Why George Bush is a great man & a very good President by chrisisall

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Wow, you managed to evade the qestion and prove my point

Finn, see, has a problem with questions. It's akin to a learning disability so don't be too hard on him. The question mark just creates such an uncomfortable feeling that he avoids them whenever possible, which is why you must talk to him in simple declarative sentences.

(EH! I slapped myself upside the head for that one, but I couldn't resist!)

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
In the UK the nicest depiction we have of the "Prime Minister" on TV is a somewhat image obscessed, out of his depth functionary. After that we go downwards through various shades of idiot to the genuinely corrupt and possibly loopy.

In the US the President in TV and film is played by folks like Harrison Ford and Martin Sheen, leads fighter jets against alien invaders, is perfectly capable of thoughtfully dealing with giant asteroids or terrorists on his plane and has Jack Bauer on his speed dial.

We are seldom disappointed in what we get because our popular culture doesnt make the PM out to be that great. In the US anything less than a President Bartlett is considered a failure.

Ok, so this one is especially poor, but has any President since Kennedy REALLY lived up to the American public's perception of the office? I mean even Reagan had to fall back on being the "nice guy" rather than the uber stateman US popular culture expects.

Interesting point. In fact, even Kennedy didn't live up to his reputation, and all of our most effective Presidents were hated violently at some point or another in their terms of office. So we (collectively) perhaps need to scale back our expectations and not expect an Olympian-style hero (no, not THAT Hero) to pull our bacon out of the many fires that we would rather collectively ignore.

Me, I'd settle for a guy who doesn't sell us down the river at the first opportunity* and start dubious military missions throughout the world. (*That was my beef with Clinton and NAFTA.) If a President doesn't do great good, I hope s/he would at least avoid great evil.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:17 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

In the US the President in TV and film is played by folks like Harrison Ford and Martin Sheen

Great post, Fletch! But I guess the question is, why can't Ford or Sheen run for the office?

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:22 AM

FLETCH2

I think Kennedy is important for another reason. he's generally considered the first President for whom TV was a big deal. The TV debate with Nixon is seen by many as having won him that tight election, it didnt hurt that he was young and photogenic.

He also comes around at the time that TV drama was taking off and depictions of the fictional President were just beginning. Ignoring biopics and historical movies I can't remember seeing any cinematic depiction of the US President before the 1950's? Once you have TV having to fill so many hours every week the depiction of the President as a fictional character increases.

It's hard to beat those perfect president.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Wow, you managed to evade the qestion and prove my point in one feel swoop. Nice. Thanks.

You’re welcome. It’s always a pleasure to prove someone wrong, and have them thank me for it.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 1:05 PM

WHODIED

He's the president we can drink a beer with.

However, (last call!) he needs to go home now, and we need to sober up.

--WhoDied

_______________________

Evil. Good. These are moral absolutes that predate the
absolution of malt and fine hops. You see, wait-- where was I?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Well, I don't believe he got the full breifing on the whole situation right there in the classroom, so I'd say step one would be get off his ass and make sure he was aware of all available information.

So you do not have a problem with what Bush did, you have a problem with when Bush did it. If Bush had immediately run from the classroom and hid in his limo for half an hour, then you would be okay with his actions? There would be no tape of Bush in the classroom then. And when it comes down to it, we are speaking of optics here, nothing more.

Christ, do you even read before responding? Or are you just incapable of anything but a straw-man response?

Perhaps I was not as clear in making my point as I could have been. Let's ask for clarification first before going off "half-cocked" all the time shall we.

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
No, I wouldn't want him to go "hide in his limo", I would have liked for him to get involved. If that entailed getting a breifing in his limo - so bit it. But sitting on his ass is not the action of a leader.

Say Bush had of been on the toilet when he got the news instead of in the classroom. Say Bush sat and did nothing for half an hour (well almost nothing

) until he came out for his briefing. You would have no issue with how Bush handled himself that day because you would have no tape showing the man doing something you find 'un-presidential'.
I'm not saying do not hate Bush, I'm saying why hate Bush for something as trivial as not responding to a catastrophe in the way You think he should have.

By the way,
Storymark secretly loves Bush and all he stands for but decided to follow the majority of Bush haters on this forum because of a lemming like personality derived from his shockingly low self esteem.

Now that's a strawman argument.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Well, I don't believe he got the full breifing on the whole situation right there in the classroom, so I'd say step one would be get off his ass and make sure he was aware of all available information.

So you do not have a problem with what Bush did, you have a problem with when Bush did it. If Bush had immediately run from the classroom and hid in his limo for half an hour, then you would be okay with his actions? There would be no tape of Bush in the classroom then. And when it comes down to it, we are speaking of optics here, nothing more.

Christ, do you even read before responding? Or are you just incapable of anything but a straw-man response?

Perhaps I was not as clear in making my point as I could have been. Let's ask for clarification first before going off "half-cocked" all the time shall we.
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
No, I wouldn't want him to go "hide in his limo", I would have liked for him to get involved. If that entailed getting a breifing in his limo - so bit it. But sitting on his ass is not the action of a leader.

Say Bush had of been on the toilet when he got the news instead of in the classroom. Say Bush sat and did nothing for half an hour (well almost nothing) until he came out for his briefing. You would have no issue with how Bush handled himself that day because you would have no tape showing the man doing something you find 'un-presidential'.
I'm not saying do not hate Bush, I'm saying why hate Bush for something as trivial as not responding to a catastrophe in the way You think he should have.

By the way,
Storymark secretly loves Bush and all he stands for but decided to follow the majority of Bush haters on this forum because of a lemming like personality derived from his shockingly low self esteem.

Now that's a strawman argument.

Okay, I see your point. But it's not so much a matter of hating him for not doing what I think he should have (though is are hardly a shortage of reasons to hate him) - but for not doing anything at all. True, if he had not been on camera, I would not know what he had or had not been doing . In which case, I wouldn't be so pissed about his response, beause I simply would not have known (and at this point in history, I didn't hate him - I wasn't a big fan, but I didn't hate the man). But the fact remains, he was on camera, and did nothing. And I do hold him accountable for that. If he's going to freeze up, he should have done it in private, so he could have at least maintained the illusion of being a leader.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Wow, you managed to evade the qestion and prove my point in one feel swoop. Nice. Thanks.
You’re welcome. It’s always a pleasure to prove someone wrong, and have them thank me for it.

You really need to workin on sharpening those reading skills, boyo.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
By the way,
Storymark secretly loves Bush and all he stands for but decided to follow the majority of Bush haters on this forum because of a lemming like personality derived from his shockingly low self esteem.

Now that's a strawman argument.

No, that's an Ad Hominem and a Red Herring.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Wow, you managed to evade the qestion and prove my point in one feel swoop. Nice. Thanks.
You’re welcome. It’s always a pleasure to prove someone wrong, and have them thank me for it.

You really need to workin on sharpening those reading skills, boyo.

So you hate Bush because you imagine that on 9/ll some Bush signal lit up the sky and Bush didn’t tear off his suit to reveal the red, white and blue tights of Bushman, and then jump out the window and fly to single handedly rescue the world.

I think BDN is right. You secretly love Bush. You’re just angry like a little kid who just discovered Santa Clause is fake because reality encroached on your fantasy world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:02 AM

SIMONWHO

American Presidents generally get judged by how they handled the economy, how they handled any foreign policy crises and how united the nation was as a result of their presidency.

So by any conceivable measure, Bush is going down as one of the worst Presidents in history with a footnote that the electorate in 2004 were one of the most gullible and short-sighted in history.

However, as the question was asking why Bush might be considered a great man, let's look at his good points:

He is very personable and people do say he is charming.
He has set aside large funds for many projects that had been neglected, including billions for the needy in Africa.
He successfully led a coalition of dozens of nations against the oppressive regime of Afghanistan.
He formed bonds with some countries that hitherto had kept the US at arms length, including Pakistan.
He had no major personal scandals during his time as President.

Any others?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:11 AM

MAL4PREZ

OK, here's the thing with W's 9/11 lack of reaction.

At that moment, no one knew that the event was limited to 4 hijacked planes. I clearly remember the people I was with, and the stuff on TV, the wild speculation as hijacked planes everywhere and possible attacks - like ground attacks. In fact, the first thing I heard was a guy yelling: We're at war! as if the WTC was merely the first hit and troop transports and bomber planes were now on their way in ala Red Dawn. Which is a little much, but you get my point.

In this situation, where shit is going down, I want the leader of my country to be a person of action who starts moving, starts gathering info, and does his damnedest to see what can be done. Even if it's found that there's nothing he can do, he can at very least be a LEADER and serve as an example of calm, rational action to a couple million very frightened people who are looking to him as the man they elected. (Oh wait - they didn't...)

What W did that morning showed what he is. He is not a leader. He is not decisive. As soon as the words "the second tower's been hit" were uttered, he should have been on the move. Clearly he lacks the intelligence and independence of thought to make that judgement call. When I say mashed potatoes from the eyebrows on back, this is what I mean.

W has been told what to do by daddy, and told what to do by Cheney, and that morning he sat on his ass until he was told what to do by his handlers. Leader of the free world my ass. This chump's a puppet, and Jan 20 2009 can't come fast enough.

Morning rant over.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
He is very personable and people do say he is charming.

Many of the people who work for him say that when faced with a Cabinet-level decision he freezes. His eyes glaze over, he gives you the 1000-yard stare when you make your pitch, and "he" doesn't decide until after he's had a private consult with Cheney. (That was back in the day when Cabinet members were something other than total yes-men and tried to bring real news to the table.)

In addition, I've heard that he gets very very angry over little things- like not having his coffee brought to him on time- and that he's got a tyrannical streak. The charm is reserved for fund-raisers.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
What W did that morning showed what he is. He is not a leader. He is not decisive. As soon as the words "the second tower's been hit" were uttered, he should have been on the move. Clearly he lacks the intelligence and independence of thought to make that judgement call. When I say mashed potatoes from the eyebrows on back, this is what I mean.

Another proponent of the Batman philosophy of presidential conduct. What should he have done? Run out to the ruins of the WTC and exclaim to Cheney, “Those dastardly villains!!!”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:21 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
So you hate Bush because you imagine that on 9/ll some Bush signal lit up the sky and Bush didn’t tear off his suit to reveal the red, white and blue tights of Bushman, and then jump out the window and fly to single handedly rescue the world.

I think the problem is, you actually think he DID do this...

My problem with what Shrub did and didn't do on 9/11 is that he looked like the deer in the headlights; he had no clue what was going on, no real desire to find out, and absolutely no will or balls to do anything about it. He decided he'd hide behind the kids like Martin Sheen in "The Dead Zone" (the movie, not that crappy TV show) and keep his head buried in his book.

Silly, silly me... I expect my leaders, in a time of national crisis, to actually LEAD, not to sit around with their thumbs up their asses waiting for someone else to tell them what to say, do, or think. And, given that he didn't have the full story, shouldn't he have at least been in the car, on the way to the airport, ON THE PHONE AND IN TOUCH WITH PEOPLE WHO JUST MIGHT KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON?!

I'm sure you think it's just hunky-dory that he stayed on vacation all through the Katrinal disaster, too. It's not that he personally could have really done anything about it, but he could have been SEEN to be doing something. Anything. One thing you haven't learned about politics: It's all about perception. If you're perceived as an idiot and a do-nothing, it hardly matters whether it's true or not. Just ask John Kerry, whom your party has portrayed as a traitor, a coward, a snob, and a fake. So your problem is that we're calling out Bush on being a do-nothing dolt, when in fact that's what he is, and always has been.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:31 AM

FLETCH2

The question is, would you REALLY want him to dash in and just do what his GUT told him to do?

Really?

This guy has problems eating pretsles and you want him to improvise?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:43 AM

MAL4PREZ

In response to Finn...

Quote:
My problem with what Shrub did and didn't do on 9/11 is that he looked like the deer in the headlights; he had no clue what was going on, no real desire to find out, and absolutely no will or balls to do anything about it.

Silly, silly me... I expect my leaders, in a time of national crisis, to actually LEAD, not to sit around with their thumbs up their asses waiting for someone else to tell them what to say, do, or think.

What he said.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
Bush did a good job for me. If he killed more terrorists I would rated him higher. Start with the finsbury park crowd since the english don't have the guts anymore. 4 years from now we need another BUSH.

I don't know *loads* about Bush, hence won't comment overall. Although to respond to this query, the majority of us Brits ARE in favour of fighting Islamo-fascists, however our crappy Labour Government are scared of Muslims (they recently gave extremist Muslims £100 million to build a super mosque, even though the Govt. aren't legally meant to fund any sort of religion..)

However once this Government is kicked out of office in 1-2 years, we'll (hopefully) be back with a decent foreign policy soon..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:02 AM

Quote:
Say Bush had of been on the toilet when he got the news instead of in the classroom. Say Bush sat and did nothing for half an hour (well almost nothing) until he came out for his briefing.

M'kay... even if I'm in the middle of a four-flusher, I think I can pinch it off if my country is under attack, and go see what the fuck is going on, and what I can do about it.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:07 AM

Quote:
What should he have done?

Well, if nothing else, he could have put down his book, or at the very least, turned it so he wasn't reading it upside-down! :)

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:12 AM

Quote:
At that moment, no one knew that the event was limited to 4 hijacked planes. I clearly remember the people I was with, and the stuff on TV, the wild speculation as hijacked planes everywhere and possible attacks - like ground attacks.

Yup, that's certainly the way it was here in Austin. There was at least a little bit of panic about whether there would be an attack on the state capitol building (since W claims to be "from here"), or on the University of Texas, where Jenna was going to school at the time. There was simply no clue as to whether there were more planes inbound, or what.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by tristanperry:
I don't know *loads* about Bush, hence won't comment overall. Although to respond to this query, the majority of us Brits ARE in favour of fighting Islamo-fascists, however our crappy Labour Government are scared of Muslims

Them and their constant pushing for indefinite detention, Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, how many police raids is it now...

Quote:
(they recently gave extremist Muslims £100 million to build a super mosque, even though the Govt. aren't legally meant to fund any sort of religion..)

The UK Government has made no such funding for any mosque built by any Muslims, extremist or otherwise. Also, there is no explicit rule that I know of that prevents the UK Government from funding religious endeavours. The UK Government is secular, but it's secularism is of a somewhat different flavour to America's.

Links please.

Quote:
However once this Government is kicked out of office in 1-2 years, we'll (hopefully) be back with a decent foreign policy soon..

Sure if we don't get that moron Cameron in Charge. The only policy he has is "the other guy is wrong, ayup!" But hey, it was certainly enough to get a Clown elected to London mayor...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Well, if nothing else, he could have put down his book, or at the very least, turned it so he wasn't reading it upside-down! :)

But I thought we weren't supposed to let the terrorists dictate our actions to us.
According to some on this board, Bush did exactly the right thing by not letting a terrorist attack interfere with his agenda.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:26 AM

CHRISISALL

And the dopey post-of-the-day Award goes to...
BDN!!!!!

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
So you hate Bush because you imagine that on 9/ll some Bush signal lit up the sky and Bush didn’t tear off his suit to reveal the red, white and blue tights of Bushman, and then jump out the window and fly to single handedly rescue the world.

I think the problem is, you actually think he DID do this...

And there you have it. This batman fantasy is what you have come to expect from reality? Are you and others such a product of a television age where you can’t separate fiction from reality, or is this just an excuse? Are you instead just jumping on the popular “Bush-hater” trend, but lack the understanding to appreciate why some don’t disagree with Bush, so you use this an excuse to following some trend?

I’m not really sure where this comes from, but I do know that of all the reasons to be opposed to the Bush presidency this is about the dumbest.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm sure you think it's just hunky-dory that he stayed on vacation all through the Katrinal disaster, too. It's not that he personally could have really done anything about it, but he could have been SEEN to be doing something. Anything. One thing you haven't learned about politics: It's all about perception. If you're perceived as an idiot and a do-nothing, it hardly matters whether it's true or not. Just ask John Kerry, whom your party has portrayed as a traitor, a coward, a snob, and a fake. So your problem is that we're calling out Bush on being a do-nothing dolt, when in fact that's what he is, and always has been.

And this is really interesting, because you accept that this whole thing is a fabrication, but you can’t imagine not going allow with it. You convinced yourself that, it doesn’t matter what the truth actually is, just that the perception created by the media is the only real truth. So someone in the media created an imaginary two-dimensional perception, and you accept it and even defend it as it if is real.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"So you hate Bush because you imagine that on 9/ll some Bush signal lit up the sky and Bush didn’t tear off his suit to reveal the red, white and blue tights of Bushman, and then jump out the window and fly to single handedly rescue the world."

That's an insult to Bushmen everywhere.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Wow, you managed to evade the qestion and prove my point in one feel swoop. Nice. Thanks.
You’re welcome. It’s always a pleasure to prove someone wrong, and have them thank me for it.

You really need to workin on sharpening those reading skills, boyo.
So you hate Bush because you imagine that on 9/ll some Bush signal lit up the sky and Bush didn’t tear off his suit to reveal the red, white and blue tights of Bushman, and then jump out the window and fly to single handedly rescue the world.

I think BDN is right. You secretly love Bush. You’re just angry like a little kid who just discovered Santa Clause is fake because reality encroached on your fantasy world.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

I like this. every time I post something, you show yourself to be more and more of a rediculouse moron. Keep it up, Finn you beautiful retard.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Another proponent of the Batman philosophy of presidential conduct. What should he have done? Run out to the ruins of the WTC and exclaim to Cheney, “Those dastardly villains!!!”

No, I think he should have sat in pallid stupefied silence in front of an elementary-grade class, holding a level-2 reading book in his hand until his Secret Service told him to move. Twenty minutes later.

Oh wait... that's what he did.

Then - GOOD JOB!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
What W did that morning showed what he is. He is not a leader. He is not decisive. As soon as the words "the second tower's been hit" were uttered, he should have been on the move. Clearly he lacks the intelligence and independence of thought to make that judgement call. When I say mashed potatoes from the eyebrows on back, this is what I mean.
Another proponent of the Batman philosophy of presidential conduct. What should he have done? Run out to the ruins of the WTC and exclaim to Cheney, “Those dastardly villains!!!”

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Oh, nice to see it's not just me. You reveal your utter stupidity with others, as well.

Of course, you deliberately remove the salient point from what you quote, but mal quite clearly stated what a "leader" should have done - gathering info, rather than sitting there is petrified silence being a good start.

how you read that, and then jump to spuer tights is utterly amazing. Did you stop taking your meds, or something?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
how you read that, and then jump to spuer tights is utterly amazing. Did you stop taking your meds, or something?

Damnit! There you go again asking Finn more questions! Don't you realize that question marks set off a little firestorm in his brain? C'mon man! Have a heart!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Did you stop taking your meds, or something?

Let me get this straight. You're surprised that Finn can only converse by misrepresenting what someone else said?

How long have you been posting here again?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Them and their constant pushing for indefinite detention, Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, how many police raids is it now...

Most of that was Blair stuff. In fact, Blair set ALL of that up.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:The UK Government has made no such funding for any mosque built by any Muslims, extremist or otherwise. Also, there is no explicit rule that I know of that prevents the UK Government from funding religious endeavours. The UK Government is secular, but it's secularism is of a somewhat different flavour to America's.

Links please.

MOSQUE LINKS
http://chat.thisislondon.co.uk/london/threadnonInd.jsp?forum=117&threa
d=230622
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/sep/24/communities.religion
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2006/09/07/40000-person-mosque-plan
ned-for-west-ham-london/
http://inspigoblog.wordpress.com/2006/10/17/i-am-voting-no-for-the-stg
-100m-london-mosque/
http://www.woyano.com/view/4992/Tax-payers-money-to-build-enormous-100
m-mosque
http://www.aboutlife.com/alfrench/100m_mosque
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1810194/posts
http://www.fiatforum.com/leisure-lounge/99411-100m-mosque-london.html

And officially the UK IS still a Christian country. Obviously it isn't in practise, although officially it is.

But I guess you'll find some great excuse to ignore all the links I posted up?

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Sure if we don't get that moron Cameron in Charge. The only policy he has is "the other guy is wrong, ayup!" But hey, it was certainly enough to get a Clown elected to London mayor...

Yep, a PM that does U-Turns weekly, and an anti-Semitic Mayor are MUCH better...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Let me get this straight. You're surprised that Finn can only converse by misrepresenting what someone else said?

How long have you been posting here again?

Now that's an ad hominem and red herring.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:33 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Of course, you deliberately remove the salient point from what you quote, but mal quite clearly stated what a "leader" should have done - gathering info, rather than sitting there is petrified silence being a good start.

Thanks for pointing that out, Storymark.

I hate to pull the troll card, but I don't how else to explain the way Finn so easily misses the blatantly obvious. Troll? Or near psychotic level of Bush worship? (trying hard not to add the obvious R rated joke here...

)

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:39 AM

Double,
Nothing to see here, move along.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by tristanperry:
Most of that was Blair stuff. In fact, Blair set ALL of that up.

Who was the head of the Labour Party until pretty recently. Either way your accusation is still baseless and absurd.

I wrote:

Quote:
The UK Government has made no such funding for any mosque built by any Muslims, extremist or otherwise.

Quote:

http://chat.thisislondon.co.uk/london/threadnonInd.jsp?forum=117&threa
d=230622
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/sep/24/communities.religion
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2006/09/07/40000-person-mosque-plan
ned-for-west-ham-london/
http://inspigoblog.wordpress.com/2006/10/17/i-am-voting-no-for-the-stg
-100m-london-mosque/
http://www.aboutlife.com/alfrench/100m_mosque
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1810194/posts
http://www.fiatforum.com/leisure-lounge/99411-100m-mosque-london.html

I indeed know about the mega mosque. What I said was it wasn't being funded by tax money.

The only fathomable link with some credibility that even mentions UK funding doesn't mention the Government, merely parties within the UK, and also mentions that most of the funding would be coming from Saudi Arabia. I'm sorry to burst some sort of Daily Express induced bubble of outrage, but there it is.

The only link that says it is to be funded by the UK Government, was this:

Quote:

http://www.woyano.com/view/4992/Tax-payers-money-to-build-enormous-100
m-mosque

Which is a meaningless and unsupported blog spot. It's about as useful as me saying "no it isn't". Linking to an unsupported opinion piece is no better than not linking at all.

Thanks though, I asked you for links, and everything of any merit you provided supported my original statement.

Quote:
And officially the UK IS still a Christian country. Obviously it isn't in practise, although officially it is.

In the same way the UK is a Monarchy, yeah.

Either way, there's still no rule against the UK Government funding religious enterprise of any denomination.

Quote:
But I guess you'll find some great excuse to ignore all the links I posted up?

Why would I do that? Your links prove me right.

Quote:
Yep, a PM that does U-Turns weekly, and an anti-Semitic Mayor are MUCH better...

Yes, as we all know criticising the Israeli government is the same thing as anti-Semitism, except of course it isn't.

Boris has no policies, and was elected on the platform of "the other guy is wrong". Cameron is running on a platform of "the other guy is wrong". Notice a pattern at all? Neither has any policies of their own, and I note with some dissatisfaction, how British politics seems to be slowly sliding into the mire of Americanised races of personality. With a dissatisfied public merely saying "the other guy is wrong", might serve to get elected, but it doesn't make for a workable policy.

Also, in case you haven't noticed (which evidently you haven't) I've not really endorsed either Ken Livingstone nor Gordon Brown. Gordon Brown is evidently someone ideal suited to being 'number 2' and I haven't voted Labour in years. I don't see that Ken has done a disastrous job in London, certainly not bad enough to be replaced by the laughing stock of 'Have I Got News for you". Many of the current problems of this country stem from the Major and Thatcher regimes, and Labour has merely been too incompetent to set them straight. I'm sure as hell not ready to stick the people that caused them in the first place back in power, because Labour haven't fixed them though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Now that's an ad hominem and red herring.

No, it's just an ad Hominem.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:04 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

ok, so what is it...? Seven months of the Bush Regime left..? What's the worst that could happen.. wait, don't answer that.

Hopefully we can somehow put these past eight years behind us - it seems that we have lost so much in those years. I read recently that an estimated 8 out of 10 Americans believe that this country is on the wrong path, or has lost it's center - that, I blame on Bush - his shortsightedness in regards to the welfare of the citizens of this country is staggering...

As most of you know, I have never been a fan of Bush or the entire neo-con agenda - so yeah, I am biased. But the thing that really bothers me more is the fact that there are so many in this country who supported these guys, not once, but twice - and in fact, still do.

If a nation is only as good as it's leaders, then aren't the people who elect those leaders ultimately responsible for the results...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Boris has no policies, and was elected on the platform of "the other guy is wrong". Cameron is running on a platform of "the other guy is wrong". Notice a pattern at all? Neither has any policies of their own, and I note with some dissatisfaction, how British politics seems to be slowly sliding into the mire of Americanised races of personality. With a dissatisfied public merely saying "the other guy is wrong", might serve to get elected, but it doesn't make for a workable policy.

I agree that the Tories and Labour (and the Lib Dems) don't have any real, meaningful policies. IMHO (you may disagree) we need another Thatcher - someone who will do what he/she thinks is right, and not back-down when the going gets touch.

However, Boris has got policies. He pretty much instantly (as a quick example) came out with trying to ban alcohol on public transport, and instantly the unions started saying it was impossible. It's not his fault that unions don't like change.

And Cameron does have some good policies, as a very basic example the inheritance tax fiasco (which Labour then knicked). However I still agree that neither Labour nor the Tories have any real policies.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Also, in case you haven't noticed (which evidently you haven't) I've not really endorsed either Ken Livingstone nor Gordon Brown. Gordon Brown is evidently someone ideal suited to being 'number 2' and I haven't voted Labour in years. I don't see that Ken has done a disastrous job in London, certainly not bad enough to be replaced by the laughing stock of 'Have I Got News for you". Many of the current problems of this country stem from the Major and Thatcher regimes, and Labour has merely been too incompetent to set them straight. I'm sure as hell not ready to stick the people that caused them in the first place back in power, because Labour haven't fixed them though.

Fair enough, and I did notice you weren't endorsing either of them.

But seriously... you don't like Thatcher? She was the best thing to happen to this country... short of sliced bread.

Okay, I won't go there

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Now that's an ad hominem and red herring.
No, it's just an ad Hominem.

And here I thought this thread was about Bush, not Finn.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by tristanperry:
I agree that the Tories and Labour (and the Lib Dems) don't have any real, meaningful policies. IMHO (you may disagree) we need another Thatcher - someone who will do what he/she thinks is right, and not back-down when the going gets touch.

Which is why I haven't a clue who to vote for come the next election. For the safety of clearly delineated camps so I don't need to think about such things...

Quote:
However, Boris has got policies. He pretty much instantly (as a quick example) came out with trying to ban alcohol on public transport, and instantly the unions started saying it was impossible. It's not his fault that unions don't like change.

I disagree, I think that's the sort of thing one does when one doesn't have any policies.

Quote:
Fair enough, and I did notice you weren't endorsing either of them.

In that case I retract the 'evidently hadn't'. It seemed you were speaking to me as a supporter of both.

Quote:
But seriously... you don't like Thatcher? She was the best thing to happen to this country... short of sliced bread.

Destruction of British Industry, neglect of the NHS, policies that promoted car ownership as a basic right everyone must have, whether they want to drive or not, policies for house ownership that's helped to push UK prices to higher than nearly anywhere else in the world, mishandling of a certain situation that led the Argentinians to believe that Britain wouldn't fight for the Falklands...

Sure, a slow downward trend after the Second World War was reversed during Thatcher's time, but I wonder if that is because, or in spite of, her regime.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
And here I thought this thread was about Bush, not Finn.

Whatever its about, your attempt at revenge is no more on topic than anything else

However, since I wasn't trying to deflect from any point Finn was trying to make, it can't be a Red Herring. A Red Herring is off topic, but not all off Topic posts are a Red Herring, geddit?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Which is why I haven't a clue who to vote for come the next election. For the safety of clearly delineated camps so I don't need to think about such things...

Me neither. I'm probably going Tories just in the hope that a more right-wing back-bench will be better than a more left-wing back-bench, although realistically it won't matter who I vote for (although I think at the moment that Labour are becoming a real liability at the helm of fiscal policy.. heh

)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I disagree, I think that's the sort of thing one does when one doesn't have any policies.

Maybe so, only time will tell

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
In that case I retract the 'evidently hadn't'. It seemed you were speaking to me as a supporter of both.

Sure thing

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Destruction of British Industry, neglect of the NHS, policies that promoted car ownership as a basic right everyone must have, whether they want to drive or not, policies for house ownership that's helped to push UK prices to higher than nearly anywhere else in the world, mishandling of a certain situation that led the Argentinians to believe that Britain wouldn't fight for the Falklands...

Sure, a slow downward trend after the Second World War was reversed during Thatcher's time, but I wonder if that is because, or in spite of, her regime.

Destruction of UK industry was down to the TUs resisting change. We were being controlled by the Trade Unions, and ultimately they needed tackling at some point. It was obviously always going to be a political nightmare, although someone had to do it.

And private house ownership is something that loads of people (where I live) somehow praise Labour for (the voters around here suck - they honestly believe that being allowed to buy your council house was a Labour policy..) It is a popular move overall, IMHO.

Either way, she actually stood up for herself and did what she thought was right. I haven't seen/heard of that since Thatcher.

And if there was a left-wing Thatcher, I'd greatly respect him/her too (albeit I'd completely disagree with his/her policies).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
how you read that, and then jump to spuer tights is utterly amazing. Did you stop taking your meds, or something?
Damnit! There you go again asking Finn more questions! Don't you realize that question marks set off a little firestorm in his brain? C'mon man! Have a heart!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

Right, right. I forget. It's just fun, the firestorm is pretty.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Did you stop taking your meds, or something?
Let me get this straight. You're surprised that Finn can only converse by misrepresenting what someone else said?

How long have you been posting here again?

Clearly not enough to have learned my lesson. I'm used that that stuff from Rappy, but I though, for some reason, that Finn was capable of more rational discourse.

Must have imagined it. My appologies for feeding the troll.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
My appologies for feeding the troll.

No apologies needed, basic ingrained survival instincts prevent you from putting down the fork. You really have less control over it than you think you do.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:05 PM