Then how about, just for once, you try explaining what you DO mean, rather than just complaining about "twisting words."

No no no! It's better to play the victim when you can't answer the questions.

:rolleyes:

And people wonder why I choose to not play nice with some of you.

:rolleyes:

Well, you ARE our chosen victim, don't you know. At least you've chosen to play that part.

Because we ask direct questions and challenge you to articulate your position fully, rather than rely on quips, soudbites, and lopsided editorials? Cripes, do you want me to go back over the last week and pull all of the direct questions you refused to answer and instead changed the subject?

I'm done playing the game of pretending it's charming and "just Neph". There are plenty of people on this board whose positions get misunderstood. You know what they do? They respond and clarify themselves. They don't whine that their "words are being twisted." So yeah, I'm done letting that crap slide. I'm going to call you on it every time because it's childish and unbecoming of this board which otherwise contains thoughtful and varied discussion of political views.

What I'm confused about about the whole Rumsfeld thing, is that for months and months Bush said that Rummy was doing a fine job and that he was staying. Now he accepts his resignation and then says that he couldn't do so before the election. Then he says that he knew he was going to let him go. So Bush lied. And flip-flopped, might I add. He was for Rumsfeld before he was against him...

One week before the election, Bush said there was no way he was getting rid of Rumsfeld. And yet, here we have evidence that it's been in the works, as you say, for months. I can't think of any clearer evidence that Bush was using Rumsfeld for party politics.

Par for the course for either party, of course.

What I don't get is Rumsfeld NOW admitting things aren't going well in Iraq. I mean, I really don't get it. Why is he saying that now? Did he believe that before the election and just wasn't saying it because he thought it would help the party? That seems...unlikely considering that the overwhelming indication was that the "staying the course" message was hurting the party a lot. Did he believe it and never say it because he didn't want to appear weak? That seems likely, but stupid considering that part of what's wrong in Iraq is that our leaders have approached it with pig-headed stuborness and one of the solutions is to simply back off and be open to the idea of altering course.

Or is he saying now because he FINALLY believes that, yes, people really are ticked off at the way he handled it and he's trying to save some face?

Some other reason? I'm baffled.

In my attempt to be more positive in my life (and failing the last couple of days :D) I must spin this thread to put dear Donald in a positive light for just a sec.



When he was younger he was a beefy hunk wrestler.
That's kinda hot.

:D

I'm not whining GD- I am refusing to participate in a conversation with a person who I feel deliberately twists things to be antagonistic.

This is not a huff- or whining. This is me not wanting to discuss things with you.