Does he stay or does he go?

[Kevin]

There is no way anyone can win anything fighting a losing battle of wits with a person that refuses to acknowledge any other "facts" except for the ones the person fells are "acceptable".

Or someone who, when facts are lacking, makes up stuff to fill in the spaces.

[TxMusky]

You clearly demonstrated your level of expertise early on in the BP disaster with your statements about drilling safety and claiming safety originates with the workers on a drill site and is not reflective of a corporate culture.

Driving a honey dipper truck does not make one a sewage treatment expert.

Well none of the guys I work with now or have worked with in the past would have gone along with a plan that would possibly kill them for lack of safety. As it turns out someone was too chicken to make the call....he paid for that with his and a few others lives. Seems like your mouth was in neutral when I was explaining some of the more obscure details about the drilling operation and its components. So if your honey bucket comment is directed at me, you know where you can stick it. Your arrogance is amazing.

Or someone who, when facts are lacking, makes up stuff to fill in the spaces.

Same goes for you, your haughtiness and "win at all odds attitude is tiresome to me. Thats why I quit replying to your posts, you are anal about winning, even if it really means nothing. I try to direct my comments at the politicians, yet you seem to get some sort of a thrill out of castrating a person with your superior knowledge. Doesnt impress me one bit, anybody can piss on the floor, be a hero chit on the ceiling.

[Kevin]

Try bringing something besides anger, vitriol, and rants to the board and you'll likely get a better interaction with many people. Bring in some fresh knowledge about a subject along with how you interpret it. Speaking for myself, I enjoy a different perspective even when I disagree with it and I've changed my viewpoint on some big issues because of the arguments and information people here have presented in my discussions with them. I believe that this board is different from others not only in the way we treat each other but in the quality of the conversation. You are a more intelligent man than someone who does nothing but disgorge your bile all the time. Try showing that side of your personality and this board will become less of a combat zone and more of a place to have good, spirited discussion.

[LawDog]

So is it the lefts position now that obama was FOR the surge?

[Kevin]

I am not seeing that, LD. But none of us speak for "the left" just as none of us speak for "the right" so I dunno.

[2ndthyme]

So is it the lefts position now that obama was FOR the surge?

which one?

[LawDog]

which one?

The one in Iraq Petraeus wanted and obama said wouldn't work....

[Kevin]

I tend to think the turning point in Iraq came from the Sunni Awakening as well as the surge. I don't know what effect the surge and the sight of increased American commitment had to that process. Maybe a lot, maybe a little. I don't know how one would separate out the relative effects. Kinda hard when two things happen at the same time to ascribe these sorts of things.

My own opinion is that they fed off each other and increased the respective effect of each but I dunno how much of the effect was one vs. the other.

[LawDog]

I think it is pretty clear from obama's comments back then, that if he had been CoC at the time, Petraeus would not have gotten his way on the surge. That makes me wonder how things will work as Petraeus takes over in Afghanistan. Word is he is already looking at changing the rules of engagement there.

[Kevin]

Changing the rules of engagement might not be a bad idea. What we are doing does not seem to be as successful as I might have hoped.

Regarding Obama and Petraeus and the surge in Iraq - many things look a whole lot different when one is outside looking in (as a Senator) and when one is the guy in charge (as President). I think Obama was running for President, whether he was declared at that time or not, and looking to build up points with his potential voters. It is hard to tell if any of them are sincere in anything they say. Once in office, though, things look a lot different. Example: Guantanamo. Easy to say "close it" when one is not faced with the practicalities of doing the deed.

So I dunno what Obama would have done had he been Prez. at the time of the surge in Iraq. Hard to tell.

[LawDog]

"Actively oppose" give us a pretty good idea.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_igpyewuzQ
Of course, you are right in that you cannot believe what he says....he'd say anything he thought would get him elected.

[Saggy]

[QUOTE=Kevin;913789]The "just because there isn't any evidence doesn't mean that it didn't happen" is used by those who believe in aliens controlling our lives with a mind ray from Mars as well. Not the best company to keep.
---------------------------
"Not the best company to keep???????????
By that I'd guess you include just about every religion in the world. Lack of hard evidence----but nevertheless----belief-----equals "FAITH". Generally, people of Faith are very nice people.

[Kevin]

If we were talking about religion, then maybe that would be relevant, Saggy. We aren't, though. We are talking about the basis for making judgments in this world, not the next one. I prefer to base my judgments about politics on facts and things as they are, not fantasy.

[Saggy]

If we were talking about religion, then maybe that would be relevant, Saggy. We aren't, though. We are talking about the basis for making judgments in this world, not the next one. I prefer to base my judgments about politics on facts and things as they are, not fantasy.

-------------------------------

Sorry, Kevin. I somehow got the idea when I went to church, that religion was all about making judgments in this world---before the next one(that may or may not be there). You're saying there's no room in Politics for a religious person who was brought up to hopeflly make good decisions? Religions are "fantasy"? Methinks there are a few in Congress who would contest that----even your idol Obama professes some.

[Kevin]

I make political decisions based on facts, not fantasy. As a consequence, if deciding what to do about, say, Afghanistan, I don't predicate my decisions based on an Afghanistan at peace, prosperous, and stable. I base my decisions on the Afghanistan that IS, not the one I fantasize about. Even your idol Joseph Stalin, said as much. Of course, if you choose to believe in delusions instead of reality, there is medication for such conditions.

Of course, why you idolize Joseph Stalin is a bit murky, but since you've professed such admiration many times, I have to take you at your word. Seems your moral compass might be a little off, though, so maybe you need to recheck that religion thing again. You might be praying at the wrong church.

Or could it be that you are just relying on what people tell you again, instead of checking things out for yourself? Maybe you are proving to be a useful idiot for some whack job preacher, like you did for Sowell. Or that bit you posted from the Onion as legitimate news. Do you ever bother to check anything out before spewing some uninformed opinion?

Wanna play some more? I'll accommodate you. If you choose deliberately to make obtuse arguments that accuse me of things I've never said, be prepared for the same in return.