tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post3301867668512795460..comments2024-03-28T02:33:58.130-05:00Comments on Marshal Art's: Couldn't Have Said It Better MyselfMarshal Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-76653608410177879202008-08-18T23:01:00.000-05:002008-08-18T23:01:00.000-05:00OK, fine. Are we done now? This is getting reall...OK, fine. Are we done now? This is getting really boring for me. How about for you? <BR/><BR/>Of course if there is a real point you wish to go over again, feel free.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-214355062978351382008-08-18T21:18:00.000-05:002008-08-18T21:18:00.000-05:00Did you not notice the "if" there? I am not conce...Did you not notice the "if" there? I am not conceding that your side is less prone to lying. Indeed it is precisely that point that is absurd. I am showing that my characterization of your position was logically dervived from your own statement.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-42548900045600135342008-08-18T21:07:00.000-05:002008-08-18T21:07:00.000-05:00If your side isn’t prone to covering bad behavior,...<I>If your side isn’t prone to covering bad behavior, doesn’t that make them more honest than others?</I><BR/><BR/>Then the notion isn't that absurd, is it?Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-1987166268313012912008-08-18T07:49:00.000-05:002008-08-18T07:49:00.000-05:00If your side isn’t prone to covering bad behavior,...If your side isn’t prone to covering bad behavior, doesn’t that make them more honest than others? Doesn’t it make them more reliable as sources of information? What is it you don’t get?Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-70895943904869919482008-08-17T23:35:00.002-05:002008-08-17T23:35:00.002-05:00Vinny, Help with this one. How does thisReally? H...Vinny, <BR/><BR/>Help with this one. How does this<BR/><BR/><I>Really? How about "It's no surprise to find a rotten apple now and again, but the thing is, my side isn't prone to covering for bad behavior."</I><BR/><BR/>support this<BR/><BR/><I>This is fantasy unsupported by anything you'd find posted here.</I><BR/><BR/>which was in response to this<BR/><BR/><I>"...you have this absurd notion that people who think like you are inherently more truthful and reliable than people who think differently."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't get it.<BR/><BR/>As for Clarke, I haven't read his book, only heard an interview or two, and find it fascinating that he gives himself a pass as well. By that, I mean that he reports as if his every move was perfect. Kinda reminds me of those situation comedies in which two people relate two very different versions of the same events. Each speaker always positions himself as without fault. Clarke sounds the same. <BR/><BR/>And what of your corroborating sources? Are they also people who just had to "tell their story" during an administration rather than after it is ended? Such stories smell like kids trying to distance themselves from that which they were a part. My feeling is there'd be less such tales told if the war went perfectly, if so many media people weren't in the bag for Dems against Bush, and approval ratings stayed high. They write their stories for people like you, who already hate Bush.<BR/><BR/>Good for you that you've found some on the right to support. I've never found anyone on the left to support because their ideas are crap. But there are two major areas in which Bush is in tune with Reagan, and they are on taxes and standing up to threats. As you may know, Reagan's drive to defeat communism wasn't looked upon with goodness. Many wanted to maintain the status quo to prevent friction with the USSR. It the same way, many believe Bush is goofy for standing up to Islamic exremism. But like Reagan, he sees it for the evil it is. <BR/><BR/>In addition, a third way Bush is like Reagan is with amnesty. Both were wrong.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-35062242708421208122008-08-17T23:35:00.001-05:002008-08-17T23:35:00.001-05:00Vinny, Help with this one. How does thisReally? H...Vinny, <BR/><BR/>Help with this one. How does this<BR/><BR/><I>Really? How about "It's no surprise to find a rotten apple now and again, but the thing is, my side isn't prone to covering for bad behavior."</I><BR/><BR/>support this<BR/><BR/><I>This is fantasy unsupported by anything you'd find posted here.</I><BR/><BR/>which was in response to this<BR/><BR/><I>"...you have this absurd notion that people who think like you are inherently more truthful and reliable than people who think differently."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't get it.<BR/><BR/>As for Clarke, I haven't read his book, only heard an interview or two, and find it fascinating that he gives himself a pass as well. By that, I mean that he reports as if his every move was perfect. Kinda reminds me of those situation comedies in which two people relate two very different versions of the same events. Each speaker always positions himself as without fault. Clarke sounds the same. <BR/><BR/>And what of your corroborating sources? Are they also people who just had to "tell their story" during an administration rather than after it is ended? Such stories smell like kids trying to distance themselves from that which they were a part. My feeling is there'd be less such tales told if the war went perfectly, if so many media people weren't in the bag for Dems against Bush, and approval ratings stayed high. They write their stories for people like you, who already hate Bush.<BR/><BR/>Good for you that you've found some on the right to support. I've never found anyone on the left to support because their ideas are crap. But there are two major areas in which Bush is in tune with Reagan, and they are on taxes and standing up to threats. As you may know, Reagan's drive to defeat communism wasn't looked upon with goodness. Many wanted to maintain the status quo to prevent friction with the USSR. It the same way, many believe Bush is goofy for standing up to Islamic exremism. But like Reagan, he sees it for the evil it is. <BR/><BR/>In addition, a third way Bush is like Reagan is with amnesty. Both were wrong.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-50253953923437569052008-08-17T23:35:00.000-05:002008-08-17T23:35:00.000-05:00Vinny, Help with this one. How does thisReally? H...Vinny, <BR/><BR/>Help with this one. How does this<BR/><BR/><I>Really? How about "It's no surprise to find a rotten apple now and again, but the thing is, my side isn't prone to covering for bad behavior."</I><BR/><BR/>support this<BR/><BR/><I>This is fantasy unsupported by anything you'd find posted here.</I><BR/><BR/>which was in response to this<BR/><BR/><I>"...you have this absurd notion that people who think like you are inherently more truthful and reliable than people who think differently."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't get it.<BR/><BR/>As for Clarke, I haven't read his book, only heard an interview or two, and find it fascinating that he gives himself a pass as well. By that, I mean that he reports as if his every move was perfect. Kinda reminds me of those situation comedies in which two people relate two very different versions of the same events. Each speaker always positions himself as without fault. Clarke sounds the same. <BR/><BR/>And what of your corroborating sources? Are they also people who just had to "tell their story" during an administration rather than after it is ended? Such stories smell like kids trying to distance themselves from that which they were a part. My feeling is there'd be less such tales told if the war went perfectly, if so many media people weren't in the bag for Dems against Bush, and approval ratings stayed high. They write their stories for people like you, who already hate Bush.<BR/><BR/>Good for you that you've found some on the right to support. I've never found anyone on the left to support because their ideas are crap. But there are two major areas in which Bush is in tune with Reagan, and they are on taxes and standing up to threats. As you may know, Reagan's drive to defeat communism wasn't looked upon with goodness. Many wanted to maintain the status quo to prevent friction with the USSR. It the same way, many believe Bush is goofy for standing up to Islamic exremism. But like Reagan, he sees it for the evil it is. <BR/><BR/>In addition, a third way Bush is like Reagan is with amnesty. Both were wrong.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-1939409863303048462008-08-17T13:02:00.000-05:002008-08-17T13:02:00.000-05:00This is fantasy unsupported by anything you'd find...<I>This is fantasy unsupported by anything you'd find posted here.</I><BR/><BR/>Really? How about "It's no surprise to find a rotten apple now and again, but the thing is, my side isn't prone to covering for bad behavior." <BR/><BR/>Actually, I did not find Clarke's book as impressive as others I have read. He seemed a little too willing to give Clinton a pass for the things that went wrong on his watch. Nevertheless, he was certainly someone who was in a position to know what was going on. Moreover, I think a lot of his criticisms of the Bush administration, such as its fixation on Saddam Hussein, have been corroborated by other sources.<BR/><BR/>You are correct that I think Bush is the worst president of my lifetime, however, I voted for Reagan and Ford so I don't think I am incapable of considering the possibility that conservatives might be right about something.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-92135408794188933692008-08-17T12:06:00.000-05:002008-08-17T12:06:00.000-05:00"...you have this absurd notion that people who th...<I>"...you have this absurd notion that people who think like you are inherently more truthful and reliable than people who think differently."</I><BR/><BR/>This is fantasy unsupported by anything you'd find posted here. A more accurate assessment would be that I rely on people that think like me until they can be proven to be liars or consistently wrong. I will say that people that think like me are likely to be truthful and reliable. As to those who don't think like me, they are typically wrong in what they believe. Whether they are liars or unreliable is another story.<BR/><BR/>YOU, however, seem to rely on those who back up your belief. Richard Clarke, for example, is absolutely truthful without fail. Why? Because he craps on Bush. And that's good enough for you to believe your right on the money. Why do I believe this? Because nothing you've ever offered has shown that Bush is ever right, and even the worst president ever, Jimma Carter, must have been right once in a while (though I can't think of any examples). If everything you've offered about Bush is negative, I'd have to say that the bottom line is that you don't like Bush at all and would doubt the credibility of anything that speaks positively of him. You're not required to spend such time posted nice things about Bush, but lacking anything of the kind doesn't shore up your opinion of your well-read, clear eyed objectivity.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-29352334720649505942008-08-16T21:33:00.000-05:002008-08-16T21:33:00.000-05:00Unfortunately, you have this absurd notion that pe...Unfortunately, you have this absurd notion that people who think like you are inherently more truthful and reliable than people who think differently. Until you abandon that bit of silliness, there is little hope for you. <BR/><BR/>It may comfort you to think that I do the exact same thing, but I cannot imagine why. It would not make what you are doing any less foolish.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-16882168141943030972008-08-16T20:01:00.000-05:002008-08-16T20:01:00.000-05:00Vinny,If it helps you to believe I exist in an "in...Vinny,<BR/><BR/>If it helps you to believe I exist in an "intellectual cocoon", go right ahead. I say such accusations come only when one such as yourself has failed to make his point. "Sure, it must be the other guy. Can't be me."<BR/><BR/>I'm well aware at this point just how well read you are. But my point stands. Just how many strainers must I put my sources through before a Vinny feels they are, not so much unbaised, but factual and not spun? It also obviously makes you feel better to assume that I merely swallow without chewing, every word that emanates from the sources I use. This is done without realizing that this here blog is a strainer in itself. If I post something that catches my eye, a Vinny will surely point out with credible sources just how the post went wrong. At that point, based on the source used (and sometimes how it's presented---face it, not a science or artform for some) one can then track down the rebuttal. It's a good system. <BR/><BR/>But again, feel free to tell me which of my sources are known liars, or routinely shown to be wrong, and I will adjust my research routines. (That would be <I>routinely</I> shown to be false, as in, more than every blue moon.) When you can do that, you might be on to something. <BR/><BR/>Personally, I think you research until you find enough stuff that agrees with you, so nya nya.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-52706768927173618712008-08-16T13:32:00.000-05:002008-08-16T13:32:00.000-05:00MA,I was so amazed by your last comment that it ha...MA,<BR/><BR/>I was so amazed by your last comment that it has taken me awhile to think of anything that might penetrate the intellectual cocoon that you have created for yourself.<BR/><BR/>I am currently reading David Halberstam’s history of the Korean War, <I>The Coldest Winter</I>. It confirms a number of points that most good military histories tend to confirm.<BR/><BR/>As you have previously noted, wars seldom go as planned. However, battles and lives are often lost because the planning is so poor. Sometimes the planning is poor because the guy responsible for the plan is some arrogant son of a bitch who thinks he knows everything and isn’t interested in listening to anyone who tells him anything he does not want to hear. Sometimes the arrogant son of a bitch surrounds himself with sycophantic toadies who will tell him that he is right about everything rather than seeking out strong independent thinkers who will tell him when he’s wrong.<BR/><BR/>The book has also confirmed for me that there is probably no human endeavor in which the propensity to cover up mistakes and bad behavior is more pronounced. The general who has blundered into a military defeat is responsible for the deaths of brave young men. The temptation to find a scapegoat is powerful and it takes great character to admit mistakes. For the politicians and the pundits back home that backed the general, the temptation is even greater and the character is generally much weaker. <BR/><BR/>There is an interesting story about General Matthew Ridgeway who took over command of the armies in Korea after MacArthur’s hubris had led them into an ambush near the Chinese border. He asked one of his regimental commanders about a map on the wall with red pins showing the position of Chinese forces. Ridgeway wanted to know how recently the regiment had made contact with any of those forces and was told five days. Ridgeway ripped the pins off the map and demanded that no red pin should appear on any map if the presence of the Chinese had not been confirmed by patrols in the last forty-eight hours. Part of the reason that Ridgeway was able to turn things around in Korea in part because he was fanatical about getting the facts. <BR/><BR/>There is a saying in the newspaper business, “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.” You, on the other hand, are content to listen to people who think like you because you think they are somehow more virtuous and truthful than people that think differently. You trust the people who told you that the war was a good idea in the first place when they tell you that the blunders were unforeseeable and excusable, that the losses were acceptable, and that the achievements justified the costs. I find your attitude incredibly naive.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-47736897954576296312008-08-11T23:24:00.000-05:002008-08-11T23:24:00.000-05:00Who do you use that you can confirm are without bi...Who do you use that you can confirm are without bias? How do you prove the reliability of the sources you use vs. those you don't, and conversely, how do think you know when conservative sources are spinning to suit their agenda. As far as I've been able to tell, the sources I use don't need to spin because conservative principles work. I'm not so concerned about an individual conservative as much as conservative philosophy. It's no surprise to find a rotten apple now and again, but the thing is, my side isn't prone to covering for bad behavior. I just don't see that you have a real argument regarding the sources I use, which I've never listed in total by the way. One way I use to check out my sources is to freakin' see if things work out as they described it. If it does, they're worth reading or giving a listen. If not, then I have to decide if it's routine or a fluke, but I put them on the back burner until I know for sure. <BR/><BR/>As I said, I have no reason to doubt the credibility of the sources I use, and I think I'm smart enough to separate the reporting of facts from the reporting of spin. It's not rocket science, after all. To put it in the simplest terms, my sources haven't been proven to be liars.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-47139960495234069262008-08-11T13:06:00.000-05:002008-08-11T13:06:00.000-05:00I chose my sources because of the bad rep of the l...<I>I chose my sources because of the bad rep of the lefty sources.</I><BR/><BR/>That is why you will always remain poorly informed. The notion that conservatives are any less likely to shape their coverage to suit their agenda is simply absurd. <BR/>The only way to have any confidence in your knowledge is to take both sides with a grain of salt and check them against each other and against independent sources.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-80182402704691735912008-08-11T12:36:00.000-05:002008-08-11T12:36:00.000-05:00I have no reason to doubt the credibility of my so...I have no reason to doubt the credibility of my sources. This is particularly true when I hear them correct themselves on occasion when a mistake comes to light. In other words, the people to whom I listen have equally good reputations for checking facts before broadcasting their opinions. <BR/><BR/>As to having liberal sources for crosschecking, why would I? I am unaware of any that are worthy as such a reference. In fact, conservative talk radio, for example, was borne out of need for correcting the flaws in reportage and filling in the holes so often left by the mainstream liberal media. I chose my sources <I>because</I> of the bad rep of the lefty sources.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-9144676825932018132008-08-11T02:21:00.000-05:002008-08-11T02:21:00.000-05:00The point of mentioning Medved's interview with Br...<I>The point of mentioning Medved's interview with Brown was to show that talk of his "only" previous experience was that of horse show co-ordinator was overblown liberal crapola, which has not been refuted.</I><BR/><BR/>And how do you know that it has not been refuted? What liberal sources of information do you regularly consult in order to confirm the version of facts that you are getting from your right wing sources? One of the reasons I read The Wall Street and The Economist is because they are conservative publications with a reputation for being careful about checking their facts. I watch Joe Scarborough because I know that he will jump on liberals who distort the facts while acknowledging when they have gotten the facts rights. I am not sitting around waiting for some conservative blogger to refute my understanding of what is going on in the world. I am going out and looking for the information that will refute it.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-21471861349104489462008-08-11T01:41:00.000-05:002008-08-11T01:41:00.000-05:00Keep it in your pants, Vinny. The point of mentio...Keep it in your pants, Vinny. The point of mentioning Medved's interview with Brown was to show that talk of his "only" previous experience was that of horse show co-ordinator was overblown liberal crapola, which has not been refuted. When you can prove or present evidence that Medved is in the habit of conspiring to shore up lies, then we can accept your wild insinuations regarding Medved's credibility. Until then, trying to separate my sources from amongst those who are "honest and unbiased" is a mere ploy by one who can't deal with facts that do not go his way. The tough part for me on this one is how trivial the point was. Jeesh. Take a freakin' pill.<BR/><BR/>Regarding you second paragraph, I don't know what you mean. All I said was that it was my understanding that firing attornies in the JD wasn't out of the ordinary and that other presidents have replaced the whole lot of 'em, with, I believe, Clinton being one. Does the president or does he not have authority to hire and fire such people at his pleasure?<BR/><BR/>As to refuting my sources, have at it. I welcome any corrections to wrongly held beliefs under which I operate. Thus far, you've offered only opposing opinions and suggested that their name or position gives them more credibility. Not good enough.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-75367598617571630852008-08-10T20:31:00.000-05:002008-08-10T20:31:00.000-05:00Wow! Brownie told Michael Medved that he got a bu...Wow! Brownie told Michael Medved that he got a bum rap! What could be more reliable than that? Well, why didn't you say so in the first place? Was it verified by Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter? What did Sandy Rios have to say about it? <BR/><BR/>By the way, it is not routine to fire a U.S. Attorney based on a Congressman's complaint. What makes you think it is? Which right wing source assured you that this wasn't something you needed to think about it? How are any of your sources ever going to be refuted if you never consult anything that does not reinforce your preconceptions?Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-33695222961461970432008-08-10T12:55:00.000-05:002008-08-10T12:55:00.000-05:00I do appreciate your comments, though. Never thin...I do appreciate your comments, though. Never think differently as far as that goes.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-9276406760200530092008-08-10T12:54:00.000-05:002008-08-10T12:54:00.000-05:00Your first paragraph deals with issues that have s...Your first paragraph deals with issues that have since been rectified or improved upon. You assume much regarding the mind of Bush in denouncing his selections based on the words of people who validate your opinions. In fact, you seem to swallow everything such people say without question. I can say this for the simple fact that there are quite a few people within the administration who don't share the sentiments of those who's self-serving books you've read. This is not to say that his selections were or were not good ones or bad ones, only that your perception of his motivations are not based on anything substantive, only the subjective opinions of those who find fault with Bush's every move. <BR/><BR/>Brown's experience has been mischaracterized <I>because</I> his horse show period made for good cheap shots, not because it was the true extent of his experience. I've heard him interviewed on Medved's show, and that point was roundly mocked for it's blatant BS factor. Was he the right man for the job? Obviously, things were less than perfect. A better man was needed, but his failures were after the fact and less worthy of condemnation than those who could have prevented or lessened the effects of the storm. It is easy to assume someone else could have done it better, but hard to prove. Such doesn't matter for the left. <BR/><BR/>I don't know enough about Goodling to comment. But I do know that firings of the type for which Bush is criticized is routine, but not necessarily the timing. He has full authority to hire and fire within that dept at will. Most, like Clinton, replace the whole crew upon taking office. Bush did less of that seeking to unite the parties (a foolish task to undertake considering the character of the Dem party at the time). He suffered for that move more than once. If people have the perception that the JD is non-partisan, it's a false one as they are all considered to be somewhat of an extension or reflection of the office holder. The question is whether or not the prez has the authority to influence the direction of any investigations, or if the lawyers had the right to refuse his requests. Obviously we know what the left thinks about this, considering it's Bush who's involved. But I don't think the question has been answered by objective parties, or else legal action would already have been taken to some degree.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't matter the source of my opinions or info. What matters is how they are presented and how they are refuted. I present them with the full understanding that they might be shown to be false or wrong or in any way misinterpreted. I have not been shown here or anywhere else that the sources I use lack credibility or deal in lies and half-truths. Someone like you saying so isn't good enough. <BR/><BR/>You seem somewhat proud in the belief that you read enough to get all the data necessary to discern the real truth. Good for you. You haven't proven it in the least. You want to prove your side? Try relating those things you've read that have been proven false by those things upon which you lean. Until you can do that, you have not shown that you are more objective than me.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-64717203899121569172008-08-10T11:30:00.000-05:002008-08-10T11:30:00.000-05:00Do you know how workers were selected for the Coal...Do you know how workers were selected for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq? Do you know that competent experienced professionals with experience in crisis management situations were passed over in favor of inexperienced ideologues who held the right position on <I>Roe v. Wade</I>? Did you know that half the people who went to work for the CPA had to apply for a passport for the first time? The problems in Iraq are not simply the result of the inherent unpredictability of war. They are the result of a conscious policy by the Bush administration to ignore expertise in hiring decisions in favor of loyalty to the Bush agenda.<BR/><BR/>I have no problem with a President who gives jobs to friends, but they have to be friends who are at least minimally qualified to do the job. The head of emergency response can’t be a guy whose prior experience was organizing horse shows.<BR/><BR/>Do you understand what Monica Goodling was doing at the Justice Department? Do you understand that the Justice Department is the one department that has to be perceived as non-partisan by the American people? Do you realize that it has been for the most part prior to George W. Bush? Do you realize that the U.S. Attorneys who were fired for refusing to pursue politically motivated cases were conservative Republicans? <BR/><BR/>I find it very hard to take your comments about objectivity seriously. As far as I can tell from your blog, your only sources of information are right wing websites and conservative talk radio and you swallow everything they have to say without question. Like Bush, you seem to make your decisions based on ideology rather than reality.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-82529970580233114292008-08-10T00:26:00.000-05:002008-08-10T00:26:00.000-05:00It would be far nicer to see those who oppose Bush...It would be far nicer to see those who oppose Bush actually deal with his actions objectively and not from the perspective of one's own agenda. No honest person can call him incoherent, particularly when one recalls all the predictions by Dems regarding our entry into the current military situation. He didn't nail his every point, but neither did his opponents, and in fact they shouldn't feel they're in a position to brag. But just as the left grants Obama Messiah status, they demand perfection from the opposition. In other words, they insist that the conservative play by the rules conservatives seem to demand, and expect that we should allow theirs play by their rules. The fact is our side wants everyone to play by the same rules.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-81045005483380698782008-08-09T11:31:00.000-05:002008-08-09T11:31:00.000-05:00You would think after 911 that heading emergency r...You would think after 911 that heading emergency response would not be considered a "position of some obscurity."<BR/><BR/>Isn't eight years of an incoherent President who owes his education and his career to his daddy's influence enough? Wouldn't it be nice to have a President whose achievements (however scant you might deem them to be) are the product of his own abilities?Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-3939792515405246142008-08-08T22:43:00.000-05:002008-08-08T22:43:00.000-05:00Are you aware of just how many appointments a pres...Are you aware of just how many appointments a president can make? Are you suggesting that the hiring of a guy to a position of some obscurity until a Level 5 hurricane destroys a poorly protected city was something you were monitoring from the start? But as you know, with Harriet Meiers and the so-called Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, we do speak out against our own.<BR/><BR/>But put that aside and tell me if those you've mentioned were running for POTUS. The higher the job title, the more concern for who the hell it is that wants it. Obama wants the big job. He's got nothing to show he deserves any serious support, which he doesn't really have when you consider those who have supported him the most.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-92179052666499339372008-08-08T20:57:00.000-05:002008-08-08T20:57:00.000-05:00It would have been nice if you right wingers had s...It would have been nice if you right wingers had shown as much concern with resumes while the Bush administration was packing the government with Goodlings and Brownies whose only qualifications were their willingness to worship at the George W. Bush Cult of Personality.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.com