or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › GW Bush the worst president in US history
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

GW Bush the worst president in US history - Page 6  

post #201 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

" but because they don't have the political cojones to do so. "

My guess is that they'll lower the boom on Mr. Bush in the fall. That way they gave his plan a chance and the opposition can't say they didn't support the troops.

How will they do that? You don't understand. They can't. The only thing they can do is pull the funds. And they won't.

Of course, if the White House decides to reduce forces in 2008 as has been reported, the Dems will take credit and claim victory. Not in Iraq...but in Washington.

Oh, and I find it amusing that you claim they will be seen as "giving the plan a chance" while they pronounce it a failure all summer. Nice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Meanwhile soldiers DIE and get maimed while our politicians play games and politics!

That's exactly what happens, actually. And you're mocking their deaths that have been practically encouraged by the Democratic leadership. Also nice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hey while your feeling so special don't forget you didn't address any of my assertions!

You just dismissed them as being nonlogical. Sorry that doesn't cut it.

Now I know you're young. Smoking out? I was only 16 in 1969. I know they start young these days but we were a little more innocent.

I have nothing against people keeping what they earn. However the world is a lot more complex than that. And some have learned to keep more of what they earn than others under the current tax laws.

It was my generation that started the focus on young people. We are the only culture that doesn't embrace and honor people who've been around awhile. The theory being if you've made it that far you've learned a thing or two in that time. Don't worry. When I was young I couldn't see that either.

1. Yes, you do. You even said so in the next sentence. Ironically, you don't realize that the "poor" got to keep more of their money...as did the middle class. Yet, that won't stop you from sticking the party talking point of "tax cuts for the rich." And pssst: Tax cuts for the "rich" work. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. And both times those tax cuts benefited the economy, not just "the rich." But you're party blindness can't see that.

2. If you were posting that just to point out the issue of respect for one's elders in our culture, I would agree. But you're not. You're pointing it out to try and prove that your opinions are more qualified than those that are also mature adults in the forum. It's really quite a lame argument and cheap tactic to pull the "I'm older than you" card, especially when you're in your 50s and I/we are in our 30s. If you were talking to teenagers or 21 year olds or what not, you might have a point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yup! They do. I didn't say I approved of it. I simply see their strategy.

Politics has become so convoluted sometimes in that game you have to do the wrong thing to accomplish the bigger good thing. Sometimes you have to play by the opposition's rules to win.

I didn't say it was right.

Like I said I realize that democrats like libertarians and republicans or whatever are politicians also.

Uh, yes you did. You said exactly that. "sometimes you have to...." You implied that you sanctioned it. In fact, no...I'm wrong...you actually said it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Some... yep.



God Bless our soldiers. Each and every day.

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #202 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How will they do that? You don't understand. They can't. The only thing they can do is pull the funds. And they won't.

Of course, if the White House decides to reduce forces in 2008 as has been reported, the Dems will take credit and claim victory. Not in Iraq...but in Washington.

Oh, and I find it amusing that you claim they will be seen as "giving the plan a chance" while they pronounce it a failure all summer. Nice.




That's exactly what happens, actually. And you're mocking their deaths that have been practically encouraged by the Democratic leadership. Also nice.



1. Yes, you do. You even said so in the next sentence. Ironically, you don't realize that the "poor" got to keep more of their money...as did the middle class. Yet, that won't stop you from sticking the party talking point of "tax cuts for the rich." And pssst: Tax cuts for the "rich" work. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. And both times those tax cuts benefited the economy, not just "the rich." But you're party blindness can't see that.

2. If you were posting that just to point out the issue of respect for one's elders in our culture, I would agree. But you're not. You're pointing it out to try and prove that your opinions are more qualified than those that are also mature adults in the forum. It's really quite a lame argument and cheap tactic to pull the "I'm older than you" card, especially when you're in your 50s and I/we are in our 30s. If you were talking to teenagers or 21 year olds or what not, you might have a point.




Uh, yes you did. You said exactly that. "sometimes you have to...." You implied that you sanctioned it. In fact, no...I'm wrong...you actually said it.





SDW you're so full of shit it's incrediable.

Not only do you prove my point by silly attempt to say I mock someone's deaths but you apparently really get bothered by the fact that I am older than you and have seen some of the history you can only read about. I don't see why. I have no problem talking to someone who was alive during WWII. I'm fully willing to agknowlege that they have much more insight into those times than I ever could by reading about it.

By saying I'm mocking their deaths you just confirmed why the democrats chose this route. I'm sure the Bush administration would say the same thing about them. It would seem that the republicans would play just as many political games with their deaths as the democrats.

Giving the plan until fall isn't exactly a big secret or my invention as you could read about the speculation in the news at the time of the democrats giving in.

It's apparent that Bush's plan is a failure now so why not point it out? Maybe he might come to his senses and stop those needless deaths. We all doubt that though.

SDW quit trying to defend the undefenable. The Bush administration is the most dangerous mistake we've ever allowed into US government as you'll see yet another example in my next post.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #203 of 455
I know there's another thread about this in AO but I think the info belongs here.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/...nts/index.html

Yet another example of why this administration is so dangerous. Not only does Cheney consider himself not a part of the executive branch of government ( when it's convenient of course ) he then tries to abolish the examining committee!

These guys really think of themselves above the law. Also you have to ask yourself what kinds of things they are covering up that they have to go lto such lengths?

An interesting article on how Cheeney operates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19378776/
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #204 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

SDW you're so full of shit it's incrediable.

Not only do you prove my point by silly attempt to say I mock someone's deaths but you apparently really get bothered by the fact that I am older than you and have seen some of the history you can only read about. I don't see why. I have no problem talking to someone who was alive during WWII. I'm fully willing to agknowlege that they have much more insight into those times than I ever could by reading about it.

By saying I'm mocking their deaths you just confirmed why the democrats chose this route. I'm sure the Bush administration would say the same thing about them. It would seem that the republicans would play just as many political games with their deaths as the democrats.

Giving the plan until fall isn't exactly a big secret or my invention as you could read about the speculation in the news at the time of the democrats giving in.

It's apparent that Bush's plan is a failure now so why not point it out? Maybe he might come to his senses and stop those needless deaths. We all doubt that though.

SDW quit trying to defend the undefenable. The Bush administration is the most dangerous mistake we've ever allowed into US government as you'll see yet another example in my next post.

1. I am not bothered that you are older. Not even a little bit. I am bothered that you pathetically toss the fact around as if it's supposed to mean something in itself.

2. I have no idea what the second paragraph is supposed to mean.

3. No, it's no secret. That's when the administration has said it will begin to make judgments and when the generals will report. The Dems however are pronouncing the surge a failure now, Whether or not you agree with their assessment is not the point (though only a fool would assess the results at this juncture). You are claiming they are giving the President the time he wants. They are positively not doing that.

4. Jesus. How can you judge it a failure when the surge just took effect in earnest about two weeks ago? And yes there are deaths...duh. We have more troops engaging the enemy directly. What did you think was going to happen? How incredibly arrogant of you to pronounce these combat deaths "meaningless."

5. Overstated, rhetorical nonsense. Oh, and take a look at my blog and see how much I blindly support Bush.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #205 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I know there's another thread about this in AO but I think the info belongs here.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/...nts/index.html

Yet another example of why this administration is so dangerous. Not only does Cheney consider himself not a part of the executive branch of government ( when it's convenient of course ) he then tries to abolish the examining committee!

These guys really think of themselves above the law. Also you have to ask yourself what kinds of things they are covering up that they have to go lto such lengths?

An interesting article on how Cheeney operates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19378776/

It doesn't belong here. You said yourself there was another thread about this, and you're right. Whether Cheney is right or wrong on this (and I feel he's wrong) is not the issue. At issue is your unbelieveable polarization. Tell me, how does it feel to, well, feel that way for 6.5 years? Not very good, I imagine!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #206 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It doesn't belong here. You said yourself there was another thread about this, and you're right. Whether Cheney is right or wrong on this (and I feel he's wrong) is not the issue. At issue is your unbelieveable polarization. Tell me, how does it feel to, well, feel that way for 6.5 years? Not very good, I imagine!

It's political and does belong here. Also you'd excuse anything he does.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #207 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. I am not bothered that you are older. Not even a little bit. I am bothered that you pathetically toss the fact around as if it's supposed to mean something in itself.

2. I have no idea what the second paragraph is supposed to mean.

3. No, it's no secret. That's when the administration has said it will begin to make judgments and when the generals will report. The Dems however are pronouncing the surge a failure now, Whether or not you agree with their assessment is not the point (though only a fool would assess the results at this juncture). You are claiming they are giving the President the time he wants. They are positively not doing that.

4. Jesus. How can you judge it a failure when the surge just took effect in earnest about two weeks ago? And yes there are deaths...duh. We have more troops engaging the enemy directly. What did you think was going to happen? How incredibly arrogant of you to pronounce these combat deaths "meaningless."

5. Overstated, rhetorical nonsense. Oh, and take a look at my blog and see how much I blindly support Bush.

They are meaningless deaths in the sense that this situation shouldn't be happening! They don't need to be there! It's a shame they're being asked to put their lives on the line for such a thing!

Also they are giving it time but any fool can see it's not working!

Get real SDW! You really can't defend this!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #208 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's political and does belong here. Also you'd excuse anything he does.

No,..it doesn't belong in THIS THREAD. Your inclusion of it was troll like.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They are meaningless deaths in the sense that this situation shouldn't be happening! They don't need to be there! It's a shame they're being asked to put their lives on the line for such a thing!

Also they are giving it time but any fool can see it's not working!

Get real SDW! You really can't defend this!

Shit, you really do leave in a fantasy world, don't you? It "shouldn't be happening?" WTF does that mean? It is happening. We're there. Now the question is how do we move forward. Do we draw down troops and turn over security to Iraqi Army? Or do we try and secure the country with a surge first? Pissing and moaning about "we shouldn't have been there in the first place" is not productive. It's basing a decision on your own emotional knee-jerk reactions, as usual.

Your second comment: Let me get this straight. The generals in charge (one of whom was unanimously confirmed by the Senate) said the surge would not even be up to full operational strength until summer, sometime in mid-June. That means the surge has been fully operational for a maximum of two weeks. Those same generals have said repeatedly that they will be able to judge the effectiveness of the surge and make policy recommendations concerning it by fall. That is when they'll know how things are progressing.

Now, YOU, "jimmac, AppleInsider Member and Baby Boomer" (TM) have announced that the generals are wrong, because clearly anyone with half a brain can see the surge is a failure. I mean, it's so obvious. Especially to someone who's been around the block a few times, bucko.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #209 of 455
SDW... I have a theory... jimmac is really Dwight K. Schrute. And you and I take turns as Jim Halpert.

"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #210 of 455
THE SURGE IS A FAILURE.

I am not a democrat. I am a realist who has a friend serving in Iraq.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

post #211 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I am a realist who has a friend serving in Iraq.

Um, so? \

I had two co-workers killed on 911 and currently have two loved ones in the Armed Forces, one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. That means nothing re: credibility. My High School friend who is in Iraq says that the surge is letting them train more people, thus bringing this whole deluded episode to a close quicker. Anecdotal is anecdotal.

The surge never had a chance with many of you. It was DOA for political reasons. How cozy. It would be a *little* less obvious if you actually gave it a chance to get to full strength before Murtha-ing the whole thing. But hey, whatever rows your boat.

And you "usual suspects" around here... don't bother wasting your time with typing out your silly 2Dthink... pick up the phone and call your purse-controlling Democrats and tell THEM about it. They are the ones that can fix it to you liking, not me.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #212 of 455
Depends on the rank and experience of my friend, I guess. I think I should go with his assessment over yours.

The surge was a failure from the start, and to think that it would have been otherwise is incredulous. It also was a very late attempt at making up for under-manning the mission in the first place. Basically, the entire operation has been bungled from the start (and yeah, I mean the mis-aligned premises upon which it was waged) and it is plain for everyone to see.

I am not a demorat nor an anti-repuglican (nor a repub for that matter). I think that 99.99% of politicians deserve less respect than the dirt I shook off my shoes when coming home last night because they simply cannot be trusted to act honestly, morally, courageously and with dignity and principle. Sorry if I used big words some people don't understand, but I guess that's why the world is as screwed up as it is.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

post #213 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Depends on the rank and experience of my friend, I guess. I think I should go with his assessment over yours.

So be it. Opinions are like... well, you know.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #214 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No,..it doesn't belong in THIS THREAD. Your inclusion of it was troll like.





Shit, you really do leave in a fantasy world, don't you? It "shouldn't be happening?" WTF does that mean? It is happening. We're there. Now the question is how do we move forward. Do we draw down troops and turn over security to Iraqi Army? Or do we try and secure the country with a surge first? Pissing and moaning about "we shouldn't have been there in the first place" is not productive. It's basing a decision on your own emotional knee-jerk reactions, as usual.

Your second comment: Let me get this straight. The generals in charge (one of whom was unanimously confirmed by the Senate) said the surge would not even be up to full operational strength until summer, sometime in mid-June. That means the surge has been fully operational for a maximum of two weeks. Those same generals have said repeatedly that they will be able to judge the effectiveness of the surge and make policy recommendations concerning it by fall. That is when they'll know how things are progressing.

Now, YOU, "jimmac, AppleInsider Member and Baby Boomer" (TM) have announced that the generals are wrong, because clearly anyone with half a brain can see the surge is a failure. I mean, it's so obvious. Especially to someone who's been around the block a few times, bucko.

No. I'm sorry SDW but I'm living or leaving in a fantasy.

It's you who live in this nonexistant world where Bush is just a nice man, The republican's who support him can do no wrong, and we were justified to attack a small country without just provocation. And then you call it honerable.

SDW by your own standards you're nuts. To continue to support this whole thing in the face of all the evidence to the contrary is silly.

No WMD.

They really don't want us there.

This was supposed to be a quick procedure.

The killing goes on.

We throw more lives at the problem and predictably it's not really making a difference.

And the true test will come when we leave. Was it for some good cause or will things revert back to the way they were? As if we weren't there ( except for the loss of life of course ) Just like Vietnam.

Anyone who thinks this is supportable under this kind of evidence is clearly not living in this reality.

Sorry SDW it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

Ps. And your idea that we can talk about every other aspect of the Bush administration in a political forum except the Vice President is just stupid.

You know. Kind of like Chenney saying he's not part of the executive branch.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #215 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post






Beautiful picture of George though ...... finally one that makes him look intelligent.
post #216 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The generals in charge (one of whom was unanimously confirmed by the Senate) said the surge would not even be up to full operational strength until summer, sometime in mid-June. That means the surge has been fully operational for a maximum of two weeks. Those same generals have said repeatedly that they will be able to judge the effectiveness of the surge and make policy recommendations concerning it by fall. That is when they'll know how things are progressing.



Where's Stormin' Norman when you need him?

(not to say the current generals are doing a bad job with what they've been handed...)

Just to re-iterate:

What is the mission?

What is the objective?


No WMD.
There is no territory to take.
We 'don't do body counts' anymore.
Elections have been held.
The people see us as a destabilizing force.
The government barely qualifies as such, and doesn't really want us there either.
Warfare Rule #1 - Never get involved in somebody else's civil war!
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
post #217 of 455
Everyone we fight in Iraq is now "al-Qaida"

Quote:
That the Bush administration, and specifically its military commanders, decided to begin using the term "Al Qaeda" to designate "anyone and everyeone we fight against or kill in Iraq" is obvious. All of a sudden, every time one of the top military commanders describes our latest operations or quantifies how many we killed, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as "Al Qaeda."

But what is even more notable is that the establishment press has followed right along, just as enthusiastically. I don't think the New York Times has published a story about Iraq in the last two weeks without stating that we are killing "Al Qaeda fighters," capturing "Al Qaeda leaders," and every new operation is against "Al Qaeda."

Well that simplifies all this now, doesn't it? Not "insurgent", not "militant", not "Sunni" or "Shia'a", just plain old Al Qaeda. Because we need an enemy.
post #218 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski View Post

The soldiers dont necessarily see themselves as the hapless victims some want to paint them as.

Really? So when John Kerry makes a joke we can assume the soldier's can take it?

When we want to argue the political ramifications of troop withrawal the solder's aren't so hapless that they understand we're trying to bring them home?

When we say that the surge is a "failure" we know the soldier's families aren't so fragile and hapless that they will understand what we "mean"?

You guys can't have it both ways...even though you try to.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
post #219 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's exactly what happens, actually. And you're mocking their deaths that have been practically encouraged by the Democratic leadership. Also nice.

Mocking? Hey buddy, fuck you! How's that for mocking you sanctimonious piece of garbage! You know goddamn well what I was saying and what I meant. So fuck you very much!

You have ZERO IDEA of what I, or my family, have or have not committed to this war and which loved ones of mine have given EVERYTHING to this country.

And you have the unmitigated GALL to accuse me of mocking these soldier's deaths!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
post #220 of 455
Arming the Sunnis seems to have passed most of you "smart" people by.

Quote:
With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/res...AF0894DF404482

Desperate times need desperate measures.
Fuck history.
post #221 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Chenney saying he's not part of the executive branch.

OK, cool. Screw Dick and all... but...

It's C-H-E-N-E-Y. The Vice President of the United States. For over six years now. Two elections of wall-to-wall signs. Countless bad newspaper and TV headlines. READ your talking points- they spell the man's name right in those, generally.

Not Cheeny.
Not Chenney.

CH-EN-EY.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #222 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Mocking? Hey buddy, fuck you! How's that for mocking you sanctimonious piece of garbage! You know goddamn well what I was saying and what I meant. So fuck you very much!

Did I mention that RAGE Against the Machine is getting back together?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #223 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No WMD.
They really don't want us there.
This was supposed to be a quick procedure.
The killing goes on.
We throw more lives at the problem and predictably it's not really making a difference.
... Just like Vietnam.

What a perfect regurgitation of The Murtha Talking Points. Lots of "independent" thinking going on. Fucking hilarious. I give you a "10" for knowing, or at least being able to re-type, your party line.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #224 of 455
That pie chart below looks a lot like entitlement hell to me. Almost 60%.
This nation is in heap big shit. Truly.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #225 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Everyone we fight in Iraq is now "al-Qaida"

Well that simplifies all this now, doesn't it? Not "insurgent", not "militant", not "Sunni" or "Shia'a", just plain old Al Qaeda. Because we need an enemy.

IRT the al-Qaeda thing -

IRT the budget - yes, military spending would be significantly lower if we didn't have Bush's pet war to pay for. As is though, Medicare and welfare spending is almost as high, and Social (in)Security spending is higher:

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
post #226 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

What a perfect regurgitation of The Murtha Talking Points. Lots of "independent" thinking going on. Fucking hilarious. I give you a "10" for knowing, or at least being able to re-type, your party line.


While you're busy yuking it up I suggest you read this article.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/25...ded/index.html

This is why the troops should come home now. There's no reason for them to be there!

And how insensitive of you to thinking this is just a party line thing!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #227 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

OK, cool. Screw Dick and all... but...

It's C-H-E-N-E-Y. The Vice President of the United States. For over six years now. Two elections of wall-to-wall signs. Countless bad newspaper and TV headlines. READ your talking points- they spell the man's name right in those, generally.

Not Cheeny.
Not Chenney.

CH-EN-EY.


You could spell it Cheeseball for all I care. The guy is so useless worrying about the correct spelling of his name is giving him more credit than he is due.

If the only defense left for the guy is the spelling of his name, then his supporters finally might see the light.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

post #228 of 455
GW's lack of attention span is improving Afghanistan's economy.

Quote:
In 2006, Afghanistan accounted for 92 percent of global illicit opium production, up from 70 percent in 2000 and 52 percent a decade earlier. The higher yields in Afghanistan brought global opium production to a record high of nearly 7,300 tons last year, a 43 percent increase over 2005.

The area under opium poppy cultivation in the country has also expanded, from nearly 257,000 acres in 2005 to more than 407,000 acres in 2006 an increase of about 59 percent.

"This is the largest area under opium poppy cultivation ever recorded in Afghanistan," the report said, noting that two-thirds of cultivation was concentrated in the country's south.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/...2bO0akUVPMWM0F

GW, the drug lords best friend.
post #229 of 455
The GAO claims the US is failing to fight terrorism... often spending more money fighting drugs than terrorism.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/...ort/index.html

If the GW admin were truly intent on fighting The War on Terror, reg TM, then they would make sure that money went where it was needed. They aren't, so it isn't, and thus we can only deduce that this is further evidence that the whole WOT concept is baloney created to enable the prez to rule with a mighty hand.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

post #230 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

You could spell it Cheeseball for all I care. The guy is so useless worrying about the correct spelling of his name is giving him more credit than he is due.

If the only defense left for the guy is the spelling of his name, then his supporters finally might see the light.

Oh, I agree that Old Dick is without salvation and all that screed. Not one of my favorite people. I just think that the all-wise sage and Designated Boomer should know how to spell a six letter name- the man has been in government for almost forty years.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #231 of 455
I tend to have a fairly open mind when it comes to posts on AI and their correctness in terms of grammar, vocabulary and spelling as there are many members here who do not use English as their first language and names are not always written the same. The Japanese, for one, definitely do not write "Cheney" in their newspapers. I haven't seen "Cheeseball" yet, either, but then...


------

It looks like GW's support is waning, from his own ranks now:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/...gar/index.html

Dick (how many of them are in public office?) Lugar is urging a change in the warpath soon.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

post #232 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Dick (how many of them are in public office?)

There are too many in DC. Much too many.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #233 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

GW, the drug lords best friend.

Guess the War on Terror® has supplanted the War on Drugs®...
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
post #234 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

GW's lack of attention span is improving Afghanistan's economy.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/...2bO0akUVPMWM0F

GW, the drug lords best friend.

Wow. I love the smell of a free market in the morning.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
post #235 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Oh, I agree that Old Dick is without salvation and all that screed. Not one of my favorite people. I just think that the all-wise sage and Designated Boomer should know how to spell a six letter name- the man has been in government for almost forty years.


Forty years too long. And I think you should come up with arguments of more substance.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #236 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Forty years too long. And I think you should come up with arguments of more substance.

2D again, of course. Argue for Dick? I never said anything in defense of Poor Old Dick. Just in defense of the curriculum from Sister Mary Kelly's 4th grade civics class. Part of that course is knowing the branches of government, and how to spell our leaders' names. The Sister would be proud.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #237 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Wow. I love the smell of a free market in the morning.

I know. They are making great strides toward Western Democracy- they are jumping right in to play their part in the global drug market, just like the US.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #238 of 455
by Justin Hartfield

Quote:
1. Decreased taxes and increased spending is a recipe for fiscal disaster

How can a conservative President decrease taxes while increasing spending? I'm not entirely sure. Maybe the President is referencing different economists than the ones we are familiar with? Maybe he's just confusing his debits with his credits? Again, all we can do is speculate and hope the next guy (or gal) in charge can at least grasp the fundamentals of high school business math.

2. Prosecuting social ills does not cure society

Instead of making certain substances legal, or even just cutting back on the absolutely un-winnable 'war' America is waging on its own citizens, our President expanded the "War on Drugs." As he stated, "Illegal drugs are the enemies of ambition and hope and when we fight against drugs we fight for the souls of our fellow Americans." But Mr. Bush's well-documented drug and alcohol penchant clearly didn't rob him of his ambition to become President of the United States, did it?

3. Federal education policy is out-of-touch, and leaves everyone behind

Standardized testing only teaches kids to pass a test- it does not ensure a quality education nor does it even ensure our students are getting the same education throughout the country. "Standardized" testing is a misnomer, as each state can make their test as easy or difficult as they see fit (which makes it likely that politicians will manipulate the test to achieve the highest results and the most funding). Undoubtedly, Mr. Bush is right: our public school systems do need reform. However, a school voucher program would alleviate most of the sources behind the problem by giving parents power to exercise choice, thus solving the root of the problem and not just the symptoms.

4. The federal government is extremely poor at responding to disasters or emergencies

If the immediate aftermath of 9/11 didn't convince you that the federal government is slow moving and wholly ineffective when it comes to relief efforts, Hurricane Katrina surely did. Let's use the dollars we put into our relief effort system to instead pay a 3rd party to perform the same service. That way, we at least get some competition between the already well-funded and well-organized non-profits, which will naturally lead to an increase of quality overall. If we even had the states contract out for their own humanitarians-for-hire services, we could provide faster response time and more knowledgeable staff.

5. Sacrificing much liberty for very little safety helps no one

The Patriot Act, the denial of habeas corpus, and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp are all excellent examples of what not to do when trying preserve the limited government ideals upheld in the Constitution. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security is especially baffling. We already have the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the five branches of the US Military, state and local PDs, as well as a host of other less well known organizations designed specifically to counteract destructive agents to the United States. Yet bewilderingly, the President decided we needed another bloated, ineffective government agency to protect the country against terrorists. So far the Department's main contribution has been in the form of an adorable multi-colored chart, conveniently providing a gauge to how terrified we should feel when we wake up in the morning.

post #239 of 455
I don't get it... As long as a thread is anti-Bush it's OK? Unlocked?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

post #240 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

WARNING: Libertarian Website]

1. Yup!

2. Huh? Drugs are BAD. Just say NO. Now I need to take a Xanax to calm down!

3. Nope! That's sure to work, everyone pile onto the top line education express, first come, first served. The other 90% please move to the back of the BUS!

4. Nope! This will also work, for profit help. How much are you willing for us to save you? First come, first served, what's my bid to save you, and you, and you, ... , do I have any other bids?

5. Huh? See 4 above. Let's privatize all of the federal government, state governments, and local governments, put them all on the NYSE. And let's make sure that there is an open free market. Heck let's privatize everything, and oh, I don't know, offshore it to the Cayman Islands, or the PRC, or India!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › GW Bush the worst president in US history