In order: I did no such thing and you can't demonstrate/support that beyond the declaration of it. So there.
:sigh:
Agreed. I rarely jump to conclusions...say, like you did with the odd racist line.
You might want to rethink that. The conclusion you have jumped to is that conventional wisdom actually is.
I don't, but I know you love to generalize and declare things. My point was that in doing so you weren't being accurate. This peculiar rush you make to find insult or extremism where none is might go to the old underdog position that is so often assumed by conservatives, frequently against the facts at hand...
Nope. Carefully selected facts do lead to a conclusion, not necessarily an accurate one.
I think credit to or against a President is a little like the praise or condemnation given a QB, but in any event he was the President who guided the nation through both, so by party line I take it you mean the one generated by the lion's share of historians.
I could care less about "lion's share of historians", especially when they render political opinions under the cover of objectivity.
And? In this case that party line is supported by most historians of the period and the GDP.
:darwinsm: Facts begone! We have consensus!
Should I laundry list the counter and intone similarly?
oly:
You may if you wish. So far, it's been accusation, argument flipping, etc.
Okay, that's not a parallel...it's a man you wouldn't put two cents behind the veracity of making a statement that suits your purpose and so you find him credible in the moment. Uh-huh.
lain:
Marginalize, minimize, dismiss and move on. You are consistent.
Re: the economic collapse.
A number of things really, from financial institutional misconduct, to an absence of political oversight/foresight or will. And in the midst of its descent we started a war with a sink hole for a budget that we pretended didn't exist when it came time to set out expenses. There's blame to go around on that one, over decades and differing administrations.
Oooooooooo. About that "love to generalize and declare things ..."
Of course you aren't going to give him a chance. Doesn't make it pap, but it does set your opinion in context.
:darwinsm: Marginalize ...
Do you feel marginalized, minimized and dismissed?
It's funny for you to try that again given what I pointed out at the end of your last. So this would be your escape clause, I'm guessing.
Guessed wrong. Trying to assign your tactics to me is called "argument flipping." Nice try.
Great, so now you believe me. :squint:
I believe your opinion is your opinion.
If you mean socialized medicine where have I called for it? If you mean government involvement in guaranteeing universal healthcare, it bothers me less than people not having any does.
Distinction without a difference.
Were you upset when Reagan created the notion or is this just another way attacking the current President to do so?
:darwinsm: Comrade Obama is following a "notion" put forth by Reagan?
Unaccountable? In what way? They advise and answer to the President, who can't himself spend a dime of taxpayer money without Congressional oversight and approval.
Comrade Obama will not allow his "Czars" to testify in Congressional oversight hearings. They do not simply advise, they have executive authority. Nice job of confusing the issue with appropriations oversight.
Less than the alternative.
Which is?
You do or you don't, with regard to my word. In the meantime I'll continue to honestly relate my position, without allegiance to either political pole.
:darwinsm: I'm sure you'll do the first half.
On the plus side, you make my wife giggle every time any of you try to tie me into that nonsense (she's an actual liberal).
Ah, the old repeat a thing often enough and maybe someone will believe it nonsense. Just giving you context. Liberals find people who call me a liberal amusing....so would I were I of their number.
WOW! You're getting all over the map! From your wife giggle to Herr Goebbels ear!
Said the man who moments ago decried attempts to "Marginalize, minimize, dismiss and move on."
Another argument flip. How many does that make now? Two? Three? More?
I thought it a fairly spot on counter by way of illustrating a bit of hypocrisy on your part. See, it was offered in response to your
"I wish I could afford the "believing what I want"" which was an attempt to do exactly the thing you mischaracterized in my own particular answers.
Alrighty! You've played the Hypocrisy Card! Unresponsive to anything in particular, but, hey, we're all comrades here. :chuckle:
I'll agree that you, in matters of politics, appear to be enslaved to a conclusion...even before any contrary facts arrive.
I don't so much do it as recognize it. Your own writing makes that case in any event. :e4e:
:darwinsm: More vacuous accusation. Guess I'll have to leave it at that. :cheers: Nice talking at you, Comrade.
