On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:28:45 -0500 Robert Naiman <[email protected]> wrote: > Shouldn't the fact that the Iraq war was a consequence of George W. > Bush becoming president, although that consequence was not apparent in > 2000, inform how we judge the likely consequences of Mitt Romney > becoming president?
This is a museum-quality example of how Democratic Party apologists assume they know the answers to hypothetical questions. Apparently it goes without saying that Gore 'would not have' attacked Iraq, and it goes without saying that Obie, if re-elected, 'would not' attack Iran. I wish I was as certain as this about many things less involved in obscurity. Faith is a great thing, but the Democratic Party seems a somewhat undeserving object for it. It doesn't seem terribly likely to me that either Romney or Obie will attack Iran, for what that's worth. But it's far from clear that either is less likely to do it than the other. And what's with this 'barbarians at the gates' metaphor? The barbarians are not at the gates. The barbarians run the city. Every Senator is a barbarian, every Praetorian is a barbarian, every proconsul and curule aedile and prothonotary is a barbarian. It's barbarians all the way down. Even before the barbarians decisively won, the anti-barbarians were barbarians themselves. -- -- Michael J. Smith [email protected] http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://www.cars-suck.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com Any proposition that seems self-evident is almost certainly false. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
