Dugger doesn’t count US troops as part of ‘us.’

Yeah, mostly. But it happens with all presidents and you can have an endless argument about how much credit an executive should get for what happens on his watch and even indirectly, ‘per’ his decisions. In other words, if we don’t ‘credit’ Bush with keeping the homeland safer (after 9-11), do we give FDR credit for getting us out of the depression, winning WWII, Clinton for his economy, JFK for the moon, etc.

And I completely disagree re OBL. I think if there was any way he could hit us, he would. Hard. But I sure as hell don’t know for sure.

I quoted no one (“you quote your unspecified “democrats” entire foreign and domestic policy as “we hate bush”, ). Read it again if you doubt.

You said the democrat policy was “We hate Bush.” You did, in fact, put those three words in quotes. To correctly use quotes, you have to be actually, you know, QUOTING something. Part of my point was that you were using quotes and not quoting anything, intentionally suggesting that somehow “we hate bush” is actually incorporated in that form in some relevant democratic strategy memorandum or policy initiative or something.
…oh actually, the only other way you could have legally used the quotes like that is if you were being ironic, and given that your suggestion that democrats have nothing but bush hate to offer is patently false, it is possible that is the case.

And do you need me to point out the error in this?
“Fourth, as you in fact acknowledge it is a coincidence that these two things occurred simultaneously, but a demonstrable correlation cannot be shown.

Actually I appreciate you pointing it out, should have said “a demonstrable causation cannot be shown,” a point you actually seem to agree with. Thank you for catching my mistake, will remind myself to proofread before hitting submit next time.

I would and do accept that no one has proved ‘causation’ – but the correlation (complementary correspondence) is certainly there. If the person responsible for keeping us safe, takes announced steps to keep us safe, and we, in fact, are safer (after 9-11), that man gets the credit – even though causation is not technically proven.

…so wait I dont get it… are you saying that the coincidental correlation is proof that Bush has kept us safer? Or are you saying he’s getting credit for something he’s not necessarily done?
But hey, heres a thing, for as long as Ive been eating at the Chick-Fil-A at least five times a week, I havent gotten gonorrhea. Since I am the one principally responsible for my not getting gonorrhea, I can state unequivocally that my Chick-Fil-A diet protects me from it. Do you not agree?

And do you really, really believe Bin Laden COULD successfully attack us now and is not choosing to? OBL?? Come now.

Um, yes basically. Biding his time, as it were. See, he’s not interested solely in causing any american casualties he can, he wants to use what casualties he can cause to terror-ify us into giving him what he wants, which in this case is a war he cant lose due to the very nature of it that he can use to recruit a larger and larger army in the name of spreading his own twisty brand of evil. What do you find so hard to believe about this?

Oh stop it Dugger, you sack of successful shit. From the MITP:

Incident Date: July 28, 2006
Description: One woman was killed and five other injured when Naveed Afzal Haq, a Muslim-American man, opened fire on the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building in downtown Seattle. Haq entered the building, expressed his anger toward Israel and the US war in Iraq, and began shooting. Haq allegedly told police that it was a hostage situation and wanted the US to get weapons out of Israel. Haq eventually surrendered to police and was taken into custody. He now faces either life in prison or execution.

Incident Date: May 5, 2005
Description: Two “unsophisticated” grenades exploded outside a building that houses the British consulate in New York City. The devices were made of two plastic grenades packed with gunpowder and lit by hand. Both detonated, causing the windows of the building to shatter and a large chunk of concrete to blow out of the flower box where the devices were planted. There were no reported injuries. This attack came on the same day that voters in Britain are voting in national elections. Authorities in New York warned that they are still unsure if the British consulate was the intended target, as the building also houses a number of other businesses and companies.

Incident Date: July 4, 2002
Description: Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian-born man, opened fired at the El Al Israeli Airlines ticket counter at the Los Angeles Airport (LAX), killing two people and wounding three others. Early reports from police and witnesses recount that Hadayet shot the El Al ticket agent, turned his weapon on passengers in line, was then tackled and subdued by a guard who was reportedly stabbed by Hadayet, and was finally shot at by an El Al security guard. CNN reports that US authorities believe that Hadayet espoused anti-Israeli views, opposed US policies in the Middle East, and conducted the attack in the efforts of being a martyr. The victims of the attack were all reportedly Israeli.

According the MIPT there have been successful terrorists attacks on US soil since 9-11.

If you want to argue otherwise you’ll have to explain to us all why the MIPT is no longer a valid source for such information, or why, it is a valid source of such information for the Clinton years but not the Bush years. http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp

Being a successful sack of shit I doubt you will even address the question.

I quoted no one (“you quote your unspecified “democrats” entire foreign and domestic policy as “we hate bush”, ). Read it again if you doubt.

And do you need me to point out the error in this?

“Fourth, as you in fact acknowledge it is a coincidence that these two things occurred simultaneously, but a demonstrable correlation cannot be shown. Correlation without causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc) is another logical fallacy, but you seem to be fond of those.”

If so, let me know (I’m thinking its a typo and I have no moral authority to criticize typing skills).

I would and do accept that no one has proved ‘causation’ – but the correlation (complementary correspondence) is certainly there. If the person responsible for keeping us safe, takes announced steps to keep us safe, and we, in fact, are safer (after 9-11), that man gets the credit – even though causation is not technically proven. Same with Bubba’s economy (God, I’ve said this before. I think he rode the Internet Bubble, but it don’t matter. He was in charge – he gets the credit. Likewise Bush.)

And more.

You said ‘attacks’. I said ‘successful attacks’. There is a difference. No president, no leader, ever, will be able to stop all terrorist ‘attacks’.

And do you really, really believe Bin Laden COULD successfully attack us now (its possible that Bin Laden sees no net benefit in attacking) and is not choosing to? OBL?? Come now.

Dugger

Anthrax attacks?

And which of Bush’s anti-terrorism policies that have, COINCIDENTALLY, coincided with no successful attacks on US soil since 9-11, do you guys plan on ditching?

Thirdly, “coincidentally coincided” is just fucking stupid of you.
Fourth, as you in fact acknowledge it is a coincidence that these two things occurred simultaneously, but a demonstrable correlation cannot be shown. Correlation without causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc) is another logical fallacy, but you seem to be fond of those.
Fifth, lets actually examine that for a sec, okay? Ignoring Anthrax, yes, there have been no US attacks since 9/11. However, worldwide terrorist attacks have gone up basically every year since. 2004 was the highest on record (after they had announced that it was in fact the lowest, but realized they forgot to count like two months out of the year) and 2005 was even higher. And yet, the US hasnt really been affected. It is possible this is because they are fended off by Bush’s awe inspiring brush-clearing powers, or its possible that Bin Laden sees no net benefit in attacking. He wants a war, we have given him one. If he attacks, we’re likely to remove bush from power, do you agree? and if that happens, likely get someone in who would end the war, so therefore Bin Laden loses. Just a possibility to consider.
Lastly, it is telling that the only defense of domestic economically seems to be the lowering of the unemployment rate, a number known to be a poor indicator of job strength, much less economic strength.

OMG, that’s the funniest fucking thing I’ve read all week.

From
Dugger:

“The kids have given up arguing that ‘nobody is advocating invading Pakistan’. Even frame-the-frantic-hater asserts ‘Pakistan fits the profile of a country that we should invade’.”

What I actually wrote:

“Now I’m not advocating invading Pakistan but if we’re supposed to take the Bush Doctrine seriously, and I’m assuming that Bush and his supporters do, Pakistan fits the profile of a country that we should invade.”

Another case in point, by your own standards, based on the MIPT database, this statement of yours:

And which of Bush’s anti-terrorism policies that have, COINCIDENTALLY, coincided with no successful attacks on US soil since 9-11, do you guys plan on ditching?

Is demonstrably
false. Any reasonable comparison between the Bush administration record post 9-11 and the Clinton administration record post the WTC bombing would show remarkably similar results, with the exception of higher US casualties on Bush’s watch because of the sheer magnitude of 9-11.

The Democrats sadly remained on the sidelines in the recent torture debates but many are on record opposing torture, illegal warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, kangaroo courts for detainees etc. etc. None of which make us safer, all of which hurt our moral standing in the world, not to mention fly in the face of the Constitution and our founding principles.

So before you start getting all huffy why don’t you try not being a lying sack of shit yourself.

“maybe as a starter you could just come up with anything better to say than “Democrats exist solely to hate Bush”"

Maybe as a starter you could go to the trouble of quoting me correctly. But be that as it may, what is the Democratic policy on Iraq, then? Stay the course? Surrender now? Surrender next Tuesday? (please forego the Orwellian phrase “strategic redeployment” – leaving the battlefield to the enmy is surrender). All I hear is how horrible Bush is – not why what we are doing is wrong and what would be better to do. Same with domestic policies. And which of Bush’s anti-terrorism policies that have, COINCIDENTALLY, coincided with no successful attacks on US soil since 9-11, do you guys plan on ditching? No matter what you do, you want make us any safer at home – no matter what. But you are still going to scr*w with it?

With no techno-bubble, yet a very good, low unemployment rate, which of his economic polices will you ditch? How many new taxes will you levy upon labor and business?

I don’t hear these issues being addressed. I hear every sort of imaginable evil about Bush being promulgated (oh, he went down to Texas and cooked up this war with his oil buddies, etc etc, he had knowledge of 9-11) – but no substance. And yes I fully understand that Democrats want to put Republicans (John Kerrys ‘liars and crooks’) in jail. Maybe thats your policy.

The Democrats will have to dumb it down as the Regressives have done so successfully in order to get their message to stick.

As far as I can see, the party will remain ineffectual until those that supported the war in 2002 start to deal with their having supported the war, rather than behaving as if it’s somehow ill-mannered to bring it up.

I know this sounds like pop psychology, but that doesn’t make it untrue.

Look at Dugger with his Democrats have no foreign policy crap. Maybe he could lay out what the Bush policy is for us, because all I see is a bunch of invasions with deteriorating occupations, deteriorating relationships with our traditional allies, and countries lining up to oppose us.

Pick any issue and you get two or three sound bites repeated endlessly with no variation and it tends to dominate the political landscape and frame the debate.

Last presidential election Kerry could have won in a landslide if he focused on simple points with little nuance, and painted Bush with simple characterizations like: No ObL, No WMDs, no Credibility. And continued to hammer it in. People don’t want nuance, aren’t generally informed enough to understand it, and want simple solutions or sound bites to reassure them. Trying to prove yourself to be better informed than everyone just doesn’t work.