I suppose you would have been the British officer that ordered the charge of the Light Brigade. A charge into the cannons on both sides of the dead ended valley will only chew up and make a bloody pulp of fine cavalry.
Given the strong emplacement and the inability to take the high ground, a better course is to post snipers and knock off as many officers as stick up their heads above the ramparts.
The basic assumption, a win, is fallacious. Kill what you can, while you can and make the cavalry charge on better ground.
I see, we lost the battle but can win the war...right. How did that work out for the CSA at Bull Run.
“I suppose you would have been the British officer that ordered the charge of the Light Brigade. A charge into the cannons on both sides of the dead ended valley will only chew up and make a bloody pulp of fine cavalry.”
How **exactly** does pushing for larger cuts, and shutting down the government for few days to let the dems feel the heat and seriousness of the situation kill our troops?
Or, if you meant the above analogy figuratively, how **exactly** does pushing for larger cuts as I’ve explained “chew up and make a bloody pulp” of our figurative “fine cavalry”?
The implication of your assertion is that a Republican hard push to cut spending is self-destructive. I ask you to observe that the **lack** of a Republican hard push to cut spending is self-destructive. Those within the American Right that want to compromise are self-destructive to the American Right.
Are you among those that want to compromise?
Second question: Who is this “fine cavalry” you speak of?
Hal Rogers?
Lindsey Graham?
John McCain?
If this is the “fine cavalry” that we make concessions to preserve, then I submit that “cavalry” is expendable. Why are these people tolerated in the Republican Party?
Are all of the Republican appropriators that were **forced** into the rhetorical place they are today by “extremists” like me “fine cavalry”?
I’m a little puzzled by how you feel your analogy holds water in the face of these two apparent inconsistencies.
“The basic assumption, a win, is fallacious.”
What? This sentence doesn’t even make sense. A win is fallacious? What the hell does that mean?
“Kill what you can, while you can and make the cavalry charge on better ground.”
He who cannot be trusted in small things should not be trusted in large things.
Going forward, Republicans, and the American Right in general need to learn the following phrase:
“Not good enough.”
It describes the deal Republicans made: We agree with them in principle. They were on the right side. They did fight the good fight, and they did achieve some things. But, unfortunately good is the enemy of great. Those who settle for good will never want to try to for great. In short, it was not good enough.
“It’s not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what’s required.” -Winston Churchill