Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Didn't work for the global warming crowd, does your logic no favors here.
The GW people decided, as a policy matter, to change the focus of their speech to "now that GW has been completely accepted by every single smart unbribed Real Scientist In The World . . ."
It's laughable.
Now you say "the more obvious it becomes that Bush's policies are a complete failure . . ."
It's laughable. You can't simply announce your unfounded, unsupported conclusion, and then offer to discuss the consequences of the conclusion as if they're foregone.
(Well, I guess, obviously you CAN. I mean, no real person who has a rational mind uses it as his main tactic.)
|
Compare what Bush & Co. said the invasion of Iraq would accomplish, and the timeframe in which they proposed to achieve those accomplishments, with reality. (You remember reality, don't you?)
Judged by the standard Bush & Co. set, "complete failure" is probably generous on my part. (Note: Bush doesn't get credit for depriving Iraq of WMDs. That was Clinton.)
As for global warming -- good analogy. Some people think that global warming is the product of a vast, world-wide conspiracy of a few thousand climate scientists (along with a Republican governor here, the CEO of the largest investor-owned utility there, etc. etc etc). Other people seem to believe that the only reason anyone thinks Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. are anything short of perfect is a vast, world-wide, liberal media conspiracy tjat fails to report all the good news from Iraq.* These two groups have a lot in common, including your membership.
*oh, I forgot -- this makes them traitors.
Threaded Mode