Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Johnathan
()
Date: February 26, 2009 09:27PM
I wasn't a fan of George Bush for awhile, but you know...in retrospect, things weren't really so bad. He did his best in a rough situation. When you compare it with the trajectory our country has been on in the last month (Thank you, President Hussein) and spending over a trillion dollars in just a month...George wasn't really such a bad deal. Sure, he wasn't the best speaker. He made the absolute best out of near apocolypse and I really don't have a problem with him, for the most part. Harriet Meyers though...that's unforgivable.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Johnathan
()
Date: February 26, 2009 09:30PM
But then theres...
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Johnathan
()
Date: February 26, 2009 09:31PM
Nevermind... I'm a dope. Sorry to waste everyone's time.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Jonathan Q Troll
()
Date: February 26, 2009 09:58PM
Johnathan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wasn't a fan of George Bush for awhile, but you
> know...in retrospect, things weren't really so
> bad. He did his best in a rough situation. When
> you compare it with the trajectory our country has
> been on in the last month (Thank you, President
> Hussein) and spending over a trillion dollars in
> just a month...George wasn't really such a bad
> deal. Sure, he wasn't the best speaker. He made
> the absolute best out of near apocolypse and I
> really don't have a problem with him, for the most
> part. Harriet Meyers though...that's unforgivable.
Okay, Troll. Nobody believes you.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wasn't a fan of George Bush for awhile, but you
> know...in retrospect, things weren't really so
> bad. He did his best in a rough situation. When
> you compare it with the trajectory our country has
> been on in the last month (Thank you, President
> Hussein) and spending over a trillion dollars in
> just a month...George wasn't really such a bad
> deal. Sure, he wasn't the best speaker. He made
> the absolute best out of near apocolypse and I
> really don't have a problem with him, for the most
> part. Harriet Meyers though...that's unforgivable.
Okay, Troll. Nobody believes you.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Jonathan Q Troll
()
Date: February 26, 2009 10:00PM
Johnathan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But then theres...
>
>
I would like to point out that the biggest increase in the debt under Obama is the fact he is actually counting the cost for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, something Bush kept out of the national debt numbers for years.
-------------------------------------------------------
> But then theres...
>
>
I would like to point out that the biggest increase in the debt under Obama is the fact he is actually counting the cost for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, something Bush kept out of the national debt numbers for years.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: February 26, 2009 10:06PM
Johnathan Wrote:
>>> I wasn't a fan of George Bush for awhile, but you know...in retrospect, things weren't really so bad.
I voted for George W. Bush in '00, and thought he was an OK president until it was clear we weren't ever going to find WMD in Iraq. Everything went down hill after that, including our economy. And now we got shit like Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin struggling for the spotlight.
In retrospect, the GOP is pretty fucking dumb.
>>> I wasn't a fan of George Bush for awhile, but you know...in retrospect, things weren't really so bad.
I voted for George W. Bush in '00, and thought he was an OK president until it was clear we weren't ever going to find WMD in Iraq. Everything went down hill after that, including our economy. And now we got shit like Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin struggling for the spotlight.
In retrospect, the GOP is pretty fucking dumb.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Poor American
()
Date: February 26, 2009 10:18PM
I hate to say it, but Barak Hussein Osama has yet to do anything for me.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Poor American
()
Date: February 26, 2009 10:25PM
I'm in the Pegggy Joseph camp. I thought that Mr. Obamassiah would be buying my gas and paying my mortgage by now!
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
dingo
()
Date: February 26, 2009 10:25PM
Poor American Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hate to say it, but Barak Hussein Osama has yet
> to do anything for me.
Well, he IS going to invest a lot in education so then, perhaps, you could get your GED and learn how to spell his name.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hate to say it, but Barak Hussein Osama has yet
> to do anything for me.
Well, he IS going to invest a lot in education so then, perhaps, you could get your GED and learn how to spell his name.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
huh
()
Date: February 26, 2009 10:49PM
Poor American Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm in the Pegggy Joseph camp.
You're a rug muncher too?
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm in the Pegggy Joseph camp.
You're a rug muncher too?
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Johnathan
()
Date: February 27, 2009 05:48AM
Just puttin it out there...no need to be hostile. Bush won two wars. Obama can't win his own birth certificate.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Doubtful
()
Date: February 27, 2009 06:48AM
Exactly which two wars did he win?
ANd if that's the case, why are more US soldiers dying every month since these supposed wins?
ANd if that's the case, why are more US soldiers dying every month since these supposed wins?
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: February 27, 2009 08:54AM
Johnathan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just puttin it out there...no need to be hostile.
> Bush won two wars. Obama can't win his own birth
> certificate.
Bush didn't win either war.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just puttin it out there...no need to be hostile.
> Bush won two wars. Obama can't win his own birth
> certificate.
Bush didn't win either war.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: February 27, 2009 03:57PM
We wont know if our soldiers spilled their blood in vain until at least 5 years after the last US soldier is kicked out...2011! Until then they are an occuped counrty...with traitors for politicians.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
dono
()
Date: February 27, 2009 04:33PM
No soldier died in vain - they died patriots serving their country when called. Though the mission may have been hapless, misguided, and tragic the call and answer to service is never in vain. It is essential to our freedom, our defense and our power in the world. We ask - they serve.
We do owe them as much truth as we can muster though. We need to understand Every time we call them why we have done so. In this case it is unclear our leaders true motives (sadly their abilities were poor in this regard). We may well have abused a trust with our soldiers, by calling them in vain but non of their sacrifice can, in my opinion, be viewed as in vain...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2009 04:36PM by dono.
We do owe them as much truth as we can muster though. We need to understand Every time we call them why we have done so. In this case it is unclear our leaders true motives (sadly their abilities were poor in this regard). We may well have abused a trust with our soldiers, by calling them in vain but non of their sacrifice can, in my opinion, be viewed as in vain...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2009 04:36PM by dono.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: February 27, 2009 04:42PM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnathan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just puttin it out there...no need to be
> hostile.
> > Bush won two wars. Obama can't win his own
> birth
> > certificate.
>
>
> Bush didn't win either war.
to be fair, after 9/11, we were not attacked again and we have done catastrophic damage to al queda. we havent won yet but we sure as hell havent lost.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnathan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just puttin it out there...no need to be
> hostile.
> > Bush won two wars. Obama can't win his own
> birth
> > certificate.
>
>
> Bush didn't win either war.
to be fair, after 9/11, we were not attacked again and we have done catastrophic damage to al queda. we havent won yet but we sure as hell havent lost.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: February 27, 2009 04:46PM
Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Bush didn't win either war.
>
>
> to be fair, after 9/11, we were not attacked again
> and we have done catastrophic damage to al queda.
> we havent won yet but we sure as hell havent lost.
To be fair, the war has done catastrophic damage to our economy.
Bin Laden is fighting a war of attrition. He doesn't expect to beat us militarily or by blowing up more buildings. He expects to beat us by bankrupting us the way he believes he bankrupted the Soviet Union during the war in Afghanistan. By that measure, we are most certainly losing.
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Bush didn't win either war.
>
>
> to be fair, after 9/11, we were not attacked again
> and we have done catastrophic damage to al queda.
> we havent won yet but we sure as hell havent lost.
To be fair, the war has done catastrophic damage to our economy.
Bin Laden is fighting a war of attrition. He doesn't expect to beat us militarily or by blowing up more buildings. He expects to beat us by bankrupting us the way he believes he bankrupted the Soviet Union during the war in Afghanistan. By that measure, we are most certainly losing.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Johnathan
()
Date: February 27, 2009 04:55PM
We're Winning because we are free, and they are eating each others turd in a cave somewhere.
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > >
> > > Bush didn't win either war.
> >
> >
> > to be fair, after 9/11, we were not attacked
> again
> > and we have done catastrophic damage to al
> queda.
> > we havent won yet but we sure as hell havent
> lost.
>
>
> To be fair, the war has done catastrophic damage
> to our economy.
>
> Bin Laden is fighting a war of attrition. He
> doesn't expect to beat us militarily or by blowing
> up more buildings. He expects to beat us by
> bankrupting us the way he believes he bankrupted
> the Soviet Union during the war in Afghanistan. By
> that measure, we are most certainly losing.
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > >
> > > Bush didn't win either war.
> >
> >
> > to be fair, after 9/11, we were not attacked
> again
> > and we have done catastrophic damage to al
> queda.
> > we havent won yet but we sure as hell havent
> lost.
>
>
> To be fair, the war has done catastrophic damage
> to our economy.
>
> Bin Laden is fighting a war of attrition. He
> doesn't expect to beat us militarily or by blowing
> up more buildings. He expects to beat us by
> bankrupting us the way he believes he bankrupted
> the Soviet Union during the war in Afghanistan. By
> that measure, we are most certainly losing.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Eastsider
()
Date: February 27, 2009 04:56PM
I score Bush with 2 no decisions. Obama is now on the hook in middle relief.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
dono
()
Date: February 27, 2009 05:01PM
Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a+div{visibility:hidden;position:absolute}WashingT
> one Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Johnathan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Just puttin it out there...no need to be
> > hostile.
> > > Bush won two wars. Obama can't win his own
> > birth
> > > certificate.
> >
> >
> > Bush didn't win either war.
>
>
> to be fair, after 9/11, we were not attacked again
> and we have done catastrophic damage to al queda.
> we havent won yet but we sure as hell havent lost.
Really, not so much Gravis see the 07 report http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/al.qaeda.report/index.html - its quite impossible to destroy international nomads, willing to live in caves, prone to doubling when cut down. Their purpose is to create conflict and we have obliged beyond their wildest dreams. I am not saying we did not have to go after Bin Laden in Afganistan - we did. But we needed to make him a symbolic figure knowing that you cannot eliminate that which multiplies exponentially when you kill a segment and not the whole.
-------------------------------------------------------
> a+div{visibility:hidden;position:absolute}WashingT
> one Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Johnathan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Just puttin it out there...no need to be
> > hostile.
> > > Bush won two wars. Obama can't win his own
> > birth
> > > certificate.
> >
> >
> > Bush didn't win either war.
>
>
> to be fair, after 9/11, we were not attacked again
> and we have done catastrophic damage to al queda.
> we havent won yet but we sure as hell havent lost.
Really, not so much Gravis see the 07 report http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/al.qaeda.report/index.html - its quite impossible to destroy international nomads, willing to live in caves, prone to doubling when cut down. Their purpose is to create conflict and we have obliged beyond their wildest dreams. I am not saying we did not have to go after Bin Laden in Afganistan - we did. But we needed to make him a symbolic figure knowing that you cannot eliminate that which multiplies exponentially when you kill a segment and not the whole.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
meme
()
Date: February 27, 2009 05:02PM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > >
> > > Bush didn't win either war.
> >
> >
> > to be fair, after 9/11, we were not attacked
> again
> > and we have done catastrophic damage to al
> queda.
> > we havent won yet but we sure as hell havent
> lost.
>
>
> To be fair, the war has done catastrophic damage
> to our economy.
>
> Bin Laden is fighting a war of attrition. He
> doesn't expect to beat us militarily or by blowing
> up more buildings. He expects to beat us by
> bankrupting us the way he believes he bankrupted
> the Soviet Union during the war in Afghanistan. By
> that measure, we are most certainly losing.
Am I alone in thinking that it's a little preposterous to think our gov't/intelligence could prevent a detonation of an explosive device here? I mean, I'm not talking about a plane flying in dramatic fashion into a skyscraper again but something like a mall or a train???
2 idiots (no offense to idiots) paralyzed the the whole DC Metro area during the Sniper era and we really think we can stop some type of terrorist activity here? Really?
Seems fishy to me.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > >
> > > Bush didn't win either war.
> >
> >
> > to be fair, after 9/11, we were not attacked
> again
> > and we have done catastrophic damage to al
> queda.
> > we havent won yet but we sure as hell havent
> lost.
>
>
> To be fair, the war has done catastrophic damage
> to our economy.
>
> Bin Laden is fighting a war of attrition. He
> doesn't expect to beat us militarily or by blowing
> up more buildings. He expects to beat us by
> bankrupting us the way he believes he bankrupted
> the Soviet Union during the war in Afghanistan. By
> that measure, we are most certainly losing.
Am I alone in thinking that it's a little preposterous to think our gov't/intelligence could prevent a detonation of an explosive device here? I mean, I'm not talking about a plane flying in dramatic fashion into a skyscraper again but something like a mall or a train???
2 idiots (no offense to idiots) paralyzed the the whole DC Metro area during the Sniper era and we really think we can stop some type of terrorist activity here? Really?
Seems fishy to me.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
dono
()
Date: February 27, 2009 08:25PM
Seems fishy because you have NOT - Fed your Industrial Military Machine today. Come on this is not even close - the fix is in. 'Terrorism' is the 'Big Mac' of the defense industry and Republican fear machine. Watch out the Hamburgler is right behind you!
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: February 28, 2009 08:43PM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be fair, the war has done catastrophic damage
> to our economy.
we have been at war for years and only recently has there been a major economic crisis. war is costly but the cost is directly to the government and is distributed and over a period of time. we both know the banks are to blame for the current situation of "holy shit, we're sinking! abandon ship!"
> Bin Laden is fighting a war of attrition. He
> doesn't expect to beat us militarily or by blowing
> up more buildings. He expects to beat us by
> bankrupting us the way he believes he bankrupted
> the Soviet Union during the war in Afghanistan. By
> that measure, we are most certainly losing.
and where are you getting this information? if you say "it's common sense" or some bullshit, just stfu. otherwise, do share with the class.
dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> its quite impossible to destroy
> international nomads, willing to live in caves,
> prone to doubling when cut down. Their purpose is
> to create conflict and we have obliged beyond
> their wildest dreams. I am not saying we did not
> have to go after Bin Laden in Afganistan - we did.
> But we needed to make him a symbolic figure
> knowing that you cannot eliminate that which
> multiplies exponentially when you kill a segment
> and not the whole.
im not saying we were going to outright destroy them but it will take time for them to reorganize. to destroy al queda, we dont have to kill every one of them, just kill enough that they cant reorganize. this wont stop them from joining another organization but it will stop al queda. anyway, what i am saying that we have kept them at bay. however, you are wrong about their cause being to make conflict, they want to kill as many of us as they can.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be fair, the war has done catastrophic damage
> to our economy.
we have been at war for years and only recently has there been a major economic crisis. war is costly but the cost is directly to the government and is distributed and over a period of time. we both know the banks are to blame for the current situation of "holy shit, we're sinking! abandon ship!"
> doesn't expect to beat us militarily or by blowing
> up more buildings. He expects to beat us by
> bankrupting us the way he believes he bankrupted
> the Soviet Union during the war in Afghanistan. By
> that measure, we are most certainly losing.
and where are you getting this information? if you say "it's common sense" or some bullshit, just stfu. otherwise, do share with the class.
dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> its quite impossible to destroy
> international nomads, willing to live in caves,
> prone to doubling when cut down. Their purpose is
> to create conflict and we have obliged beyond
> their wildest dreams. I am not saying we did not
> have to go after Bin Laden in Afganistan - we did.
> But we needed to make him a symbolic figure
> knowing that you cannot eliminate that which
> multiplies exponentially when you kill a segment
> and not the whole.
im not saying we were going to outright destroy them but it will take time for them to reorganize. to destroy al queda, we dont have to kill every one of them, just kill enough that they cant reorganize. this wont stop them from joining another organization but it will stop al queda. anyway, what i am saying that we have kept them at bay. however, you are wrong about their cause being to make conflict, they want to kill as many of us as they can.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: February 28, 2009 11:56PM
I guess if all you look at are Al Queda attacks in the US you can say we have kept them at bay. Gravis...you really have shown yourself to be a rather naive and uneducated soul on the goals of Al Queda...killing people is merely a symbolic gesture designed to entrap us an expensive war of occupation and attrition which eventually will drive us off Arab lands. This was their strategy with the RUssians in Afghanistan and now with us. GWB stupidly fell into their trap when he invaded Iraq, a war that has helped bankrupt this country. You can try and make the argument that the current crisis is caused by banks and thus unrelated to the Al Queda strategy to bankrupt us. But I do wish you and your republikan dregs could get your stories straight. The leadership of the republikan party is going around spouting off how Obama's stimiuls plan is going to bankrupt the country.
We have them at bay? Talk to the Pakistanies...talk to the Afghanies...thye are quickly spreading their efforts to what might have been their long term plans..to control the Pakistani atomic weapons.
And who do we have to thank for this.....GWB and his army of idiot followers.....you!
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/591.php?nid=&id=&pnt=591&lb=
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2009 12:12AM by Vince(1).
We have them at bay? Talk to the Pakistanies...talk to the Afghanies...thye are quickly spreading their efforts to what might have been their long term plans..to control the Pakistani atomic weapons.
And who do we have to thank for this.....GWB and his army of idiot followers.....you!
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/591.php?nid=&id=&pnt=591&lb=
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2009 12:12AM by Vince(1).
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
dono
()
Date: March 01, 2009 05:48AM
Gravis you are ignorant my friend. The Al Queda kool aid was invented for people like you to feed the machine. Keeping Al Quiada at bay does not require the entirety of the greatest military power on earth. Think about it for a minute.
If it does it is obviously not worth the lives or treasure - the ONLY way they win is for us to believe that we must throw Everything at them.
What a joke.
If it does it is obviously not worth the lives or treasure - the ONLY way they win is for us to believe that we must throw Everything at them.
What a joke.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: March 01, 2009 08:40AM
Gravis Wrote:
>>> and where are you getting this information? if you say "it's common sense" or some bullshit, just stfu. otherwise, do share with the class.
Bin Laden himself has explicitly stated a number of times that the goal of Al-Qaeda is to bankrupt the U.S.
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah
willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,.......We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled
Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat,........All
that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece
of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause
America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything
of note other than some benefits for their private corporations,
It's pretty scary how Bush & Co. completely fell into this trap.
>>> and where are you getting this information? if you say "it's common sense" or some bullshit, just stfu. otherwise, do share with the class.
Bin Laden himself has explicitly stated a number of times that the goal of Al-Qaeda is to bankrupt the U.S.
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah
willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,.......We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled
Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat,........All
that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece
of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause
America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything
of note other than some benefits for their private corporations,
It's pretty scary how Bush & Co. completely fell into this trap.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
dono
()
Date: March 01, 2009 09:24AM
Bin Laden is a well educated Saudi with royal blood. He knows well our military/industrial greed and he has tapped it masterfully. Had we spent our time and money on rebuilding the trade centers, the financial markets and our infrastructure he would be nothing.
I propose the next time they attack (and they will) we proclaim a war on bad bridges in the US and name them all after Al Qaeda 'prosperity is the ultimate weapon against terrorism' on every new bridge. Attack again, we build hydro-electric damns at war-time spending rates, again new roads for the US like it was war.
You really think they would keep attacking?
I do not.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2009 09:27AM by dono.
I propose the next time they attack (and they will) we proclaim a war on bad bridges in the US and name them all after Al Qaeda 'prosperity is the ultimate weapon against terrorism' on every new bridge. Attack again, we build hydro-electric damns at war-time spending rates, again new roads for the US like it was war.
You really think they would keep attacking?
I do not.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2009 09:27AM by dono.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Mary
()
Date: March 01, 2009 11:18AM
Because it looks like our wonderful new administration is granting the Chinese eminent domain as collateral for US debts. Yea you read that right. That means when we can no longer pay for all this massive spending the Chinese can call in the loans and take our land.
The thought that American citizens and businesses could lose their land as a means of payment is downright scary. I highly doubt ANY American citizen would have voted for Obama if they knew this was coming down the pike.
LiveLeak.com has the story and appears to have confirmation from both governments
The thought that American citizens and businesses could lose their land as a means of payment is downright scary. I highly doubt ANY American citizen would have voted for Obama if they knew this was coming down the pike.
LiveLeak.com has the story and appears to have confirmation from both governments
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: March 01, 2009 11:29AM
Hahahaha.... here's the source of this "eminent domain" conspiracy theory, so that all of you can see how crazy this Mary person is....
http://www.rense.com/general85/give.htm
Talk about lunatic paranoia.... sheesh....
In the likely case you find the article too nonsensical and disjointed to read, here's a real gem from it....
"Dot #2 Arch-illuminist and satanist Henry Kissinger "normalizes" trade relations with China during the Nixon years."
lol
Mary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because it looks like our wonderful new
> administration is granting the Chinese eminent
> domain as collateral for US debts. Yea you read
> that right. That means when we can no longer pay
> for all this massive spending the Chinese can call
> in the loans and take our land.
>
> The thought that American citizens and businesses
> could lose their land as a means of payment is
> downright scary. I highly doubt ANY American
> citizen would have voted for Obama if they knew
> this was coming down the pike.
>
>
> LiveLeak.com has the story and appears to have
> confirmation from both governments
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2009 11:29AM by TheMeeper.
http://www.rense.com/general85/give.htm
Talk about lunatic paranoia.... sheesh....
In the likely case you find the article too nonsensical and disjointed to read, here's a real gem from it....
"Dot #2 Arch-illuminist and satanist Henry Kissinger "normalizes" trade relations with China during the Nixon years."
lol
Mary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because it looks like our wonderful new
> administration is granting the Chinese eminent
> domain as collateral for US debts. Yea you read
> that right. That means when we can no longer pay
> for all this massive spending the Chinese can call
> in the loans and take our land.
>
> The thought that American citizens and businesses
> could lose their land as a means of payment is
> downright scary. I highly doubt ANY American
> citizen would have voted for Obama if they knew
> this was coming down the pike.
>
>
> LiveLeak.com has the story and appears to have
> confirmation from both governments
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2009 11:29AM by TheMeeper.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
dono
()
Date: March 01, 2009 01:20PM
Wow well there you have it. Mary I had no idea.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: March 02, 2009 07:46AM
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bin Laden himself has explicitly stated a number
> of times that the goal of Al-Qaeda is to bankrupt
> the U.S.
[...]
> It's pretty scary how Bush & Co. completely fell
> into this trap.
thanks for the info. however, what should we be doing, ignoring them?
dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keeping Al Quiada at bay does not
> require the entirety of the greatest military
> power on earth.
[...]
> I propose the next time they attack (and they
> will) we proclaim a war on bad bridges in the US
> and name them all after Al Qaeda 'prosperity is
> the ultimate weapon against terrorism' on every
> new bridge. Attack again, we build hydro-electric
> damns at war-time spending rates, again new roads
> for the US like it was war.
>
> You really think they would keep attacking?
>
> I do not.
wow... just wow.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2009 07:53AM by Gravis.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bin Laden himself has explicitly stated a number
> of times that the goal of Al-Qaeda is to bankrupt
> the U.S.
[...]
> It's pretty scary how Bush & Co. completely fell
> into this trap.
thanks for the info. however, what should we be doing, ignoring them?
dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keeping Al Quiada at bay does not
> require the entirety of the greatest military
> power on earth.
[...]
> I propose the next time they attack (and they
> will) we proclaim a war on bad bridges in the US
> and name them all after Al Qaeda 'prosperity is
> the ultimate weapon against terrorism' on every
> new bridge. Attack again, we build hydro-electric
> damns at war-time spending rates, again new roads
> for the US like it was war.
>
> You really think they would keep attacking?
>
> I do not.
wow... just wow.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2009 07:53AM by Gravis.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: March 02, 2009 08:20AM
Back to animals being tortured...how sweet!
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
dono
()
Date: March 02, 2009 08:29AM
Hey look its a Republican trying to gobble up the last of the tax-cuts-for-the-rich!
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: March 02, 2009 09:02AM
Gravis Wrote:
>>> what should we be doing, ignoring them?
We should have been focused on counter-terrorism, instead of wasting billions of dollars and thousands of lives "nation-building" Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the "war on terror".
I'm not saying we shouldn't be catching and killing terrorists, I just don't think the government really knew what the heck it was doing.
>>> what should we be doing, ignoring them?
We should have been focused on counter-terrorism, instead of wasting billions of dollars and thousands of lives "nation-building" Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the "war on terror".
I'm not saying we shouldn't be catching and killing terrorists, I just don't think the government really knew what the heck it was doing.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Johnathan
()
Date: March 02, 2009 09:56AM
BUt what about the Iraqis? Don't you care about what happens to them?
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> >>> what should we be doing, ignoring them?
>
>
> We should have been focused on counter-terrorism,
> instead of wasting billions of dollars and
> thousands of lives "nation-building" Iraq, a
> country that had nothing to do with the "war on
> terror".
>
> I'm not saying we shouldn't be catching and
> killing terrorists, I just don't think the
> government really knew what the heck it was doing.
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> >>> what should we be doing, ignoring them?
>
>
> We should have been focused on counter-terrorism,
> instead of wasting billions of dollars and
> thousands of lives "nation-building" Iraq, a
> country that had nothing to do with the "war on
> terror".
>
> I'm not saying we shouldn't be catching and
> killing terrorists, I just don't think the
> government really knew what the heck it was doing.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: March 02, 2009 10:15AM
Johnathan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>> BUt what about the Iraqis? Don't you care about what happens to them?
This war was not started because we cared about the people of Iraq. It's an oil-rich state, and Bush went there to settle an old score under the paranoid, phony pretense of WMD.
So to answer your question about whether I care about the Iraqi's: Not enough to justify an invasion of their country.
-------------------------------------------------------
>>> BUt what about the Iraqis? Don't you care about what happens to them?
This war was not started because we cared about the people of Iraq. It's an oil-rich state, and Bush went there to settle an old score under the paranoid, phony pretense of WMD.
So to answer your question about whether I care about the Iraqi's: Not enough to justify an invasion of their country.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Johnathan
()
Date: March 02, 2009 10:25AM
You're cold, man.
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnathan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >>> BUt what about the Iraqis? Don't you care
> about what happens to them?
>
>
> This war was not started because we cared about
> the people of Iraq. It's an oil-rich state, and
> Bush went there to settle an old score under the
> paranoid, phony pretense of WMD.
>
> So to answer your question about whether I care
> about the Iraqi's: Not enough to justify an
> invasion of their country.
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnathan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >>> BUt what about the Iraqis? Don't you care
> about what happens to them?
>
>
> This war was not started because we cared about
> the people of Iraq. It's an oil-rich state, and
> Bush went there to settle an old score under the
> paranoid, phony pretense of WMD.
>
> So to answer your question about whether I care
> about the Iraqi's: Not enough to justify an
> invasion of their country.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: March 02, 2009 10:28AM
Even the Iraquis think they are better off without us.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: March 02, 2009 10:39AM
Jonathan Wrote:
>> You're cold, man
Cold? Why, because I won't revise history by portraying the Iraq War as some kind of humanitarian cause?
>> You're cold, man
Cold? Why, because I won't revise history by portraying the Iraq War as some kind of humanitarian cause?
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
dono
()
Date: March 02, 2009 11:10AM
We have had our way with the Iraq - lets leave them to bury their dead and re-build starting from the Flintstone level we bombed them to. We got fully our sustainable bomb-proof embassy complex in Bagdadio.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: March 04, 2009 02:25AM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even the Iraquis think they are better off without us.
when they yelled, "the world is better off without you!" at you, they were not referring to the United states.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even the Iraquis think they are better off without us.
when they yelled, "the world is better off without you!" at you, they were not referring to the United states.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Common Sense
()
Date: March 04, 2009 02:58AM
Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thanks for the info. however, what should we be
> doing, ignoring them?
Actually, if you understand what the whole point of terrorism really is, then yes, we ignore them.
"the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear"
I've been saying this since the mid 1990's, "If you don't react to terrorism, you take away the power of the fear they hope to exploit." -- Now, I'm not saying to pretend nothing ever happened. You prosecute anyone involved with the act of terrorism, but you definitely do not change your laws, or invest large sums of money and resources as a reaction to the act. By doing so, you are providing the result that was the goal of the terrorist.
Terrorists aim to undermine free societies by forcing the people to bargain for security by sacrificing freedom. Plain and simple.
-------------------------------------------------------
> thanks for the info. however, what should we be
> doing, ignoring them?
Actually, if you understand what the whole point of terrorism really is, then yes, we ignore them.
"the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear"
I've been saying this since the mid 1990's, "If you don't react to terrorism, you take away the power of the fear they hope to exploit." -- Now, I'm not saying to pretend nothing ever happened. You prosecute anyone involved with the act of terrorism, but you definitely do not change your laws, or invest large sums of money and resources as a reaction to the act. By doing so, you are providing the result that was the goal of the terrorist.
Terrorists aim to undermine free societies by forcing the people to bargain for security by sacrificing freedom. Plain and simple.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: March 04, 2009 06:49AM
Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Even the Iraquis think they are better off
> without us.
>
> when they yelled, "the world is better off without
> you!" at you, they were not referring to the
> United states.
Cute! xoxoxo!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Even the Iraquis think they are better off
> without us.
>
> when they yelled, "the world is better off without
> you!" at you, they were not referring to the
> United states.
Cute! xoxoxo!
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
conVince
()
Date: March 04, 2009 06:56AM
Someone put up the chart with parties in control of Kongress instead of presidents, then we can get into a discussion of what branch of government spends our money. If deficits go up like that while demokrats were in power then I'll happily eat crow. But three things popped out at me immediately with the above chart. First the defect radically spikes when the demokrats take control of kongress in 2006. Second, the deficit flattens out when the repbulicans took over congress with the Contract with America pledge. Third, the chart says "Iraq Occupation" in nice bold lettering under Bush II but doesn't say "9/11 attacks, stand up Dept of Homeland Security and Fund."
So let's see someone post the Kongressional timeline with that chart, at least nayone who is interested in facts. Presidents don't spend money, kongress does. Do people here honestly not know that?
So let's see someone post the Kongressional timeline with that chart, at least nayone who is interested in facts. Presidents don't spend money, kongress does. Do people here honestly not know that?
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: March 04, 2009 12:47PM
Oh...the old Congress defense..as if the president doesnt send up a budget..as if the president doesnt have the veto power....as if the president doesnt have the bully pulpit...as if it is all the democrats fault...as if you had a brain!
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Gipper
()
Date: March 04, 2009 12:57PM
Yeah, it wasn't Reagan who increased spending.
It wasn't all previous presidents who continued to pay down the debt from World War II, until Reagan, who instead of paying down the WWII debt, added onto the debt.
Yes, it's congress. Because demokrats control it now, and I heard it on Fox news or Rush's radio show. It has to be true because I agree with it and all other information makes me feel uncomfortable.
The Iranians and Obama want to create a world government. They are going to destroy america. No wait, is it the president or congress? I guess it's okay to blame the president as long as he's a demokrat. When it's a republican president, the physics laws a mooted, and then it's obvious how congress is always behind everything. Except when congress is controlled by republicans.
Man, how do you people keep up with all that logical gymnastics? Oh, nevermind, you obviously don't maintain a contiguous line of reasoning, you flit around from one contradictory belief to another based on whatever the talking point of the day is on your right wing news outlet. It's so much easier to just parrot the talking point, why exert mental energy having a consistent train of thought?
It wasn't all previous presidents who continued to pay down the debt from World War II, until Reagan, who instead of paying down the WWII debt, added onto the debt.
Yes, it's congress. Because demokrats control it now, and I heard it on Fox news or Rush's radio show. It has to be true because I agree with it and all other information makes me feel uncomfortable.
The Iranians and Obama want to create a world government. They are going to destroy america. No wait, is it the president or congress? I guess it's okay to blame the president as long as he's a demokrat. When it's a republican president, the physics laws a mooted, and then it's obvious how congress is always behind everything. Except when congress is controlled by republicans.
Man, how do you people keep up with all that logical gymnastics? Oh, nevermind, you obviously don't maintain a contiguous line of reasoning, you flit around from one contradictory belief to another based on whatever the talking point of the day is on your right wing news outlet. It's so much easier to just parrot the talking point, why exert mental energy having a consistent train of thought?
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: March 04, 2009 01:09PM
conVince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Someone put up the chart with parties in control
> of Kongress instead of presidents, then we can get
> into a discussion of what branch of government
> spends our money.
The deficit went down in the 90s because Congressional Democrats first forced Bush 41 into accepting a tax hike, which cost him re-election, and then voted for another tax hike in '93, which cost them the '94 election. Then, we had record economic growth under Clinton, which decreased the deficit even more.
I noticed that you didn't highlight the part of the chart where the Republicans controlled both the Congress and the Presidency. You also ignored the decades under Johnson, Eisenhower, JFK, Nixon and Carter when the Dems controlled the Congress. Look at those trends then, bitch.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Someone put up the chart with parties in control
> of Kongress instead of presidents, then we can get
> into a discussion of what branch of government
> spends our money.
The deficit went down in the 90s because Congressional Democrats first forced Bush 41 into accepting a tax hike, which cost him re-election, and then voted for another tax hike in '93, which cost them the '94 election. Then, we had record economic growth under Clinton, which decreased the deficit even more.
I noticed that you didn't highlight the part of the chart where the Republicans controlled both the Congress and the Presidency. You also ignored the decades under Johnson, Eisenhower, JFK, Nixon and Carter when the Dems controlled the Congress. Look at those trends then, bitch.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WTL is a tool
()
Date: March 04, 2009 01:21PM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> conVince Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Someone put up the chart with parties in
> control
> > of Kongress instead of presidents, then we can
> get
> > into a discussion of what branch of government
> > spends our money.
>
> The deficit went down in the 90s because
> Congressional Democrats first forced Bush 41 into
> accepting a tax hike, which cost him re-election,
> and then voted for another tax hike in '93, which
> cost them the '94 election. Then, we had record
> economic growth under Clinton, which decreased the
> deficit even more.
>
> I noticed that you didn't highlight the part of
> the chart where the Republicans controlled both
> the Congress and the Presidency. You also ignored
> the decades under Johnson, Eisenhower, JFK, Nixon
> and Carter when the Dems controlled the Congress.
> Look at those trends then, bitch.
Wake the "F" up people! You talk your petty partisan BS all day and forget to see the real cause of our problems- GOVERNMENT. Stop cheering for one side or the other, R VS D, this isn't a f'ing sporting event. Your marriage to your party and their ideology is what enslaves you. Throw off the chains of oppression and get a fucking clue!!!
-------------------------------------------------------
> conVince Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Someone put up the chart with parties in
> control
> > of Kongress instead of presidents, then we can
> get
> > into a discussion of what branch of government
> > spends our money.
>
> The deficit went down in the 90s because
> Congressional Democrats first forced Bush 41 into
> accepting a tax hike, which cost him re-election,
> and then voted for another tax hike in '93, which
> cost them the '94 election. Then, we had record
> economic growth under Clinton, which decreased the
> deficit even more.
>
> I noticed that you didn't highlight the part of
> the chart where the Republicans controlled both
> the Congress and the Presidency. You also ignored
> the decades under Johnson, Eisenhower, JFK, Nixon
> and Carter when the Dems controlled the Congress.
> Look at those trends then, bitch.
Wake the "F" up people! You talk your petty partisan BS all day and forget to see the real cause of our problems- GOVERNMENT. Stop cheering for one side or the other, R VS D, this isn't a f'ing sporting event. Your marriage to your party and their ideology is what enslaves you. Throw off the chains of oppression and get a fucking clue!!!
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: March 04, 2009 01:29PM
WTL is a tool Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Wake the "F" up people! You talk your petty
> partisan BS all day and forget to see the real
> cause of our problems- GOVERNMENT. Stop cheering
> for one side or the other, R VS D, this isn't a
> f'ing sporting event. Your marriage to your party
> and their ideology is what enslaves you. Throw
> off the chains of oppression and get a fucking
> clue!!!
I don't buy this crap that government IS the problem (as Reagan said). Just like I don't believe corporations are inherently evil.
The reality is, as Adam Smith observed, that people act in their own self-interest. When people act in their own self-interest society, usually, benefits more than if people are acting altruistically.
However, when people start breaking the law or skirting the rules for their own self-interest, it is no longer a matter of economics. It is a matter of unethical and sometimes immoral behavior.
I believe in the market, but there needs to be rules. For instance, you can't walk into a market and take something without paying for it. That's why we have police. That is the role of government. Without that, you have anarchy which creates an environment where markets can't operate efficiently.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Wake the "F" up people! You talk your petty
> partisan BS all day and forget to see the real
> cause of our problems- GOVERNMENT. Stop cheering
> for one side or the other, R VS D, this isn't a
> f'ing sporting event. Your marriage to your party
> and their ideology is what enslaves you. Throw
> off the chains of oppression and get a fucking
> clue!!!
I don't buy this crap that government IS the problem (as Reagan said). Just like I don't believe corporations are inherently evil.
The reality is, as Adam Smith observed, that people act in their own self-interest. When people act in their own self-interest society, usually, benefits more than if people are acting altruistically.
However, when people start breaking the law or skirting the rules for their own self-interest, it is no longer a matter of economics. It is a matter of unethical and sometimes immoral behavior.
I believe in the market, but there needs to be rules. For instance, you can't walk into a market and take something without paying for it. That's why we have police. That is the role of government. Without that, you have anarchy which creates an environment where markets can't operate efficiently.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Predator Obama
()
Date: March 04, 2009 01:31PM
Unless the people at the top make and pass laws that keep them at the top at the expense of all others. The way the republicans and their buddies in big business seems to have done by not regulating the markets. AIG being "Too Big To Fail" WTF is that? Sounds like a monopoly since its at the hub of so many different and important legs of the financial system.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Gipper
()
Date: March 04, 2009 02:01PM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I don't buy this crap that government IS the
> problem (as Reagan said). Just like I don't
> believe corporations are inherently evil.
No. Government is not the problem. Channeling government authority for narrow interests is, however, a problem. When government serves the people first, it is functioning properly. It isn't functioning properly anymore.
Corporations are not inherently evil. However, some corporations exert undue power over laws and regulations and markets. That is not evil, but it is not healthy to a free society.
>
> The reality is, as Adam Smith observed, that
> people act in their own self-interest. When people
> act in their own self-interest society, usually,
> benefits more than if people are acting
> altruistically.
>
> However, when people start breaking the law or
> skirting the rules for their own self-interest, it
> is no longer a matter of economics. It is a matter
> of unethical and sometimes immoral behavior.
>
> I believe in the market, but there needs to be
> rules. For instance, you can't walk into a market
> and take something without paying for it. That's
> why we have police. That is the role of
> government. Without that, you have anarchy which
> creates an environment where markets can't operate
> efficiently.
But we do not live in a world where our only two options are complete corporate control over government or pure unadulterated anarchy.
There is no balance of power, there is no checks and balances. There isn't even a pendulum anymore. It's all in the hands of those who have the most money to spend to buy the rules and laws that benefit them.
People can spin their wheels arguing back and forth about whether it was the republicans or democrats who caused the financial crisis, but the reality is that the game was rigged by the people who had the most money and influence in order to best serve their interests, and they paid off republicans and democrats and independents and anyone in a position to affect laws that impede or influence their ability to make money.
Government is not bad. Hijacked government that serves narrow interests, however, is destructive and benefits only a few at the expense of the many. Corporations are benign in the whole. Corporations that exercise undue and disproportionate power are destructive. You have to not just look at the general, but see the specifics. Just because some corporations are evil doesn't make all of them evil, and just because all corporations are not evil doesn't mean that none of them are.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I don't buy this crap that government IS the
> problem (as Reagan said). Just like I don't
> believe corporations are inherently evil.
No. Government is not the problem. Channeling government authority for narrow interests is, however, a problem. When government serves the people first, it is functioning properly. It isn't functioning properly anymore.
Corporations are not inherently evil. However, some corporations exert undue power over laws and regulations and markets. That is not evil, but it is not healthy to a free society.
>
> The reality is, as Adam Smith observed, that
> people act in their own self-interest. When people
> act in their own self-interest society, usually,
> benefits more than if people are acting
> altruistically.
>
> However, when people start breaking the law or
> skirting the rules for their own self-interest, it
> is no longer a matter of economics. It is a matter
> of unethical and sometimes immoral behavior.
>
> I believe in the market, but there needs to be
> rules. For instance, you can't walk into a market
> and take something without paying for it. That's
> why we have police. That is the role of
> government. Without that, you have anarchy which
> creates an environment where markets can't operate
> efficiently.
But we do not live in a world where our only two options are complete corporate control over government or pure unadulterated anarchy.
There is no balance of power, there is no checks and balances. There isn't even a pendulum anymore. It's all in the hands of those who have the most money to spend to buy the rules and laws that benefit them.
People can spin their wheels arguing back and forth about whether it was the republicans or democrats who caused the financial crisis, but the reality is that the game was rigged by the people who had the most money and influence in order to best serve their interests, and they paid off republicans and democrats and independents and anyone in a position to affect laws that impede or influence their ability to make money.
Government is not bad. Hijacked government that serves narrow interests, however, is destructive and benefits only a few at the expense of the many. Corporations are benign in the whole. Corporations that exercise undue and disproportionate power are destructive. You have to not just look at the general, but see the specifics. Just because some corporations are evil doesn't make all of them evil, and just because all corporations are not evil doesn't mean that none of them are.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
ferfux
()
Date: March 04, 2009 07:08PM
WE wont really know the extent of the Bush Legacy until decades from now until we see the long term effects of his presidency. Too much speculation too soon. Although that recently published list was pretty amusing that slotted him LOW on successful presidencies.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: March 04, 2009 08:48PM
ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WE wont really know the extent of the Bush Legacy
> until decades from now until we see the long term
> effects of his presidency. Too much speculation
> too soon. Although that recently published list
> was pretty amusing that slotted him LOW on
> successful presidencies.
holy shit, he actually said something insightful.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
-------------------------------------------------------
> WE wont really know the extent of the Bush Legacy
> until decades from now until we see the long term
> effects of his presidency. Too much speculation
> too soon. Although that recently published list
> was pretty amusing that slotted him LOW on
> successful presidencies.
holy shit, he actually said something insightful.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
dono
()
Date: March 04, 2009 09:04PM
Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ferfux Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WE wont really know the extent of the Bush
> Legacy
> > until decades from now until we see the long
> term
> > effects of his presidency. Too much
> speculation
> > too soon. Although that recently published
> list
> > was pretty amusing that slotted him LOW on
> > successful presidencies.
>
> holy shit, he actually said something insightful.
I think this is by far the most level-headed support of 'historical perspective' on this issue I have come across to date...
Saturday Night Live - Update: Ann Coulter Season: 34 - The best video clips are here
-------------------------------------------------------
> ferfux Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WE wont really know the extent of the Bush
> Legacy
> > until decades from now until we see the long
> term
> > effects of his presidency. Too much
> speculation
> > too soon. Although that recently published
> list
> > was pretty amusing that slotted him LOW on
> > successful presidencies.
>
> holy shit, he actually said something insightful.
I think this is by far the most level-headed support of 'historical perspective' on this issue I have come across to date...
Saturday Night Live - Update: Ann Coulter Season: 34 - The best video clips are here
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
San Fran Nan
()
Date: March 04, 2009 09:20PM
This is dead-on, and I am a liberal...
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Palomino
()
Date: March 04, 2009 09:43PM
San Fran Nan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is dead-on, and I am a liberal...
>
>No, Gravis you are not but that was funny as shit...
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is dead-on, and I am a liberal...
>
>No, Gravis you are not but that was funny as shit...
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
poiuhbhuo
()
Date: March 08, 2009 08:40PM
George W Bush was a good president.He had our safety as his first priority.What would be saying now if the arabs really had a h bomb.Remember that iran is trying to make one so that they can use it on us.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
funny
()
Date: March 08, 2009 09:02PM
poiuhbhuo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> George W Bush was a good president.He had our
> safety as his first priority.What would be saying
> now if the arabs really had a h bomb.Remember that
> iran is trying to make one so that they can use it
> on us.
GW was a dumb ass that ran the country into the ground. He managed to jump the National Debt from 5T to 10T in 8yrs with little to show for it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> George W Bush was a good president.He had our
> safety as his first priority.What would be saying
> now if the arabs really had a h bomb.Remember that
> iran is trying to make one so that they can use it
> on us.
GW was a dumb ass that ran the country into the ground. He managed to jump the National Debt from 5T to 10T in 8yrs with little to show for it.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Rethinking him
()
Date: April 27, 2009 12:23AM
Bush was dealt a bad hand to begin with...Obama inherited one,but he's not doing the right thing in this situation. He ran up more debt than bush. I think historians will hold bush in a positive light for his security issues and his steadfastness. Obama has a plague on his hands, and doesn't know what to do.
Bush = experienced
obam= in experienced
Bush = experienced
obam= in experienced
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Alias
()
Date: April 27, 2009 01:31AM
'
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2012 04:21PM by Alias.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2012 04:21PM by Alias.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: April 27, 2009 07:18AM
When democracies have to afraid of telling the truth....we are no longer a free society.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Bull Connor
()
Date: April 27, 2009 04:49PM
Hey, anyone who makes dim-witted libs that angry can't be ALL bad!
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Sha-Lama-Lama-Ding-Dong
()
Date: April 27, 2009 05:05PM
Bull Sh!tter,
Who is your leader?
Can you still use the words "Republican" and "leader" in a sentence and not have people laugh at your expense?
Attachments:
Who is your leader?
Can you still use the words "Republican" and "leader" in a sentence and not have people laugh at your expense?
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
King
()
Date: April 27, 2009 05:09PM
I think that Bush was a good president...not the best, but definitely in the top 80%
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Mullets and Gullets
()
Date: April 27, 2009 05:12PM
Yeah. The 80% of what floats to the top of Don's Johns.
This guy is clearly a Republican.
Attachments:
This guy is clearly a Republican.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Real Amerika
()
Date: April 29, 2009 07:17PM
At least Bush stood for something. Obama stands for whatever Nancy Pelosi whispers in his ear.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: April 29, 2009 07:45PM
Real Amerika Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least Bush stood for something. Obama stands
> for whatever Nancy Pelosi whispers in his ear.
At least you know who you are..an Amerikan...thats more then most do.
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least Bush stood for something. Obama stands
> for whatever Nancy Pelosi whispers in his ear.
At least you know who you are..an Amerikan...thats more then most do.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Furfur
()
Date: April 30, 2009 12:34AM
Vince(1) said:
"At least you know who you are..an Amerikan...thats more then most do."
Attachments:
"At least you know who you are..an Amerikan...thats more then most do."
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Slinky
()
Date: May 27, 2009 12:00AM
Bush would have NEVER fumbled the way Obama has been fumbling over the last few months now. He held North Korea in their place. Obama can hardly juggle his multiple wars now without risking a raid on Seoul. Obama is screwed either way.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
West Wing
()
Date: May 27, 2009 01:13AM
Slinky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush would have NEVER fumbled the way Obama has
> been fumbling over the last few months now. He
> held North Korea in their place. Obama can hardly
> juggle his multiple wars now without risking a
> raid on Seoul. Obama is screwed either way.
fumbling? What color is the sky in your World? He has had to clean up all the Republican shit left over from the Bush administration. Republicans need to graduate high school before trying to run a country.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush would have NEVER fumbled the way Obama has
> been fumbling over the last few months now. He
> held North Korea in their place. Obama can hardly
> juggle his multiple wars now without risking a
> raid on Seoul. Obama is screwed either way.
fumbling? What color is the sky in your World? He has had to clean up all the Republican shit left over from the Bush administration. Republicans need to graduate high school before trying to run a country.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
West Wing
()
Date: May 27, 2009 01:21AM
Perhaps you don't remember the Bush legacy?
1) Stock market down 40%, retirement funds gone
2) Banking industry in shambles
3) US car industry destroyed and bankrupt
4) Housing industry tanked
5) Gas $4.00 a gallon
6) National Debt increased by 30%
7) Rebuilding two Islamic countries with tax payer dollars
8) Airline industry supported by tax payer dollars
1) Stock market down 40%, retirement funds gone
2) Banking industry in shambles
3) US car industry destroyed and bankrupt
4) Housing industry tanked
5) Gas $4.00 a gallon
6) National Debt increased by 30%
7) Rebuilding two Islamic countries with tax payer dollars
8) Airline industry supported by tax payer dollars
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Stinkfist
()
Date: May 27, 2009 01:54AM
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnathan Wrote:
> >>> I wasn't a fan of George Bush for awhile, but
> you know...in retrospect, things weren't really so
> bad.
>
>
> I voted for George W. Bush in '00, and thought he
> was an OK president until it was clear we weren't
> ever going to find WMD in Iraq. Everything went
> down hill after that, including our economy. And
> now we got shit like Joe the Plumber and Sarah
> Palin struggling for the spotlight.
>
> In retrospect, the GOP is pretty fucking dumb.
As are the people that elected them. neener neener neener.
I supported Bush in 04, too. I was too young to vote but I would have gone Bush. Looking back I think: What decent options did voters have?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnathan Wrote:
> >>> I wasn't a fan of George Bush for awhile, but
> you know...in retrospect, things weren't really so
> bad.
>
>
> I voted for George W. Bush in '00, and thought he
> was an OK president until it was clear we weren't
> ever going to find WMD in Iraq. Everything went
> down hill after that, including our economy. And
> now we got shit like Joe the Plumber and Sarah
> Palin struggling for the spotlight.
>
> In retrospect, the GOP is pretty fucking dumb.
As are the people that elected them. neener neener neener.
I supported Bush in 04, too. I was too young to vote but I would have gone Bush. Looking back I think: What decent options did voters have?
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
OMGers
()
Date: May 27, 2009 10:44AM
Bush went into Iraq for one reason, to kill Saddam for his Dad.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Slug Trails
()
Date: May 27, 2009 03:00PM
OMGers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush went into Iraq for one reason, to kill
> Saddam for his Dad.
No, we went in to liberate Iraq from a terrorist dictatorship that had ties to al queda and 9/11. Killed 10 birds with 1 stone.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush went into Iraq for one reason, to kill
> Saddam for his Dad.
No, we went in to liberate Iraq from a terrorist dictatorship that had ties to al queda and 9/11. Killed 10 birds with 1 stone.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Judge Crater
()
Date: May 27, 2009 03:03PM
Slug Trails Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OMGers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bush went into Iraq for one reason, to kill
> > Saddam for his Dad.
>
>
> No, we went in to liberate Iraq from a terrorist
> dictatorship that had ties to al queda and 9/11.
> Killed 10 birds with 1 stone.
No thats not practical. There were no WPD there were no ties to al queda or 911 terrorists. We went in there to destabilize a dictatorship and or overthrow his regime and set up a US friendly democracy in the Middle east so we would have more than just Israel in that region on "our" side AND to get our hands on all that plentiful oil.
-------------------------------------------------------
> OMGers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bush went into Iraq for one reason, to kill
> > Saddam for his Dad.
>
>
> No, we went in to liberate Iraq from a terrorist
> dictatorship that had ties to al queda and 9/11.
> Killed 10 birds with 1 stone.
No thats not practical. There were no WPD there were no ties to al queda or 911 terrorists. We went in there to destabilize a dictatorship and or overthrow his regime and set up a US friendly democracy in the Middle east so we would have more than just Israel in that region on "our" side AND to get our hands on all that plentiful oil.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: May 27, 2009 03:06PM
Slug Trails Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No, we went in to liberate Iraq from a terrorist
> dictatorship that had ties to al queda and 9/11.
> Killed 10 birds with 1 stone.
It was more like we used 10 stones to kill 1 bird and we missed (Osama Bin Laden).
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No, we went in to liberate Iraq from a terrorist
> dictatorship that had ties to al queda and 9/11.
> Killed 10 birds with 1 stone.
It was more like we used 10 stones to kill 1 bird and we missed (Osama Bin Laden).
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Slug Trails
()
Date: May 27, 2009 03:08PM
Judge Crater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Slug Trails Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > OMGers Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Bush went into Iraq for one reason, to kill
> > > Saddam for his Dad.
> >
> >
> > No, we went in to liberate Iraq from a
> terrorist
> > dictatorship that had ties to al queda and
> 9/11.
> > Killed 10 birds with 1 stone.
>
>
> No thats not practical. There were no WPD there
> were no ties to al queda or 911 terrorists. We
> went in there to destabilize a dictatorship and or
> overthrow his regime and set up a US friendly
> democracy in the Middle east so we would have more
> than just Israel in that region on "our" side AND
> to get our hands on all that plentiful oil.
SO IF WE HAVE ALL THIS "OIL", why was gas $4 a gallon last year? Oh yea..That's all Bush's fault, right? Yup...so many contradictions with you liberals it makes me ill.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Slug Trails Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > OMGers Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Bush went into Iraq for one reason, to kill
> > > Saddam for his Dad.
> >
> >
> > No, we went in to liberate Iraq from a
> terrorist
> > dictatorship that had ties to al queda and
> 9/11.
> > Killed 10 birds with 1 stone.
>
>
> No thats not practical. There were no WPD there
> were no ties to al queda or 911 terrorists. We
> went in there to destabilize a dictatorship and or
> overthrow his regime and set up a US friendly
> democracy in the Middle east so we would have more
> than just Israel in that region on "our" side AND
> to get our hands on all that plentiful oil.
SO IF WE HAVE ALL THIS "OIL", why was gas $4 a gallon last year? Oh yea..That's all Bush's fault, right? Yup...so many contradictions with you liberals it makes me ill.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Judge Crater
()
Date: May 27, 2009 03:12PM
Slug Trails Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> SO IF WE HAVE ALL THIS "OIL", why was gas $4 a
> gallon last year? Oh yea..That's all Bush's fault,
> right? Yup...so many contradictions with you
> liberals it makes me ill.
Because the Bush administration Cluster fucked the whole thing up. Oil hit $147 because of extreme markets same as the housing bubbles. The price of oil and or gasoline isnt being supported nor was EVER effected by who is in office. The president doesnt have ANY control over that shit. Gas is at $62 dollars a barrel right now and supposedly consumption is WAY off and refineries are swimming in surpluses right? So if Millions of people arent driving to work cuz they dont have jobs then why is gas at $2 + dollars a gallon STILL? because the gas companies are making up for a shortfall in profits, the HIGHT profits they were making last year by slowing refining NOW and making the people who are STILL able to buy gas and drive make up the differance. Its all just economics of business.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> SO IF WE HAVE ALL THIS "OIL", why was gas $4 a
> gallon last year? Oh yea..That's all Bush's fault,
> right? Yup...so many contradictions with you
> liberals it makes me ill.
Because the Bush administration Cluster fucked the whole thing up. Oil hit $147 because of extreme markets same as the housing bubbles. The price of oil and or gasoline isnt being supported nor was EVER effected by who is in office. The president doesnt have ANY control over that shit. Gas is at $62 dollars a barrel right now and supposedly consumption is WAY off and refineries are swimming in surpluses right? So if Millions of people arent driving to work cuz they dont have jobs then why is gas at $2 + dollars a gallon STILL? because the gas companies are making up for a shortfall in profits, the HIGHT profits they were making last year by slowing refining NOW and making the people who are STILL able to buy gas and drive make up the differance. Its all just economics of business.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
ITRADE
()
Date: May 27, 2009 03:20PM
Yah, you can thank 1.25 billion chinese for the run up in commodities pricing. They have an insatiatible appetite for any raw material - oil, gas, copper, steel scrap, iron ore, zinc, etc. The run up in demand has placed pricing pressures on everything.
Once the surge was set in motion, speculative futures buying ran things up even higher.
We could solve the problem, but it would take a lot of atomic weaponry.
Once the surge was set in motion, speculative futures buying ran things up even higher.
We could solve the problem, but it would take a lot of atomic weaponry.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Dwight.
()
Date: May 27, 2009 05:20PM
who's thumb is that on the baby?
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
§
()
Date: May 27, 2009 06:27PM
Probably the father. Or a GOP pedophile.
.
Attachments:
.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Silver Bullet
()
Date: June 03, 2009 04:46PM
Why is Obama back in Saudi Arabia? Bush would have never bowed to him, nor come back for visits. I didn't like Bush at the time, but we need a strong leader, not one who only does photo ops and hangs out with Brad Pitt and George Clooney
Somebody who can stand up to Putin
Somebody who can stand up to Hu Jin Tao
Somebody who can stand up to Vicente Fox's illegal immigrants
BUSH WE CAN!
Somebody who can stand up to Putin
Somebody who can stand up to Hu Jin Tao
Somebody who can stand up to Vicente Fox's illegal immigrants
BUSH WE CAN!
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
§
()
Date: June 03, 2009 05:27PM
Yes, Bush did. And then some.
.
Attachments:
.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
slinky
()
Date: June 03, 2009 11:07PM
Well, if you really think about it, our country was strongest under bush. we had more military bases, military prisons, and outposts covering the world than ANY EMPIRE EVER!Obama wants to scale that back. I say HAIL Caesar! We need a strong, alpha male to lead us, not a negro muslim. The world laughs at us now. at least under bush nobody laughed at us...they were too afraid....and we like it that way ;-)
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
ramsey
()
Date: June 03, 2009 11:13PM
slinky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, if you really think about it, our country
> was strongest under bush. we had more military
> bases, military prisons, and outposts covering the
> world than ANY EMPIRE EVER!Obama wants to scale
> that back. I say HAIL Caesar! We need a strong,
> alpha male to lead us, not a negro muslim. The
> world laughs at us now. at least under bush nobody
> laughed at us...they were too afraid....and we
> like it that way ;-)
People like you makes me want to support forced abortions.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, if you really think about it, our country
> was strongest under bush. we had more military
> bases, military prisons, and outposts covering the
> world than ANY EMPIRE EVER!Obama wants to scale
> that back. I say HAIL Caesar! We need a strong,
> alpha male to lead us, not a negro muslim. The
> world laughs at us now. at least under bush nobody
> laughed at us...they were too afraid....and we
> like it that way ;-)
People like you makes me want to support forced abortions.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
slinky
()
Date: June 03, 2009 11:24PM
ramsey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> slinky Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well, if you really think about it, our country
> > was strongest under bush. we had more military
> > bases, military prisons, and outposts covering
> the
> > world than ANY EMPIRE EVER!Obama wants to scale
> > that back. I say HAIL Caesar! We need a strong,
> > alpha male to lead us, not a negro muslim. The
> > world laughs at us now. at least under bush
> nobody
> > laughed at us...they were too afraid....and we
> > like it that way ;-)
>
>
> People like you makes me want to support forced
> abortions.
People like YOU, with your "San Francisco values" and "Overseas Contingency Operations" make me want to crap in a bucket, swirl it around, and splash it in your FACE.
-------------------------------------------------------
> slinky Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well, if you really think about it, our country
> > was strongest under bush. we had more military
> > bases, military prisons, and outposts covering
> the
> > world than ANY EMPIRE EVER!Obama wants to scale
> > that back. I say HAIL Caesar! We need a strong,
> > alpha male to lead us, not a negro muslim. The
> > world laughs at us now. at least under bush
> nobody
> > laughed at us...they were too afraid....and we
> > like it that way ;-)
>
>
> People like you makes me want to support forced
> abortions.
People like YOU, with your "San Francisco values" and "Overseas Contingency Operations" make me want to crap in a bucket, swirl it around, and splash it in your FACE.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
ramsey
()
Date: June 03, 2009 11:40PM
slinky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> People like YOU, with your "San Francisco values"
> and "Overseas Contingency Operations" make me want
> to crap in a bucket, swirl it around, and splash
> it in your FACE.
Or pretty much what monkeys enjoy doing.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> People like YOU, with your "San Francisco values"
> and "Overseas Contingency Operations" make me want
> to crap in a bucket, swirl it around, and splash
> it in your FACE.
Or pretty much what monkeys enjoy doing.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: June 04, 2009 07:13AM
slinky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, if you really think about it, our country
> was strongest under bush. we had more military
> bases, military prisons, and outposts covering the
> world than ANY EMPIRE EVER!Obama wants to scale
> that back. I say HAIL Caesar! We need a strong,
> alpha male to lead us, not a negro muslim. The
> world laughs at us now. at least under bush nobody
> laughed at us...they were too afraid....and we
> like it that way ;-)
The money necessary to support your empire of terror is unsustainable. We do not manufacture anything of value any more.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, if you really think about it, our country
> was strongest under bush. we had more military
> bases, military prisons, and outposts covering the
> world than ANY EMPIRE EVER!Obama wants to scale
> that back. I say HAIL Caesar! We need a strong,
> alpha male to lead us, not a negro muslim. The
> world laughs at us now. at least under bush nobody
> laughed at us...they were too afraid....and we
> like it that way ;-)
The money necessary to support your empire of terror is unsustainable. We do not manufacture anything of value any more.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
slinky
()
Date: June 04, 2009 09:57AM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> slinky Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well, if you really think about it, our country
> > was strongest under bush. we had more military
> > bases, military prisons, and outposts covering
> the
> > world than ANY EMPIRE EVER!Obama wants to scale
> > that back. I say HAIL Caesar! We need a strong,
> > alpha male to lead us, not a negro muslim. The
> > world laughs at us now. at least under bush
> nobody
> > laughed at us...they were too afraid....and we
> > like it that way ;-)
>
>
> The money necessary to support your empire of
> terror is unsustainable. We do not manufacture
> anything of value any more.
Yes we do. We create top engineers, CEOs, and military hardware.
-------------------------------------------------------
> slinky Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well, if you really think about it, our country
> > was strongest under bush. we had more military
> > bases, military prisons, and outposts covering
> the
> > world than ANY EMPIRE EVER!Obama wants to scale
> > that back. I say HAIL Caesar! We need a strong,
> > alpha male to lead us, not a negro muslim. The
> > world laughs at us now. at least under bush
> nobody
> > laughed at us...they were too afraid....and we
> > like it that way ;-)
>
>
> The money necessary to support your empire of
> terror is unsustainable. We do not manufacture
> anything of value any more.
Yes we do. We create top engineers, CEOs, and military hardware.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: June 04, 2009 11:52AM
as well as all the major technological advancements.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: June 04, 2009 12:01PM
slinky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > slinky Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Well, if you really think about it, our
> country
> > > was strongest under bush. we had more
> military
> > > bases, military prisons, and outposts
> covering
> > the
> > > world than ANY EMPIRE EVER!Obama wants to
> scale
> > > that back. I say HAIL Caesar! We need a
> strong,
> > > alpha male to lead us, not a negro muslim.
> The
> > > world laughs at us now. at least under bush
> > nobody
> > > laughed at us...they were too afraid....and
> we
> > > like it that way ;-)
> >
> >
> > The money necessary to support your empire of
> > terror is unsustainable. We do not manufacture
> > anything of value any more.
>
> Yes we do. We create top engineers, CEOs, and
> military hardware.
We actually import many of our engeners and doctors...nurses from foreign countries. Oh boy...we are the world's military hardware provider...isnt that great....seems a little hypocritical when we criticise North korea for exporting nuclear technology.
CEOs...oh boy..are you talking about those over paid...golden parachute geniouses that ruined this country's manufacturing base?
http://www.americafront.com/news/23/engineers_and_the_rise_of_china.html
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/if-we-want-more-renewable-energy-in-the-u-s-wont-we-need-more-engineers
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2009 12:10PM by Vince(1).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > slinky Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Well, if you really think about it, our
> country
> > > was strongest under bush. we had more
> military
> > > bases, military prisons, and outposts
> covering
> > the
> > > world than ANY EMPIRE EVER!Obama wants to
> scale
> > > that back. I say HAIL Caesar! We need a
> strong,
> > > alpha male to lead us, not a negro muslim.
> The
> > > world laughs at us now. at least under bush
> > nobody
> > > laughed at us...they were too afraid....and
> we
> > > like it that way ;-)
> >
> >
> > The money necessary to support your empire of
> > terror is unsustainable. We do not manufacture
> > anything of value any more.
>
> Yes we do. We create top engineers, CEOs, and
> military hardware.
We actually import many of our engeners and doctors...nurses from foreign countries. Oh boy...we are the world's military hardware provider...isnt that great....seems a little hypocritical when we criticise North korea for exporting nuclear technology.
CEOs...oh boy..are you talking about those over paid...golden parachute geniouses that ruined this country's manufacturing base?
http://www.americafront.com/news/23/engineers_and_the_rise_of_china.html
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/if-we-want-more-renewable-energy-in-the-u-s-wont-we-need-more-engineers
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2009 12:10PM by Vince(1).
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
§
()
Date: June 04, 2009 01:53PM
Never thought I'd say this, but +1 to Vince(1).
.
Attachments:
.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Soaring Eagle
()
Date: June 04, 2009 04:14PM
Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> as well as all the major technological
> advancements.
Don't forget we invented the turbine, the peanutbutter, and the space shuttle. We put the first man in space, liberated hundreds of countries, and beat imperial Spain, England, Japan, Germany, and a few others at their own game. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT BABY! LOVE-IT-OR-LEAVE-IT.
-------------------------------------------------------
> as well as all the major technological
> advancements.
Don't forget we invented the turbine, the peanutbutter, and the space shuttle. We put the first man in space, liberated hundreds of countries, and beat imperial Spain, England, Japan, Germany, and a few others at their own game. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT BABY! LOVE-IT-OR-LEAVE-IT.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: June 04, 2009 04:29PM
Soaring Eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > as well as all the major technological
> > advancements.
>
>
> Don't forget we invented the turbine, the
> peanutbutter, and the space shuttle. We put the
> first man in space, liberated hundreds of
> countries, and beat imperial Spain, England,
> Japan, Germany, and a few others at their own
> game. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT BABY!
> LOVE-IT-OR-LEAVE-IT.
When all you can talk about is the past...you are the past.
Does anyone know how our astronauts are going to get to the space station now that the shuttles are being grounded?
Anyone care to guess the next country to land on the moon?
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2009 04:29PM by Vince(1).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > as well as all the major technological
> > advancements.
>
>
> Don't forget we invented the turbine, the
> peanutbutter, and the space shuttle. We put the
> first man in space, liberated hundreds of
> countries, and beat imperial Spain, England,
> Japan, Germany, and a few others at their own
> game. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT BABY!
> LOVE-IT-OR-LEAVE-IT.
When all you can talk about is the past...you are the past.
Does anyone know how our astronauts are going to get to the space station now that the shuttles are being grounded?
Anyone care to guess the next country to land on the moon?
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2009 04:29PM by Vince(1).
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Furfur
()
Date: June 04, 2009 04:38PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Anyone care to guess the next country to land on
> the moon?
Mexico....they sent a killer whale to the moon for only $200.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Anyone care to guess the next country to land on
> the moon?
Mexico....they sent a killer whale to the moon for only $200.
s
Posted by:
inkahootz
()
Date: June 04, 2009 04:40PM
s
edit by Cary: Account password compromised, disabled by administrator.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 02:10PM by inkahootz.
edit by Cary: Account password compromised, disabled by administrator.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2010 02:10PM by inkahootz.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: June 04, 2009 04:56PM
Furfur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Anyone care to guess the next country to land on
> > the moon?
>
> Mexico....they sent a killer whale to the moon for
> only $200.
that is definitely the best post in this thread.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Anyone care to guess the next country to land on
> > the moon?
>
> Mexico....they sent a killer whale to the moon for
> only $200.
that is definitely the best post in this thread.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
§
()
Date: June 04, 2009 05:28PM
My nomination for best Vince(1) quote in the thread goes to:
"When all you can talk about is the past...you are the past."
I mean. What. The. Fuck?
.
Attachments:
"When all you can talk about is the past...you are the past."
I mean. What. The. Fuck?
.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: June 04, 2009 07:38PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Soaring Eagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gravis Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > as well as all the major technological
> > > advancements.
> >
> >
> > Don't forget we invented the turbine, the
> > peanutbutter, and the space shuttle. We put the
> > first man in space, liberated hundreds of
> > countries, and beat imperial Spain, England,
> > Japan, Germany, and a few others at their own
> > game. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT BABY!
> > LOVE-IT-OR-LEAVE-IT.
>
> When all you can talk about is the past...you are
> the past.
>
> Does anyone know how our astronauts are going to
> get to the space station now that the shuttles are
> being grounded?
>
> Anyone care to guess the next country to land on
> the moon?
I'll give you all a clue..in both cases the space vehicle will not be made in the USA.
Give up idiots? The most recent US astronauts were delivered in a Russian vehicle...and the CHinese will be the next country to land on the moon. Know why? They can afford it....we can't.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2009 07:47PM by Vince(1).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Soaring Eagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gravis Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > as well as all the major technological
> > > advancements.
> >
> >
> > Don't forget we invented the turbine, the
> > peanutbutter, and the space shuttle. We put the
> > first man in space, liberated hundreds of
> > countries, and beat imperial Spain, England,
> > Japan, Germany, and a few others at their own
> > game. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT BABY!
> > LOVE-IT-OR-LEAVE-IT.
>
> When all you can talk about is the past...you are
> the past.
>
> Does anyone know how our astronauts are going to
> get to the space station now that the shuttles are
> being grounded?
>
> Anyone care to guess the next country to land on
> the moon?
I'll give you all a clue..in both cases the space vehicle will not be made in the USA.
Give up idiots? The most recent US astronauts were delivered in a Russian vehicle...and the CHinese will be the next country to land on the moon. Know why? They can afford it....we can't.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2009 07:47PM by Vince(1).
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Furfur
()
Date: June 04, 2009 07:48PM
Inkahootz already answered this, is your question so suspenseful that you had to answer it yourself?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton Lavey
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2009 07:50PM by Furfur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton Lavey
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2009 07:50PM by Furfur.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Gravis
()
Date: June 04, 2009 08:09PM
there is no reason to go back to the moon. we are planning to go to mars next assclown.
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: June 04, 2009 08:57PM
Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there is no reason to go back to the moon. we are
> planning to go to mars next assclown.
Do you take pride in missing the point? We have no active program to put a man on Mars...we cant afford that either. And when/if we do..Im sure it will be partnership with Russia...China and who knows who.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
-------------------------------------------------------
> there is no reason to go back to the moon. we are
> planning to go to mars next assclown.
Do you take pride in missing the point? We have no active program to put a man on Mars...we cant afford that either. And when/if we do..Im sure it will be partnership with Russia...China and who knows who.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: June 04, 2009 08:59PM
inkahootz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Soaring Eagle Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Gravis Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > as well as all the major technological
> > > > advancements.
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't forget we invented the turbine, the
> > > peanutbutter, and the space shuttle. We put
> the
> > > first man in space, liberated hundreds of
> > > countries, and beat imperial Spain, England,
> > > Japan, Germany, and a few others at their own
> > > game. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT BABY!
> > > LOVE-IT-OR-LEAVE-IT.
> >
> > When all you can talk about is the past...you
> are
> > the past.
> >
> > Does anyone know how our astronauts are going
> to
> > get to the space station now that the shuttles
> are
> > being grounded?
>
>
> Piggybacking on Russian ships.
>
>
> > Anyone care to guess the next country to land
> on
> > the moon?
>
>
> Russia or China...maybe even India! lol
My apoplogies....YOU WERE CORRECT!!!! Except I dont think Russia has such plans...
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Soaring Eagle Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Gravis Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > as well as all the major technological
> > > > advancements.
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't forget we invented the turbine, the
> > > peanutbutter, and the space shuttle. We put
> the
> > > first man in space, liberated hundreds of
> > > countries, and beat imperial Spain, England,
> > > Japan, Germany, and a few others at their own
> > > game. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT BABY!
> > > LOVE-IT-OR-LEAVE-IT.
> >
> > When all you can talk about is the past...you
> are
> > the past.
> >
> > Does anyone know how our astronauts are going
> to
> > get to the space station now that the shuttles
> are
> > being grounded?
>
>
> Piggybacking on Russian ships.
>
>
> > Anyone care to guess the next country to land
> on
> > the moon?
>
>
> Russia or China...maybe even India! lol
My apoplogies....YOU WERE CORRECT!!!! Except I dont think Russia has such plans...
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
G W Bush
()
Date: June 05, 2009 01:10PM
Hey fuck all of you. I won two elections and was governor or Texas. What has this half-breed asshole in there now ever done? Oh year, won election as the junior senator from Illinois and defeated a decrepit old has-been for President. If I had run against this mongrel I'd have beat his ass. So fuck all you fucking assholes.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
§
()
Date: June 05, 2009 02:08PM
Download complete.
.
Attachments:
.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: June 05, 2009 02:19PM
So the latest information on the rationale for the War with Iraq is that Bush looked at Thatcher, Reagan and Bush 41 and saw that limited, easy-to-win conflicts (Falklands, Grenada, Panama respectively), helped solidify their "Commander in Chief" credentials. In fact, two years before he became President, Bush was telling associates that if he became President, he would take out Saddam Hussein because it would be a small, limited conflict that would solidify his legacy.
Just when you thought "revenge for his father" wasn't petty enough, Bush's own rantings top himself.
Just when you thought "revenge for his father" wasn't petty enough, Bush's own rantings top himself.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
§
()
Date: June 05, 2009 03:11PM
More appropriately.
.
Attachments:
.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: June 06, 2009 10:39AM
WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the latest information on the rationale for the
> War with Iraq is that Bush looked at Thatcher,
> Reagan and Bush 41 and saw that limited,
> easy-to-win conflicts (Falklands, Grenada, Panama
> respectively), helped solidify their "Commander in
> Chief" credentials. In fact, two years before he
> became President, Bush was telling associates that
> if he became President, he would take out Saddam
> Hussein because it would be a small, limited
> conflict that would solidify his legacy.
>
> Just when you thought "revenge for his father"
> wasn't petty enough, Bush's own rantings top
> himself.
The republikan theory is that a president can virtually do anything under the banner under Commander and Chief..ignoring the Constitution...ignoring the legislative and judicial branches. This theory is a very dangerous one in the world of an unending war against violent extremists. As long as the world is round there will be violent extremists to fight. GWB has dangerously expanded the powers of the presidency during his 8 year tenure...and the genie once out is hard to put back into the bottle. While democrats do not appear eager to expand the powers of the presidency as Commander in Chief it is doubtful that they will roll back those powers either...case in point being Obama's recent decsions on counter terrorism for which I am not very happy with him about.
But the fact appears to be that republikans will expand the president's power at the drop of a hat...therefor they need to be kept out of the presidency.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the latest information on the rationale for the
> War with Iraq is that Bush looked at Thatcher,
> Reagan and Bush 41 and saw that limited,
> easy-to-win conflicts (Falklands, Grenada, Panama
> respectively), helped solidify their "Commander in
> Chief" credentials. In fact, two years before he
> became President, Bush was telling associates that
> if he became President, he would take out Saddam
> Hussein because it would be a small, limited
> conflict that would solidify his legacy.
>
> Just when you thought "revenge for his father"
> wasn't petty enough, Bush's own rantings top
> himself.
The republikan theory is that a president can virtually do anything under the banner under Commander and Chief..ignoring the Constitution...ignoring the legislative and judicial branches. This theory is a very dangerous one in the world of an unending war against violent extremists. As long as the world is round there will be violent extremists to fight. GWB has dangerously expanded the powers of the presidency during his 8 year tenure...and the genie once out is hard to put back into the bottle. While democrats do not appear eager to expand the powers of the presidency as Commander in Chief it is doubtful that they will roll back those powers either...case in point being Obama's recent decsions on counter terrorism for which I am not very happy with him about.
But the fact appears to be that republikans will expand the president's power at the drop of a hat...therefor they need to be kept out of the presidency.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WFB
()
Date: June 06, 2009 12:46PM
Hey Vince, you witless idiot, ever hear of FDR? I know that pointing out historical facts is a waste of time with a moron like you but I couldn't resist. Your post was so breathtakingly ignorant and uninformed that it just had to be replied to.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: June 06, 2009 12:58PM
WFB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Vince, you witless idiot, ever hear of FDR? I
> know that pointing out historical facts is a waste
> of time with a moron like you but I couldn't
> resist. Your post was so breathtakingly ignorant
> and uninformed that it just had to be replied to.
Well..isnt that an easy excuse not to respond. You know...perhaps I am "hopeless" but there are others on here you might educate/sway to your opinion.
OK...FDR..I assume your point is that he too was a War President who you feel set Commander in Chief prescedent. I agree..and not all of it good...if any was good. Certainly the interment of the Japanese and other Asians was of unsurpassed abuse of power...in my humble opinion. I would just say that as civil rights was once a republican banner issue..usurped by the democrats...war powers of the president is now a republican banner issue. But if you want to make the point that both parties deserve watching...I agree.
However I would like to point out one big difference. FDRs war had a beginning and an end....GWB by declaring a war on "terrorism"..it is a war with no discernable ending. It will be declared over at the whim of future president (but in all likelihood not) based on some manufactured ending. We are not going to see Al Qaeda "surrender"..and out of the ashes of Al Qaeda will rise another resistance/terrorist group. It is the way of the world for small groups of the disenfranchised to fight the "supressor". This too was a prescedent set by the idiot president GWB.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2009 01:04PM by Vince(1).
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Vince, you witless idiot, ever hear of FDR? I
> know that pointing out historical facts is a waste
> of time with a moron like you but I couldn't
> resist. Your post was so breathtakingly ignorant
> and uninformed that it just had to be replied to.
Well..isnt that an easy excuse not to respond. You know...perhaps I am "hopeless" but there are others on here you might educate/sway to your opinion.
OK...FDR..I assume your point is that he too was a War President who you feel set Commander in Chief prescedent. I agree..and not all of it good...if any was good. Certainly the interment of the Japanese and other Asians was of unsurpassed abuse of power...in my humble opinion. I would just say that as civil rights was once a republican banner issue..usurped by the democrats...war powers of the president is now a republican banner issue. But if you want to make the point that both parties deserve watching...I agree.
However I would like to point out one big difference. FDRs war had a beginning and an end....GWB by declaring a war on "terrorism"..it is a war with no discernable ending. It will be declared over at the whim of future president (but in all likelihood not) based on some manufactured ending. We are not going to see Al Qaeda "surrender"..and out of the ashes of Al Qaeda will rise another resistance/terrorist group. It is the way of the world for small groups of the disenfranchised to fight the "supressor". This too was a prescedent set by the idiot president GWB.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2009 01:04PM by Vince(1).
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WFB
()
Date: June 06, 2009 02:04PM
theory is that a president can virtually do anything under the banner under Commander and Chief..ignoring the Constitution...ignoring the legislative and judicial branches.
The point about FDR is that he tried to pack the Supreme Court and rammed through programs that were in no way constitutional. Lincoln did the same but Lincoln was one of those Republicans who you seem to think are the only presidents who ever violated the constitution.
The point about FDR is that he tried to pack the Supreme Court and rammed through programs that were in no way constitutional. Lincoln did the same but Lincoln was one of those Republicans who you seem to think are the only presidents who ever violated the constitution.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: June 06, 2009 05:01PM
WFB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> theory is that a president can virtually do
> anything under the banner under Commander and
> Chief..ignoring the Constitution...ignoring the
> legislative and judicial branches.
>
> The point about FDR is that he tried to pack the
> Supreme Court and rammed through programs that
> were in no way constitutional. Lincoln did the
> same but Lincoln was one of those Republicans who
> you seem to think are the only presidents who ever
> violated the constitution.
He tried to pack the Supreme Court and failed..he did not ignore the courts in their decision...to my knowledge he did not feel he had the right to ignore them. Ramming programs through Congress isnt bypassing the legislative process..it's just effectively using the bully pulpit. If the programs were determined to be unconstitutional...to my knowledge, he stopped them.
An intreresting "what if" would have been if any of the Japanese had sued for their freedom and had won....Would FDR had complied? I don't know..I tend to think so...but who knows.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
-------------------------------------------------------
> theory is that a president can virtually do
> anything under the banner under Commander and
> Chief..ignoring the Constitution...ignoring the
> legislative and judicial branches.
>
> The point about FDR is that he tried to pack the
> Supreme Court and rammed through programs that
> were in no way constitutional. Lincoln did the
> same but Lincoln was one of those Republicans who
> you seem to think are the only presidents who ever
> violated the constitution.
He tried to pack the Supreme Court and failed..he did not ignore the courts in their decision...to my knowledge he did not feel he had the right to ignore them. Ramming programs through Congress isnt bypassing the legislative process..it's just effectively using the bully pulpit. If the programs were determined to be unconstitutional...to my knowledge, he stopped them.
An intreresting "what if" would have been if any of the Japanese had sued for their freedom and had won....Would FDR had complied? I don't know..I tend to think so...but who knows.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Soaring Eagle
()
Date: June 11, 2009 02:28PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WFB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > theory is that a president can virtually do
> > anything under the banner under Commander and
> > Chief..ignoring the Constitution...ignoring the
> > legislative and judicial branches.
> >
> > The point about FDR is that he tried to pack
> the
> > Supreme Court and rammed through programs that
> > were in no way constitutional. Lincoln did the
> > same but Lincoln was one of those Republicans
> who
> > you seem to think are the only presidents who
> ever
> > violated the constitution.
>
> He tried to pack the Supreme Court and failed..he
> did not ignore the courts in their decision...to
> my knowledge he did not feel he had the right to
> ignore them. Ramming programs through Congress
> isnt bypassing the legislative process..it's just
> effectively using the bully pulpit. If the
> programs were determined to be
> unconstitutional...to my knowledge, he stopped
> them.
>
> An intreresting "what if" would have been if any
> of the Japanese had sued for their freedom and had
> won....Would FDR had complied? I don't know..I
> tend to think so...but who knows.
I question why we ever let the Japanese out of the camps.
-------------------------------------------------------
> WFB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > theory is that a president can virtually do
> > anything under the banner under Commander and
> > Chief..ignoring the Constitution...ignoring the
> > legislative and judicial branches.
> >
> > The point about FDR is that he tried to pack
> the
> > Supreme Court and rammed through programs that
> > were in no way constitutional. Lincoln did the
> > same but Lincoln was one of those Republicans
> who
> > you seem to think are the only presidents who
> ever
> > violated the constitution.
>
> He tried to pack the Supreme Court and failed..he
> did not ignore the courts in their decision...to
> my knowledge he did not feel he had the right to
> ignore them. Ramming programs through Congress
> isnt bypassing the legislative process..it's just
> effectively using the bully pulpit. If the
> programs were determined to be
> unconstitutional...to my knowledge, he stopped
> them.
>
> An intreresting "what if" would have been if any
> of the Japanese had sued for their freedom and had
> won....Would FDR had complied? I don't know..I
> tend to think so...but who knows.
I question why we ever let the Japanese out of the camps.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: June 11, 2009 02:42PM
Rethinking George W. Bush:
Hmmmm...
2008 - Dry Drunk Frat Boy who was in Way over his Head.
2009 - Dry Drunk Frat Boy who was in Way over his Head...and who totally destroyed the Republican Party.
Hmmm....
Hmmmm...
2008 - Dry Drunk Frat Boy who was in Way over his Head.
2009 - Dry Drunk Frat Boy who was in Way over his Head...and who totally destroyed the Republican Party.
Hmmm....
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: June 12, 2009 04:33PM
You know, before Obama became President and GWB was in, they used to talk about how his deficits were bad for the country, etc. Now Obama gets elected and Pelosi and Reid take "spending like a drunken sailor" to new heights, funding every pet program the Democrats have ever wanted to float in the name of "stimulus".
Somehow I remember before the election all the "economically minded" folks here giving us lessons on why McCain had bad ideas for the economy, and supposedly Obama was good. Please, can someone reconcile how massive government spending, including expansion of programs that were already bloated and out of control, is going to help us get out of the recession later? All I am seeing here is a recipe for a new round of "stagflation" - ala Jimmy Carter era - but magnified to the nth power with a massive deficit. The government needed to cut back spending, and instead opened the spigots...
I have to say, for all my original support for staying the course in Iraq, and all the rest, I would have thought that the answer for liberals would have been to pull out of Iraq, reduce war spending (let the Iraqis go to hell and back) and get our house in order. Russia, Germany, France - they all would have been happy to re-fill the void in Iraq once we left and they could get back in with their programs - and it would have actually been funny to see Russia try and reconcile Iraq vs Iran since they would then have been left in the position of trying to ensure all their economic interests weren't destroyed in the region with a civil war in Iraq. Sure, they would have blamed the US - they are doing that anyway - but now we have essentially sold the US to the Chinese in the name of debt. How can we possibly deal with them realistically anymore on issues like Taiwan and any other issues when they can just do what they are doing now - making veiled threats to make our currency even more worthless so they can leverage concessions on other issues? And this issue is one the liberals were bashing Bush with during his years in office over having too much debt. So instead now it becomes we can't have enough debt?
Ok.
Somehow I remember before the election all the "economically minded" folks here giving us lessons on why McCain had bad ideas for the economy, and supposedly Obama was good. Please, can someone reconcile how massive government spending, including expansion of programs that were already bloated and out of control, is going to help us get out of the recession later? All I am seeing here is a recipe for a new round of "stagflation" - ala Jimmy Carter era - but magnified to the nth power with a massive deficit. The government needed to cut back spending, and instead opened the spigots...
I have to say, for all my original support for staying the course in Iraq, and all the rest, I would have thought that the answer for liberals would have been to pull out of Iraq, reduce war spending (let the Iraqis go to hell and back) and get our house in order. Russia, Germany, France - they all would have been happy to re-fill the void in Iraq once we left and they could get back in with their programs - and it would have actually been funny to see Russia try and reconcile Iraq vs Iran since they would then have been left in the position of trying to ensure all their economic interests weren't destroyed in the region with a civil war in Iraq. Sure, they would have blamed the US - they are doing that anyway - but now we have essentially sold the US to the Chinese in the name of debt. How can we possibly deal with them realistically anymore on issues like Taiwan and any other issues when they can just do what they are doing now - making veiled threats to make our currency even more worthless so they can leverage concessions on other issues? And this issue is one the liberals were bashing Bush with during his years in office over having too much debt. So instead now it becomes we can't have enough debt?
Ok.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
formerhick76
()
Date: June 13, 2009 08:57AM
Registered Voter, I thought Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: June 13, 2009 09:09AM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know, before Obama became President and GWB
> was in, they used to talk about how his deficits
> were bad for the country, etc. Now Obama gets
> elected and Pelosi and Reid take "spending like a
> drunken sailor" to new heights, funding every pet
> program the Democrats have ever wanted to float in
> the name of "stimulus".
>
> Somehow I remember before the election all the
> "economically minded" folks here giving us lessons
> on why McCain had bad ideas for the economy, and
> supposedly Obama was good. Please, can someone
> reconcile how massive government spending,
> including expansion of programs that were already
> bloated and out of control, is going to help us
> get out of the recession later? All I am seeing
> here is a recipe for a new round of "stagflation"
> - ala Jimmy Carter era - but magnified to the nth
> power with a massive deficit. The government
> needed to cut back spending, and instead opened
> the spigots...
>
> I have to say, for all my original support for
> staying the course in Iraq, and all the rest, I
> would have thought that the answer for liberals
> would have been to pull out of Iraq, reduce war
> spending (let the Iraqis go to hell and back) and
> get our house in order. Russia, Germany, France -
> they all would have been happy to re-fill the void
> in Iraq once we left and they could get back in
> with their programs - and it would have actually
> been funny to see Russia try and reconcile Iraq vs
> Iran since they would then have been left in the
> position of trying to ensure all their economic
> interests weren't destroyed in the region with a
> civil war in Iraq. Sure, they would have blamed
> the US - they are doing that anyway - but now we
> have essentially sold the US to the Chinese in the
> name of debt. How can we possibly deal with them
> realistically anymore on issues like Taiwan and
> any other issues when they can just do what they
> are doing now - making veiled threats to make our
> currency even more worthless so they can leverage
> concessions on other issues? And this issue is one
> the liberals were bashing Bush with during his
> years in office over having too much debt. So
> instead now it becomes we can't have enough debt?
>
> Ok.
No "independent" economist thought that US Govt could do nothing in the face of the unprescedented freezing of the financial markets. There is no industrial...financial CEO who thought the federal govt could do nothing in face of the unprescedented freezing of the financial markets. The only qualification made by any of these people is that the stimulus package might not work because it wasnt large enough.
Will the country face challenges in the future because of the money being spent? Of course it will. The question is which would be worse...
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know, before Obama became President and GWB
> was in, they used to talk about how his deficits
> were bad for the country, etc. Now Obama gets
> elected and Pelosi and Reid take "spending like a
> drunken sailor" to new heights, funding every pet
> program the Democrats have ever wanted to float in
> the name of "stimulus".
>
> Somehow I remember before the election all the
> "economically minded" folks here giving us lessons
> on why McCain had bad ideas for the economy, and
> supposedly Obama was good. Please, can someone
> reconcile how massive government spending,
> including expansion of programs that were already
> bloated and out of control, is going to help us
> get out of the recession later? All I am seeing
> here is a recipe for a new round of "stagflation"
> - ala Jimmy Carter era - but magnified to the nth
> power with a massive deficit. The government
> needed to cut back spending, and instead opened
> the spigots...
>
> I have to say, for all my original support for
> staying the course in Iraq, and all the rest, I
> would have thought that the answer for liberals
> would have been to pull out of Iraq, reduce war
> spending (let the Iraqis go to hell and back) and
> get our house in order. Russia, Germany, France -
> they all would have been happy to re-fill the void
> in Iraq once we left and they could get back in
> with their programs - and it would have actually
> been funny to see Russia try and reconcile Iraq vs
> Iran since they would then have been left in the
> position of trying to ensure all their economic
> interests weren't destroyed in the region with a
> civil war in Iraq. Sure, they would have blamed
> the US - they are doing that anyway - but now we
> have essentially sold the US to the Chinese in the
> name of debt. How can we possibly deal with them
> realistically anymore on issues like Taiwan and
> any other issues when they can just do what they
> are doing now - making veiled threats to make our
> currency even more worthless so they can leverage
> concessions on other issues? And this issue is one
> the liberals were bashing Bush with during his
> years in office over having too much debt. So
> instead now it becomes we can't have enough debt?
>
> Ok.
No "independent" economist thought that US Govt could do nothing in the face of the unprescedented freezing of the financial markets. There is no industrial...financial CEO who thought the federal govt could do nothing in face of the unprescedented freezing of the financial markets. The only qualification made by any of these people is that the stimulus package might not work because it wasnt large enough.
Will the country face challenges in the future because of the money being spent? Of course it will. The question is which would be worse...
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Judge Crater
()
Date: June 13, 2009 10:23AM
Vince(1) Wrote:
>
There is no
> industrial...financial CEO who thought the federal
> govt could do nothing in face of the
> unprescedented freezing of the financial markets.
>
The CEO's are capitalists. They want to make lots of money any way they can. They see the bailout as a way to make back the money they lost. By scaring the American public into thinking its the end of the world unless they get the bailout money. Its just another scheme on top of all the other market manipulations that have been going on since bankers dreamed up interest and wall street started trading.
>
There is no
> industrial...financial CEO who thought the federal
> govt could do nothing in face of the
> unprescedented freezing of the financial markets.
>
The CEO's are capitalists. They want to make lots of money any way they can. They see the bailout as a way to make back the money they lost. By scaring the American public into thinking its the end of the world unless they get the bailout money. Its just another scheme on top of all the other market manipulations that have been going on since bankers dreamed up interest and wall street started trading.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: June 16, 2009 01:23PM
formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter, I thought Reagan proved deficits
> don't matter.
Deficits in and of themselves are not a problem within limits. When you start pushing into larger percentages of overall GDP it becomes a serious problem - much like a consumer borrowing money on credit cards. At some point you can no longer assure that the money will be paid back, and if the borrowed money is not used properly you end up with an even larger problem. As it is, there is some expectation that part of the money pushed out as "stimulus" funds will come back in the form of collected taxes on the money spent (corporate earnings, sales taxes, etc).
Vince(1) Wrote:
> No "independent" economist thought that US Govt could do nothing in the face of > the unprescedented freezing of the financial markets. There is no
> industrial...financial CEO who thought the federal govt could do nothing in
> face of the unprescedented freezing of the financial markets. The only
> qualification made by any of these people is that the stimulus package might
> not work because it wasnt large enough.
> Will the country face challenges in the future because of the money being
> spent? Of course it will. The question is which would be worse...
The freezing of the financial markets was due to one very large, overriding issue: mortgages and the mortgage backed securities derived from them. The initial idea behind TARP was to buy mortgages/securities from the banks and get the bad debt off their backs, thus allowing them to potentially start lending again. The banks would have only received about $.70 on the dollar (which would have been a great deal if you look at what they are getting today) but it would have stabilized the housing market and gotten money flowing again. Instead the TARP funds were given directly to banks to offset the bad debt, and thus balance the banks books. They were still unable to lend any money since the mortgages continued to decline in value and they did not want to be caught over-leveraged if they continued to collapse. So the situation just continued to get worse, even with the money they were given. Now we have this stupid stimulus bill to throw more money out (that has no backing) into the markets, and severely devaluing the dollar. Can you not see how this not only doesn't correct the problem, but sets it up to be EVEN WORSE later? Not to mention you now have countries looking to move away from the dollar, which will increase the momentum on devaluing the dollar.
Once the Fed took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they should have used those entities to purchase mortgages and securities from the banks, and the Federal Government should have cut or reigned in spending on other programs while this was going on. That would have given two significant boosts to the overall economic lookout, allowed for the credit markets to unfreeze, and stabilized housing prices. There still would have been an increase in debt, but it would have been absorbed by the government, been less transparent (since Fannie and Freddie would have just transferred the liabilities) and not led to an increase in the money supply in such a drastic measure.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter, I thought Reagan proved deficits
> don't matter.
Deficits in and of themselves are not a problem within limits. When you start pushing into larger percentages of overall GDP it becomes a serious problem - much like a consumer borrowing money on credit cards. At some point you can no longer assure that the money will be paid back, and if the borrowed money is not used properly you end up with an even larger problem. As it is, there is some expectation that part of the money pushed out as "stimulus" funds will come back in the form of collected taxes on the money spent (corporate earnings, sales taxes, etc).
Vince(1) Wrote:
> No "independent" economist thought that US Govt could do nothing in the face of > the unprescedented freezing of the financial markets. There is no
> industrial...financial CEO who thought the federal govt could do nothing in
> face of the unprescedented freezing of the financial markets. The only
> qualification made by any of these people is that the stimulus package might
> not work because it wasnt large enough.
> Will the country face challenges in the future because of the money being
> spent? Of course it will. The question is which would be worse...
The freezing of the financial markets was due to one very large, overriding issue: mortgages and the mortgage backed securities derived from them. The initial idea behind TARP was to buy mortgages/securities from the banks and get the bad debt off their backs, thus allowing them to potentially start lending again. The banks would have only received about $.70 on the dollar (which would have been a great deal if you look at what they are getting today) but it would have stabilized the housing market and gotten money flowing again. Instead the TARP funds were given directly to banks to offset the bad debt, and thus balance the banks books. They were still unable to lend any money since the mortgages continued to decline in value and they did not want to be caught over-leveraged if they continued to collapse. So the situation just continued to get worse, even with the money they were given. Now we have this stupid stimulus bill to throw more money out (that has no backing) into the markets, and severely devaluing the dollar. Can you not see how this not only doesn't correct the problem, but sets it up to be EVEN WORSE later? Not to mention you now have countries looking to move away from the dollar, which will increase the momentum on devaluing the dollar.
Once the Fed took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they should have used those entities to purchase mortgages and securities from the banks, and the Federal Government should have cut or reigned in spending on other programs while this was going on. That would have given two significant boosts to the overall economic lookout, allowed for the credit markets to unfreeze, and stabilized housing prices. There still would have been an increase in debt, but it would have been absorbed by the government, been less transparent (since Fannie and Freddie would have just transferred the liabilities) and not led to an increase in the money supply in such a drastic measure.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
§
()
Date: June 16, 2009 01:32PM
Devaluing the dollar? No recent adminstration has devalued the dollar more than GWB.
.
Attachments:
.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: June 16, 2009 01:37PM
Yes well, Obama is making sure it truly goes to shit. May as well make toilet paper out of it now and sell it for Yuan - you have more money when China takes over.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
§
()
Date: June 16, 2009 01:46PM
And the Republicans, with all their built-up goodwill and fiscal successes, would've miraculously reversed the death spiral they put us in?
Survey says, NO.
.
Attachments:
Survey says, NO.
.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: June 16, 2009 01:51PM
Survey says "how about getting your head out of your ass?"
This isn't about Republicans or Democrats, its about all of us. Note, TARP was mis-directed under the Bush administration - now it has gone about 10 steps worse. That was my point. You seem to focus on Dem vs Rep - I am saying this is a problem beyond those lines, and if all folks want to do is point out why the last fuckwits in office screwed up worse than the current ones, we all deserve what we end up with. The way the talk was before Obama was elected, it was all about fiscal responsibility, and all sorts of other BS - where is the fiscal responsibility now? Most of it seems lost in saying how bad the last guy was.
This isn't about Republicans or Democrats, its about all of us. Note, TARP was mis-directed under the Bush administration - now it has gone about 10 steps worse. That was my point. You seem to focus on Dem vs Rep - I am saying this is a problem beyond those lines, and if all folks want to do is point out why the last fuckwits in office screwed up worse than the current ones, we all deserve what we end up with. The way the talk was before Obama was elected, it was all about fiscal responsibility, and all sorts of other BS - where is the fiscal responsibility now? Most of it seems lost in saying how bad the last guy was.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Spook
()
Date: June 16, 2009 02:19PM
At least Bush stood his ground, even if he was wrong. All Obama wants to do is pose with his shirt off and read off a teleprompter.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: June 16, 2009 02:41PM
Spook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least Bush stood his ground, even if he was
> wrong. All Obama wants to do is pose with his
> shirt off and read off a teleprompter.
Standing his ground when he was wrong? You mean, like General Custer?
Seriously, there is nothing virtuous about standing your ground when you are wrong. It's called stupidity.
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least Bush stood his ground, even if he was
> wrong. All Obama wants to do is pose with his
> shirt off and read off a teleprompter.
Standing his ground when he was wrong? You mean, like General Custer?
Seriously, there is nothing virtuous about standing your ground when you are wrong. It's called stupidity.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: June 16, 2009 02:53PM
Spook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least Bush stood his ground, even if he was wrong.
LOL. Ever work with someone who was wrong and refused to budge? It's called "being a shithead".
If "standing your ground even when you're wrong" is so righteous, the next time you screw up at work, just stand your ground and tell your boss you refuse to correct yourself and refuse to learn from your mistake, because "standing your ground" is more important than getting the job done right.
See how long you last in the real world with that kind of simplistic, retarded attitude.
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least Bush stood his ground, even if he was wrong.
LOL. Ever work with someone who was wrong and refused to budge? It's called "being a shithead".
If "standing your ground even when you're wrong" is so righteous, the next time you screw up at work, just stand your ground and tell your boss you refuse to correct yourself and refuse to learn from your mistake, because "standing your ground" is more important than getting the job done right.
See how long you last in the real world with that kind of simplistic, retarded attitude.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Spook
()
Date: June 16, 2009 03:01PM
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spook Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > At least Bush stood his ground, even if he was
> wrong.
>
>
> LOL. Ever work with someone who was wrong and
> refused to budge? It's called "being a
> shithead".
>
> If "standing your ground even when you're wrong"
> is so righteous, the next time you screw up at
> work, just stand your ground and tell your boss
> you refuse to correct yourself and refuse to learn
> from your mistake, because "standing your ground"
> is more important than getting the job done
> right.
>
> See how long you last in the real world with that
> kind of simplistic, retarded attitude.
It's called STAYING THE COURSE. Consistency is key. We can't go from Warlord one minute to a Playgirl Pinup the next without losing some cred.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spook Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > At least Bush stood his ground, even if he was
> wrong.
>
>
> LOL. Ever work with someone who was wrong and
> refused to budge? It's called "being a
> shithead".
>
> If "standing your ground even when you're wrong"
> is so righteous, the next time you screw up at
> work, just stand your ground and tell your boss
> you refuse to correct yourself and refuse to learn
> from your mistake, because "standing your ground"
> is more important than getting the job done
> right.
>
> See how long you last in the real world with that
> kind of simplistic, retarded attitude.
It's called STAYING THE COURSE. Consistency is key. We can't go from Warlord one minute to a Playgirl Pinup the next without losing some cred.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: June 16, 2009 03:07PM
Spook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > See how long you last in the real world with
> that
> > kind of simplistic, retarded attitude.
>
> It's called STAYING THE COURSE. Consistency is
> key. We can't go from Warlord one minute to a
> Playgirl Pinup the next without losing some cred.
Yes. Stay the course. You must stay the course regardless of the outcome.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2009 03:08PM by WashingTone Locian.
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > See how long you last in the real world with
> that
> > kind of simplistic, retarded attitude.
>
> It's called STAYING THE COURSE. Consistency is
> key. We can't go from Warlord one minute to a
> Playgirl Pinup the next without losing some cred.
Yes. Stay the course. You must stay the course regardless of the outcome.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2009 03:08PM by WashingTone Locian.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: June 16, 2009 03:13PM
I can just imagine what your performance reviews must be like....
"Well, my bad decisions cost our department over $100k more than we have budgeted- but hey, at least I didn't change my mind while I was losing our money. I chose to stay the course. Now where's my bonus, dammit!"
Spook Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> It's called STAYING THE COURSE. Consistency is
> key. We can't go from Warlord one minute to a
> Playgirl Pinup the next without losing some cred.
"Well, my bad decisions cost our department over $100k more than we have budgeted- but hey, at least I didn't change my mind while I was losing our money. I chose to stay the course. Now where's my bonus, dammit!"
Spook Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> It's called STAYING THE COURSE. Consistency is
> key. We can't go from Warlord one minute to a
> Playgirl Pinup the next without losing some cred.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
§
()
Date: June 16, 2009 03:20PM
Yeah, let's stay the course.
.
Attachments:
.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone Locian
()
Date: June 16, 2009 03:20PM
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can just imagine what your performance reviews
> must be like....
>
> "Well, my bad decisions cost our department over
> $100k more than we have budgeted- but hey, at
> least I didn't change my mind while I was losing
> our money. I chose to stay the course. Now
> where's my bonus, dammit!"
>
He must be some damn kid who is still buying into that "never quit" and "suck it up" bullshit he heard from Mr. Woodcock in gym. The fact is, everybody with an ounce of common sense has had to change course at some point. Conditions change.
He talks about "setting a course," well that's all fine and good. But if the wind starts changing direction, you have to change your damn sails around! And it might require you to sail off course for a while but invariably your goal is to end up at the same place in the end.
Stupid fucking punk.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can just imagine what your performance reviews
> must be like....
>
> "Well, my bad decisions cost our department over
> $100k more than we have budgeted- but hey, at
> least I didn't change my mind while I was losing
> our money. I chose to stay the course. Now
> where's my bonus, dammit!"
>
He must be some damn kid who is still buying into that "never quit" and "suck it up" bullshit he heard from Mr. Woodcock in gym. The fact is, everybody with an ounce of common sense has had to change course at some point. Conditions change.
He talks about "setting a course," well that's all fine and good. But if the wind starts changing direction, you have to change your damn sails around! And it might require you to sail off course for a while but invariably your goal is to end up at the same place in the end.
Stupid fucking punk.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
TheMeeper
()
Date: June 16, 2009 03:29PM
I was in Westover on Sunday, and tried cutting north across Arlington to get to McLean via back streets. I took a wrong turn somewhere, and after about a mile I realized I was heading in the wrong direction.
But, I stood my ground. I stayed the course.
It sorta really sucked cuz I ended up in Annandale
But, I stood my ground. I stayed the course.
It sorta really sucked cuz I ended up in Annandale
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Furfur
()
Date: June 16, 2009 03:33PM
TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was in Westover on Sunday, and tried cutting
> north across Arlington to get to McLean via back
> streets. I took a wrong turn somewhere, and after
> about a mile I realized I was heading in the wrong
> direction.
>
> But, I stood my ground. I stayed the course.
>
> It sorta really sucked cuz I ended up in Annandale
You call that staying the course? lol
I missed my exit the other day on 95 south, I got worried, but I stood my ground and kept driving.
I ended up in the Florida Keys, proud that I stayed the course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton Lavey
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was in Westover on Sunday, and tried cutting
> north across Arlington to get to McLean via back
> streets. I took a wrong turn somewhere, and after
> about a mile I realized I was heading in the wrong
> direction.
>
> But, I stood my ground. I stayed the course.
>
> It sorta really sucked cuz I ended up in Annandale
You call that staying the course? lol
I missed my exit the other day on 95 south, I got worried, but I stood my ground and kept driving.
I ended up in the Florida Keys, proud that I stayed the course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton Lavey
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: June 16, 2009 03:51PM
You know, there is a difference between "staying the course" in the short-term, and doing so to get a long-term result. Today everything is measured in the latest news cycle. Imagine World War II fought with today's media machine - we would all be speaking German now. Imagine the Civil War - who would send their boys to fight a war where both sides lost thousands of men in such a short time? Technology and communication has had an interesting affect on long-term commitments in wars for sure - and only governments with dictatorships or some other form of controlling regime will be able to sustain efforts of this nature where it requires any form of long term commitment to a course of action that may be unpopular with the media.
There is being a "person of conviction", and then there is just being stubborn. Being a person of conviction means you will attempt to affect a goal, and even if you don't succeed with one method you will find others to the same end. Stubborn means that you don't necessarily have a conviction of purpose at all, just an unwillingness to see that what you are doing may not be the best, smartest, or even worth doing in the first place. Or maybe you stubbornly refuse to do anything at all.
I believe Bush was a man of conviction, but not the best at planning. No doubt some of the stubbornness in his policies came from some of his advisers, or military leaders he chose to follow. Also once you are in a certain course of action, many times it is hard to change course because you feel like success is "just around the corner".
There is a balance in there somewhere. What I don't want to see is a person who has the certainty that they know what is best for us and push to make that happen, even when it is obvious that the majority of us don't accept their conclusion. That is where it gets truly dangerous.
China is one of the best examples of long term commitment to a goal. They have adopted a few changes in their regime for experiments with capitalism, but they could turn all that back in a short period of time if they wanted to. It doesn't mean they are open to new ideas though. Ask the millions of people displaced when they decided to build their huge hydroelectric dam how well their objections were received.
There is being a "person of conviction", and then there is just being stubborn. Being a person of conviction means you will attempt to affect a goal, and even if you don't succeed with one method you will find others to the same end. Stubborn means that you don't necessarily have a conviction of purpose at all, just an unwillingness to see that what you are doing may not be the best, smartest, or even worth doing in the first place. Or maybe you stubbornly refuse to do anything at all.
I believe Bush was a man of conviction, but not the best at planning. No doubt some of the stubbornness in his policies came from some of his advisers, or military leaders he chose to follow. Also once you are in a certain course of action, many times it is hard to change course because you feel like success is "just around the corner".
There is a balance in there somewhere. What I don't want to see is a person who has the certainty that they know what is best for us and push to make that happen, even when it is obvious that the majority of us don't accept their conclusion. That is where it gets truly dangerous.
China is one of the best examples of long term commitment to a goal. They have adopted a few changes in their regime for experiments with capitalism, but they could turn all that back in a short period of time if they wanted to. It doesn't mean they are open to new ideas though. Ask the millions of people displaced when they decided to build their huge hydroelectric dam how well their objections were received.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
§
()
Date: June 16, 2009 03:58PM
Registered Voter wrote:
---------------------------
Blah Blah Blah Saving Face for the Republicans Loss
.
Attachments:
---------------------------
Blah Blah Blah Saving Face for the Republicans Loss
.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: June 16, 2009 04:05PM
Yes Mr "I can't say much without a picture to make my point" since doing anything that requires more than 5 keystrokes is beyond me (case in point your posting name).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2009 04:05PM by Registered Voter.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2009 04:05PM by Registered Voter.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
§
()
Date: June 16, 2009 04:09PM
Don't you know? Pictures speak louder than words.
.
Attachments:
.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: June 16, 2009 04:27PM
Sometimes pictures say more about the person posting them then they do about the subject at hand.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: June 16, 2009 04:51PM
> China is one of the best examples of long term
> commitment to a goal. They have adopted a few
> changes in their regime for experiments with
> capitalism, but they could turn all that back in a
> short period of time if they wanted to. It doesn't
> mean they are open to new ideas though. Ask the
> millions of people displaced when they decided to
> build their huge hydroelectric dam how well their
> objections were received.
We have done similar things to people in the name of progress. Perhaps not to the scale of China..but definately the same intent and consequence to those impacted.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
> commitment to a goal. They have adopted a few
> changes in their regime for experiments with
> capitalism, but they could turn all that back in a
> short period of time if they wanted to. It doesn't
> mean they are open to new ideas though. Ask the
> millions of people displaced when they decided to
> build their huge hydroelectric dam how well their
> objections were received.
We have done similar things to people in the name of progress. Perhaps not to the scale of China..but definately the same intent and consequence to those impacted.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
§
()
Date: June 16, 2009 05:19PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sometimes pictures say more about the person
> posting them then they do about the subject at
> hand.
That reads almost like this.
.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sometimes pictures say more about the person
> posting them then they do about the subject at
> hand.
That reads almost like this.
.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: June 17, 2009 12:15PM
So I get it now - you can't read, so you post pictures with words you don't understand.
You know, one day you will use all the pics from that site, then you will be unable to communicate anymore.
You know, one day you will use all the pics from that site, then you will be unable to communicate anymore.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Henry VIII
()
Date: June 17, 2009 12:34PM
The Bush I - Clinton - Bush II era was the best. Nobody could touch us. That era will be remembered in 100 years from now as the era where the USA was bulletproof.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Warhawk
()
Date: June 17, 2009 12:37PM
Then this came along.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2009 12:38PM by Warhawk.
Attachments:
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2009 12:38PM by Warhawk.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
?uestion Mark
()
Date: July 14, 2009 02:32PM
So, we are 6 months into Obamas reign and our foreign policy is as weak as it was in the 1970s. Bush isn't looking so bad right now. At least he was tough on rogue nations. Obama shows FEAR at North Korea. Bush stared Putin in the eye. Big Difference.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: July 14, 2009 02:33PM
?uestion Mark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, we are 6 months into Obamas reign and our
> foreign policy is as weak as it was in the 1970s.
> Bush isn't looking so bad right now. At least he
> was tough on rogue nations. Obama shows FEAR at
> North Korea. Bush stared Putin in the eye. Big
> Difference.
Bush sucked.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, we are 6 months into Obamas reign and our
> foreign policy is as weak as it was in the 1970s.
> Bush isn't looking so bad right now. At least he
> was tough on rogue nations. Obama shows FEAR at
> North Korea. Bush stared Putin in the eye. Big
> Difference.
Bush sucked.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
?uestion Mark
()
Date: July 14, 2009 02:34PM
WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ?uestion Mark Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So, we are 6 months into Obamas reign and our
> > foreign policy is as weak as it was in the
> 1970s.
> > Bush isn't looking so bad right now. At least
> he
> > was tough on rogue nations. Obama shows FEAR at
> > North Korea. Bush stared Putin in the eye. Big
> > Difference.
>
>
> Bush sucked.
yea..things were really bad when we ruled the world and the DOW was at 14,000. Must be hard.
-------------------------------------------------------
> ?uestion Mark Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So, we are 6 months into Obamas reign and our
> > foreign policy is as weak as it was in the
> 1970s.
> > Bush isn't looking so bad right now. At least
> he
> > was tough on rogue nations. Obama shows FEAR at
> > North Korea. Bush stared Putin in the eye. Big
> > Difference.
>
>
> Bush sucked.
yea..things were really bad when we ruled the world and the DOW was at 14,000. Must be hard.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
¤
()
Date: July 14, 2009 02:40PM
Don't forget that Bush let the dollar fall in value to the point the Canadian dollar was worth more and nations considered converting their reserves to the Euro.
Also, Obama has not shown fear in international relations, he is trying to repair our image that Bush destroyed. Under Bush, we became isolated and arrogant.
Also, Obama has not shown fear in international relations, he is trying to repair our image that Bush destroyed. Under Bush, we became isolated and arrogant.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
?uestion Mark
()
Date: July 14, 2009 02:43PM
¤ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't forget that Bush let the dollar fall in
> value to the point the Canadian dollar was worth
> more and nations considered converting their
> reserves to the Euro.
>
> Also, Obama has not shown fear in international
> relations, he is trying to repair our image that
> Bush destroyed. Under Bush, we became isolated and
> arrogant.
I did not become arrogant. You sound like a liberal knitpicker...focusing on the details, but not seeing the big picture.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't forget that Bush let the dollar fall in
> value to the point the Canadian dollar was worth
> more and nations considered converting their
> reserves to the Euro.
>
> Also, Obama has not shown fear in international
> relations, he is trying to repair our image that
> Bush destroyed. Under Bush, we became isolated and
> arrogant.
I did not become arrogant. You sound like a liberal knitpicker...focusing on the details, but not seeing the big picture.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
¤
()
Date: July 14, 2009 02:48PM
Tell me then what is the big picture? Obama has to spend all his time un-fucking this country's damage left by Bush.
Also, when I said "isolated and arrogant" I was talking about our image in front of the world.
Also, when I said "isolated and arrogant" I was talking about our image in front of the world.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Republican Leaders: Where Are They?
()
Date: July 14, 2009 06:20PM
?uestion Mark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ?uestion Mark Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So, we are 6 months into Obamas reign and our
> > > foreign policy is as weak as it was in the
> > 1970s.
> > > Bush isn't looking so bad right now. At least
> > he
> > > was tough on rogue nations. Obama shows FEAR
> at
> > > North Korea. Bush stared Putin in the eye.
> Big
> > > Difference.
> >
> >
> > Bush sucked.
>
>
> yea..things were really bad when we ruled the
> world and the DOW was at 14,000. Must be hard.
Wow. What a retard.
Let us know when you understand the concept of failed markets relative to lack of oversight and get back to us, mmkay?
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ?uestion Mark Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So, we are 6 months into Obamas reign and our
> > > foreign policy is as weak as it was in the
> > 1970s.
> > > Bush isn't looking so bad right now. At least
> > he
> > > was tough on rogue nations. Obama shows FEAR
> at
> > > North Korea. Bush stared Putin in the eye.
> Big
> > > Difference.
> >
> >
> > Bush sucked.
>
>
> yea..things were really bad when we ruled the
> world and the DOW was at 14,000. Must be hard.
Wow. What a retard.
Let us know when you understand the concept of failed markets relative to lack of oversight and get back to us, mmkay?
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Horace
()
Date: July 15, 2009 12:28AM
Republican Leaders: Where Are They? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ?uestion Mark Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ?uestion Mark Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > So, we are 6 months into Obamas reign and
> our
> > > > foreign policy is as weak as it was in the
> > > 1970s.
> > > > Bush isn't looking so bad right now. At
> least
> > > he
> > > > was tough on rogue nations. Obama shows
> FEAR
> > at
> > > > North Korea. Bush stared Putin in the eye.
> > Big
> > > > Difference.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bush sucked.
> >
> >
> > yea..things were really bad when we ruled the
> > world and the DOW was at 14,000. Must be hard.
>
> Wow. What a retard.
>
> Let us know when you understand the concept of
> failed markets relative to lack of oversight and
> get back to us, mmkay?
Or maybe you just don't appreciate FREEDOM? Consider that...
-------------------------------------------------------
> ?uestion Mark Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ?uestion Mark Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > So, we are 6 months into Obamas reign and
> our
> > > > foreign policy is as weak as it was in the
> > > 1970s.
> > > > Bush isn't looking so bad right now. At
> least
> > > he
> > > > was tough on rogue nations. Obama shows
> FEAR
> > at
> > > > North Korea. Bush stared Putin in the eye.
> > Big
> > > > Difference.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bush sucked.
> >
> >
> > yea..things were really bad when we ruled the
> > world and the DOW was at 14,000. Must be hard.
>
> Wow. What a retard.
>
> Let us know when you understand the concept of
> failed markets relative to lack of oversight and
> get back to us, mmkay?
Or maybe you just don't appreciate FREEDOM? Consider that...
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: July 15, 2009 09:39AM
¤ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tell me then what is the big picture? Obama has to
> spend all his time un-fucking this country's
> damage left by Bush.
>
> Also, when I said "isolated and arrogant" I was
> talking about our image in front of the world.
Maybe if "the world" learned to deal with their own problems I would care more.
Palestinians - how many arab countries will kick them out and claim it isn't their problem these people have no home? Other than our support of Israel (who has been a better friend to us than almost any of those other arab nations) - why is this a US problem again?
Balkans - when you push a bunch of strong-willed religions together in an area where many people are undereducated, then remove the authoritarian government what did you think was going to happen? And why is it that none of their immediate neighbors could deal with "ethnic cleansing"? Why was this a US problem again?
North Korea - and just who, exactly, does it benefit? With China and Russia sitting on their doorstep, don't you think they could provide more aid to an unstable regime? Why is this a US problem again?
Hey, let's just sit back and watch them shoot each other all to hell. Honestly I would appreciate that a whole lot more - oh right, then the liberal media would start showing scenes of all these people getting killed (by others) and blame the US for that too. What is it going to change - this Obama reconciliation with the world? Did you notice that most of the European governments were moving more to the right and becoming more conservative now?
Seriously - who is it that we should support to make our image better in the world? By most accounts the only way we could really mend fences with the arabs is to let Israel get rolled over - and of course Israel will just start a nuclear war if that happens - is that in our best interests?
Try to think past the soundbites.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tell me then what is the big picture? Obama has to
> spend all his time un-fucking this country's
> damage left by Bush.
>
> Also, when I said "isolated and arrogant" I was
> talking about our image in front of the world.
Maybe if "the world" learned to deal with their own problems I would care more.
Palestinians - how many arab countries will kick them out and claim it isn't their problem these people have no home? Other than our support of Israel (who has been a better friend to us than almost any of those other arab nations) - why is this a US problem again?
Balkans - when you push a bunch of strong-willed religions together in an area where many people are undereducated, then remove the authoritarian government what did you think was going to happen? And why is it that none of their immediate neighbors could deal with "ethnic cleansing"? Why was this a US problem again?
North Korea - and just who, exactly, does it benefit? With China and Russia sitting on their doorstep, don't you think they could provide more aid to an unstable regime? Why is this a US problem again?
Hey, let's just sit back and watch them shoot each other all to hell. Honestly I would appreciate that a whole lot more - oh right, then the liberal media would start showing scenes of all these people getting killed (by others) and blame the US for that too. What is it going to change - this Obama reconciliation with the world? Did you notice that most of the European governments were moving more to the right and becoming more conservative now?
Seriously - who is it that we should support to make our image better in the world? By most accounts the only way we could really mend fences with the arabs is to let Israel get rolled over - and of course Israel will just start a nuclear war if that happens - is that in our best interests?
Try to think past the soundbites.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: July 15, 2009 11:49AM
Karl Rove has painted Bush into a corner historically. Since Bush left office, Rove and his buddies have tried to portray Bush as a loyal visionary who was duped by Cheney and the neo-Con cabal. There are two problems with that. If Iraq ends up being a failure, Bush will look like a moron who allowed himself to be controlled like a puppet by Cheney & company. If Iraq ends up being a success, it will be seen as a success for Cheney & Company despite the inadequacies of Bush. In either case, Bush will not be seen as a strong leader along the lines of Reagan, FDR, Lincoln, etc. He will be more in the Warren G. Harding mode of a guy who was too pre-occupied with bullshit to fully understand what was happening in his Administration.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Hummus
()
Date: July 15, 2009 11:56AM
Horace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Or maybe you just don't appreciate FREEDOM?
> Consider that...
Freedom isn't free.
It costs a buck o'five.
Consider that you failed the American people, Horaceshit.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Or maybe you just don't appreciate FREEDOM?
> Consider that...
Freedom isn't free.
It costs a buck o'five.
Consider that you failed the American people, Horaceshit.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: July 15, 2009 12:30PM
Here's a thought. Vietnam was a mess under Johnson, but is now friendly to the U.S. and supports many of our interests in the region. Does that mean Vietnam was a success for Johnson? Lebanon was a mess under Reagan, but now the government in Lebanon is mostly friendly toward the U.S. and supports some of our interests in the region. Does that mean Lebanon was a success for Reagan?
The answer would be "no." You don't see Vietnam or Lebanon highlighted as successes for those Presidents, though one might try to argue that their actions there were catalysts for change that eventually bore positive results.
So why on Earth does anyone imagine that if in 20 years Iraq is like a Lebanon or Vietnam that Bush would be given credit for it? I don't think he will. No one will...like we have seen with Vietnam and Lebanon.
The answer would be "no." You don't see Vietnam or Lebanon highlighted as successes for those Presidents, though one might try to argue that their actions there were catalysts for change that eventually bore positive results.
So why on Earth does anyone imagine that if in 20 years Iraq is like a Lebanon or Vietnam that Bush would be given credit for it? I don't think he will. No one will...like we have seen with Vietnam and Lebanon.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: July 15, 2009 01:33PM
WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Karl Rove has painted Bush into a corner
> historically. Since Bush left office, Rove and his
> buddies have tried to portray Bush as a loyal
> visionary who was duped by Cheney and the neo-Con
> cabal. There are two problems with that. If Iraq
> ends up being a failure, Bush will look like a
> moron who allowed himself to be controlled like a
> puppet by Cheney & company. If Iraq ends up being
> a success, it will be seen as a success for Cheney
> & Company despite the inadequacies of Bush. In
> either case, Bush will not be seen as a strong
> leader along the lines of Reagan, FDR, Lincoln,
> etc. He will be more in the Warren G. Harding mode
> of a guy who was too pre-occupied with bullshit to
> fully understand what was happening in his
> Administration.
Yeah sorry, I don't think I have seen that at all. Where has Rove been trying to portray Bush in this way again?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Karl Rove has painted Bush into a corner
> historically. Since Bush left office, Rove and his
> buddies have tried to portray Bush as a loyal
> visionary who was duped by Cheney and the neo-Con
> cabal. There are two problems with that. If Iraq
> ends up being a failure, Bush will look like a
> moron who allowed himself to be controlled like a
> puppet by Cheney & company. If Iraq ends up being
> a success, it will be seen as a success for Cheney
> & Company despite the inadequacies of Bush. In
> either case, Bush will not be seen as a strong
> leader along the lines of Reagan, FDR, Lincoln,
> etc. He will be more in the Warren G. Harding mode
> of a guy who was too pre-occupied with bullshit to
> fully understand what was happening in his
> Administration.
Yeah sorry, I don't think I have seen that at all. Where has Rove been trying to portray Bush in this way again?
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: July 15, 2009 01:38PM
WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a thought. Vietnam was a mess under
> Johnson, but is now friendly to the U.S. and
> supports many of our interests in the region. Does
> that mean Vietnam was a success for Johnson?
> Lebanon was a mess under Reagan, but now the
> government in Lebanon is mostly friendly toward
> the U.S. and supports some of our interests in the
> region. Does that mean Lebanon was a success for
> Reagan?
>
> The answer would be "no." You don't see Vietnam or
> Lebanon highlighted as successes for those
> Presidents, though one might try to argue that
> their actions there were catalysts for change that
> eventually bore positive results.
>
> So why on Earth does anyone imagine that if in 20
> years Iraq is like a Lebanon or Vietnam that Bush
> would be given credit for it? I don't think he
> will. No one will...like we have seen with Vietnam
> and Lebanon.
Apples and oranges.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a thought. Vietnam was a mess under
> Johnson, but is now friendly to the U.S. and
> supports many of our interests in the region. Does
> that mean Vietnam was a success for Johnson?
> Lebanon was a mess under Reagan, but now the
> government in Lebanon is mostly friendly toward
> the U.S. and supports some of our interests in the
> region. Does that mean Lebanon was a success for
> Reagan?
>
> The answer would be "no." You don't see Vietnam or
> Lebanon highlighted as successes for those
> Presidents, though one might try to argue that
> their actions there were catalysts for change that
> eventually bore positive results.
>
> So why on Earth does anyone imagine that if in 20
> years Iraq is like a Lebanon or Vietnam that Bush
> would be given credit for it? I don't think he
> will. No one will...like we have seen with Vietnam
> and Lebanon.
Apples and oranges.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: July 15, 2009 01:44PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > So why on Earth does anyone imagine that if in
> 20
> > years Iraq is like a Lebanon or Vietnam that
> Bush
> > would be given credit for it? I don't think he
> > will. No one will...like we have seen with
> Vietnam
> > and Lebanon.
>
> Apples and oranges.
How so?
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > So why on Earth does anyone imagine that if in
> 20
> > years Iraq is like a Lebanon or Vietnam that
> Bush
> > would be given credit for it? I don't think he
> > will. No one will...like we have seen with
> Vietnam
> > and Lebanon.
>
> Apples and oranges.
How so?
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: July 15, 2009 01:55PM
I don't remember that the reason for going into Vietnam or Lebanon was even partially about regime change. If in 20 years you see that Iraq continues in some form of (mostly) secular democracy that will be seen as a success.
Vietnam was a cluster from start to finish and not really our war to begin with. Lebanon was an attempt to negotiate peace in an area where we just stuck our foot into the water, and realized we really didn't have any good reason or policy on which to continue moving forward.
How Lebanon tarnishes Reagan Legacy:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33611.html
Vietnam was a cluster from start to finish and not really our war to begin with. Lebanon was an attempt to negotiate peace in an area where we just stuck our foot into the water, and realized we really didn't have any good reason or policy on which to continue moving forward.
How Lebanon tarnishes Reagan Legacy:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33611.html
Quote
...
The Reagan administration did not initially go into Lebanon to engage in nation-building. Indeed, soon after peace returned in September 1982, the MNF departed from the country earlier than scheduled. Geoffrey Kemp of the Nixon Center, who was on the National Security Council at the time, has noted that the only thing that brought them back was the massacre of Palestinian civilians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut following the entry of Israeli forces into the Lebanese capital. This was prompted by the assassination of Lebanon's president-elect, Bashir Gemayel.
Subsequently, the administration was divided over how to proceed. Secretary of State George Shultz worked hard to bring about a Lebanese-Israeli withdrawal agreement. Reagan went along with this for a time, until the effort collapsed in 1983. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, meanwhile, wanted to exit from Lebanon as quickly as possible. Either way, there was no solid administration constituency for remaining in the country after American political and military setbacks increased. That's why it was easy for Reagan to change tack in 1984 once Shultz realized that his scheme had failed.
...
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Cap'n
()
Date: July 15, 2009 01:58PM
WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > >
> > > So why on Earth does anyone imagine that if
> in
> > 20
> > > years Iraq is like a Lebanon or Vietnam that
> > Bush
> > > would be given credit for it? I don't think
> he
> > > will. No one will...like we have seen with
> > Vietnam
> > > and Lebanon.
> >
> > Apples and oranges.
>
>
> How so?
1. When we left Viet Nam, we did so in a precitpious manner. There was no slow draw down, etc. Also, when we left, the people we were fighting against took over. When we leave Iraq, the people in charge are likely to be people we were fighting in cooperation with.
2. In Lebanon, we were never engaged in combat operations. We barely responded when terrorists killed over 200 Marines. Plus, Lebanon is not really a success story today. There are plenty of terrorist elements present and many thought a civil was was brewing just two years ago.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > >
> > > So why on Earth does anyone imagine that if
> in
> > 20
> > > years Iraq is like a Lebanon or Vietnam that
> > Bush
> > > would be given credit for it? I don't think
> he
> > > will. No one will...like we have seen with
> > Vietnam
> > > and Lebanon.
> >
> > Apples and oranges.
>
>
> How so?
1. When we left Viet Nam, we did so in a precitpious manner. There was no slow draw down, etc. Also, when we left, the people we were fighting against took over. When we leave Iraq, the people in charge are likely to be people we were fighting in cooperation with.
2. In Lebanon, we were never engaged in combat operations. We barely responded when terrorists killed over 200 Marines. Plus, Lebanon is not really a success story today. There are plenty of terrorist elements present and many thought a civil was was brewing just two years ago.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: July 15, 2009 02:07PM
Cap'n Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. When we left Viet Nam, we did so in a
> precitpious manner. There was no slow draw down,
> etc. Also, when we left, the people we were
> fighting against took over. When we leave Iraq,
> the people in charge are likely to be people we
> were fighting in cooperation with.
>
First, we have no idea how we will leave Iraq. Second, we sure the hell left Lebanon in a precipitous manner.
> 2. In Lebanon, we were never engaged in combat
> operations. We barely responded when terrorists
> killed over 200 Marines. Plus, Lebanon is not
> really a success story today. There are plenty of
> terrorist elements present and many thought a
> civil was was brewing just two years ago.
Really? Explain that to the people in Beirut who were killed by the shells we fired from our battleship. And, according to Dubya, Lebanon was a success because of the "Cedar Revolution."
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. When we left Viet Nam, we did so in a
> precitpious manner. There was no slow draw down,
> etc. Also, when we left, the people we were
> fighting against took over. When we leave Iraq,
> the people in charge are likely to be people we
> were fighting in cooperation with.
>
First, we have no idea how we will leave Iraq. Second, we sure the hell left Lebanon in a precipitous manner.
> 2. In Lebanon, we were never engaged in combat
> operations. We barely responded when terrorists
> killed over 200 Marines. Plus, Lebanon is not
> really a success story today. There are plenty of
> terrorist elements present and many thought a
> civil was was brewing just two years ago.
Really? Explain that to the people in Beirut who were killed by the shells we fired from our battleship. And, according to Dubya, Lebanon was a success because of the "Cedar Revolution."
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
American Arrogance
()
Date: July 15, 2009 02:18PM
Why do Americans force their failed capitalism on everybody else when it hardly works in their own damn country!??
Besides, what makes us think we're so superior than others playing GIJOE with our three failed wars to tout. WTF.
Besides, what makes us think we're so superior than others playing GIJOE with our three failed wars to tout. WTF.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
?uestion Mark
()
Date: July 16, 2009 10:28AM
American Arrogance Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do Americans force their failed capitalism on
> everybody else when it hardly works in their own
> damn country!??
>
> Besides, what makes us think we're so superior
> than others playing GIJOE with our three failed
> wars to tout. WTF.
Our system has raised the standard of living and environmental sustainability to levels unimagined even a generation ago. Every country has the right to try it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do Americans force their failed capitalism on
> everybody else when it hardly works in their own
> damn country!??
>
> Besides, what makes us think we're so superior
> than others playing GIJOE with our three failed
> wars to tout. WTF.
Our system has raised the standard of living and environmental sustainability to levels unimagined even a generation ago. Every country has the right to try it.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Editor
()
Date: July 16, 2009 01:44PM
What he really meant:
Our system has artificially raised the standard of living and produced smoke and mirrors environmental sustainability to levels unimagined even a generation ago. Every country has the right to try it, although they should do so ethically.
Our system has artificially raised the standard of living and produced smoke and mirrors environmental sustainability to levels unimagined even a generation ago. Every country has the right to try it, although they should do so ethically.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: July 16, 2009 01:47PM
?uestion Mark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Our system has raised the standard of living and
> environmental sustainability to levels unimagined
> even a generation ago. Every country has the right
> to try it.
Every country may have a right to it, but the fact is America's standard of living is so high because we have utilized a disproportionate percentage of the world's resources in recent decades. Every country may have the right. But if every country tries to obtain in, none of us will have our current standard because there isn't enough to go around.
Just a thought, not a sermon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2009 01:47PM by WashingTone-Locian.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Our system has raised the standard of living and
> environmental sustainability to levels unimagined
> even a generation ago. Every country has the right
> to try it.
Every country may have a right to it, but the fact is America's standard of living is so high because we have utilized a disproportionate percentage of the world's resources in recent decades. Every country may have the right. But if every country tries to obtain in, none of us will have our current standard because there isn't enough to go around.
Just a thought, not a sermon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2009 01:47PM by WashingTone-Locian.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Yodeling is Not Fun
()
Date: July 16, 2009 02:18PM
Word WTL.
You speak the gospel like Biggie Smalls cut the mike and made papes.
You speak the gospel like Biggie Smalls cut the mike and made papes.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Jive Turkey
()
Date: July 16, 2009 03:06PM
Man, I saw that movie and aside from the fake Lil Kim and Biggie bedroom scenes, the whole thing stunk. Even the guy who played Puffy looked more like Bill Bellamy than anything else. What a waste of Netflix.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Exxxon
()
Date: July 31, 2009 07:24PM
Wow...six months of obama...he's doing shitty. 6 months into bush people were complaining that all he does is vacation. maybe that's not such a bad idea
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: July 31, 2009 07:46PM
Exxxon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow...six months of obama...he's doing shitty. 6
> months into bush people were complaining that all
> he does is vacation. maybe that's not such a bad
> idea
Interesting how the GDP report came out today and revealed that the Recession between late 2007 and early 2008 was twice as bad as originally reported. Who was President then? Oh yeah. The guy who said there was nothing wrong with the economy.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow...six months of obama...he's doing shitty. 6
> months into bush people were complaining that all
> he does is vacation. maybe that's not such a bad
> idea
Interesting how the GDP report came out today and revealed that the Recession between late 2007 and early 2008 was twice as bad as originally reported. Who was President then? Oh yeah. The guy who said there was nothing wrong with the economy.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Johnathan
()
Date: July 31, 2009 08:17PM
WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exxxon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wow...six months of obama...he's doing shitty.
> 6
> > months into bush people were complaining that
> all
> > he does is vacation. maybe that's not such a
> bad
> > idea
>
>
>
> Interesting how the GDP report came out today and
> revealed that the Recession between late 2007 and
> early 2008 was twice as bad as originally
> reported. Who was President then? Oh yeah. The guy
> who said there was nothing wrong with the economy.
You are correct, Washintonlocian, but you are taking the data out of context
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exxxon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wow...six months of obama...he's doing shitty.
> 6
> > months into bush people were complaining that
> all
> > he does is vacation. maybe that's not such a
> bad
> > idea
>
>
>
> Interesting how the GDP report came out today and
> revealed that the Recession between late 2007 and
> early 2008 was twice as bad as originally
> reported. Who was President then? Oh yeah. The guy
> who said there was nothing wrong with the economy.
You are correct, Washintonlocian, but you are taking the data out of context
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: July 31, 2009 08:49PM
Well let's see - in this case Bush would have been wrong no matter what he did IMHO.
If he "talked down" the economy he would have helped it along on the downward trend. Look at how upset everyone got with Biden for saying no one should fly in airplanes due to the flu. MSM and the Democrats were doing a fine job during the election - should he have piled on?
In an election year everything is magnified - and it was a number of factors that led to the housing market collapse to include a huge spike in energy prices and crackdowns on illegal immigration amongst other things.
If he "talked down" the economy he would have helped it along on the downward trend. Look at how upset everyone got with Biden for saying no one should fly in airplanes due to the flu. MSM and the Democrats were doing a fine job during the election - should he have piled on?
In an election year everything is magnified - and it was a number of factors that led to the housing market collapse to include a huge spike in energy prices and crackdowns on illegal immigration amongst other things.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
2004
()
Date: July 31, 2009 09:21PM
Even though bush wasn't the best, HE STILL BEAT DEMOCRATIC SWEETHEART JOHN KERRY!! WHAT A LOSER!! HAHAHAHHAHAHA. BUSH BEAT KERRYS ASS LIKE A LIL HO
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
bloody blisters
()
Date: July 31, 2009 09:43PM
the whole election process is rigged. our votes dont count. you would be stupid to think they do
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: July 31, 2009 10:06PM
bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the whole election process is rigged. our votes
> dont count. you would be stupid to think they do
Some people would like you to believe that. What you are saying though is not true.
We have the Electoral College so we don't have a true (completely) democratic election for President, but all other State offices are based on total vote counts, in particular Senators. Representatives get slewed a bit due to district management.
But anyone that chooses not to vote because they believe what you are saying - have no one to blame but themselves on the outcomes.
IMHO.
-------------------------------------------------------
> the whole election process is rigged. our votes
> dont count. you would be stupid to think they do
Some people would like you to believe that. What you are saying though is not true.
We have the Electoral College so we don't have a true (completely) democratic election for President, but all other State offices are based on total vote counts, in particular Senators. Representatives get slewed a bit due to district management.
But anyone that chooses not to vote because they believe what you are saying - have no one to blame but themselves on the outcomes.
IMHO.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
bloody blisters
()
Date: July 31, 2009 10:10PM
all of america is fucked. im giving up my citizenship to an illegal who doesnt know any better.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
hdfghdf
()
Date: July 31, 2009 11:47PM
bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> all of america is fucked. im giving up my
> citizenship to an illegal who doesnt know any
> better.
Where would you go? What countries are safe from American influence?
-------------------------------------------------------
> all of america is fucked. im giving up my
> citizenship to an illegal who doesnt know any
> better.
Where would you go? What countries are safe from American influence?
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: August 01, 2009 08:35AM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bloody blisters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > the whole election process is rigged. our votes
> > dont count. you would be stupid to think they
> do
>
>
> Some people would like you to believe that. What
> you are saying though is not true.
>
> We have the Electoral College so we don't have a
> true (completely) democratic election for
> President, but all other State offices are based
> on total vote counts, in particular Senators.
> Representatives get slewed a bit due to district
> management.
>
> But anyone that chooses not to vote because they
> believe what you are saying - have no one to blame
> but themselves on the outcomes.
>
> IMHO.
Talk to Gravis.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
-------------------------------------------------------
> bloody blisters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > the whole election process is rigged. our votes
> > dont count. you would be stupid to think they
> do
>
>
> Some people would like you to believe that. What
> you are saying though is not true.
>
> We have the Electoral College so we don't have a
> true (completely) democratic election for
> President, but all other State offices are based
> on total vote counts, in particular Senators.
> Representatives get slewed a bit due to district
> management.
>
> But anyone that chooses not to vote because they
> believe what you are saying - have no one to blame
> but themselves on the outcomes.
>
> IMHO.
Talk to Gravis.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 01, 2009 11:12AM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Talk to Gravis.
Why?
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Talk to Gravis.
Why?
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
rvinthebutt
()
Date: August 02, 2009 11:26AM
Because ur gay.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 02, 2009 11:46AM
rvinthebutt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because ur gay.
Hmm, yet Vince accuses me of being anti-gay. Obviously you all are conflicted.
I am thinking Vince is the gay one actually (he is the one that seems to be having issues over that particular problem) - you might need to redirect your attention to him.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2009 11:49AM by Registered Voter.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because ur gay.
Hmm, yet Vince accuses me of being anti-gay. Obviously you all are conflicted.
I am thinking Vince is the gay one actually (he is the one that seems to be having issues over that particular problem) - you might need to redirect your attention to him.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2009 11:49AM by Registered Voter.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: August 02, 2009 01:16PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Talk to Gravis.
>
> Why?
your bf claims to have never voted.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Talk to Gravis.
>
> Why?
your bf claims to have never voted.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
heeeeeey
()
Date: August 02, 2009 04:22PM
rvinthebutt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because ur gay.
What's wrong with gay? "God's Law"? LOL.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because ur gay.
What's wrong with gay? "God's Law"? LOL.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Alias
()
Date: August 02, 2009 05:48PM
\
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 08:47PM by Alias.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 08:47PM by Alias.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
gayliass.
()
Date: August 02, 2009 08:08PM
Likely, but it still doesn't change the fact that Alias is a nut sucking homo.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 02, 2009 09:19PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> your bf claims to have never voted.
For someone who has such a high regard for gays and their acceptance, you are quick to resort to this when you have nothing else better to say.
Vince response #9
"You're just gay!!"
Like how does that work again? You respect gays, yet you use gayness to insult people. What a piece of work lol.
.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> your bf claims to have never voted.
For someone who has such a high regard for gays and their acceptance, you are quick to resort to this when you have nothing else better to say.
Vince response #9
"You're just gay!!"
Like how does that work again? You respect gays, yet you use gayness to insult people. What a piece of work lol.
.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
registeredgayness
()
Date: August 02, 2009 09:32PM
That goes for you too, registered gaytard.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 02, 2009 10:08PM
registeredgayness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That goes for you too, registered gaytard.
Uh yes, do me anony-fag, do me!!
FAIL lol.
Here, a consolation prize - you can join Vince and be his "bud".
.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That goes for you too, registered gaytard.
Uh yes, do me anony-fag, do me!!
FAIL lol.
Here, a consolation prize - you can join Vince and be his "bud".
.
Attachments:
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: August 03, 2009 05:01AM
Its nice to see you are being recognized for the ass you are.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Lopter
()
Date: August 03, 2009 06:18AM
Bush completed destroy this country, the Republican party and the US economy. He increased debt that we will be paying off for years. He got us stuck overseas fighting two wars we can't win. Destroyed banking and the automotive industry. Gas $4 gallon. The list goes on.
You know Republicans are in trouble when Rush Limbaugh says he's running the show. Nothing better than Rush; a former follower and leader in the Son Young Moon church and a drug addict.
You know Republicans are in trouble when Rush Limbaugh says he's running the show. Nothing better than Rush; a former follower and leader in the Son Young Moon church and a drug addict.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
trunity
()
Date: August 11, 2009 09:59PM
Lopter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush completed destroy this country, the
> Republican party and the US economy. He increased
> debt that we will be paying off for years. He got
> us stuck overseas fighting two wars we can't win.
> Destroyed banking and the automotive industry.
> Gas $4 gallon. The list goes on.
>
> You know Republicans are in trouble when Rush
> Limbaugh says he's running the show. Nothing
> better than Rush; a former follower and leader in
> the Son Young Moon church and a drug addict.
Yea, well Obama upped the war and increased the debt. Clinton did too. Bush was the lesser of all evils.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush completed destroy this country, the
> Republican party and the US economy. He increased
> debt that we will be paying off for years. He got
> us stuck overseas fighting two wars we can't win.
> Destroyed banking and the automotive industry.
> Gas $4 gallon. The list goes on.
>
> You know Republicans are in trouble when Rush
> Limbaugh says he's running the show. Nothing
> better than Rush; a former follower and leader in
> the Son Young Moon church and a drug addict.
Yea, well Obama upped the war and increased the debt. Clinton did too. Bush was the lesser of all evils.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
bloody blisters
()
Date: August 11, 2009 10:04PM
oh man, bush this and bush that, since you all think he is stupid what makes you think he had the smarts to do all this proclaimed evil? what makes you think ANY president is in control and not just a diversion from the real power?
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 11, 2009 10:24PM
This thread got old a few days ago - trolly must be back to resurrect dead threads.
.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
.
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
bloody blisters
()
Date: August 11, 2009 10:28PM
i just fell victim to old thread resuscitation.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
right and wrong
()
Date: August 26, 2009 12:56AM
think about it, democrats...2 trillion off? reallY? is THAT how you roll? Look...bush may not be the best SPEAKER, but at least he can balance a budget. Obama would fail 2nd grade math
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
heck-tor
()
Date: September 01, 2009 10:27AM
Who has taken more vacation days so far? Bush or Obama?
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Truth Soup
()
Date: September 01, 2009 11:50AM
Who has managed to fix the economy in 9 months vs. who managed to screw it up in 8 years?
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
dow
()
Date: September 01, 2009 12:10PM
Truth Soup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who has managed to fix the economy in 9 months vs.
> who managed to screw it up in 8 years?
but the dow was at its highest EVER under W.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who has managed to fix the economy in 9 months vs.
> who managed to screw it up in 8 years?
but the dow was at its highest EVER under W.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
Truth Syrup
()
Date: September 01, 2009 12:11PM
artificially, yes.
Re: Rethinking George W. Bush
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: September 01, 2009 12:11PM
dow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truth Soup Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Who has managed to fix the economy in 9 months
> vs.
> > who managed to screw it up in 8 years?
>
>
> but the dow was at its highest EVER under W.
So were gas prices. What's your point?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truth Soup Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Who has managed to fix the economy in 9 months
> vs.
> > who managed to screw it up in 8 years?
>
>
> but the dow was at its highest EVER under W.
So were gas prices. What's your point?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm