StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:20 AM) It took Obama more than 2 years to do anything. So... Dealing with global recessions and deciding whether or not to take threats from AQ seriously are not exactly the same category. There is nothing that prevented Bush & Co from giving credibility to those threats instead of dismissing them out-of-hand. Aside from their incompetence.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:16 AM) I don't believe 8 months into a term is a long enough time to blame or legitimately critique a sitting president. They've barely gotten started. Like I said, you won't give Bush 8 months to TAKE blame. But you've given Obama 4 years to GIVE blame. You have an agenda, whether you see that or not. It's pretty damn clear. Do you honestly think their obsession with Iraq was justifiable? Why can't incompetence like that be judged immediately? What reason do we have to believe that they would have changed their focus if the attack had been 9/11/02 instead?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:14 AM) I think judging a new president on 8 months in office is weak, whether it be about Obama or Bush, or anyone else. 8 months isn't a long time to acclimate for a job of that magnitude. Overall, I think Bush was a failure...that's based on both his full 4 and 8 year tenure... But 8 months...weak. Why can't we judge his policy decisions from day 1? It didn't take him 8 months to acclimate and decide that regime change in Iraq was #1 priority in foreign policy. That excuse doesn't fly.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:11 AM) Right, because in that 8 months, he had NOTHING else to do but sift through those reports. Because apparently that's what you're saying. That's what I'm saying? Link please. This wasn't a tactical decision. It was a strategic one. He was able to make the huge strategic decision to ignore Clinton's outgoing team and focus on Iraq on Day 1. Holy non sequitor, Batman! Global economic collapses aren't the same thing as whether or not to lend credibility to any threat evaluations that don't involve Saddam and WMD's. As is yours.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:10 AM) When you come up with some, I'll let you know. But what you have right now is weak minded. You're saying that in 8 months, with everything that job entails, from domestic to international, that he had the time to make perfect decisions on some threats that may or may not have been true? Give me a break. I've said that? I'll ask for a quote. What I've said is that they were incompetent and hyper-focused on Iraq. What the article I posted said is that the CIA couldn't believe their hyper-focus and went to lengths to try to dissuade them of it. I've explicitly said that it still may not have been possible to connect all of the dots but their incompetence guaranteed that they would not. How is that not legitimate criticism? Do you think their focus on Iraq was justifiable? Their crazy scenarios?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:08 AM) Wow, 8 months! For a new president, it takes about a year to even settle into the job, let alone sift through wads of information like this. You're being purposefully dishonest in order to further your anti-Bush agenda...that's pretty damn apparent. And it's still weak minded. You're smarter than this/better than this IMO. What on earth am I being dishonest about? I did not ever say or imply that he was in office for 5 years before 9/11. I said he and his administration were incompetent. They were. His record over 8 years bears that out. This most recent revelation, about their bizarre scenarios to jettison their cognitive dissonance, only adds one more layer to many that are already there. I'll ask again, is there any possible criticism of Bush pre-9/11 that you would feel is legitimate? Or is it entirely off-limits? Should terrorists and state enemies plan their attacks for every President's first year since apparently that's a free pass year?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:06 AM) Because he was in office a grand total of 8 months before 9/11 hit. That's why. A grand total of 8 months of ignoring reports and warning signs and pissing off the intelligence community with stupid s*** like saying OBL cooperated with Saddam in false-flag operations. Amazingly negligence because they were hyper-focused on their policy goals and couldn't fit anything else into their world view. It seems weak-minded to dismiss any and all criticism of Bush pre-9/11.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 09:02 AM) It's weak minded because you make it sound like GW was in office for 5 years, concentrating on Iraq, and ignoring AQ...when that's simply not true. He wasn't in office long at all when 9/11 hit...it's stretching the truth to suit your agenda...and that's pretty damn clear...and petty. He was in office a WHOLE 8 months before 9/11. Enough said. A WHOLE 8 months they ignored AQ and focused on Iraq because they were a bunch of incompetents. Enough said. Is there any possible criticism of Bush pre-9/11 that isn't "weak-minded?"

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 08:57 AM) I disagree, and for the reasons I've already stated. This is entirely weak minded reasoning in hindsight. IE, it's easy to blame them now, but this happened so early on into his administration, it's as if you're pretending they ignored threats from AQ for YEARS because they were focused on Iraq...it's just twisting reality to suit your agenda. GW was hardly in office when 9/11 hit...you make it sound the exact opposite. It's fabrication and stretching of truth, and like I said, weak. Where is the fabrication or stretching of truth? They were briefed on the seriousness of AQ by Clinton's outgoing team. They ignored it and focused on Iraq. Could they have reasonably connected the dots? Maybe. But they sure as hell weren't going to be able to if they were conjuring up such bizarre scenarios as Bin Laden running false-flag operations for Saddam. That didn't make a damn bit of sense pre- or post-9/11, and it appears that many in the CIA were exasperated that they were being so ridiculous. Is there any possible criticism of Bush for his pre-9/11 policies that would not be weak-minded?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 08:57 AM) I disagree, and for the reasons I've already stated. This is entirely weak minded reasoning in hindsight. You haven't given any reasons, just claimed that it is so. What is weak-minded about reviewing the CIA memos and talking to inside sources? What is weak-minded about reviewing the information released from within the administration that indicated their policy priorities? It seems to me that you're essentially saying that it's impossible to criticize what they did pre-9/11.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 08:48 AM) I'm sure, but threats of terrorism from that group have been ongoing for years prior and even after the attack. Right, but the story that's come out in the years since 9/11 is that his administration basically ignored those threats despite Clinton's team's warnings. They focused on Iraq and their PNAC project instead. How is criticizing Bush's foreign policy and intelligence blunders even remotely like birtherism? How is their obsession with Iraq that blinded them to anything else not an "actual" issue? What is more important than how their administration viewed foreign policy and intelligence about domestic threats?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 08:41 AM) I use Google for a few things, namely: Chrome (not on iOS, however, I use Safari) Gmail (I have my own domain that runs email for my family on gmail servers since it's free, my email address is @.com, which is pretty cool) iGoogle (which is going away next year) YouTube Search Google's "My Tracks" is nice for hiking/riding/running/etc. You can export your GPS tracks to google maps and google earth.

He works in intelligence, yes. GW and his administration deserves every shot possible over this. With the National Security Archives releases a year or so ago and now this latest article that quotes several still-classified memos, it's abundantly clear that his administration was focused on Iraq from the day they took office. They could not conceive of other types of threats and saw regime change in Iraq as their main foreign policy goal even before 9/11. This isn't about their terrible half-truths and lies to drum up support for invading Iraq in 2003 but their entire mindset. The CIA had to write memos that specifically addressed the bizarre idea that Bin Laden was running a false-flag operation against the US to distract them from Saddam. Those memos were, apparently, ignored. That's how narrow Bush's (and Rumsfeld et al.) view was. It's not monday-morning QB'ing to look back and see what their pre-9/11 memos said. It's not looking at the 8/6/01 memo in complete exclusion from everything else and saying "they should have known!" It's looking at the pattern; it's seeing the memos that indicate Colin Powell was aware that regime change in Iraq was a priority three days into the administration; it's seeing new memos and insiders coming forward to express the same sentiments, that they were singularly focused on Iraq; it's seeing the information that shows their first thoughts after 9/11 were "invade Iraq." How Bush ever got a positive reputation when it came to foreign policy and counter-terrorism will always be baffling.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 12, 2012 -> 08:15 PM) And also I use Google everything so I'm inclined to use an Android to begin with Same

Fyi lostfan works directly in this field. saying that they get a bunch of threats doesn't address the single-mindedness of that administration, though. They literally couldn't conceive of al q type terrorism as a serious threat, only on Saddam and his fictional wmd's. Bin laden did not fit into their world view.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 12, 2012 -> 05:11 PM) Apparetly this post of mine earlier is incorrect, that pastor had nothing to do with the video despite early reports to the contrary and it's basically someone under a pseudonym who no one really knows, who produced the original youtube videos. That pastor was responsible for promoting it. The people who were in it are claiming they were deceived and that the script was rE written and dubbed over their acting. http://gawker.com/5942748 http://news.yahoo.com/may-no-anti-islamic-...-210300477.html

Multiple media outlets are reporting significant progress made last night, both sides hopeful that it could end today or tomorrow. http://www.wbez.org/news/economy/school%E2...ss-talks-102395

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 12, 2012 -> 09:44 PM) America doesnt apologize, by definition we are always right. This thread owns

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 12, 2012 -> 08:44 PM) Nah, just let me have a presser, not answer any questions, and hop on Air Force One to do more fundraising like nothing happened. Meanwhile, let's grill the other candidate for actually having balls to take a stand. It seems like priorities are screwed up here. The other candidate was grilled for being a moron and making s*** up again.

I don't know if this is better or worse than people who argue over which gaming consoles are better.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Sep 12, 2012 -> 04:31 PM) If the CTU was represented by somebody that you could gravitate toward it would help their cause greatly. This seemed to be the case in the 1980's as well when they went on strike annually. They need a spokesperson to explain the situation not just stand there and tell me how wronged they are. One of their leaders was calling some plan or another "RACIST!"

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 12, 2012 -> 04:10 PM) Nope, but hiring ex-educators who have no stake with either CPS or CTU would. No, it wouldn't. You're not talking about anything either CPS or CTU has a problem with. I don't think either side has an issue with peer review, and if they do, it's not the only issue.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 12, 2012 -> 04:06 PM) Oh its the nuclear option. You make a proposal that no one likes, and then 2 parties sit down and realize they better come up with a solution. This is how judges resolve cases every day. You tell 2 parties if they dont agree, Im coming up with a solution you will both hate. They tried arbitration this summer but both sides rejected the conclusion.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 12, 2012 -> 04:04 PM) What if a Superintendent said I did? What if teachers have requested me to come to classrooms to teach? What if I have passed all of the teacher certification tests? Do I have enough requisite knowledge then? Or is the only way Im qualified to be on the CPS payroll? I just want to know what you think the rules should be for evaluating teachers. Because Im just not clear why if this is the most important issue, 2 sides cant sit down and resolve it. The issue they're disputing isn't your plan to hire outside evaluators.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 12, 2012 -> 04:01 PM) Sadly, his point is valid. That's the mentality of a lot of teachers. They b**** and moan and you'd think they were putting in 12 hour days, when in reality they're doing what normal people do on a daily basis, but it's a culture shock since they've been sitting on their asses for 2.5 straight months. He also said a first-year teacher, so it's probably someone who's been in college for the last four years.