacare or anything else was politically hazardous. Yet Boehner remains stuck, his strategy dictated by a small rump of members in the Republican caucus who refuse to budge. On Monday night, as government funding ran out, a group of around 40 hardline conservatives refused to support any resolution to fund the government that didn't defund Obamacare.

Let me guess, The Atlantic is a liberal rag?

Ted Cruz faced a barrage of hostile questions Wednesday from angry GOP senators, who lashed the Texas tea party freshman for helping prompt a government shutdown crisis without a strategy to end it.

At a closed-door lunch meeting in the Senate’s Mansfield Room, Republican after Republican pressed Cruz to explain how he would propose to end the bitter budget impasse with Democrats, according to senators who attended the meeting. A defensive Cruz had no clear plan to force an end to the shutdown — or explain how he would defund Obamacare, as he has demanded all along, sources said.

My bad, of course Politico is a liberal rag also, right?

In his debut appearance on the “Tonight Show,” the speaker of the House conceded that Republicans were responsible for October’s government shutdown, saying it was a “very predictable disaster.”

How about Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner, is he a liberal talking head?