Reply With Quote
Like Boutons
Like Boutons
In fact, I would argue that this is much more of an accurate description of Boutons compared to Yoni. We have witnessed Yoni at least agree with others when it comes to other subjectes besides politics. Boutons on the other hand makes stupid comments and attacks every single post.
Well, let see, I've got the time at the moment.
"We will withdraw from Iraq."
The Murtha plan. And, to varying degrees, every other Democrats' plan as well. Timetable arguement.
"We will raise your taxes."
The persistent complaint that this is no time to be cutting taxes and the objection to making the current tax cuts permanent. Not to mention the fallacy that the tax cuts has hurt the economy. Does anyone doubt they will be both raising them and rolling back those already in place?
"We will immediately start impeachment proceedings agains President Bush."
I believe that's Charlie Rangel's promise.
"And, we will do all of this before we develop a cogent plan to prosecute the ongoing war against global terrorism or ensure homeland security."
Please, point me to a Democratic strategy for prosecuting the war on terror that doesn't completely consist of complaints about how President Bush is doing it all wrong.
Those aren't strawmen arguements. Those are conclusions drawn from the statements of leading Democrats on what they will do if they take control of the Congress.
They've held mock hearings they hope will become real hearings and they've been surprisingly candid about their intentions while at the same time being predictably vaccuous about what they'd do differently.
So the Republican plan is to never withdraw from Iraq?"We will withdraw from Iraq."
The Murtha plan. And, to varying degrees, every other Democrats' plan as well. Timetable arguement.
Eh...
Dude, what's this obsession with buotons? Yeah he can be annoying and too leftist but STFU already. You say that you have him on ignore, so ignore him. We all know how you feel about boutons.
Stop annoying the rest of us by constantly talking about him.
Grow a pair.
Is actually being run by at least one democrat: Casey here in PA. Runs an add which says, "I will fight to roll back the tax cut Bush gave to multi millionaires."
I called Casey's campaign and asked which tax cuts, specifically, they were going to roll back - I was told "all of them - because they only went to multi-millionaires."
When I question the campaign worker further, they went and got their supervisor. She told me that, in fact, Bob Casey was for rolling back ALL of the Bush tax cuts - because they only benefitted the super rich. I told them that I was pretty sure the tax cuts were accross the board. She told me not to believe everything I heard.
Anyway, Casey IS going to try to raise your taxes if he gets elected = Not a Straw Man.
When the job is done and not on any stupid and arbitrary time-table as is being proposed by the Democrats.
Again, that is a party platform. We will withdraw from Iraq. No qualification, no equivocation. It doesn't apparently matter to the Democrats that cir stances could change to where they might want to keep a force in Iraq.
Their mantra appears to be, "It was a mistake based on lies and we'll bring the troops home by X date."
What more do the terrorists in Iraq need to know in order to just keep low, keep their powder dry and, when the Democrats gain power, we will have free reign.
Why don't you put johnsmith on ignore if it bothers you so much?
What does that mean? What is the metric for finishing the job in Iraq?When the job is doneDepends on which Democrat is talking. I haven't really seen a party consensus.Their mantra appears to be, "It was a mistake based on lies and we'll bring the troops home by X date."
Much.
I will give Yoni this:
His reasoning/writing skills do surpass Boutons'.
As much crap as I may give Yoni, he does have some modi of respect from me for taking the time to read and provide some reasoning for most of what he says. Even if a good chunk of that "reasoning" comes in the form of ill-substantiated op-ed pieces.
I guess we'll know it when we see it. But, I can tell you it's not done now. I expect that when the Iraqi government and security forces are capable of maintaining peace in their own country, we'll be done there.
Exactly. They don't have a plan but, cutting and running is floating on the surface of their s my pond.
You actually have some back-up on a fair part of this, but I think the strawman charge sticks to most of it.
I have come to believe that withdrawal from Iraq is a good thing, but that deserves its own thread. The official stance of the party is that we should withdraw sooner than the GOP would like, but both parties think that our end goal should be to leave. Perhaps not a strawman, but certainly a half-truth.
I support tax increases to reduce overall federal debt. If we simply balance the budget and go no further, I would support whatever tax level this requires. If fiscal responsibility were a GOP plank, I would support them in that. At least with increased taxes, we aren't bankrupting the government.
As far as impeachment goes, I don't really think that will be a political reality, as much as individual dems might wish it otherwise. It backfired on the GOP when they tried it, and would do so if the Dems tried it. I *do* believe Bush's negligence in his job borders on the criminal, but doubt it could be made into a solid, convictable case. Nonetheless it is hardly the official position of the party is it? Therefore that DOES qualify as a strawman argument.
You might be right about the last bit. I think that is the most valid thing that the GOP has said about the Dems in the last political cycle. Don't if you don't have an alternative. This goes both ways tho'. I remember saying the same thing when Clinton was in office.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-28-2006 at 12:42 PM.
What?I guess we'll know it when we see it.Wouldn't peace first have to be established for it to be maintained? I have never heard that language used by the administration.I expect that when the Iraqi government and security forces are capable of maintaining peace in their own country, we'll be done there.How many members of Congress promote it? Enough to make it happen?Exactly. They don't have a plan but, cutting and running is floating on the surface of their s my pond.
I expanded on the answer. It's not like we're at war with a sovereign nation with a leader that can sit down at a table and sign a surrender.
But, I do believe Iraq can be pacified and that it will be and, further, that we'll know it when it happens.
Yes.
I know you haven't because a) you don't listen to the administration, you listen to biased and critical characterizations of the administration and b) you play word games in here all the time so you probably lack the skill to discern when something isn't being quoted back to you verbatim.
Sorry, I'm not in the tutoring business.
I don't know, Democrats are a pretty devious bunch. I think it's telling that any of them have actually proposed such an idiotic idea to begin with.
Let's just hope the American people are smart enough not to want to find out, eh?
Show me an administration quote that says the mission of the US forces is to remain until the entire country of Iraq is completely pacified.
This just in:
AP reports that al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Hamza al-Muhajir (aka Abu Ayyub al-Masri) has produced an audiotape in which he says that 4,000 foreign insurgents have been killed in Iraq. According to the AP, the Arabic word al-Masri used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.
Al-Masri also offered "amnesty" to Iraqis who have cooperated with coalition forces. Such cooperation has been instrumental in making life so difficult for al-Qaeda, where polls show that it to be massively unpopular.
Finally, al-Masri urged explosive experts and nuclear scientists to assist al-Qaeda. Noting that al-Qaeda is in "dire need" of these services, he suggested that U.S. bases would make a fine subject for their "experimentation." Clearly, al-Qaeda needs some sort of "big bang" to create more pressure to induce an exit by the U.S.. Apparently, their collaborators in the Left-wing Democratic party aren't getting it done fast enough.
How 'bout that! The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that to the extent terrorist insurgents leave Iraq carrying the taint of defeat, it will slow the momentum of the jihad movement. If AP's report is reliable, there's good reason to believe that 4,000 such terrorist insurgents have left the Iraqi theatre with extreme taint.
See, these are the types of semantic games you play.
Where did the word "entire" enter into the argument.
I mentioned two principles. So, pay attention. I believe (and, no, I'm not on the President's foreign policy team or a decision-maker in the administration) U. S. Military forces will remain engaged in Iraq until the country is;
1) pacified (read that as "sufficiently" pacified if it makes you feel better
because not even the United States is "entirely" pacified.) and,
2) The Iraqi security forces are able to maintain that status.
I know, I said it just a little different. But, I'm saying the same thing over and over and over again.
All I know, is that Yonivore has been predicting a victory for years now. Theres a reason the country is pissed off. I wonder what world dude lives in sometimes.
Show me an administration quote that says the mission of the US forces is to remain until the entire country of Iraq is sufficiently pacified.
What is your answer Manny?
Seriously, what would you do now?
This is why I'd like to put you on ignore. You play stupid semantics games.
I think it is abundantly clear that when the President of the United States says we're not going to leave Iraq until the job is done and goes on to say that means when Iraqi forces are able to provide for their own security without our assistance, then he's saying we'll leave when the country is sufficiently pacified for the Iraqi forces to maintain the peace.
Seriously, you're a sop ric idiot. You don't want to debate you want to argue nuance points taken out of the context of larger arguments to the point that the original debate is no longer recognizable.
I ask simple questions you are afraid or unable to answer.This is why I'd like to put you on ignore. You play stupid semantics games.Why do you think that? It doesn't necessarily mean the same thing at all.I think it is abundantly clear that when the President of the United States says we're not going to leave Iraq until the job is done and goes on to say that means when Iraqi forces are able to provide for their own security without our assistance, then he's saying we'll leave when the country is sufficiently pacified for the Iraqi forces to maintain the peace.Not at all. I want to know what "getting the job done" means. All I've heard from the administration is about handing off the fight to the Iraqis when they're ready, not establishing peace first than handing off responsibility. It's a very important distinction and one you have failed to prove when asked directly -- so you start whining about the ignore function again. You had your chance.Seriously, you're a sop ric idiot. You don't want to debate you want to argue nuance points taken out of the context of larger arguments to the point that the original debate is no longer recognizable.
You are, in fact, belaboring the point, CD.
Yoni is right about the conclusion we can all draw by what the administration has said.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
