Saying positive things about Bush is like saying positive things about the guy Alan you have to fire for being a total screw up. Sure, maybe Alan called one or two of those 18 times he didn't show up and he never overtly sexually harassed anyone, but do those really count as positive things?
Or how about one of Alan's more Bushesque runs he got us the Anderson account, but totally fucked it up and we lost a ton of money on it? Does that means it's positive that he got the account or negative because had he not gotten the account we would ultimately be much better off?
Well NaplesX (and Randycat, too).... I guess the experiment worked. Congratulations! It's just too bad you didn't get as much out of it as I did. Not only do I now know the negatives of this Administration... I know all 4(?) accomplishments too! Thanks for your genius! One last thing before this thread comes to a close:
After digging through solid rock with my bare hands, I came up with the following good things about Bush.
1. GWB's cultural bias and his family life and relationship.
2. The fact that he didn't differentiate oral sex from sexual intercourse on prime time national TV.
3. Highest number of comedy serials about a president on TV including his ability to coin new words.
Other than that, he has pretty much fuked up across all bands of the spectrum. Although most of it can be attributed to the people he relies on; he is responsible.
Let me quote what NaplesX said in his original post-- verbatim:
Maybe you would have liked "a certain crowd" to contribute a little more, but the intention was clearly for "us all" to focus on the accomplishments of the Bush administration. Anyway--no need to reply to this and further sidetrack the thread-- back on topic.
No he was right. I wanted to illustrate how some of you can't even bring yourselves to say something nice about this president/admin/government.
I phrased it in that manner in case some actually wanted to participate, but my gut instinct was right.
Also note that I was asking for good things that this GOVERNMENT has done. There are a hell of a lot more people effecting policy than just the president. But once again the thread turned to bashing Bush over the head with his bloody stump.
It's what I expected though, so no hard feelings.\\
No he was right. I wanted to illustrate how some of you can't even bring yourselves to say something nice about this president/admin/government.
Hey, look who joined us again.
So far, I'm up at least 6 in number of compliments given to members of the bush admin and other parts of the government compared to you. From what I see, you've only cited one positive thing and have spent the rest of your posts complaining.
Too bad your complaints are totally empty.
And guess what. It doesn't even matter what you post at this point because the fact that you wrongly made the complaint above shows you aren't really looking for what you claimed in the threat title, which, IIRC, was something about no non-unnegativity or something.
But yeah, I'll just leave this post reminding you that I've made more praises of bush admin officials in this thread than all of the bush supporters combined.
But yeah, I'll just leave this post reminding you that I've made more praises of bush admin officials in this thread than all of the bush supporters combined.
I was going to call you a simple minded pinhead, but I won't that would be wrong.
But don't you get this:
This thread is not about Bush. It is about our Government. Maybe Bush is part of that, but not all of that.
Our government has done a lot over the past 4 years, good and bad.
Bush is indeed extremely widely hated. At least as much, if not more so than Nixon. Is that because people are bad (the haters) or because Bush is bad? Think about it very carefully.
This thread was to focus on our government more than bush. I seem to be talking to the wall...
I thought it was very noble of John DiIulio (the former head of the faith-based programs) to tell the truth about the administration and it's short-coming from yet another insider's perspective. We owe him a lot, because he clearly supported Bush strongly and was very disappointed by what he saw during his time with the administration.
Really? Not Bush, huh? Maybe you ought to go reread my posts.
You are playing word games, which is not surprizing from you. But you have posted a lot about bush, and negative things at that.
Just because you say something like: "I am glad that powel kept the asshole neocons from ruining the entire world" does not make that praise or even positive.
But that is ok, because with every post you make my point clearer.
I really liked how the nation's top counter-terrorism advisor leading up to 9.11 personally apologized to the families of those killed, making a point to accept responsibility.
Speaking of accepting responsibility, it was really refreshing to see rumsfeld accept responsibility for the abu ghraib torture, and say "I am accountable."
Oh, and I really, really like that policy makers life wolfowitz, perle, ... have made their policy papers available online at websites like Project for a New American Century so we can all read them for ourselves and see what their motives are.
I thought it was great that Karen Kwiatkowski came forward and spoke about her experiences close to the office of special plans and gave us some insight into how intel on Iraq was contorted.
I liked that Joe Wilson came forward and discussed his experience in Niger.
I'm glad that there is an investigation into the vp's office concerning the illegal outing of a CIA operative.
1. Stop taking any and all Media outlets at their word. They are, in large part institutions that, ala USA Today, NYT, etc, have Abu Ghraib ethical standards. Those that do not are simply engaging in rehtoric. Anyone who says differently is either selling papers or an ideology.
2. Except for going into Iraq, nothing would be different. The economists at Harvard and the foriegn policy eggheads, and the military eggheads would have ALL told Gore the same things they told Bush---come to think of it, maybe we would have gone into Iraq.
3. The world and America in general just came off the 90s, which means no-fly zones, inspections, no ME peace deals that worked, the EU, China, and Russia getting their sh!t together, and a world-wide stock market that made the final sequence in Scarface look like a Tupperware party.
Regardless who is president, they are dealing with all this crap---I don't think it can be done gracfully. The worst thing is to presume that the sort of deluge concerning Bush is anything other than a confluence of opportunists and simple attacks aimed at confusing the public and deriding his character, which may or may not be worth deriding. The fact that the political press, and the politicians are willing to foam at the mouth over the Abu Ghraib story is proof of this. Abu Ghraib, for just one example, is a situation that should have been dealt with internally in the most severe fashion---with a minimum of exposure as possible. That the Strategic Nessesities of maintaining an even strain to your opponents is subserviant to "their" goals of removing Bush from office, lays bare the intentions of all of this negativity.
2. Except for going into Iraq, nothing would be different.
Really? So cheney, wolfowitz, perle, cambone, rumsfeld, feith, abrams, libby, rice,... all would have held the senior decision and policy making positions under Gore? I never knew that.
Comments
Or how about one of Alan's more Bushesque runs he got us the Anderson account, but totally fucked it up and we lost a ton of money on it? Does that means it's positive that he got the account or negative because had he not gotten the account we would ultimately be much better off?
The moral? The truth hurts....
it sure does.
Goodnight everybody!
1. GWB's cultural bias and his family life and relationship.
2. The fact that he didn't differentiate oral sex from sexual intercourse on prime time national TV.
3. Highest number of comedy serials about a president on TV including his ability to coin new words.
Other than that, he has pretty much fuked up across all bands of the spectrum. Although most of it can be attributed to the people he relies on; he is responsible.
I'm glad Powell kept the wackos in the admin from going even more overboard.
I'm glad O'Neill spoke out about how screwed up things were.
Same with Clarke.
I'm glad Beers left the Bush admin, joined the Kerry campaign and committed to getting Bush out of office.
See, I've praised 4 senior Bush admin officials. What more do you want?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You're wrong.
Let me quote what NaplesX said in his original post-- verbatim:
Maybe you would have liked "a certain crowd" to contribute a little more, but the intention was clearly for "us all" to focus on the accomplishments of the Bush administration. Anyway--no need to reply to this and further sidetrack the thread-- back on topic.
No he was right. I wanted to illustrate how some of you can't even bring yourselves to say something nice about this president/admin/government.
I phrased it in that manner in case some actually wanted to participate, but my gut instinct was right.
Also note that I was asking for good things that this GOVERNMENT has done. There are a hell of a lot more people effecting policy than just the president. But once again the thread turned to bashing Bush over the head with his bloody stump.
It's what I expected though, so no hard feelings.\\
Carry on.
Originally posted by NaplesX
No he was right. I wanted to illustrate how some of you can't even bring yourselves to say something nice about this president/admin/government.
Hey, look who joined us again.
So far, I'm up at least 6 in number of compliments given to members of the bush admin and other parts of the government compared to you. From what I see, you've only cited one positive thing and have spent the rest of your posts complaining.
Too bad your complaints are totally empty.
And guess what. It doesn't even matter what you post at this point because the fact that you wrongly made the complaint above shows you aren't really looking for what you claimed in the threat title, which, IIRC, was something about no non-unnegativity or something.
But yeah, I'll just leave this post reminding you that I've made more praises of bush admin officials in this thread than all of the bush supporters combined.
Originally posted by giant
But yeah, I'll just leave this post reminding you that I've made more praises of bush admin officials in this thread than all of the bush supporters combined.
I was going to call you a simple minded pinhead, but I won't that would be wrong.
But don't you get this:
This thread is not about Bush. It is about our Government. Maybe Bush is part of that, but not all of that.
Our government has done a lot over the past 4 years, good and bad.
Once again, think Government. Not Bush.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I was going to call you a simple minded pinhead, but I won't that would be wrong.
Damn right it would be wrong because:
Once again, think Government. Not Bush.
Really? Not Bush, huh? Maybe you ought to go reread my posts.
Originally posted by tonton
Bush is indeed extremely widely hated. At least as much, if not more so than Nixon. Is that because people are bad (the haters) or because Bush is bad? Think about it very carefully.
This thread was to focus on our government more than bush. I seem to be talking to the wall...
Oh well, hey wall, Government not bush, OK?
I thought it was very noble of John DiIulio (the former head of the faith-based programs) to tell the truth about the administration and it's short-coming from yet another insider's perspective. We owe him a lot, because he clearly supported Bush strongly and was very disappointed by what he saw during his time with the administration.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh well, hey wall, Government not bush, OK?
From what I see, the only time I mentioned Bush's name was in reference to the great deeds of one of his top counter-terrorism advisors.
But then again, it's you who spend your time arguing with yourse...oh yeah, "the wall"
Oh, and for the record, I've now posted between 7 and 9 praises of administration officials and the judicial branch.
Originally posted by tonton
You're approaching this thread like Bush approached WMD.
Show us the WMD. If you don't show us any then you're hiding them (ignoring the point that there might not be any).
Show us the accomplishments. If you don't show us any then you're partisan (ignoring the fact that there might not be any accomplishments).
This thread was not partisan, it was "hey let's recap the last four years, and focus on the positive"
Not only that, you people seem to forget the GOVERNMENT is far morr than just bush, even if you just include the executive and legislative branches.
Originally posted by giant
Damn right it would be wrong because:
Really? Not Bush, huh? Maybe you ought to go reread my posts.
You are playing word games, which is not surprizing from you. But you have posted a lot about bush, and negative things at that.
Just because you say something like: "I am glad that powel kept the asshole neocons from ruining the entire world" does not make that praise or even positive.
But that is ok, because with every post you make my point clearer.
Speaking of accepting responsibility, it was really refreshing to see rumsfeld accept responsibility for the abu ghraib torture, and say "I am accountable."
I thought it was great that Karen Kwiatkowski came forward and spoke about her experiences close to the office of special plans and gave us some insight into how intel on Iraq was contorted.
I liked that Joe Wilson came forward and discussed his experience in Niger.
I'm glad that there is an investigation into the vp's office concerning the illegal outing of a CIA operative.
(you are all doing IT again)
1. Stop taking any and all Media outlets at their word. They are, in large part institutions that, ala USA Today, NYT, etc, have Abu Ghraib ethical standards. Those that do not are simply engaging in rehtoric. Anyone who says differently is either selling papers or an ideology.
2. Except for going into Iraq, nothing would be different. The economists at Harvard and the foriegn policy eggheads, and the military eggheads would have ALL told Gore the same things they told Bush---come to think of it, maybe we would have gone into Iraq.
3. The world and America in general just came off the 90s, which means no-fly zones, inspections, no ME peace deals that worked, the EU, China, and Russia getting their sh!t together, and a world-wide stock market that made the final sequence in Scarface look like a Tupperware party.
Regardless who is president, they are dealing with all this crap---I don't think it can be done gracfully. The worst thing is to presume that the sort of deluge concerning Bush is anything other than a confluence of opportunists and simple attacks aimed at confusing the public and deriding his character, which may or may not be worth deriding. The fact that the political press, and the politicians are willing to foam at the mouth over the Abu Ghraib story is proof of this. Abu Ghraib, for just one example, is a situation that should have been dealt with internally in the most severe fashion---with a minimum of exposure as possible. That the Strategic Nessesities of maintaining an even strain to your opponents is subserviant to "their" goals of removing Bush from office, lays bare the intentions of all of this negativity.
nothing new under the sun
Originally posted by dmz
2. Except for going into Iraq, nothing would be different.
Really? So cheney, wolfowitz, perle, cambone, rumsfeld, feith, abrams, libby, rice,... all would have held the senior decision and policy making positions under Gore? I never knew that.