John H. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:56:20 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:
So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today?
Never said that. But the history that counts starts today.
Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I
didn't buy the car today?

Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.
Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many
liberals think Iraq was a bad idea.
--
Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing
what Rush thinks is right.
I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are
thinking alike on this issue.

As long as we all understand whose war it is now.
--
John H
Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone
started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first
place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no
bearing on what happens now?

It's BO's war. He could have been out long ago. Makes no difference
who started it.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

Right, I forgot, in conservative view, if history makes Bush look bad,
then by gawd there IS no history.