The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 94

Thread: Revisionism ala Ronald Reagan

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    I gave you the choice between whackjob and someone who rationally disagrees. You declined to answer (although I've got my hunch). Answer, don't answer....I'm not holding my breath either way.
    I did not decline to answer; I simply deferred my answer until you answer my question which was proffered to you first.

    You tried to answer my question with a question. That is not responsive or the way productive conversations occur.

    Still waiting for your answer regards

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ducknwork View Post
    Can you really not grasp the concept that he is trying to get through your noggin? Hew NEVER said anything about the invasion being justified. His point is that it was only possible because 9/11 happened...not justified because of 9/11. There is no way that someone with such thin skin has such a thick head.
    Bush 43 would have found a way to start a war with Iraq to get rid of Saddam even if 9/11 had never occured. It was his number one priority from his first day in office as told by Paul O'Neill Bush's Treasury Secretary.

    “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

    “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

    As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

    "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

    And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.


  3. #53
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ducknwork View Post
    Can you really not grasp the concept that he is trying to get through your noggin? Hew NEVER said anything about the invasion being justified. His point is that it was only possible because 9/11 happened...not justified because of 9/11. There is no way that someone with such thin skin has such a thick head.
    So only Hew gets to set the rules of discussion? Okay.

    That is an irrelevant fact, true as it may be, but does NOT justify anything, and THAT is what I AM discussing. You cannot prove that we would NOT have found another bogus reason to invade Iraq, can you? CAN YOU???

    I can't, so I don't pretend to.

    If we can't agree on what the issue even is, then perhaps we should both just save some bandwidth?
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  4. #54
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    Bush 43 would have found a way to start a war with Iraq to get rid of Saddam even if 9/11 had never occured. It was his number one priority from his first day in office as told by Paul O'Neill Bush's Treasury Secretary.

    “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

    “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

    As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

    "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

    And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.


    Very nice citation. Unfortunately, they won't engage in that discussion, but rather obsess on irrelevant axioms and feed-back loop logic. Hey, Bush is their Messiah, and can do no wrong! He even got to sit next to another Texas icon, Jerry Jones during the Superbowl! That proves he was right....right?
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  5. #55
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    If we can't agree on what the issue even is, then perhaps we should both just save some bandwidth?
    You running away from POTUS again??
    Bill Davis

  6. #56
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,549

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    Very nice citation. Unfortunately, they won't engage in that discussion, but rather obsess on irrelevant axioms and feed-back loop logic. Hey, Bush is their Messiah, and can do no wrong! He even got to sit next to another Texas icon, Jerry Jones during the Superbowl! That proves he was right....right?
    Bush a Messiah...show me one person on here who thinks that way...Jerry Jones is no Texas icon, he is from Arkansas, the only person that thinks he is an icon is Jerry himself...you know DNF some times your hatred for all things Texas rears its ugly head, no sure why and really dont care, but it blurs your ability to have a rational debate
    All my Exes live in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  7. #57
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huntinman View Post
    You running away from POTUS again??
    And give up his moderator duties?

    Say it isn't so regards,
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marvin S View Post
    We had a discussion prior to POTUS about the low quality of Bush 43 appointees. O'Neill was a prime example, what has he done since writing the book no one other than yourself may have read.

    But do us all a favor - The last three POTUS who wore an R behind their name had, IMO, declining quality in their cabinets. Why don't you post those cabinets, a chance do something on your own without being spoon fed & we'll discuss. This thread is supposedly about Reagan, IMO one who got his job from AUH20's pioneering effort, & forgot what his veto pen was supposed to do.

    I've worked a lot for large corporations, there are those whose established reputation was going against the grain. Some show success, generally they are individuals who have little to offer, which was my opinion of O'Neill. But Bush 43 never did have a Treasury Secy worth his salt.
    Here is an interesting article about the Reagan Administration.

    http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

  9. #59
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BonMallari View Post
    Bush a Messiah...show me one person on here who thinks that way...Jerry Jones is no Texas icon, he is from Arkansas, the only person that thinks he is an icon is Jerry himself...you know DNF some times your hatred for all things Texas rears its ugly head, no sure why and really dont care, but it blurs your ability to have a rational debate
    My claiming Bush is the republican Messiah is just like many here saying Obama is mine! As long as I hear that, I'll continue to label Bush as your side's messiah. Its also as patently false as saying I have a hatred for Texas. I grew up there and love the Lone Star state to this day. Like any other place, it has its faults as well. Unfortunately, one of its biggest mistakes became president.
    And sorry, I understand your resistance to having Jerry named as a Texas icon, but the owner of the self-procalimed "America's Team" is an icon. A poor one at that, but an icon. I'm from the Houston area, so never cared too much for Dallas in the first place.
    Last edited by dnf777; 02-08-2011 at 08:47 AM.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    So only Hew gets to set the rules of discussion? Okay.

    That is an irrelevant fact, true as it may be, but does NOT justify anything, and THAT is what I AM discussing. You cannot prove that we would NOT have found another bogus reason to invade Iraq, can you? CAN YOU???

    I can't, so I don't pretend to.

    If we can't agree on what the issue even is, then perhaps we should both just save some bandwidth?
    How does you not understanding the point he is making equate 'setting the rules of discussion'? You lost me there, chief.

    As for the rest of your response, I'll save breath and bandwidth because it's obvious you can't 'get it'. (In my best JDog impression)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •