07-04-2018, 09:30 PM
(07-04-2018, 09:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure you did. Then you changed objective to "something you could not deny giving him credit for". Seems like an impossible criteria to achieve if you refuse to give him credit for anything. As I said, you look in the mirror and think you're being open-minded.
I have noticed you haven't spoken on the Syria retaliation yet: Does that meet your standard of "objective"?
No, I didn't. You're reading more into that post then is there. And I didn't change the criteria. Objective would be that it would be seen as an improvement without any sort of bias involved. Since I was the one talking about it, I was referring to myself because if it were objective then I would be unable to deny him credit. Again, you are making assumptions and putting words in my mouth.
I thought I had covered the Syria thing earlier, though maybe not. Whether that was good or bad is subjective, not objective. Not just by my criteria, but by definition.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
