It would seem he posted no source or link PRECISELY so you would deal with the substance rather than derail the thread indicting the source. In addition since he stakes no claim to being 'right' because his source is so infallible, it would seem to be you that has 'no credibility' in this argument.
Oh yeah, and one more thing. Bush may not be the 'worst president in history.' That is, after all, a subjective determination. But there can be no doubt he is the DUMBEST & LEAST ACCOMPLISHED President in history.
Because it is one of the major factors that he is getting hammered on by the critics. It is a counter-trend toward the conclusion that all the critics want to rush to. We all know that there are other factors. It's not a one issue debate which is why I, for one and maybe the only one, am not trying to make any conclusion about Bush as best or worst president based on one statistic. That was your game. It was not the conclusion of the piece either. There is merit in the notion that one unjustified death is worse than many more justified ones... if you agree with the premise that the war is unjustified. I don't happen to agree with that premise. Did you ever calculate the major premise on which you wanted me to build a syllogism... or did you figure as I did that the premise you want me to use is a premise that I don't accept as the theme of the piece?
I hate to sound paranoid but.... FINALLY SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS! Could it be because he's not so busy trying to cut my legs out from underneath me that he will consider what the words say and don't say rather than the exptrapolation that he is dying to make? We don't even agree about Bush but we can agree about the process of discussing something on its merits rather than the bogeyman aspect of the source's legitimacy. The words themselves have meaning apart from any sourcing.
Giddyup: 2 questions: 1.please indicaate to me whether or not the number of combat deaths should be indicative for any reason ... and 2. why? ' please answer...are you equating the number of combat deaths with who is a "good" or "bad" president? Pleae advise, am anxiously awaiting such.....
Answers: 1. I don't think the raw number of deaths should necessarily be absolutely indicative of anything. That number will be a function of total troops committed, number of engagements, preparedness of the enemy, etc 2. No, I'm not equating. As I said, the statistics would seem to me to be a counter-trend to the reckless, war-mongering image that so many try to saddle GWB with. The numbers can be identified and discussed without reducing it to an equation.
You need to look at the history of terrorism posted by MacBeth. He had a pretty comprehensive list of the terrorist attacks that Europe has suffered and I would venture a guess to say that it was FAR more than 2800 people. Yes, it is. They gave us unqualified, unwavering support after 9/11. We had the entire world on our side until we decided to pursue an unjust war that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Bush (and the US) had the support of the entire world until he squandered it.
Originally posted by andymoon You need to look at the history of terrorism posted by MacBeth. He had a pretty comprehensive list of the terrorist attacks that Europe has suffered and I would venture a guess to say that it was FAR more than 2800 people. <b>I'm not too sure what events of three centuries ago have to do with events today. Moreso, the dramtic impact of 2800 in the matter of a televised hour multiplies the impact of it all-- as terrible as it was in the first place.</b> Yes, it is. They gave us unqualified, unwavering support after 9/11. We had the entire world on our side until we decided to pursue an unjust war that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Bush (and the US) had the support of the entire world until he squandered it. <b>A lack of support for going after Iraq, disqualifies the support as "unqualified."</b>
No, it's yours. We are in complete agreement. I am using the 'logic' of your original post, and as detailed by you in the last few pages. I have a hard time sometimes deciding whether or not you are that stupid or just stubborn, I have finally decided that it must be a combination of both. While it is frustrating at times, it is amusing watching you jump through hoop after hoop and your compulsive need to get in the last word.
SamFisher: You've going to have to explain yourself here. I never reduced the piece to a single conclusion. You did that. How are we possibly in agreement? Also, the post was not authored by me. I simply posted it, so don't think you can identify me with it. Yes, I am stubborn. Still waiting for your syllogism challenge.
Yes, we are in complete agreement. We both focused on the number of combat deaths in order to evaluate the president. you took the position that the low number for bush made him look better than his counterparts, who had higher numbers. You equated that with job performance; you can pretend like you didn't, but you did. I've explained it to you 55 times here but you just start screaming about extrapolating and being too literal and then not being literal enough. I'm actually still waiting for your syllogism. Major premise? How am I supposed to tell you what your major premise is? You're the one who posted it, and you're the one who whines about me missing the point, so you do it. That's why I asked you to do it so th at we could be perfectly clear as to what you are saying. What you call "reductionism" I call clarity. I can only guess as to why you wish to be obscure.... You can claim you didn't author it, but you threw it up here and have defended and endorsed it several times a day for the last week. So pardon me if I associate you with it.
