The Bush Memorial Shoe
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What sane reason would he have had to do either one of those?
Who suggested either you or he was sane?
Rob Graham wrote:
Who suggested either you or he was sane?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Or do you think they only started hating him in the last 2 or 3 years?
In 2002 Bush had a 90% positive rating by the American people. Either "true lefties" represent only 10% of the population or it was Bush's actions and not some knee-jerk reaction to Republicans that caused him to lose the approval of 65% of America. Certainly the recognition of the incompetence of the Bush Administration was well underway more than two or three years ago, but a lot of it can be traced back to the governmental response to Katrina on August 29th, 2005. "You're doing a great job, Brownie!" turned out to be words that would come to haunt him far more than his word flubs ever did.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What sane reason would he have had to do either one of those?
Winning Elections. Keeping the costs down at any price to our soldiers seemed to be an administration priority before the 2004 election - you think maybe getting reelected had something to do with it? Postponing the crash would have been a great favor to John McCain. Even you might remember that until the economy blew up in our face, McCain was running neck and neck with Obama.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
modified on Sunday, February 1, 2009 11:12 AM
Oakman wrote:
Keeping the costs down at any price to our soldiers seemed to be an administration priority before the 2004 election - you think maybe getting reelected had something to do with it?
That doesn't make any sense at all. He was getting hammered for not having our forces properly prepared (which wasn't true to begin with. Our force that went into Iraq was better prepared than any force we have ever sent anywhere).
Oakman wrote:
Postponing the crash would have been a great favor to John McCain. Even you might remember that until the economy blew up in our face, McCain was running neck and neck with Obama.
You are actually trying to suggest that the Bush administration cleverly tried to keep the economy going until some predetermined point in the future? Thats fucking insane, Jon.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Sunday, February 1, 2009 12:29 PM
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What sane reason would he have had to do either one of those?
Who suggested either you or he was sane?
At least I don't suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome[^].
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Keeping the costs down at any price to our soldiers seemed to be an administration priority before the 2004 election - you think maybe getting reelected had something to do with it?
That doesn't make any sense at all. He was getting hammered for not having our forces properly prepared (which wasn't true to begin with. Our force that went into Iraq was better prepared than any force we have ever sent anywhere).
Oakman wrote:
Postponing the crash would have been a great favor to John McCain. Even you might remember that until the economy blew up in our face, McCain was running neck and neck with Obama.
You are actually trying to suggest that the Bush administration cleverly tried to keep the economy going until some predetermined point in the future? Thats fucking insane, Jon.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Sunday, February 1, 2009 12:29 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
Our force that went into Iraq was better prepared than any force we have ever sent anywhere
One of Goebbels big lies in action. Your claim was controverted - at the time Bush was shortchanging the troops - by Generals testifying under oath and by John McCain. Even Rumsfeld found only the weak excuse, "sometimes you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want." You try so hard to rewrite history, Stan, but all you end up doing is looking like a fool.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are actually trying to suggest that the Bush administration cleverly tried to keep the economy going until some predetermined point in the future?
Yes. I am glad you finally understand what I am saying. It only took me two tries to get through to you this time.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats f***ing insane, Jon
I agree, but that seems to be what he did. By the way, you can have the last word. I've made my point and you can yammer all your buzzwords as long as you wish. I've got more important things to read - like my laundry list.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Our force that went into Iraq was better prepared than any force we have ever sent anywhere
One of Goebbels big lies in action. Your claim was controverted - at the time Bush was shortchanging the troops - by Generals testifying under oath and by John McCain. Even Rumsfeld found only the weak excuse, "sometimes you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want." You try so hard to rewrite history, Stan, but all you end up doing is looking like a fool.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are actually trying to suggest that the Bush administration cleverly tried to keep the economy going until some predetermined point in the future?
Yes. I am glad you finally understand what I am saying. It only took me two tries to get through to you this time.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats f***ing insane, Jon
I agree, but that seems to be what he did. By the way, you can have the last word. I've made my point and you can yammer all your buzzwords as long as you wish. I've got more important things to read - like my laundry list.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
One of Goebbels big lies in action. Your claim was controverted - at the time Bush was shortchanging the troops - by Generals testifying under oath and by John McCain. Even Rumsfeld found only the weak excuse, "sometimes you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want." You try so hard to rewrite history, Stan, but all you end up doing is looking like a fool.
And of course any actual historic comparison would be out of the question. Would you, for example, consider the force we entered WWII with adequately prepared and equipped? The notion that our modern Army was supposed to be equally ready for both destroying a conventional opponent and a well equipped and funded insurgency is completely stupid. For a guy who claims to have served in the military, you seem woefully lacking in any basic military frame of reference.
Oakman wrote:
Yes. I am glad you finally understand what I am saying. It only took me two tries to get through to you this time. Stan Shannon wrote: Thats f***ing insane, Jon I agree, but that seems to be what he did.
I see.
Oakman wrote:
By the way, you can have the last word. I've made my point and you can yammer all your buzzwords as long as you wish. I've got more important things to read - like my laundry list.
Yeah, running away when you're getting your ass kicked seems to be in your nature.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
One of Goebbels big lies in action. Your claim was controverted - at the time Bush was shortchanging the troops - by Generals testifying under oath and by John McCain. Even Rumsfeld found only the weak excuse, "sometimes you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want." You try so hard to rewrite history, Stan, but all you end up doing is looking like a fool.
And of course any actual historic comparison would be out of the question. Would you, for example, consider the force we entered WWII with adequately prepared and equipped? The notion that our modern Army was supposed to be equally ready for both destroying a conventional opponent and a well equipped and funded insurgency is completely stupid. For a guy who claims to have served in the military, you seem woefully lacking in any basic military frame of reference.
Oakman wrote:
Yes. I am glad you finally understand what I am saying. It only took me two tries to get through to you this time. Stan Shannon wrote: Thats f***ing insane, Jon I agree, but that seems to be what he did.
I see.
Oakman wrote:
By the way, you can have the last word. I've made my point and you can yammer all your buzzwords as long as you wish. I've got more important things to read - like my laundry list.
Yeah, running away when you're getting your ass kicked seems to be in your nature.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yeah, running away when you're getting your ass kicked seems to be in your nature.
You are just like Hamas in Gaza - you get beat up, bitch-slapped, and kicked while you're down, but when the other guy walks away you claim victory. :laugh:
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yeah, running away when you're getting your ass kicked seems to be in your nature.
You are just like Hamas in Gaza - you get beat up, bitch-slapped, and kicked while you're down, but when the other guy walks away you claim victory. :laugh:
Shepman wrote:
You are just like Hamas in Gaza - you get beat up, bitch-slapped, and kicked while you're down, but when the other guy walks away you claim victory.
Simply because you agree with someone does not translate into that opinion being correct. I maintain that, historically speaking, the force we entered Iraq with was better prepared for its mission than was any similar force our country ever started any war with. If that is not true, than it should be easy for you to refute it rather than patting yourself on the back for doing absolutely nothing. You have yet to make an actual point about anything. You basically follow Jon around going "me too! me too!"
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Shepman wrote:
You are just like Hamas in Gaza - you get beat up, bitch-slapped, and kicked while you're down, but when the other guy walks away you claim victory.
Simply because you agree with someone does not translate into that opinion being correct. I maintain that, historically speaking, the force we entered Iraq with was better prepared for its mission than was any similar force our country ever started any war with. If that is not true, than it should be easy for you to refute it rather than patting yourself on the back for doing absolutely nothing. You have yet to make an actual point about anything. You basically follow Jon around going "me too! me too!"
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You have yet to make an actual point about anything.
Anyone whose internet debating technique includes threatening to beat up on his opponent really can't whine much about how others respond to him.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You basically follow Jon around going "me too! me too!"
well, I have had a couple of disagreements with the Oak, but not about you. I guess our sense of humor is similar. :laugh:
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You have yet to make an actual point about anything.
Anyone whose internet debating technique includes threatening to beat up on his opponent really can't whine much about how others respond to him.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You basically follow Jon around going "me too! me too!"
well, I have had a couple of disagreements with the Oak, but not about you. I guess our sense of humor is similar. :laugh:
Shepman wrote:
Anyone whose internet debating technique includes threatening to beat up on his opponent really can't whine much about how others respond to him.
Well how about someone who tries to make an issue out of someon's age?
Shepman wrote:
well, I have had a couple of disagreements with the Oak, but not about you. I guess our sense of humor is similar.
Jon, at least, appears to actualy read history. I've seen no evidence that you do. You seem to be, typical of your generation, someone who has acquired your entire point of view from google. But, I have my doubts that either of you have any sort of academic background of any kind.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Shepman wrote:
Anyone whose internet debating technique includes threatening to beat up on his opponent really can't whine much about how others respond to him.
Well how about someone who tries to make an issue out of someon's age?
Shepman wrote:
well, I have had a couple of disagreements with the Oak, but not about you. I guess our sense of humor is similar.
Jon, at least, appears to actualy read history. I've seen no evidence that you do. You seem to be, typical of your generation, someone who has acquired your entire point of view from google. But, I have my doubts that either of you have any sort of academic background of any kind.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well how about someone who tries to make an issue out of someon's age?
Stan Shannon wrote:
You seem to be, typical of your generation, someone who has acquired your entire point of view from google.
Gawd you are so fucking funny!!!
So it is google than, eh? I thought so...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Or do you think they only started hating him in the last 2 or 3 years?
In 2002 Bush had a 90% positive rating by the American people. Either "true lefties" represent only 10% of the population or it was Bush's actions and not some knee-jerk reaction to Republicans that caused him to lose the approval of 65% of America. Certainly the recognition of the incompetence of the Bush Administration was well underway more than two or three years ago, but a lot of it can be traced back to the governmental response to Katrina on August 29th, 2005. "You're doing a great job, Brownie!" turned out to be words that would come to haunt him far more than his word flubs ever did.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
I think you can go back (at least) to 2000. This stupid yokel beat the dems, who we all know are much smarter. As far as Katrina, who did do a good job, or even a better job?
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
As far as Katrina, who did do a good job, or even a better job?
Beter than FEMA? How about both the Coast Guard and the National Guard. Hell, the NOPD who stayed on the job even when they knew their own homes were being flooded did a better job. Better than Bush? You've got to be kidding. His responses were abysmally inadequate and showed no understanding of the situation or the impact it was having on the country as a whole.
RichardM1 wrote:
I think you can go back (at least) to 2000.
Which part of 90% approval in 2002 didn't work for you? That's a helluvalot more people than voted for him in 2000.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
As far as Katrina, who did do a good job, or even a better job?
Beter than FEMA? How about both the Coast Guard and the National Guard. Hell, the NOPD who stayed on the job even when they knew their own homes were being flooded did a better job. Better than Bush? You've got to be kidding. His responses were abysmally inadequate and showed no understanding of the situation or the impact it was having on the country as a whole.
RichardM1 wrote:
I think you can go back (at least) to 2000.
Which part of 90% approval in 2002 didn't work for you? That's a helluvalot more people than voted for him in 2000.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Beter than FEMA? How about both the Coast Guard and the National Guard.
You are mistaking individuals doing a job well with institutional capability, and with organizational capability from local up to national. As for the Coast Guard, were they not part of the Federal response team?
Oakman wrote:
Better than Bush?
You seem to think I'm putting up for him. I asked who did better. You don't believe Nagin did better, do you? How about Bianco? They were freaking spectacular in their responses, right? What part of the government did not 'fail', on the whole? On the subject of failure, what would have constituted 'success'? When has response to a catastrophe of that size ever been better? We seem to think that, just because it's the US, our people won't suffer when multiple states get flooded out. Supplies weigh a lot. Helicopter look good, but you need roads, rail and ships to make a real logistics effort, and all those where washed out, even the port, so stuff just couldn't get there at 70 mph.
Oakman wrote:
Which part of 90% approval in 2002 didn't work for you?
That 90% just means there are 10% who would hate their own mother if she was named Bush (or their own country, if it was named America). Which part of "Stole the election", "draft dodger" and "too stupid to beat the dems" in 1999 and 2000 didn't work for you? The Bush haters hated him before he was President, more when he was elected. They did not show up 18 months ago, because of his failure to proclaim 'recession'. Revision does not change history, it only makes it harder to learn from it. I don't know when you joined that 10%, but you sound like the old addage “No zealot like a convert”
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
I've hated him all along.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Or do you think they only started hating him in the last 2 or 3 years?
They probably hated him before that for being a righty.
Sahir Shah wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: Or do you think they only started hating him in the last 2 or 3 years? They probably hated him before that for being a righty.
I wonder who gave you a negative for that, and why they would. That is kind of like voting someone down for saying '2+2=4'
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.