- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
Economic Left/Right: -7.25, Authoritarian/Libertarian:-7.13
All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume. -Noam Chomsky
Merriam-Webster Dictionary ~ Definition of Partisan1: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially: one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
2 a: a member of a body of detached light troops making forays and harassing an enemy
b: a member of a guerrilla band operating within enemy lines
As I am not with any particular party and my lean under my name clearly shows that I am Independent your continuous use of the word partisan is completely wrong.
Am I against Obama? Most certainly I am. But I certainly am not against him because of some party affiliation. I am against him because I do not like the huge majority of his policies. It is quite possible to be against the POTUS because of just his policies. You are basically trying to make something out of my posts that is clearly not there in order to write off what I am saying. You are of course quite free to write off what I am saying, that is your perogative. But I would certainly appreciate it if you stop attributing something towards me which is just not true.
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
So, we can answer the following question. What do you call blasting the current President for not bailing out Borders, and admitting that you despise the bailouts and would also disapprove of Obama if he engaged in such an action while simultaneously ignoring the fact that Dubya is just as guilty as Obama here? I'd label any such comments as definitely ultrapartisan.
Poll: Most Americans Against Bush's Bailout Plan - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com). All Obama is guilty of doing is supporting (and continuing) the Bush proposal. Right or wrong, both are to blame.
Secondly, I don't need to know your post history nor who you are as a poster to recognize an ultrapartisan comment when one is presented. And I didn't accuse you of being a birther or labelling our President as a Muslim. I made a joke about your ultrapartisan comment, saying that if you are going to engage in such silliness, you could at least add those two things to make it humorous for the rest of us. Perhaps we should dissect both your comment and my reply in order to get us both on the same page.
Anyhow, after this post, I am going to assume that you realize why your earlier comment was ultrapartisan, that President Bush was the one behind the bailouts, and that you will avoid any such errors or ultrapartisan comments in any future debates.
Last edited by Singularity; 07-21-11 at 06:27 AM.
I'd be happy to join in and note that GM had little to do with saving jobs but Kal'Stang wonders why since Obama says he saved those jobs why not save these 11,000 jobs also? That's a lot of jobs is it not?
Involving the government where it does not belong is going to lead to questions like this. Not liking something that a president does can only come from ultrapartisanship?
Last edited by 1Perry; 07-21-11 at 06:36 AM.
As has been stated by DiAnna, the paper book industry has been hit incredibly hard by e-books. Even before then, they had been reduced by the internet and webpages.
Borders couldn't adapt. However, B&N has been. They now sell the Nook e-reader and people can download e-books from their stores or from their home computer. Being able to download e-books from the store doesn't sound like a big deal - until you realize that not everyone of the Baby Boomer generation and older are not all computer literate. So they can still drive down to the store and get their Nook uploaded with B&N books and still use the store.
Also, B&N, I predict, will become less of your typical "book store" and more of an internet cafe for bibliophiles. B&N stores won't make much of their money by selling books - rather, they will make it by selling coffee and sandwiches and snacks for the people at their cafe.
So while Borders closes B&N will be fine. And it doesn't seem fair to lament the loss of a big book store when newspapers and the music industry have been suffering far worse since the proliferation of the internet.
Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.
So, given all this, now you can see why I pointed out the ultrapartisanship displayed in that original comment.