Talk:Cut and run

message: Someone has removed an illustration of usage (quote):
As such, the phrase can be used to good effect as follows:
ADVOCATE: I believe we should withdraw our troops from Iraq because our objective, deposing Saddam, has been achieved and because our original rationale, that he possessed WMD, has proved to be unfounded.
OPPONENT: Hoo hooo! Dude, I can't believe that you would want to stoop so low as to cut and run!
(endquote) and marked the article as of poor quality. Removing the quote lowers the quality and it's unclear to me what is wrong with it. It contrasts a straightforward argument with simple name calling, a major feature of our political discourse today.
When President Bush said in the 2004 election campaign "We're not going to cut and run," he was intentionally insinuating that his opponent was a coward, unlike himself. But to include such examples in an illustration of the term introduces personalities, implications, and levels of complexity which simply muddy the water. Is it relevant that Bush was AWOL during his national guard duty, and that he used family connections to get a non-combat role in the guard in order to escape the draft during the Vietnam war?
Or maybe the lowlife character of the opponent is objectionable. Let's try it with some upper class type:
OPPONENT: My dear fellow, it is plain to see that you fail to grasp the complexities of today's world. What you advocate is to, ahem, cut and run.
Better?
Or maybe contemporary usage of the phrase is too controversial to be discussed in today's politically charged atmosphere. I don't get it.
Torquemada2 21:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is, this article is probably better suited to Wiktionary, since it's just a phrase and its definition, with an example of usage. I don't think there's going to be enough substance here to make this more than a stub. Whether it's here or in Wiktionary, though, examples of usage should be real, not concocted. If you have other questions, just let me know! | Klaw ¡digame! 22:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing that Washington might have been called "Old Cut and Run" is nonsense. If you want to use an example of the phrase in common parlance, find an article where the term was used and put that in. Sentences with "might have" in them are generally discouraged on Wikipedia as weasel words.| Klaw ¡digame! 23:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see the point of your question. I haven't proposed we delete this article - not yet, anyway - but I'm saying it needs to be improved by including something substantive. Arguments about whether this thing or that thing qualify as "cutting and running" don't help. Put in some verifiable facts about the phrase cut and run - when it first appeared, examples of its use by writers or speakers (real examples, not ones you made up), etc. Otherwise, this article is just a dictionary definition, and this phrase is already in Wiktionary . | Klaw ¡digame! 05:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's all irrelevant. Can you turn this into an actual encyclopedia article or not? As I see it, it's a dictionary definition and should be deleted per WP:NOT. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better suited to Wiktionary? 

message: Thanks for the welcome.
Regarding Congressman Murtha, why is giving information about him pushing a point of view? He's just been called a coward on the floor of congress and someone unfamiliar with his case might think "Well I guess it's so." It seems entirely relevant to indicate that the man is a retired marine with combat experience in two wars. And his proposal isn't to abandon Iraq to the wind, it's to create a rapid reaction force "over the horizon."
And it goes to the point of the article in illustrating a case of unjustified scorn being heaped on someone. Otherwise what is the point of including Congresswoman Schmidt's remarks, that such a phrase had currency in November 2005?
Torquemada2 17:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Murtha

message: Considering.
**Last item of discussion is 1 year old.
**Article is short, mild but informative enough.
**From a controversy perspective it makes little sense to have much more information whatever side you're on (if pejorative why increase the coverage?). 
*** If needed create an entry "cut and run controversy", "cut and run in America 21st century politics", "Bushism,", "Bush controversies","Iraq my foot", etc..whatever  you like to call it.  
*Conclusions: Dont see the point to keep it tagged. If required,use a more precise tag.
*Googling: Wikipedia ref. appears in position 3 and 4.
Dilane 00:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untagged 

message: Just creating a quick list of Wikisource texts of political speeches and of examples before or in 1850 for later reference
* Royal Naval Biography: O'Neill, Terence, Woollnough, Joseph Chappell (1823)
* The narrative of a voyage to the Swan River (1831)
* Dombey and Son (1848-9)
* A Naval Biographical Dictionary/Hickman, John (1849)
* David Copperfield (1850)
* Presidential Radio Address by Ronald Reagan (1984)
* Senator Edward M. Kennedy floor remarks on Iraq  (2004)
* National Strategy for Victory in Iraq from the United States National Security Council (2005)
* Moving Forward In Iraq by Barack Obama (2005)
* Hulshof: Declaring That the United States Will Prevail in the Global War on Terror (2006)
* A Way Forward in Iraq by Barack Obama (2006)
* Floor Statement of Senator Gordon Smith on Iraq (2006)
~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various Wikisource texts