[Tsuwabuki]

I will presume that your written style does not have the normal tone assumptions, and that certain characteristics are not indicative of a given tone or emotional state. My own tone is academic and scholastic in most cases.

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

Then why did you say he had no accomplishments? So an negative denies this? But he did do it did he not, to which in the first one you deny him having an accomplishments.

I said he had a lot of accomplishments. I said "an awful lot" with emphasis on the "awful." Most were negative. I never said they were all negative.

Where exactly do you think I'm "trying" to push you?

I think the insinuation was clearly the questioning of my loyalty. I have dealt with this same claim dozens of times, and we're often not too far away from a claim of, "If you don't think President Bush is protecting this country, then you must either have no idea what you are speaking about, or you want to see America fail." The fact so many of our elected GOP officials have said almost the same thing, word for word, makes me wary of going down that rabbit hole with the neoconservative rank and file.

Questioning a fellow citizen's loyalty, regardless of political affiliation, is inappropriate.

Actually you have to give him credit that he did keep the country safe. Remember the released CIA memos? Did you ever read them? You don't need to have knowledge of national defense.

Actually, I don't need to do anything at all. You can insist until you're blue in the face that I change my opinion that the actions of President Bush made America less safe, and it will have no effect. It isn't like you're insisting on a law of macro-mechanics. In order to assert opinions, you must offer reasoning as to why you are justified in asserting that others should agree. Notice, I nowhere said you had to believe what I believe. Why do you think you have justification in not affording me the same respect?

I read the memos. At least, I believe I have read those which you refer to. Rather than think we were made safer, I honestly think we turned the international community against us even more for CIA actions.

And... wait... you're telling me that in order to understand elements of national defense one need not know about national defense? I don't think I'm misquoting or twisting words here. Please note, this is not to humiliate you, or to "rub your nose" in a failure of logic, but I think we need to examine the logical consequences of your statement.

Actually you have to give him credit that he did keep the country safe.

Keeping the country safe is otherwise known as national defense.

Remember the released CIA memos? Did you ever read them?

The memos refer to actions taken by the CIA to keep the country safe (in the Bush Administration's opinion), which is to say the memos refer to actions taken by the CIA for purposes of national defense.

You don't need to have knowledge of national defense.

You don't need to have a knowledge of national defense to understand memos from the CIA pertaining to actions taken by the CIA for purposes of national defense.

Nope. No twisting. You just quite clearly said you don't need to have a knowledge of national defense to understand (at least actions taken as part of) national defense.

If this is not what you meant to say, then I cannot follow the logic as presented here.

Yes, you did. Don't need your life story though.

In the interest of fairness, I was making sure my biases were clear. This is usually considered a very well-mannered thing to do in a political debate.

The life story quip came off petty. It has no place in academic debate.

Interesting sentence, so you can make any statement you want?

With justification, if what you mean is can I make any statement I believe should be considered. Before working in politics, I was a political reporter, when I decided I had developed a bias, I left journalism to work for what I believed in. I have always been a consumer of political history and current political events. I have studied political philosophy from the Ancient Greeks, through Rome, to the Italian city states, to the Divine Rule of Kings, and to the beginnings and current state of representative democracies around the world.

I am quite credible, thanks. My acknowledgement of my bias is, as I say, just good manners.

How does pointing out he had an 34% approval rating make me bias? Did you think about why I put that there?

I can't believe you're actually saying Jimmy Carter's rating was undeserved and he was really a good president that the public just didn't like.

And even if you are, are you then suggesting that Bush was a really good president, like Jimmy Carter, that the public just didn't like?

I suppose I can follow the logic, I just don't think you honestly meant to imply that when you pointed out he had a 34% approval rating.

I think you put it there to insinuate his approval rating is proof he was a worse, maybe even in your mind, a far worse, president than George W. Bush. Obviously, I find both of these assertions silly, albeit for different reasons.

Your words, tell me you said his presidency was an failure.

Okay:

they got steamrolled and couldn't push through anything resembling an agenda

Here. Jimmy Carter couldn't push through anything resembling an agenda. He failed to accomplish an agenda he was elected to accomplish. He failed. His presidency was a failure. Just because I didn't say failure doesn't mean you are excused from understanding synonyms when they occur.

Now relate that to Bush you find an huge connection.

What connection? That Bush was a failure? No, I think the problem is he didn't fail to pass his agenda; it was just an agenda America really couldn't afford, and one that was significantly different from his campaign promises.

No, the stimulus bill is not working, Health care plan he proposes is an mess. Regardless of positives THERE still negatives are they NOT? And a lot believe it is the wrong way.

Bush was president for eight years. Obama has been president for, what, six months? I gave George Bush his entire first term before I went to work for Kerry, and I wasn't even a Democrat at the time. At least give him until the mid-terms before you start writing his legacy. The above comparison is a false comparison. Another logical fallacy, asserting the two can be equally weighted.

Also: Meet the stimulus hires - Bobby Jones, 55 (1) - FORTUNE

Does that deny what I said?

Yes.

You said that impeachment was proof of the presidents to be considered the worst.

I said that impeachment was political grandstanding that, at the end of the day, had no value whatsoever, and was not valid for any kind of judgement.

The two are directly contradictory.

If you where not before you are now! You want to make the assumption that one is guilty by association, well I could make the same assumption about Obama. Airs and Wright are examples, but I'm not going to.

I am not. I chimed in on a discussion already in progress. If it was being derailed, it was being derailed before I showed up. What I am doing is recognising that politicians do not act alone. Not to get elected, and not once they are elected. This is true of Obama, it is true of Bush, and it is true of Palin.

Ayers and Obama were on the same "society" boards, as were several republicans. The comparison here is also false, because if I can say Obama is like Ayers, then I can say the Republicans are like Ayers, or even that Obama and the Republicans are alike. And that's just illogical nonsense.

Wright is a much less false example, but at least Obama publicly distanced himself from Wright and has since condemned recent remarks by the pastor.

Palin (and Huckabee, who is at least entertaining with support from Chuck Norris) courts the evangelical radical right (this is no smear against Christianity, but rather a nod to the demographic make up where the majority call themselves "born-again"). This is the same group that led Bush to win the election in 2004, and come close enough to be named the winner in the 2000 election. This demographic is the reason why the administration went so far right when America, as a whole, votes the middle. By 2006, scandals had rocked the far right enough that the segment was depressed, and a serious liberal movement originally supporting Kerry was able to move in and move the numbers to the left during the midterms. The Democrat winning in 2008 was almost a forgone conclusion. Only a specific candidate's personal history might have been a factor in changing this. I tend to believe both Hillary and Obama had the exact same chances of winning, although Hillary's absolute vote count might have been lower. America was just that angry at the right and blamed the GOP (even replacing moderate GOP representatives with more conservative Democratic representatives in some districts!).

As long as Palin refuses to distance herself from the radical right in the way that Obama distanced himself from Wright, and quite clearly shows she does not agree with their agenda and will not accept the help of their political machines to be elected, then as president, she would be expected to abide by their wishes unless she wants to see the GOP rocked even worse, or herself on the list of one-termers. What I find so frightening is the fact that far from distancing herself, she is embracing them. Why? Well, because, at least, according her speeches, debates, articles, etc, she is a member of the radical right. This is not guilt by association. She's clearly a member of a group with which I strongly disagree on, at the very least, most social issues, and a fair number of economic ones.