Hoh resignation
-
See what you get, osusev?
-
See what you get, osusev?
See what you get, osusev?
Think of it this way Heck.
Sev spent most of the campaign insisting on a military man on the ticket when it looked like Hillary would walk away with it.
He gave up that requirement as he seemed to feel Barak Obama (after talikng the lead) had the wisdom to select military advisors.
Now that has changed. The president must choose between the generals and the left wing of your party.
I personally have doubts as to what we can accomplish in Afghanistan or even why but let me make two points.
First it had been a big deal for those who oppose Bush that he ignored that crucial war of necessity.
And second up til now the PR for the rest of the world as well as AQ's "opinions" and reaction to "recruiting tools" have been key talking points.
Maybe the outrage of the past could use some fresh air?
WSS
-
This is pretty dumb, Steve. Sorry, but it is.
Obama isn't choosing between the generals and the left-wing of the party. That's more of the over-simplified binary us-vs-them nonsense you need to frame every debate. Nor has he abandoned his military advisors. (Huh??) What's happening is a complicated discussion about what's achievable given the tools we have in our quiver, the military being one of them. It's funny that while you claim to be suspicious of what we can achieve in the region, you're also blaming Obama - who has far, far more information on his table than you're dealing with - for not agreeing that we need to send more troops just like some of the generals say. (Forgetting that other generals say something else.)
What's comical about the previous responses is the idea that we must always do what the generals say, and if we don't do what the generals say we're somehow abandoning the troops, or caving to Al Qaeda - or in your case, the left-wing of the Democratic Party. This is nonsense, and I'd hope you'd at least understand that. Generals don't make policy, and neither does the Pentagon. They carry out policies set forth by the administration and by Congress. Civilians control the military in this country, and the fact that this needs to be pointed out shows you how silly this discussion got, and fast.
Now, if Obama thinks the Generals are right, and what they say is achievable with more troops really is achievable, and that what they say is achievable is worth the costs in human lives and billions more in taxpayer money, then he should give the generals what they think is necessary to carry out the military aspects of the policy.
But what if he doesn't think they're right, and agrees with the dozens of other officials - some of them generals and military advisors as well - who don't think McChrystal is right? Obviously, then you wouldn't give the McChrystal what he's asking for.
The military is also just one facet of the policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the same way you wouldn't give free reign to the State Department or the CIA to determine what the policy should be, we don't give it to the Pentagon either.
That's why you have an entity at the top - the White House - who assembles all the military advice, the diplomatic advice, the intelligence information, the information from the NGOs, what it will cost, etc., and determines what the policy will be going forward. And that's what's happening now.
As for the last line, I don't think that's valid either. No one is worried about the opinions of "Al Qaeda". Al Qaeda is made up of mostly irretrievable fundamentalists. What the concern is, and always has been, is the impact our policy has on borderline Muslims, as well the moderate Muslims that our policies may force to become more hard line anti-US. The Bush administration did well on this point initially, working very hard to portray this as a war against Al Qaeda and its allies, not against Islam. But because of a series of policy and PR failures, that is not how it came to be viewed in the Muslim world, and that has real consequences for our policies, and whether or not they're likely to succeed.
The right doesn't seem to get this, because they love the jingoistic chest-thumping, and see arrogance as a virtue. But it's about time we had someone in office who understood how delicate a balance these things are, and not someone who sticks his head into Condi Rice's office and says, "xxxx it - we're taking Saddam out!"
Yes, I'm glad we're giving this one a bit more thought.
-
This is pretty dumb, Steve. Sorry, but it is.
Obama isn't choosing between the generals and the left-wing of the party. That's more of the over-simplified binary us-vs-them nonsense you need to frame every debate. Nor has he abandoned his military advisors. (Huh??) What's happening is a complicated discussion about what's achievable given the tools we have in our quiver, the military being one of them. It's funny that while you claim to be suspicious of what we can achieve in the region, you're also blaming Obama - who has far, far more information on his table than you're dealing with - for not agreeing that we need to send more troops just like some of the generals say. (Forgetting that other generals say something else.)
What's comical about the previous responses is the idea that we must always do what the generals say, and if we don't do what the generals say we're somehow abandoning the troops, or caving to Al Qaeda - or in your case, the left-wing of the Democratic Party. This is nonsense, and I'd hope you'd at least understand that. Generals don't make policy, and neither does the Pentagon. They carry out policies set forth by the administration and by Congress. Civilians control the military in this country, and the fact that this needs to be pointed out shows you how silly this discussion got, and fast.
Now, if Obama thinks the Generals are right, and what they say is achievable with more troops really is achievable, and that what they say is achievable is worth the costs in human lives and billions more in taxpayer money, then he should give the generals what they think is necessary to carry out the military aspects of the policy.
But what if he doesn't think they're right, and agrees with the dozens of other officials - some of them generals and military advisors as well - who don't think McChrystal is right? Obviously, then you wouldn't give the McChrystal what he's asking for.
The military is also just one facet of the policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the same way you wouldn't give free reign to the State Department or the CIA to determine what the policy should be, we don't give it to the Pentagon either.
That's why you have an entity at the top - the White House - who assembles all the military advice, the diplomatic advice, the intelligence information, the information from the NGOs, what it will cost, etc., and determines what the policy will be going forward. And that's what's happening now.
As for the last line, I don't think that's valid either. No one is worried about the opinions of "Al Qaeda". Al Qaeda is made up of mostly irretrievable fundamentalists. What the concern is, and always has been, is the impact our policy has on borderline Muslims, as well the moderate Muslims that our policies may force to become more hard line anti-US. The Bush administration did well on this point initially, working very hard to portray this as a war against Al Qaeda and its allies, not against Islam. But because of a series of policy and PR failures, that is not how it came to be viewed in the Muslim world, and that has real consequences for our policies, and whether or not they're likely to succeed.
The right doesn't seem to get this, because they love the jingoistic chest-thumping, and see arrogance as a virtue. But it's about time we had someone in office who understood how delicate a balance these things are, and not someone who sticks his head into Condi Rice's office and says, "xxxx it - we're taking Saddam out!"
Yes, I'm glad we're giving this one a bit more thought.
This is pretty dumb, Steve. Sorry, but it is.
Obama isn't choosing between the generals and the left-wing of the party. That's more of the over-simplified binary us-vs-them nonsense you need to frame every debate. Nor has he abandoned his military advisors. (Huh??) What's happening is a complicated discussion about what's achievable given the tools we have in our quiver, the military being one of them. It's funny that while you claim to be suspicious of what we can achieve in the region, you're also blaming Obama - who has far, far more information on his table than you're dealing with - for not agreeing that we need to send more troops just like some of the generals say. (Forgetting that other generals say something else.)
What's comical about the previous responses is the idea that we must always do what the generals say, and if we don't do what the generals say we're somehow abandoning the troops, or caving to Al Qaeda - or in your case, the left-wing of the Democratic Party. This is nonsense, and I'd hope you'd at least understand that. Generals don't make policy, and neither does the Pentagon. They carry out policies set forth by the administration and by Congress. Civilians control the military in this country, and the fact that this needs to be pointed out shows you how silly this discussion got, and fast.
Now, if Obama thinks the Generals are right, and what they say is achievable with more troops really is achievable, and that what they say is achievable is worth the costs in human lives and billions more in taxpayer money, then he should give the generals what they think is necessary to carry out the military aspects of the policy.
But what if he doesn't think they're right, and agrees with the dozens of other officials - some of them generals and military advisors as well - who don't think McChrystal is right? Obviously, then you wouldn't give the McChrystal what he's asking for.
The military is also just one facet of the policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the same way you wouldn't give free reign to the State Department or the CIA to determine what the policy should be, we don't give it to the Pentagon either.
That's why you have an entity at the top - the White House - who assembles all the military advice, the diplomatic advice, the intelligence information, the information from the NGOs, what it will cost, etc., and determines what the policy will be going forward. And that's what's happening now.
As for the last line, I don't think that's valid either. No one is worried about the opinions of "Al Qaeda". Al Qaeda is made up of mostly irretrievable fundamentalists. What the concern is, and always has been, is the impact our policy has on borderline Muslims, as well the moderate Muslims that our policies may force to become more hard line anti-US. The Bush administration did well on this point initially, working very hard to portray this as a war against Al Qaeda and its allies, not against Islam. But because of a series of policy and PR failures, that is not how it came to be viewed in the Muslim world, and that has real consequences for our policies, and whether or not they're likely to succeed.
The right doesn't seem to get this, because they love the jingoistic chest-thumping, and see arrogance as a virtue. But it's about time we had someone in office who understood how delicate a balance these things are, and not someone who sticks his head into Condi Rice's office and says, "xxxx it - we're taking Saddam out!"
Yes, I'm glad we're giving this one a bit more thought.
That's as clear an example of spin as we're gonna get.
More thought is needed. Yes indeed. He wants to see irf he can afford the political capital needed to back up the campaign promises or admit they were bogus.
And " Now, if Obama thinks the Generals are right, and what they say is achievable with more troops really is achievable, and that what they say is achievable is worth the costs in human lives and billions more in taxpayer money, then he should give the generals what they think is necessary to carry out the military aspects of the policy. "
Didn't take too long to decide the guy he hand picked to make those calls isn't competent.
I'm sure his background in coimmunity organization trumps the military.
I'd guess that spending as much time boasting about the need to win that there'd have been some thought beforehand.
But nope. He wanted to seem like a tough guy for the election.
In hindsight maybe he didn't even need to.
And no Heck I don't think it looks winnable.
Never did.
Then again I haven't spent the last few years carping about the lack of US troops in Afghanistan like the Democrats.
I guess he should have said he had no idea what to do there.
And lets not forget that a year or so ago generals were considered brave for disagreeing wiht the president who was a fool to not listen to his military exxperts.
Now they should bow to this Obamas expertise?
Please.
Maybe he shoulda been honest or put a yes man in charge.
What do you think?
(yeah I know...)
WSS
-
And just for fun, first Heck says:
"That's more of the over-simplified binary us-vs-them nonsense you need to frame every debate."
And soon after:
"The right doesn't seem to get this, because they love the jingoistic chest-thumping, and see arrogance as a virtue. "
Dual personalities from the psyche expert?
WSS
-
I guess it would be too much to ask for you to understand the points, especially the one about how you can only frame things as either/ors.
Obama has to do what McChrystal says or that means he thinks McChrystal's incompetent. That would be binary nonsense.
And somehow you imagine that all military experts say the same thing. Nor do you seem to know that these problems aren't just military problems. It's he does what he says or he's ignoring the military. More binary nonsense.
If in the campaign Obama criticized the Bush administration for diverting resources from the fight in Afghanistan to Iraq which caused the situation to deteriorate, and pledging to commit more troops once in office, the first part which is true, the second part is something he did within the first few months in office, he has to admit that the stuff he said was bogus?
Really? What did Obama say about Afghanistan in the campaign that you think is now bogus?
-
I guess it would be too much to ask for you to understand the points, especially the one about how you can only frame things as either/ors.
Obama has to do what McChrystal says or that means he thinks McChrystal's incompetent. That would be binary nonsense.
And somehow you imagine that all military experts say the same thing. Nor do you seem to know that these problems aren't just military problems. It's he does what he says or he's ignoring the military. More binary nonsense.
If in the campaign Obama criticized the Bush administration for diverting resources from the fight in Afghanistan to Iraq which caused the situation to deteriorate, and pledging to commit more troops once in office, the first part which is true, the second part is something he did within the first few months in office, he has to admit that the stuff he said was bogus?
Really? What did Obama say about Afghanistan in the campaign that you think is now bogus?
I guess it would be too much to ask for you to understand the points, especially the one about how you can only frame things as either/ors.
Obama has to do what McChrystal says or that means he thinks McChrystal's incompetent. That would be binary nonsense.
No.
McChrystal isn't incompetent.
I hire acontractor to do electrical work.
He says I need 12 3 romex.
I say "No, I want to use coathangers."
He isn't incompetent.....
And somehow you imagine that all military experts say the same thing. Nor do you seem to know that these problems aren't just military problems.
No they aren't Heck.
They're also political problems.
Mustn't piss of the base before you get the healthcare boondoggle through eh?
It's he does what he says or he's ignoring the military.
He's ignopring the expert he put in charge.
More binary nonsense.
If in the campaign Obama criticized the Bush administration for diverting resources from the fight in Afghanistan to Iraq which caused the situation to deteriorate, and pledging to commit more troops once in office, the first part which is true, the second part is something he did within the first few months in office, he has to admit that the stuff he said was bogus?
The part that assumes sending 130000 soldiersa to Afghanistan would have been a good idea?
Really? What did Obama say about Afghanistan in the campaign that you think is now bogus?
“We must never forget,” he said. “This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.
“So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”
Unless Kucinich says it isn't.
WSS
-
Oh, brother. Kucinich? Did you really just mention Dennis Kucinich? I really should stop trying to have an adult conversation with you. You simply can't do this on anything beyond an elementary level. I ask you to understand the distinctions, and you re-post the same stuff once again. And yet somehow i think you're going to step up your game one of these days. I have no idea why.
Obama still believes that, Steve. That's what the administration is trying to figure out. But then we'd have to get into a conversation about the different types of Taliban, trying to separate the ones we can deal with and the ones we can't, but why bother.
Then I ask you to see beyond the military aspects of this, and you go back to the same idea that this is just political. Honestly.
The man pledged to and then sent an additional 30,000 troops to the fight, and is considering sending anywhere between 10,000 and 80,000 more. And here you are suggesting he's gone back on this quote.
He's also not ruled on what to do next, and you're already accusing him of ignoring McChrystal's advice. It's almost like you work backwards from your personal animus.
Here's what I'll say, and you can reduce it to your talk radio level if you want: if Obama decides that the goals McChrystal sets out are achievable and desireable and worth the costs in lives and money, but then doesn't give him what he thinks he needs to do the job, that's when I'll be on his case. In short, if he says "I want to do what McChrystal says he can do, but I'm not going to give him what he needs to do it" that's a real problem that puts troops in danger.
This is what Bush did. He was told he needed more troops for an occupation, but they went in lean, assuming the best case scenario, getting it horribly wrong. They simply didn't plan for what happened, and had to make it up as they went along, with disastrous results.
Back to today, however, my sense is that they don't think the limited goals are worth the costs, or are even likely to be achieved if we do commit that many troops, especially given the political situation in that country. There's simply nothing to build off. I think they'll shift to a different strategy where they focus on the population centers and try and cut deals with local warlords and Taliban where they can, and maintain the drone and special forces attacks on the border and into Pakistan. That's something I could probably support, but not forever.
But I don't know what he's going to decide. And there's no good answer. He's choosing between painfully difficult and potentially disastrous.
-
Oh, brother. Kucinich? Did you really just mention Dennis Kucinich? I really should stop trying to have an adult conversation with you. You simply can't do this on anything beyond an elementary level. I ask you to understand the distinctions, and you re-post the same stuff once again. And yet somehow i think you're going to step up your game one of these days. I have no idea why.
Obama still believes that, Steve. That's what the administration is trying to figure out. But then we'd have to get into a conversation about the different types of Taliban, trying to separate the ones we can deal with and the ones we can't, but why bother.
Then I ask you to see beyond the military aspects of this, and you go back to the same idea that this is just political. Honestly.
The man pledged to and then sent an additional 30,000 troops to the fight, and is considering sending anywhere between 10,000 and 80,000 more. And here you are suggesting he's gone back on this quote.
He's also not ruled on what to do next, and you're already accusing him of ignoring McChrystal's advice. It's almost like you work backwards from your personal animus.
Here's what I'll say, and you can reduce it to your talk radio level if you want: if Obama decides that the goals McChrystal sets out are achievable and desireable and worth the costs in lives and money, but then doesn't give him what he thinks he needs to do the job, that's when I'll be on his case. In short, if he says "I want to do what McChrystal says he can do, but I'm not going to give him what he needs to do it" that's a real problem that puts troops in danger.
This is what Bush did. He was told he needed more troops for an occupation, but they went in lean, assuming the best case scenario, getting it horribly wrong. They simply didn't plan for what happened, and had to make it up as they went along, with disastrous results.
Back to today, however, my sense is that they don't think the limited goals are worth the costs, or are even likely to be achieved if we do commit that many troops, especially given the political situation in that country. There's simply nothing to build off. I think they'll shift to a different strategy where they focus on the population centers and try and cut deals with local warlords and Taliban where they can, and maintain the drone and special forces attacks on the border and into Pakistan. That's something I could probably support, but not forever.
But I don't know what he's going to decide. And there's no good answer. He's choosing between painfully difficult and potentially disastrous.
Oh, brother. Kucinich? Did you really just mention Dennis Kucinich? I really should stop trying to have an adult conversation with you. You simply can't do this on anything beyond an elementary level. I ask you to understand the distinctions, and you re-post the same stuff once again. And yet somehow i think you're going to step up your game one of these days. I have no idea why.
Obama still believes that, Steve. That's what the administration is trying to figure out. But then we'd have to get into a conversation about the different types of Taliban, trying to separate the ones we can deal with and the ones we can't, but why bother.
Then I ask you to see beyond the military aspects of this, and you go back to the same idea that this is just political. Honestly.
The man pledged to and then sent an additional 30,000 troops to the fight, and is considering sending anywhere between 10,000 and 80,000 more. And here you are suggesting he's gone back on this quote.
He's also not ruled on what to do next, and you're already accusing him of ignoring McChrystal's advice. It's almost like you work backwards from your personal animus.
Here's what I'll say, and you can reduce it to your talk radio level if you want: if Obama decides that the goals McChrystal sets out are achievable and desireable and worth the costs in lives and money, but then doesn't give him what he thinks he needs to do the job, that's when I'll be on his case. In short, if he says "I want to do what McChrystal says he can do, but I'm not going to give him what he needs to do it" that's a real problem that puts troops in danger.
This is what Bush did. He was told he needed more troops for an occupation, but they went in lean, assuming the best case scenario, getting it horribly wrong. They simply didn't plan for what happened, and had to make it up as they went along, with disastrous results.
Back to today, however, my sense is that they don't think the limited goals are worth the costs, or are even likely to be achieved if we do commit that many troops, especially given the political situation in that country. There's simply nothing to build off. I think they'll shift to a different strategy where they focus on the population centers and try and cut deals with local warlords and Taliban where they can, and maintain the drone and special forces attacks on the border and into Pakistan. That's something I could probably support, but not forever.
But I don't know what he's going to decide. And there's no good answer. He's choosing between painfully difficult and potentially disastrous.
You're right about the merits of an adult conversation Heck.
You can't bring yourself to be honest about this guy.
He could have said this war looks like a no win situation.
He could have made the same observations as Sev.
Instead he took the political opportunist route and posed as Patton.
So he found out it will be harder to back up his empty rhetoric than he thought and is looking for an excuse to bail.
Can't say that's the wrong approach but the flip is pretty clear. He didn't need to put on the facade in the first place.
Most Americans are tired of the wars and his left base (represented by Kucinich and rthe rest) were against them from the start.
You guys on the left might consider not trying to "out Hawk" the right during campaing mode.
and
" This is what Bush did. He was told he needed more troops for an occupation, but they went in lean, assuming the best case scenario, getting it horribly wrong. They simply didn't plan for what happened, and had to make it up as they went along, with disastrous results. "
Actually Rumsfeld was more along the lines of get in get out and screw the nation building.
That was the guy he entrusted.
The hard left was against the surge were you not?
And you guys hated Bush right?
WSS
-
This is what you're worried about? Honestly? I thought there was more to it than that.
It's just your usual grumbling about how, despite sending 30,000 more troops, and likely sending even more than that, Obama isn't living up to his campaign rhetoric that this is a fight worth fighting? And your evidence for this is ...stuff that you make up in your head that hasn't happened yet, and some that will never happen. And over-simplification. But what else is new?
Of course, some (or even most) of that campaign rhetoric was directed at the Bush administration for diverting resources away from the fight against the people who actually attacked us, and that's just true. Are you suggesting he can't point that out? That moving military and intelligence resources away from the fight in Afghanistan in 2002-2003 was a bad idea? Is that against your made up rules of conduct?
But don't worry - you can keep pretending you've got a point here. It allows you to continue with your theme: you're a clear-eyed realist, and I just can't be honest about the empty suit - all while you agree with what you think his decision will be, but find a way to hate him for it anyway. How's that for bringing yourself to be honest about the guy?
Kill me now.
-
It's just your usual grumbling about how, despite sending 30,000 more troops, and likely sending even more than that, Obama isn't living up to his campaign rhetoric that this is a fight worth fighting? And your evidence for this is ...stuff that you make up in your head that hasn't happened yet, and some that will never happen. And over-simplification. But what else is new?
Certainly not your ususal argument:
"Whatever Obama chooses to do is the right thing."
But your plan for Afghanbistan?
You said before no more troops right?
But you support stepping up the drones as I recall.
OK
So Obama appointed the wrong general.
Oops.
Now if Obama sends the troops and things aren't better is he a cowboy?
How about when the drones kill more civilians? A war criminal?
And finally as you demended to know once"
How do YOU define success?"
WSS
(Maybe he oughta wait til after the 2010 elections.)
WSS
-
Steve, this kind of stuff interests me little. I've already written two posts in this thread that show where I might disagree with Obama on this, and have in the past as well. Doesn't matter to you. You're still going to go with the tired quip about how I worship everything he does no matter what. It's so boring. Not to mention submental.
Everyone sane left for another board. It's quite nice over there. Perhaps I should leave you with T and Cal and you guys can talk about empty suits and Mao and swine flu conspiracies all you like.
-
Steve, this kind of stuff interests me little. I've already written two posts in this thread that show where I might disagree with Obama on this, and have in the past as well. Doesn't matter to you. You're still going to go with the tired quip about how I worship everything he does no matter what. It's so boring. Not to mention submental.
Everyone sane left for another board. It's quite nice over there. Perhaps I should leave you with T and Cal and you guys can talk about empty suits and Mao and swine flu conspiracies all you like.
Steve, this kind of stuff interests me little. I've already written two posts in this thread that show where I might disagree with Obama on this, and have in the past as well. Doesn't matter to you. You're still going to go with the tired quip about how I worship everything he does no matter what. It's so boring. Not to mention submental.
Just as you reply with the same shit.
Are you really oblivious to that?
C'mon. Really?
Everyone sane left for another board. It's quite nice over there. Perhaps I should leave you with T and Cal and you guys can talk about empty suits and Mao and swine flu conspiracies all you like.
As you wish Heck.
I've seen the "I hate Lumbergh" board.
It's just great.
90% "aren't we cool?"
I imagine the political part where you and Shep and the others try to out do each other in repeating the party line is truly fascinating.
But I imagine you go pretty much unchallenged over there and that's the idea isn't it?
Hey Am I on the "enemies list?"
WSS
-
We haven't talked politics over there once. It's not a political board. But hey, you got one more "party line" line in!
And Steve, it's not that I don't like talking to people who disagree. I do that all the time. It's that I don't like talking to people who don't disagree well.
-
Heck - your judgement of "disagreeing well" means leaving you with nice opens for researched responses
and that don't give you serious backing into a corner.
Your blase' ego building here must be frustrating... you're like DA trying to be a qb...
Say, did you ever answer the question about whether or not you, mz the pussy, Shep and Al
met each other somewhere else, like maybe a Hollywood socialist griping forum or something?
All four of you seem like ANTI family values/God/Republicans/dissent against dumb liberalism/capitalism/military/common sense...
and you three never had much of any kind of sense of humor.
Though, mz the pussy was funny a few times.
....
seems to me, a common thread there.
I don't know if you ever said how you are a Browns fan. Or if mz the pussy ever did. Or Al.
Just a lot of distant observations from you three critical of everything you are anti about...
and say, how's that supporting Van Jones goin for ya?
Props to Shep - he IS a Browns fan, legimately.
-
BTW, for the record, Heck, - go back and look - I wasn't in this thread before.
Until today, I never posted in this thread.
So, you just had to try to demonize T and I, to do the same to Steve,
because that's all you have ?
Wait, when do you complain that I interrupted your misguided banter to Steve?
Just so I don't miss it - it's the bye week, you know...
-
We haven't talked politics over there once. It's not a political board. But hey, you got one more "party line" line in!
And Steve, it's not that I don't like talking to people who disagree. I do that all the time. It's that I don't like talking to people who don't disagree well.
We haven't talked politics over there once. It's not a political board.
So why pimp it here?
I barely post on TBB these days.
What's the topic I'm missign?
Quinn DA?
Bernie Vinnie?
But hey, you got one more "party line" line in!
Yeah Heck.
<<but find a way to hate him for it anyway. >>
<< I should leave you with T and Cal >>
Repetition's terrible ain't it.
And Steve, it's not that I don't like talking to people who disagree. I do that all the time. It's that I don't like talking to people who don't disagree well.
Oh, uh, well.
Then bring more to the table than Cal and T barbs.
WSS
-
Yep, that's all I ever do. In four years of posting. Cal and T barbs. If only I'd ever write about real issues.
-
If only I'd ever write about real issues (without being a sold out liberal suckup). Fixed for Heck
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login