Tom Brady and the NFL

Originally posted by Robtard
To your edit.

Either overdramatic nor reaching.

Yes, the vote to wage war on Iraq and remove Saddam was from both sides, that's never been in contention.

The not-truths (since Righties freak out when you say "lie) that lead to those votes going through were from the Bush cabinet.

Oh my

Neither*

So what's your point? That it happened on Bush's watch? But then when someone mentions Obama spent 6 years driving our economy into the ground and increasing national debt to historic proportions, it's because he had to make up for Bush's deficiencies? Which one is it or are you applying double standard?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Neither*

So what's your point? That it happened on Bush's watch? But then when someone mentions Obama spent 6 years driving our economy into the ground and increasing national debt to historic proportions, it's because he had to make up for Bush's deficiencies? Which one is it or are you applying double standard?

It's not a double standard though, it's just facts. Bush did start the wars...the crash/recession did start before Obama took office.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not a double standard though, it's just facts. Bush did start the wars...the crash/recession did start before Obama took office.

The other fact is that a large number of democrats supported the war AND Obama drove the economy into a much deeper hole for the first 5-6 years.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Neither*

So what's your point? That it happened on Bush's watch?

But then when someone mentions Obama spent 6 years driving our economy into the ground and increasing national debt to historic proportions, it's because he had to make up for Bush's deficiencies? Which one is it or are you applying double standard?

You found a typo, +1 points to you.

My point is exactly what I said. The Iraq war was based on not-truths.

Is this more deflection from the Iraq war?

Originally posted by psmith81992
The other fact is that a large number of democrats supported the war AND Obama drove the economy into a much deeper hole for the first 5-6 years.

The first is correct, but partly based on falsified documents. The second is not really true, Obama did his best (in the face of unprecedented opposition) and enabled a relatively quick recovery.

Originally posted by Robtard
You found a typo, +1 points to you.

My point is exactly what I said. The Iraq war was based on not-truths.

Is this more deflection from the Iraq war?

I love the people who use the Iraq war as scapegoat, did you go to war Rob? If you didn't you really don't have a leg to stand on.

Is this more deflection from the Iraq war?

The first is correct, but partly based on falsified documents. The second is not really true, Obama did his best (in the face of unprecedented opposition) and enabled a relatively quick recovery

Originally posted by psmith81992
The second one is true if it took 6 years increasing national debt for a year and a half of a pseudo recovery. You have to place credit and blame equally.

That silly, of course there are clear differences between the two issue....

Originally posted by Bardock42
That silly, of course there are clear differences between the two issue....

The closest war you been to, is at the dinner table or deciding btw McDonalds and Burger King.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I love the people who use the Iraq war as scapegoat, did you go to war Rob? If you didn't you really don't have a leg to stand on.

I'm sorry, I live in America, am an American and pay taxes. I have a say same as you.

edit: Should have included "using your standards"

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The closest war you been to, is at the dinner table or deciding btw McDonalds and Burger King.

Yeah, you've been in a war and you have stupid opinions. The second one is the relevant one currently.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Looks like a cute cop out response. Congratulations 👆
I'm surprised you didn't edit your typo and scream "what typo" as usual.

Look again.

Huh? You've turned rather hostile already, you often do this when you're incorrect. Relax, we're having a polite discussion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That silly, of course there are clear differences between the two issue....

One gets blamed because it happened on his watch, the other one gets praise because he had to make do with what he had (ignoring the blame he gets on his watch). That's THE definition of a double standard.

So, uh, Tom Brady...

Originally posted by psmith81992
One gets blamed because it happened on his watch, the other one gets praise because he had to make do with what he had (ignoring the blame he gets on his watch). That's THE definition of a double standard.

But they are not equal situations. If you take your approach you can extend that to anything. Lets go Godwin on it "Hitler gets blamed cause the holocaust happens on his watch, but Abraham Lincoln gets praise because he had to make do with what he had and had to fight a ware to free the slaves, that's a double standard"

You have reduced it to meaninglessness. The actions and circumstances we are talking about are vital to the judging of the two situations.

Originally posted by Digi
So, uh, Tom Brady...

Blame Rob.

Originally posted by psmith81992
One gets blamed because it happened on his watch, the other one gets praise because he had to make do with what he had (ignoring the blame he gets on his watch). That's THE definition of a double standard.

See this is just not true.

Sure 9/11 happened on his watch; I don't blame Bush for that.

Starting the Iraq war on not-truths is an entirely separate animal.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, you've been in a war and you have stupid opinions. The second one is the relevant one currently.

My opinions are relevant to my country, yours are relevant to the peanut gallery.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Blame Rob.

Alright, my bad.

Let me amend my post and say "Condeleezza Rice going into US football. I have no problem with that."

So well get back on topic, fine by me.