He could hardly have started one, since it had actually began before he was elected president, and it had not ended by a peace treaty or even a semblant of normalisation.
So, as a matter of fact, the U.S.A. has been in a state of war against Iraq during the latter part of the paternal Bush presidency, throughout both Clinton presidencies, and the filial Bush presidency, of course.
Genghis Khan was a pioneer in elephant endurance testing.
I think you meant to say Hannibal Barca, the brilliant general from Carthage, tested Elephant endurance . . . . with his trek over the Swiis Alps\\ . . . he then took to ravaging the Roman country-side for 18 years without the loss of a single battle!!! and for some reason, did not sack Rome when withing site of its walls . . . . they later paid when Carthage was completely destroyed, burned to the ground, the soil ploughed over and then covered with salt so that nothing could grow back . . . nice Romans . . .
Ghengis Khan used horses . . . and one of his successors (Subudai, IIRC) is known for having slaughtered every Muslim in bagdad
I think Naples's point has been made handily. Oddly, most people didn't quite get it. It wasn't how many good things could be said of Bush. It was if a "certain crowd" here could actually temporarily switch from their affinity in a genuine manner- even if the situation has to be contrived. I think the answer has been shown to be, "No".
There is no need to see the vice versa, because there is already a strong showing here in that direction.
I think Naples's point has been made handily. Oddly, most people didn't quite get it. It wasn't how many good things could be said of Bush. It was if a "certain crowd" here could actually temporarily switch from their affinity in a genuine manner- even if the situation has to be contrived. I think the answer has been shown to be, "No".
There is no need to see the vice versa, because there is already a strong showing here in that direction.
Well, my point is.... I honestly want to see the accomplishments. Please.
I'm not lying and don't care about the jokes posted earlier. I'm truly interested.
A positive achievement for some can cut the other way also:
Many environmental regulations have been gutted since Bush's White House tenure, allowing certain US industries, including many polluters, to cut expenses and therefore reap larger profits, benefitting their shareholders. If you are getting wealthier because of this, then its positive, yes?. If you contract some fatal disease as a result, not so clever.
I think Naples's point has been made handily. Oddly, most people didn't quite get it. It wasn't how many good things could be said of Bush. It was if a "certain crowd" here could actually temporarily switch from their affinity in a genuine manner- even if the situation has to be contrived. I think the answer has been shown to be, "No".
There is no need to see the vice versa, because there is already a strong showing here in that direction.
You're wrong.
Let me quote what NaplesX said in his original post-- verbatim:
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I would like us all to recap the last four years in respect to good things that this country and it's governing entities have done, including this president. Lets also try to keep the politics and sarcasm aside.
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.
Soooo....wassup with the thread title? It employs a negation to condemn negativity. \
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I would like us all to recap the last four years in respect to good things that this country and it's governing entities have done
Powell's State dept did the future of Iraq project (which, we all know, was scrapped in favor of...nothing).
We've had a good number of senior administration officials and staffers keep their integrity by stepping forward about what's been going on behind the scenes.
The screw-ups of the white house and DoD highlighted problems with our intel agencies and dod that are now starting to be ironed out (though the DoD is harder because of the number of political appointees). These changes, if they get past strong republican resistance, will make us much better equipped to prevent terrorist acts.
Sodomy laws were struck down and there were rulings that gays should be allowed to marry.
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. [/B]
This approach reminds me of the "debating the word 'is'" technique. Of course, he said, "all", but the real focus was to see the posts that would eschew from a certain group. "The group" evidently walked right into it. Hence, the point was handily made.
This approach reminds me of the "debating the word 'is'" technique. Of course, he said, "all", but the real focus was to see the posts that would eschew from a certain group. "The group" evidently walked right into it. Hence, the point was handily made.
Yeah. Hahaahha
NaplesX duped us all! It's like he got inside my mind!
Then there should have been very few responses, altogether. However, there were plenty, and by far, they were simply loosely veiled cracks to the contrary. If anything, this indicates the lack of capability of a "certain group" to say anything w/o putting a particular slant to it. Even in jest, it is still a point blank indication. The persons of note simply could not pull it off.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
Let's expand to the last four years of the Clinton administration.
Is there anything good that our government (the whole federal government) has done in the last 8 years?
Now you're trying to cheat.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
He [Mr. Clinton] didn't start a war with iraq
He could hardly have started one, since it had actually began before he was elected president, and it had not ended by a peace treaty or even a semblant of normalisation.
So, as a matter of fact, the U.S.A. has been in a state of war against Iraq during the latter part of the paternal Bush presidency, throughout both Clinton presidencies, and the filial Bush presidency, of course.
Originally posted by Harald
Genghis Khan was a pioneer in elephant endurance testing.
I think you meant to say Hannibal Barca, the brilliant general from Carthage, tested Elephant endurance . . . . with his trek over the Swiis Alps\\ . . . he then took to ravaging the Roman country-side for 18 years without the loss of a single battle!!! and for some reason, did not sack Rome when withing site of its walls . . . . they later paid when Carthage was completely destroyed, burned to the ground, the soil ploughed over and then covered with salt so that nothing could grow back . . . nice Romans . . .
Ghengis Khan used horses . . . and one of his successors (Subudai, IIRC) is known for having slaughtered every Muslim in bagdad
Who knows maybe he'll be the first one to test it.
Here's to hoping.
There is no need to see the vice versa, because there is already a strong showing here in that direction.
Originally posted by Randycat99
I think Naples's point has been made handily. Oddly, most people didn't quite get it. It wasn't how many good things could be said of Bush. It was if a "certain crowd" here could actually temporarily switch from their affinity in a genuine manner- even if the situation has to be contrived. I think the answer has been shown to be, "No".
There is no need to see the vice versa, because there is already a strong showing here in that direction.
Well, my point is.... I honestly want to see the accomplishments. Please.
I'm not lying and don't care about the jokes posted earlier. I'm truly interested.
Many environmental regulations have been gutted since Bush's White House tenure, allowing certain US industries, including many polluters, to cut expenses and therefore reap larger profits, benefitting their shareholders. If you are getting wealthier because of this, then its positive, yes?. If you contract some fatal disease as a result, not so clever.
Originally posted by Randycat99
I think Naples's point has been made handily. Oddly, most people didn't quite get it. It wasn't how many good things could be said of Bush. It was if a "certain crowd" here could actually temporarily switch from their affinity in a genuine manner- even if the situation has to be contrived. I think the answer has been shown to be, "No".
There is no need to see the vice versa, because there is already a strong showing here in that direction.
You're wrong.
Let me quote what NaplesX said in his original post-- verbatim:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I would like us all to recap the last four years in respect to good things that this country and it's governing entities have done, including this president. Lets also try to keep the politics and sarcasm aside.
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.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I would like us all to recap the last four years in respect to good things that this country and it's governing entities have done
Powell's State dept did the future of Iraq project (which, we all know, was scrapped in favor of...nothing).
We've had a good number of senior administration officials and staffers keep their integrity by stepping forward about what's been going on behind the scenes.
The screw-ups of the white house and DoD highlighted problems with our intel agencies and dod that are now starting to be ironed out (though the DoD is harder because of the number of political appointees). These changes, if they get past strong republican resistance, will make us much better equipped to prevent terrorist acts.
Sodomy laws were struck down and there were rulings that gays should be allowed to marry.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
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. [/B]
This approach reminds me of the "debating the word 'is'" technique.
Originally posted by Randycat99
This approach reminds me of the "debating the word 'is'" technique.
Yeah. Hahaahha
NaplesX duped us all!
Originally posted by giant
Soooo....wassup with the thread title? It employs a negation to condemn negativity.
It brings to mind an old cliché. The first part of it is... "Ask a stupid question - "
Originally posted by tonton
I disagree. I think the point here was exactly how many good things could actually be said of Bush.
Yeah, but the truth hurts.
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).
Good analogy. Bravo!!!
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).
Me? I meant the truth being.... there's little Bush has accomplished. And it hurts (Randycat99 and NaplesX).
Edit: I don't think you were talking to me.... I gotta go to sleep now.
The truth hurts, indeed...
Originally posted by Randycat99
The truth hurts, indeed...
Nice!