Credit or Blame?

Obtuse, or what?

Sorry, you are accusing everyone of precisely your own behavior.

Wait for it.....








































It's coming...........




















































































Hypocrite

"Groucho" is playing a little game. Which is why I don't bother replying to him anymore.

I figured out that "Groucho" just likes to argue with what he believes are hand-wringing, cry-baby liberals a couple of weeks back.

He'll demand you answer in the form he desires, yet when you do, he will just treat you as an inferior anyway.

My suggestion is to pass over his posts, effectively removing his chew toy.

You are a genius, Nolan. The way you just figure out things like this. Yet you fall into the same trap as everyone else who just assumes they know all my thoughts and my positions on everything based on a handful of threads.


Yes, Socrates was a moron and a cry-baby too.

But hey, the method of discourse we were using before was working out so well. So let's keep posting the same crap over and over and never read, let alone answer anyone who questions your position.

38 posts before someone tried to honestly answer the question, but Craig is new here so I'm not sure I should count him.

So it's up to 40 for the rest of you.

It's not possible to answer a "loaded" question, posted by a neocon.

In fact, it's stupid. Anyone with an average IQ can tell you that.

The color of my eyes, has absolutely nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

Alby or Stankleberry, you decide.

I urge you to take a long look in the mirror.

Korg.

me too, less than bush, but still...

friend of mine was on a flight with Kerry a couple weeks ago... he is truely the most uncharismatic person to almost win the presidency ever. Somebody, the democrats or, well any other party needs to come up with a viable alternative to the current republican adminsitration.

Please please someone give us a socially liberal and financially conservative candidate that I can pull for.

Merry Yaksmas.

I'm sure if his administration is ever responsible for stopping major terrorist activity, we'll hear about it (over and over and over again). Thus far they haven't submitted any evidence to the public that they have prevented anything in the past 5 years.

LOL. It wasn't Clinton's policies. It was Bush and Cheney's inaction. Clinton appointed a major commission to look into the threat of terrorist attacks on American soil. That committee finished its work in February 2001 and gave Bush their report. Among the things the report called for was increased security at airports and the creation of a Homeland Security Department at the cabinet level.

Bush rejected the report, assigned Cheney to form a new commission in March 2001. And in the 6 months from March through August, Cheney failed to appoint a single person to that commission. No appointments, no meetings. Nothing.

And that's not even mentioning the numerous warnings the administration was given about the threat posed by Bin Laden. What did Bush and Cheney do? They didn't even bother to tell the head of the FAA that there were credible threats to airline safety. Instead they campaigned to lower taxes and Bush spent a month on vacation.

So, no, you can't call the 9/11 attacks a failure of Clinton's policies. Unless, of course, you act like the current administration and only see the facts you like and ignore the ones you don't. But, really, thinking like that gets you into wars like Iraq.

That sentence makes me feel odd.

Just hope you nor none of your loved ones is on that bus.

I like how carefully you draw your lines. I notice you only want to count terrorist attacks in the United States itself.

How many terrorist attacks have targeted Americans in the last 5 years? How many terrorist attacks have happened on American controlled territory in the last 5 years? In fact, more Americans have died in terrorist attacks in the last 5 years than in all of Bill Clinton's 8 years.

So the number of terrorist attacks has increased sharply, the number of deaths due to terrorism has increased sharply and you want to credit Bush because they didn't happen on US soil. Even if you don't count 9/11, more Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks under George Bush than any other president in history. Maybe that's why he doesn't get any credit. He doesn't really deserve it.

49...

See this is funny a legitamate answer and your goin to not count it??? Troll go back to your bridge your answer was given, but because you dont like it and the person is a newcomer you arent going to acknowledge it!!!!!!

Oh yea I guess i make 50 and 51!!

I think this topic has been pretty well covered in this thread.

I answered your question. You asked why Bush doesn't get credit. My answer was because he doesn't deserve it, because under his administration more Americans have died in terrorist attacks than under any other president in our history. That's why he doesn't get any credit. He hasn't kept Americans safe from terrorist attacks.

I did acknowledge that he tried to answer the question honestly, but it is not "my" answer it is "an" answer to the questions.

It wasn't my original intention to try to measure the lack of reasonable discourse that pervades the sandbox, it just happened.

I wish Craig luck on the forum, and I'm hoping he'll stick with it so I can tell how accurately I can judge how long it will take him to develop his fear of every "leading" question, and develop his psychic ability to predict other forum member's opinions and answers on every issue. The line is currently about 300 posts.

Oh, and I do appreciate it when you guys do the counting yourselves. It saves a little load on the forum server.

That is a pretty high standard you've set there. I'm pretty sure I won't be able to wait that long on this thread, but maybe by buds Alby, Stankleberry, Korg or Hiro Queso will carry on my work here.

Okay, I've stopped giving the benefit of the doubt now. He's trolling.

If you'll go back and check the thread, you'll find that you knew from the opening post exactly what the point of my "leading" questions were. You knew what all my answers would be to those questions, you knew what my political positions were, and you knew that I absolutely don't care about anyone else's opinion.

You never answered my questions directly and went off into ridiculous territory trying to guess what my angle was.

At what point do you consider this "giving me the benefit of the doubt."

54...

Still no response from Groucho on my answer. Odd, he takes so much trouble to count the posts here, I figured he'd at least take a minute to respond to mine.

So I'll restate it. Bush gets no credit for there not having been a terrorist attack in the USA because Americans are still being killed in record numbers by terrorists outside the USA. For many of us, perhaps not for Groucho, though, when Americans are killed in a terrorist attack, it's the deaths that we find important, not the geographic location. The president has failed to keep Americans safe on American controlled territory outside the political borders of the United States. When Americans are beheaded in Iraq, a country under US military occupation, it is a bizarre example of political spin doctoring to cry, "It didn't happen on this side of the border!"

Proving that old saying "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" to be true.