PDA

View Full Version : Will George W Bush go down as America's worst president?



Bluebird
06-03-2005, 18:48
Well, I've decided to start this thread, cos whilst I was "Googling" for Bushs' educational records, I stumbled across this site - under the (above) title.

I've got to say, that whatever, I've said, about Dubnya, there's someone on there, that puts me right in shade...Some of it (the rantings, from one person) I find quite "disturbing" to say the least.

Now this could be the makings of a good debate, on here too. But, I do advice that everyone should have a look at this site and column, first off.

However, this is not for the faint hearted or easily upset. Be warned.

Will George W Bush go down as America's worst president?

http://www.libertyunites.us/ftopic-2526-0-days0-orderasc-.html&sid=d7ed1dffe6aed2b9ab8ba980cd476d16?osCsid=810967758d6641f47f8aa1fc0bf430e5

Crazyeelboy
06-03-2005, 22:56
Oh my goodness. Bluebird - GIVE IT A REST. Were you really trawling the internet looking for the President's educational records? Don't you think the campgains have done that enough? For goodness' sake, get a life and move on to something more interesting than constant Bush-bashing. You're a smart person, but I think you are obsessed.

This is getting boring.

yankee@moscow
06-03-2005, 23:09
No matter what G. W. Bush does, he can't be worse than Lyndon B. Johnson or Buchannon.

If we could go back in time and undo all the crap that Johnson did to the USA and the world, then the country would be in at least 1,000% better shape. I'd imagine the world would be better off as well. You might talk to the people of Vietnam about that one?

Buchannon was just a POS. 'Nuf said about him.

I'd venture to say that Carter is closer to the bottom than Bush. He tried to please all the people all of the time and ended up doing nothing for no one. He's a great guy, but he was a lousey president.

Of course, there's Nixon. 'Nuf said there too.

There are several others that you can rank below G. W. easily. What the hell did Clinton do to be ranked ahead of W? The debate could go on forever.

Bluebird
06-03-2005, 23:18
Originally posted by Crazyeelboy
Oh my goodness. Bluebird - GIVE IT A REST. Were you really trawling the internet looking for the President's educational records? Don't you think the campgains have done that enough? For goodness' sake, get a life and move on to something more interesting than constant Bush-bashing. You're a smart person, but I think you are obsessed.

This is getting boring. I was actually trying to draw attention to the rantings of one particular person, on the net, which I found quite disturbing.

I even find it somewhat disquieting that some people do exist out there. I was hoping that one or two people would drop in on that thread and have a look, for themselves.

I'm not obsessed, and there's nothing wrong with having a healthy interest in politics. And, thanks for the compliment too. Guess i should've been a writer...Cos it's something I really enjoy doing.

But, even I admit, it's time to move on. So, i'm going to move on from here and onto other topics.

Everyone can say HOOORRRAAAHHH :cool: :)

Bluebird
06-03-2005, 23:24
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
No matter what G. W. Bush does, he can't be worse than Lyndon B. Johnson or Buchannon.

If we could go back in time and undo all the crap that Johnson did to the USA and the world, then the country would be in at least 1,000% better shape. I'd imagine the world would be better off as well. You might talk to the people of Vietnam about that one?

Buchannon was just a POS. 'Nuf said about him.

I'd venture to say that Carter is closer to the bottom than Bush. He tried to please all the people all of the time and ended up doing nothing for no one. He's a great guy, but he was a lousey president.

Of course, there's Nixon. 'Nuf said there too.

There are several others that you can rank below G. W. easily. What the hell did Clinton do to be ranked ahead of W? The debate could go on forever. Well now someone's got the ball rolling here. I agree with your observations about J. Carter. About Buchannon, i don't know enough about him to comment on - yet. Get the Google going, there. But, why do you say that about Johnson though...What'd he do to get your rating to no where, here?

Bluebird
06-03-2005, 23:35
There are several others that you can rank below G. W. easily. What the hell did Clinton do to be ranked ahead of W? The debate could go on forever.

I think Clinton had a certain amount of charm and charisma. He was certainly TV material or "Boxable" as they say in the trade.

There are those who say well, OK he f...cked Lewinskiy, so what? At least he didn't f..ck the world. It could also be said that the only mistake he made was not holding up his hands and say, "I did, and so what?"

OK, ok, charm and chrisma don't run the world's political systems. But, I think that's a key element of Clinton's appeal...Even today. He's just great in front of the cameras, and always will be.

Leslie Presley
06-03-2005, 23:37
LBJ?

Wasn't he 'in' on the Kennedy thing?

Bluebird
06-03-2005, 23:39
Originally posted by Leslie Presley
LBJ?

Wasn't he 'in' on the Kennedy thing? So rumour has it...

Leslie Presley
06-03-2005, 23:41
Originally posted by Bluebird
So rumour has it...


Any basis to this rumour?

Bluebird
06-03-2005, 23:52
Originally posted by Leslie Presley
Any basis to this rumour? Not sure, perhaps someone can comment on that...???

yankee@moscow
07-03-2005, 00:24
Originally posted by Bluebird
Well now someone's got the ball rolling here. I agree with your observations about J. Carter. About Buchannon, i don't know enough about him to comment on - yet. Get the Google going, there. But, why do you say that about Johnson though...What'd he do to get your rating to no where, here?

Johnson started the whole "great society" socialism program in America. He's the one that made it so that basically 70% of the budget goes to entitlements. He also championed the Vietnam war and all the insane policies that went with it. He waffled around on just about every other issue, and he was a back stabbing political SOB. Besides that, I hear he wasn't even a nice guy.

koba65
07-03-2005, 00:26
Originally posted by Bluebird
There are several others that you can rank below G. W. easily. What the hell did Clinton do to be ranked ahead of W? The debate could go on forever.

I think Clinton had a certain amount of charm and charisma. He was certainly TV material or "Boxable" as they say in the trade.

There are those who say well, OK he f...cked Lewinskiy, so what? At least he didn't f..ck the world. It could also be said that the only mistake he made was not holding up his hands and say, "I did, and so what?"

OK, ok, charm and chrisma don't run the world's political systems. But, I think that's a key element of Clinton's appeal...Even today. He's just great in front of the cameras, and always will be.

Interesting that people who praise Clinton's charm and charisma derided the same in Reagan....

Crazyeelboy
07-03-2005, 01:36
Good point about President Reagan, Koba.

Bluebird - the problem with Clinton wasn't that he had sex with an intern (but think about it - anyone doing that in any other corporate environment would be in for world of trouble), but that he specifically lied under oath in order to protect himself in a law suit (also about sexual misconduct and the abuse of power, but that is coincidental). The problem is that the President of the United States should not try to manipulate the court system by telling lies under oath in order to improve his court case.

Beyond the perjury, Clinton was a feel good kind of guy. He ultimately did not do a whole lot.

Sparafucile
07-03-2005, 09:02
How would you assess Bush's claims about WMD, then?

Or do Presidential lies only count as lies if they are made under oath?

Do you see any difference in scale between lying about having oral sex, and murdering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in a war started on a false pretext?

The rest of the world has no doubt that Bush is America's worst president ever. It's only Americans who seem to be in denial about it.

Ghost
07-03-2005, 09:20
And now we're back on WMD. Great work on posting this topic, Bluebird. Not like we haven't discussed it here approximately four hundred and fifty-six thousand times or so.

Bravo!

Crazyeelboy
07-03-2005, 09:27
Sparafucile - see my first post on this thread (but take out the "you are smart person part" - just kidding). This is so boring.

Sparafucile
07-03-2005, 09:33
Eelboy - see my post, especially the words "in denial".

Bush lied on WMD, tens of thousands died. Fact.

Show us how America is "safer" as a result of your war? Then you'll have a case for claiming Bush isn't the worst President.

Meantime, Calvin Coolidge's family are thanking their lucky stars.

Crazyeelboy
07-03-2005, 09:37
Yawn.

Ghost
07-03-2005, 10:11
Seriously, Spara. Give it a rest, already.

Ned Kelly
07-03-2005, 11:39
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
He also championed the Vietnam war

i'd nominate kennedy and nixon.

kennedy paid off the mafia to steal the 1960 election, deliberately lied about a missile gap that unnnecessarily fueled international tension, initiated the idiot bay of pigs invasion, started the vietnam war, bugged his own office and those of opponents and more...not bad for three years! he has to rank among the most vile creatures ever to inhabit the white house...

nixon we know about.

i completely disagree on johnson, yankee, my readings about him make him twice the man of most presidents (100 times better than that little thug robert kennedy). i don't know if anyone inheriting kennedy's war would have had much luck extracting themselves from it (except the kennedy apologists who say after starting it, kennedy really meant to get straight out of it after the election...pretty weird logic).

yankee@moscow
07-03-2005, 12:07
Ned, there are a lot of liberals in the states that agree with you. They think he was the greatest president ever. I guess it depends on if you want a socialist republic or a democratic society? Me, I want the government as far out of my life and wallet as possible. Johnson started the government down the other road. I'm paying for it. My kids will pay for it, and their kids will pay for it. What Kennedy did was crooked, but my grandkids aren't going to see the effects of it. That's the big difference.

The poverty that the "Great Society" was supposed to fix is still there too. What a great president LBJ was?!:rolleyes:

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 12:08
Originally posted by Ghost
Seriously, Spara. Give it a rest, already. I agree. Spara, this even for me this constant lamblasting is getting rather tedious...Rather like an old cracked record, with the needle stuck in the groove. Remember those days?

This thread was not started with this in mind. Others' such as Yankee, Koba, Ned, and Presley have got into the vain of what this thread is supposed to be all about.

Before, one casts judgment on Bush, and this could go on forever, one has to look at the track record of American presidents of yesteryear; then draw conclusions from there. And, that my friend is what this thread is all about. Ponyatno?

I for one, am enjoying reading the few responses, re: Johnson and other American presidents - because I am reading and learning things that I did not know...What's more first hand too...From the very people who lived through these periods - not from books, official biographies, or the Internet.

In a nutshell, if you cannot enter into the spirit of what I'm trying to get going here...Then please go forth and multiply elswhere.

koba65
07-03-2005, 12:51
My opinion on LBJ is still mixed - some of what he did, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were necessary (and he did a great job on that since his own party, the Democrat Party, was against providing equal rights to minorities - something they've "whitewashed" in present time). Other programs may have been necessary at the time but have outgrown their usefulness. Plus, his escalation of Kennedy's Vietnam War was a huge mistake - it was a war that militarily could have been won, but his and McNamara's micromanaging and sporadic bombing halts destroyed any chance of a swift victory and only prolonged a war they didn't want to win.

Ned Kelly
07-03-2005, 14:26
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
Ned, there are a lot of liberals in the states that agree with you. They think he was the greatest president ever. I guess it depends on if you want a socialist republic or a democratic society? Me, I want the government as far out of my life and wallet as possible. Johnson started the government down the other road. I'm paying for it. My kids will pay for it, and their kids will pay for it. What Kennedy did was crooked, but my grandkids aren't going to see the effects of it. That's the big difference.

The poverty that the "Great Society" was supposed to fix is still there too. What a great president LBJ was?!:rolleyes:

yankee, that's interesting because i had a liberal bordering on marxist american history professor who was fanatically anti-johnson, mainly for vietnam, i guess, but also because he was so bloody crass and such a redneck.

my contention would be, having read bits of the giant biography on him (would love the time to read the whole thing) that as a human being and a leader, he was in a different league to kennedy and nixon (as in far superior).

he was dealing with an unbelievably complex period in history. he ultimately failed, no doubt. but could you imagine kennedy, nixon, reagan, clinton or bush deciding not to run for re-election to concentrate on trying to end the vietnam war? not in a million years!

yankee@moscow
07-03-2005, 14:41
My understanding was that he didn't run for reelection because of health problems and because polls showed that he had no chance of winning. There was also a huge uproar in the democratic party at the time over, you guessed it, Vietnam. You have to remember, LBJ had already served a term and a half too. There aren't too many presidents that would push it that far, even in this day and age.

Johnson died in '73, and it wasn't a pretty picture. He knew his time was near and didn't want to spend the rest of his short life in the White House. He'd had enough by '68.

Sadie
07-03-2005, 14:43
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
My understanding was that he didn't run for reelection because of health problems and because polls showed that he had no chance of winning.

hmm. sounds right too!

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 15:02
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
i'd nominate kennedy and nixon.

kennedy paid off the mafia to steal the 1960 election, deliberately lied about a missile gap that unnnecessarily fueled international tension, initiated the idiot bay of pigs invasion, started the vietnam war, bugged his own office and those of opponents and more...not bad for three years! he has to rank among the most vile creatures ever to inhabit the white house...

nixon we know about.

i completely disagree on johnson, yankee, my readings about him make him twice the man of most presidents (100 times better than that little thug robert kennedy). i don't know if anyone inheriting kennedy's war would have had much luck extracting themselves from it (except the kennedy apologists who say after starting it, kennedy really meant to get straight out of it after the election...pretty weird logic). I'm not sure of the fact that you've said that he paid the mafia to steal the 1960 election. As far as I've read, nothing was ever proved on that score.

As for the war in Vietnam, I believe that that was and is the only war, in history, that was never officially declared a war - in the real sense.

But, surely he did help bring an end to black and white segregation, in the US, and took the US into space, by getting massive funding for the Apollo programme.

Kennedy is rememberd as one of the most popular US presidents ever. However, many argue that this accolade is misplaced, due to his family's connection with the Trade Union Movement, and it's links to organised crime.

However, Robert Kennedy's stand on that issue, was one of the most resolute of the day. Intersting that his father was said to be a Nazi sympathiser though, and went on to say that Britain would fall to Germany, when he was Ambassador to the UK, in the during WW2.

Fa-Q!
07-03-2005, 15:10
Kennedy's only remembered fondly because he was assassinated so brutally and it was caught on video. In fact, he was an extremely unpopular figure in the Southern States and he did re-nig on his deal with the Mob. They had a deal which helped them to secure %90 of the vote in almost all precincts in Nevada. Then upon his appointment as Attorney General, Robert went after the mob whole-heartedly. Those boys wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Look where it got them. If you ask me, getting both your asses killed makes you not only not successful, but somewhere down around completely unsuccessful.

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 15:12
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
My understanding was that he didn't run for reelection because of health problems and because polls showed that he had no chance of winning. There was also a huge uproar in the democratic party at the time over, you guessed it, Vietnam. You have to remember, LBJ had already served a term and a half too. There aren't too many presidents that would push it that far, even in this day and age.

Johnson died in '73, and it wasn't a pretty picture. He knew his time was near and didn't want to spend the rest of his short life in the White House. He'd had enough by '68. Nothing that I've evder read or heard, makes mention of his state of health, at that time as being a contributing reason for his not running for a second term. Although, that can not be ruled out.

Other reasons manifest themselves though - such as the Tet Offensive, his very slim victory over Eugene McCarthy, in the New Hapshire primary, and the entry of Robert Kennedy in to the fray. All of these facts, coupled with his very low ratings, I suggest convinced him to call it a day.

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 15:16
Originally posted by koba65
My opinion on LBJ is still mixed - some of what he did, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were necessary (and he did a great job on that since his own party, the Democrat Party, was against providing equal rights to minorities - something they've "whitewashed" in present time). Other programs may have been necessary at the time but have outgrown their usefulness. Plus, his escalation of Kennedy's Vietnam War was a huge mistake - it was a war that militarily could have been won, but his and McNamara's micromanaging and sporadic bombing halts destroyed any chance of a swift victory and only prolonged a war they didn't want to win. Why do you feel that it was a war they did not want to win? Just curious here, by the way..:)

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 15:23
Kennedy's only remembered fondly because he was assassinated so brutally and it was caught on video.

You could have a every good point there too, my friend.

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 15:30
Originally posted by Crazyeelboy
Good point about President Reagan, Koba.

Bluebird - the problem with Clinton wasn't that he had sex with an intern (but think about it - anyone doing that in any other corporate environment would be in for world of trouble), but that he specifically lied under oath in order to protect himself in a law suit (also about sexual misconduct and the abuse of power, but that is coincidental). The problem is that the President of the United States should not try to manipulate the court system by telling lies under oath in order to improve his court case.

Beyond the perjury, Clinton was a feel good kind of guy. He ultimately did not do a whole lot. Ahh, that's more like it...I'm not out for bashing Bush here. Here I'm trying to reach out other wider issues and learning a bit or a lot, for myself, into the bargain...

This thread is not about my personal dislike of Bush and his policies, but about wider issues....And, and, I'd kinda like to keep it that way....:)

yankee@moscow
07-03-2005, 17:04
One of the most hated presidents of all time is now known as one of the best presidents the states ever had. Can you guess who he was? Abraham Lincoln! Popularity doesn't always make you a bad or good president according to history.

koba65
07-03-2005, 17:06
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
One of the most hated presidents of all time is now known as one of the best presidents the states ever had. Can you guess who he was? Abraham Lincoln! Popularity doesn't always make you a bad or good president according to history.

And he was the closest thing we had to a dictator as well (and FDR too).

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 17:12
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
One of the most hated presidents of all time is now known as one of the best presidents the states ever had. Can you guess who he was? Abraham Lincoln! Popularity doesn't always make you a bad or good president according to history. Abe Lincoln...Why? Sounds like a bit of a Gorbechov and Thatcher syndrom here...

yankee@moscow
07-03-2005, 17:16
Originally posted by Bluebird
Abe Lincoln...Why? Sounds like a bit of a Gorbechov and Thatcher syndrom here...

Why don't you go down to Atlanta, Georgia or Charleston, SC and ask those good old boys why? Uhhh....... They blame him for declaring war on the southern part of the country, taking their livelihood and then punishing them for it after destroying half of their plantations all in the name of unity and freeing the slaves. That's all!

Some people down there still don't recognize the "United" part of the country's name. Most of them don't have teeth, but they still have opinions.

aysihsK
07-03-2005, 17:27
yankee ;) I liked your avatar better when you were a doggy :rolleyes:

:p

koba65
07-03-2005, 17:28
Originally posted by Bluebird
Abe Lincoln...Why? Sounds like a bit of a Gorbechov and Thatcher syndrom here...

Let's try suspending the writ of habeus corpus, arresting political opponents (a Senator from Ohio), unauthorized search and seizure, attacking seceding states (Constitution allows for states to secede), escalating a political conflict into a military conflict (the issue with the southern states could have been resolved peacefully. Oh, and let's not forget the "Great Emancipator" only freed the slaves in the "rebellious" states - slaves in terroritories held by the North were not freed (Kentucky, for example). Lincoln was the beginning of a stronger federalized government with the states loosing a lot of the rights originally gauranteed them in the US Constitution.

aysihsK
07-03-2005, 17:35
koba :D now tell me what the heck is that? :D....and where do you put your guns now? ....obviously you dont have even pants with pockets on! :eek:


:p

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 17:43
Originally posted by aysihsK
koba :D now tell me what the heck is that? :D....and where do you put your guns now? ....obviously you dont have even pants with pockets on! :eek:


:p He's put his guns to rest...He's finished cleaning them....Errr, but what does this have to do with the current discussion....??? :) :cool::confused:

koba65
07-03-2005, 17:43
Originally posted by aysihsK
koba :D now tell me what the heck is that? :D....and where do you put your guns now? ....obviously you dont have even pants with pockets on! :eek:


:p

You don't recognize Taz? The Tazmanian Devil? He doesn't need guns.... I guess I should put some clothes on when I visit expat.ru?

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 17:45
Originally posted by koba65
Let's try suspending the writ of habeus corpus, arresting political opponents (a Senator from Ohio), unauthorized search and seizure, attacking seceding states (Constitution allows for states to secede), escalating a political conflict into a military conflict (the issue with the southern states could have been resolved peacefully. Oh, and let's not forget the "Great Emancipator" only freed the slaves in the "rebellious" states - slaves in terroritories held by the North were not freed (Kentucky, for example). Lincoln was the beginning of a stronger federalized government with the states loosing a lot of the rights originally gauranteed them in the US Constitution. Hmmm, I didn't know that...:(

aysihsK
07-03-2005, 17:46
Originally posted by koba65
You don't recognize Taz? The Tazmanian Devil? He doesn't need guns.... I guess I should put some clothes on when I visit expat.ru?

well :rolleyes: not as if you are obliged to wear cloths...but could cover yourself at leasst a little!!! :D you see?? I at least wear bikini, not dancing naked unlike you :p

Ned Kelly
07-03-2005, 18:59
Originally posted by koba65
You don't recognize Taz? The Tazmanian Devil? He doesn't need guns.... I guess I should put some clothes on when I visit expat.ru?

taz is a legend!

Ned Kelly
07-03-2005, 19:02
Originally posted by Fa-Q!
If you ask me, getting both your asses killed makes you not only not successful, but somewhere down around completely unsuccessful.

you've got a pretty damn strong point there!

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 20:02
Originally posted by aysihsK
well :rolleyes: not as if you are obliged to wear cloths...but could cover yourself at leasst a little!!! :D you see?? I at least wear bikini, not dancing naked unlike you :p Errr, thanks for hijacking my thread here...I'll have to give you a good spanking, on your behind, for that some time....Women....Can't live with em - can't live without them....Happy ladies day to you, whoever you are.

PS. Rumour has it you're a seeeexxxxyyyy cat. Is it true? just kiddin'....:cool: :p :devilish: :cussing: :inquis:

koba65
07-03-2005, 20:04
Originally posted by Bluebird
PS. Roumour has it you're a seeeexxxxyyyy cat. Is it true?

Believe the rumor.....it's true

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 20:10
Originally posted by koba65
Believe the rumor.....it's true I'm already believin....Still can't figure out what this has got to do with all the presidents...Ahhhh, I know, she's the really real, Monika Lewinskiy...anyway, koba...How d'you know...??? Don't answer....I'm a' gettin' all hot under the collar and jealous here.:cool: :D

koba65
07-03-2005, 20:17
Originally posted by Bluebird
I'm already believin....Still can't figure out what this has got to do with all the presidents...Ahhhh, I know, she's the really real, Monika Lewinskiy...anyway, koba...How d'you know...??? Don't answer....I'm a' gettin' all hot under the collar and jealous here.:cool: :D

Only from tv and films - she's very famous...

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 20:25
Originally posted by koba65
Only from tv and films - she's very famous... Monika Lewinskiy then...Oh, no, she did TV, Clinton, and his career, but Monika didn't do films...Can't be her then...:)

Sparafucile
07-03-2005, 20:31
>> Seriously, Spara. Give it a rest, already. <<

I point out the reasons WHY Bush is the worst president, and....

No answers.

Just abuse.

trebor
07-03-2005, 21:38
I wasn't going to get involved here but when i kept seeing the post in my "new postings" i just had to have a look.
Funny how now the "war" is finished and elections have just taken place in Iraq, George Bush ,all of a sudden, is less interesting than LBJ.!
Now, what do you think would happen if his latest peace proposals in the Middle East started to bear fruit?:D

koba65
07-03-2005, 21:40
Originally posted by trebor
I wasn't going to get involved here but when i kept seeing the post in my "new postings" i just had to have a look.
Funny how now the "war" is finished and elections have just taken place in Iraq, George Bush ,all of a sudden, is less interesting than LBJ.!
Now, what do you think would happen if his latest peace proposals in the Middle East started to bear fruit?:D


Egads! Perish the thought!!! You know what will happen - the spin will be everything changed for the better DESPITE Bush. Some will never admit they could be wrong ;)

Goose0009
07-03-2005, 21:52
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
No matter what G. W. Bush does, he can't be worse than Lyndon B. Johnson or Buchannon.

If we could go back in time and undo all the crap that Johnson did to the USA and the world, then the country would be in at least 1,000% better shape. I'd imagine the world would be better off as well. You might talk to the people of Vietnam about that one?

Buchannon was just a POS. 'Nuf said about him.

I'd venture to say that Carter is closer to the bottom than Bush. He tried to please all the people all of the time and ended up doing nothing for no one. He's a great guy, but he was a lousey president.

Of course, there's Nixon. 'Nuf said there too.

There are several others that you can rank below G. W. easily. What the hell did Clinton do to be ranked ahead of W? The debate could go on forever.


Well I agree that there were plenty of presidents further down the list then G.W.
Yet, Clinton didn't send 1,510 soldiers to their death. By the end of March it will be 1,600 soldiers dead, 11,300 wounded, 160 billion dollars spent in Iraq and growing. I think that puts Clinton ahead of Bush.

yankee@moscow
07-03-2005, 21:54
How many people died in the Balkans and Somalia? I didn't count.

koba65
07-03-2005, 21:56
Originally posted by Goose0009
Well I agree that there were plenty of presidents further down the list then G.W.
Yet, Clinton didn't send 1,510 soldiers to their death. By the end of March it will be 1,600 soldiers dead, 11,300 wounded, 160 billion dollars spent in Iraq and growing. I think that puts Clinton ahead of Bush.

Well, let's just forget about the Serbs that died in Clinton-ordered air strikes to distract from his bj problems.... Or the Sudanse pharmaceutical workers....

trebor
07-03-2005, 22:03
Okay, now lets re group for just a bit and consider the facts.

Right now, which President presided over and ordered the deaths of all those REAL Americans..............................the red Indians?

Now.........................................................is he realy worse than George Bush?:)

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 22:09
Originally posted by trebor
I wasn't going to get involved here but when i kept seeing the post in my "new postings" i just had to have a look.
Funny how now the "war" is finished and elections have just taken place in Iraq, George Bush ,all of a sudden, is less interesting than LBJ.!
Now, what do you think would happen if his latest peace proposals in the Middle East started to bear fruit?:D Well, to whom is Bush, less interesting than LBJ....??? Frankly, I'm happy that there were other presidents who people think were worse than Bush and we've got a damn good debate boiling up on that very topic.

And, when I say happy, what I mean is, that this is an interesting scenario shaping up here...I'm happy ol' Bushy's taking a bit of a back seat....For now, that is... :)

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 22:15
Originally posted by trebor
Okay, now lets re group for just a bit and consider the facts.

Right now, which President presided over and ordered the deaths of all those REAL Americans..............................the red Indians?

Now.........................................................is he realy worse than George Bush?:) A good question....:)

Goose0009
07-03-2005, 22:15
Originally posted by koba65
Well, let's just forget about the Serbs that died in Clinton-ordered air strikes to distract from his bj problems.... Or the Sudanse pharmaceutical workers....

Are you telling me you believe more serbs died then Iraqis. Your nuts dude. George Bush is man who used the National Guard to avoid war. Which is fine. I am a antiwar person. But it takes some big F##k balls to send the same units you hid behind to war. Koba don't you get it. Americans are dying at about 100 soldiers a month. It is gonna go on for the next 4 years. Why can't you hold George Bush Accountable for that. These Arab nuts have fought the Soviets for 10 years. They embrace death. they think there gonna die and see 70 virgins. Its a cause that will never be accomplished. They can kill 2 or 3 Americans a day forever. George Bush Sent those boys to a slaughter house and it is his mistake not Clinton's. There is snow on the ground you gonna blame Clinton for that to. How come you don't blame George for the black africans dying in the Sudan. Maybe thats Clintons fault to.

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 22:22
Originally posted by Goose0009
Are you telling me you believe more serbs died then Iraqis. Your nuts dude. George Bush is man who used the National Guard to avoid war. Which is fine. I am a antiwar person. But it takes some big F##k balls to send the same units you hid behind to war. Koba don't you get it. Americans are dying at about 100 soldiers a month. It is gonna go on for the next 4 years. Why can't you hold George Bush Accountable for that. These Arab nuts have fought the Soviets for 10 years. They embrace death. they think there gonna die and see 70 virgins. Its a cause that will never be accomplished. They can kill 2 or 3 Americans a day forever. George Bush Sent those boys to a slaughter house and it is his mistake not Clinton's. There is snow on the ground you gonna blame Clinton for that to. How come you don't blame George for the black africans dying in the Sudan. Maybe thats Clintons fault to. Seems a reasonable synopsis to me....

yankee@moscow
07-03-2005, 22:22
You know, George Washington was an official revolutionary rebel. But, he was killing British, and the French helped him. I guess that makes him dubious if nothing else? Old George had it going on, didn't he?

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 22:29
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
You know, George Washington was an official revolutionary rebel. But, he was killing British, and the French helped him. I guess that makes him dubious if nothing else? Old George had it going on, didn't he? I wouldn't say so much as dubious, but cunning. Now, that's a president I admire. Man he sure whipped our impirelist asses - we theought we were invincible and got completely self-complacent and deluded.

And, bloody good job too, that we finally got defeated - the Brits - for the way they behaved bloody well deserved it.

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 22:41
Originally posted by koba65
Egads! Perish the thought!!! You know what will happen - the spin will be everything changed for the better DESPITE Bush. Some will never admit they could be wrong ;) Hah, hah, Errr, of course that's a joke...??? I guess you're gonna be wrong then...Lol :)

koba65
07-03-2005, 22:52
Originally posted by Goose0009
Are you telling me you believe more serbs died then Iraqis. Your nuts dude. George Bush is man who used the National Guard to avoid war. Which is fine. I am a antiwar person. But it takes some big F##k balls to send the same units you hid behind to war. Koba don't you get it. Americans are dying at about 100 soldiers a month. It is gonna go on for the next 4 years. Why can't you hold George Bush Accountable for that. These Arab nuts have fought the Soviets for 10 years. They embrace death. they think there gonna die and see 70 virgins. Its a cause that will never be accomplished. They can kill 2 or 3 Americans a day forever. George Bush Sent those boys to a slaughter house and it is his mistake not Clinton's. There is snow on the ground you gonna blame Clinton for that to. How come you don't blame George for the black africans dying in the Sudan. Maybe thats Clintons fault to.

Woah - put the breaks on there skippy. I didn't compare the Serbian deaths to Iraqi deaths - that's your leap in logic. My point is that Clinton, if using the same yardstick that people use on Bush, has blood on his hands as well. It's also reasonable to assume/purport that Clinton's distractions allowed for terrorists to become emboldened - they attacked, he'd lob a cruise missile or two and that was it. Also, the Clinton Administration supported and/or introduced legislation and Executive Orders that tied the hands of our intelligence agencies, thus making it harder for them to do their job of preventing such attacks as ocurred on 9/11. This is all documented.

You're also exaggerating the statistics on the deaths in Iraq to support your argument. One hundred soldiers are not dying each month. Since the declared end of the "war" in May 03 only on 3 occasions has the number of US dead passed 100 for any given month. According the numbers you use (100/month) and if you take into account the whole conflict thusfar (Mar 03- Mar 05) there should already be approx 2400 US dead. You're about a 900 off. Also current trends show a decrease - in 2 out of the 3 months when the numbers of US dead were at least 100 there were air castrophies with mass casualties - a wartime accident. The situation on the ground there is getting better with each insurgent leader's arrest. The Iraqis are starting to fight the insurgents themselves - give it time, or would we rather trumpet each death as a victory for your point of view?

And, let me point out a mistake in your "Arab nuts v. Soviets" - Afghanis are not Arabs - surely you know the difference between an "Arab" and a "Muslim" - in the case mujahadeen. The mujahadeen were fighting for their homeland. The Soviets were huge supporters of Arabs in the ME. The Arabs that went to Afghanistan to join the "jihad" against the Sovs actually didn't see much action and were not trusted by the Mujahadeen.

"Anti-war"? Who is pro-War?

George Bush and the National Guard again, eh? So, how easy is it to fly an F-102 and pass all of the qualifications? Tell me your knowledge about this airframe, the accident rates, it's wartime role, how often it was used in Vietnam, the difficulties of using the airframe and then add that with Bush's Guard time (exceeded the amount of points needed for the period he served) and then disparage his service and the service of anyone else who "hid" by serving in the National Guard. Oh, please enlighten me on how many National Guardsmen served in Vietnam - I guess none since that was a way to avoid service.

BTW, Goose0009, question for you - have you served? If you haven't do you not think it's not hypocritical to disparage someone else's service - especially in light of the fact that you have no clue regarding what the persons' actual service entailed?

I voted for Clinton in '92 - had high hopes for him, unfortunately he turned his back on his election platform and then carried on to squander what could have been a fairly decent legacy. For that matter, if you use your own logic, what right did Clinton (a draft dodger - was in the UK "studying" during the war) have to send guys to their death in Somalia? What right did Clinton's draft-dodging SecDef (Les Aspin) have to deny a request for armored vehicles in Somalia? And, wasn't it quite hypocritical for Clinton to laugh away the Lewinsky incident when people under his command in the Armed Forces were being sent to jail for doing the same thing (Aberdeen Proving Grounds) - why didn't he pardon them or re-write the UCMJ if what he did wasn't so terrible?

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 23:00
Originally posted by Bluebird
Hah, hah, Errr, of course that's a joke...??? I guess you're gonna be wrong then...Lol :) Spara might be right though - not to mention a whole lot of others.

Seriously though, recently the Bush camp and Blair camp, have been fond of over using, in my opinion, the phrase..."Let history be the judge." I can't quite get my head around that connotation. Firstly, history is does not judge, it merely records events, as they happened.

The other thing is, history can only have any degree of accuracy, when they have all the facts. The fact is, that classified documents either have a habit of going missing (re: prime example of Bushs,' complete set of service records gone walkabout), or they don't get to be public information for a long, long, time.

The other thing is - that historians, often tend not agree with each other too. To this day there are differing opinions as to why JFK brought a bullet or two or three...

So I wonder how, say in the next 200 how history will record the events leading to the invasion of Iraq and the WMD that were never there...If only I had a time machine...The fact is, that history is not the judge, but we us mere mortals are...

trebor
07-03-2005, 23:13
Originally posted by Bluebird
..............So I wonder how, say in the next 200 how history will record the events leading to the invasion of Iraq and the WMD that were never there...If only I had a time machine...The fact is, that history is not the judge, but we us mere mortals are...

Thats the dumbest evaluation of the importance of hindsight i have ever seen!

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 23:13
Originally posted by Goose0009
Are you telling me you believe more serbs died then Iraqis. Your nuts dude. George Bush is man who used the National Guard to avoid war. Which is fine. I am a antiwar person. But it takes some big F##k balls to send the same units you hid behind to war. Koba don't you get it. Americans are dying at about 100 soldiers a month. It is gonna go on for the next 4 years. Why can't you hold George Bush Accountable for that. These Arab nuts have fought the Soviets for 10 years. They embrace death. they think there gonna die and see 70 virgins. Its a cause that will never be accomplished. They can kill 2 or 3 Americans a day forever. George Bush Sent those boys to a slaughter house and it is his mistake not Clinton's. There is snow on the ground you gonna blame Clinton for that to. How come you don't blame George for the black africans dying in the Sudan. Maybe thats Clintons fault to. Errr, didn't Clinton skip service, by going to the UK to study...??? Then was the first ever US president to send Cruise Missiles whizzing around the planet - to the wrong targets, even; not to mention ordering the bombing of the former Yugoslavia..???

Bluebird
07-03-2005, 23:15
Originally posted by trebor
Thats the dumbest evaluation of the importance of hindsight i have ever seen! You're right....:)

Goose0009
08-03-2005, 16:10
Koba, if George wanted to go to vietnam he could have. Don't make excuses for your great leader. So, he used the national guard to stay out of war then he sent the national guard to war. The same outfit he hid behind is now doing major combat operations in Iraq because of him. I bet you a nickle that there will be 1,600 soldiers dead by the end of March. The insurgents only started to fight after major combat was over. I bet you another nickle that at the end of april 1,700 soldiers will be dead. So, that seems like 100 dead a month to me. I bet you another nickle that 1,800 soldiers will be dead in May. Koba, the U.S. is never gonna bring democracy to Iraq when it comes from a gun. What do you see that is so promising in Iraq. I want to know because I just see Iraqis dying on the streets, American boys coming home in body bags. Iraqis government will only exist as long as the U.S.A. keeps the money and firepower in Iraq. O BTW, I didn't even vote for Bill Clinton. I voted for a legit war hero. I just think that George Bush has 10 times the blood on his hands then Clinton. Clinton hid from war but at least he made effort to keep American boys out of harms way. Nothing I can say will change your mind about George Bush. Your a Neocon and I can talk till I am blue in the face about how bad the war in Iraq is and will be for the next four years. You still won't hold him accountable for it.

koba65
08-03-2005, 17:08
Originally posted by Goose0009
Koba, if George wanted to go to vietnam he could have. Don't make excuses for your great leader. So, he used the national guard to stay out of war then he sent the national guard to war. The same outfit he hid behind is now doing major combat operations in Iraq because of him. I bet you a nickle that there will be 1,600 soldiers dead by the end of March. The insurgents only started to fight after major combat was over. I bet you another nickle that at the end of april 1,700 soldiers will be dead. So, that seems like 100 dead a month to me. I bet you another nickle that 1,800 soldiers will be dead in May. Koba, the U.S. is never gonna bring democracy to Iraq when it comes from a gun. What do you see that is so promising in Iraq. I want to know because I just see Iraqis dying on the streets, American boys coming home in body bags. Iraqis government will only exist as long as the U.S.A. keeps the money and firepower in Iraq. O BTW, I didn't even vote for Bill Clinton. I voted for a legit war hero. I just think that George Bush has 10 times the blood on his hands then Clinton. Clinton hid from war but at least he made effort to keep American boys out of harms way. Nothing I can say will change your mind about George Bush. Your a Neocon and I can talk till I am blue in the face about how bad the war in Iraq is and will be for the next four years. You still won't hold him accountable for it.

Neocon? Try Liberterian (RLC).

And Goose, I do NOT bet on soldiers lives - I guess you'd be willing to bet on your own family member's lives as well? To me it's the same thing. Be against the war, be against Bush, but never never never callously trot out statistics about the deaths of men who are much braver than you - it seems like you're "rooting" for these "statistics" to grow so you can bolster your argument - pretty fng cynical. And just how many of those "boys in bodybags" do you see coming home? Been to one of their funerals? Served with them? Did you know them well enough for them to tell you they believed in the mission they were assigned? If not, go exploit the deaths of someone else. Or better yet, have you actually talked to anyone who has served in Iraq and got their opinion of what's actually going on over there? Doubtful - but moveon.org has the real info on the war, eh?

BTW, since you never asked - I wasn't "for" this war in the first place - but probably not for the same reasons you are against it. However, now that we are there we should stay until such a time as a pullout is warranted - one that won't leave the area in a bigger mess than it was/is.

Your comments about Bush and his military service show your ignorance - here's the deal: He joined the National Guard in his home state. The unit was a flying one with F-102s assigned. He decided to become a pilot, passed the training (excelled actually) and was rated in the top tier of his fellow pilots. The F-102 was used in an Air Defense role and was very dangerous to fly. The airframe actually saw a higher accident/fatality rate than some airframes that were used in the Vietnam War. The F-102 was NOT used in the VW. Anytime you strap yourself into a heavily fueled missile with wings you risk death, full stop.

Could he have gone to Vietnam - sure, as an infantryman, maybe - or he could have gone like Al Gore - have his Senator dad arrange for him to be a "combat" journalist and have a security team assigned to him when he went into town for R&R. I guess Bush, unlike Gore, wasn't thinking about running for office back in the 70s. In reality, Bush could have eschewed any service and probably never been drafted. Had he used Daddy. I'm not a huge fan of Bush's , but why make up crap to disparage a guy when what you claim is incorrect?

Likewise, the so-called "legitimate" war hero you voted for has some explaining to do - why hasn't he released his military records? Hmmm, discharge problems, verification that HE put himself in for the required amount of purple hearts for an early release from Vietnam?? Maybe? You ever wonder why his fellow vets won't have anything to do with him? Usually vets, regardless of their politics, remain close - a mutual respect earned in combat overcomes most disagreements, unless someone didn't act honorably, but painted himself as a "war hero" when it was convinient. We'll never know until he allows the rest of the US to scrutinize his records like they did with Bush's.

Crazyeelboy
08-03-2005, 23:15
Koba - nice post (as usual), but why do you even waste your time with guys like this? They obviously have their own agenda and don't care about the facts or any intelligent debate. It's all rant all the time.

Bluebird
08-03-2005, 23:52
Originally posted by Crazyeelboy
Koba - nice post (as usual), but why do you even waste your time with guys like this? They obviously have their own agenda and don't care about the facts or any intelligent debate. It's all rant all the time. I'm not Koba, but I do think that if there weren't people like the others' and Koba, and if (and only if) it was/is a waste of time, then we'd have no debate, no argument, no discussion...In fact, no nothing. Even in the papers, radio, and TV.

And, that I feel could apply to any topic, never mind the bull of political debate, and all that goes with it.

At the end of the day, a forum's a place for people to get things off their chest, and the Internet's playing an ever increasing roll in that, as we all know only too well.

I too have been known to have a "rant" but, I think it's pretty much a healthy and natural thing. The thing, that in the past, people had no forums (apart from a soap box in a park), with which to have a "rant." Even you can have a public "rant," about people, having a "rant."

I, for one, would be sorry to see Koba, never to "bother" again...It's almost like saying, "Well I shan't clean my teeth tonight, cos tomorrow I'm gonna smoke, drink endless cups of coffee, and have a supply of food and snacks, till I get ready for bed and....Clean my teeth again...."

I say thank goodness for the people who make and partake in discussions, and I never feel, that, that's a waste of time...It's what makes us a whole lot different from the animal race. Although, sometimes I do wonder who's worse...??? The other thing is, if one want's, then one can always learn from the other too - no matter what side of the political divide one's on.

In my book, that too is a big plus...

Sorry, if I'm boring all with my mumblings here...Time for teeth cleaning and bed...Yawn, yawn...


:)

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 11:17
Bluebird:

It seems we agree, but my point is that the "debate" here is usually just a rant. It would be great if people would be able to discuss topics without re-hashing the same things over and over, or without getting personal (not to mention threats, etc.). I'd like to see the debate elevate beyond claims that Bush is a liar, Bush is a coward, Bush is a murderer, etc.

Sparafucile
09-03-2005, 13:01
>> It's all rant all the time. <<

ROFL, like you don't?????

>> I'd like to see the debate elevate beyond claims that Bush is a liar, Bush is a coward, Bush is a murderer <<

Me too. We've established that Bush is all of those things, so what other reasons make him the Worst President Of All Time?

But of course, mentioning the WMD isn't allowed here, is it - it just gets shouted-down that it's "old", and we're going to "move on" (ie bury our heads under the pillow and pretend the lies never happened).

Suggesting that the US President knowingly took the country to war, killing 1500+ US serviceman and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians in the process is not, according to YOU, eelboy, a sufficient criterion to make him a poor President?

What would he have to do to disappoint you, then, Eelboy? Crap on the table in the Oval Office?

Remind me - where is the Deficit now? Isn't it the worst ever on record? What does this say about his performance on the Economy?

When do you recall the USA being the topic of international derision at today's levels? Do you think the Administration bear any responsibility for America's current abysmal image internationally? You don't agree that America has an image problem? So why did Bush go on a goodwill tour to Europe?

Now please go ahead and post a personal attack on me below, instead of answering the points - your usual tactic when you've got no answers.

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 13:03
Sparafucile:

Pardon my ignorance, but what does ROLF mean? One more question - when did I rant? Perhaps you just think that anyone who disagrees with you is ranting.

Sparafucile
09-03-2005, 13:51
>> Pardon my ignorance, but what does ROLF mean? <<

"ROFL = Rolling On Floor Laughing"... it's an old UseNet acronym that's still in use on discussion-boards etc.

Now, then, please - your answers?

trebor
09-03-2005, 14:16
Originally posted by Sparafucile
.

If events in Iraq settle down and a peace CAN be found subsequently i think history will forgive the lies and judge the sacrifices to be worthwhile

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 14:23
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>> Pardon my ignorance, but what does ROLF mean? <<

"ROFL = Rolling On Floor Laughing"... it's an old UseNet acronym that's still in use on discussion-boards etc.

Now, then, please - your answers?

Thanks for the terminology update - I don't spend a lot of time on discussion-boards, so this was my first time with this.

As for my answers - do you mean answering the rhetorical questions in your message? Sorry, to disappoint, but its not worth the time.

rosieredwood
09-03-2005, 14:46
Andrew Johnson was the worst president, with US Grant and Andrew Jackson pulling up in the # 2 and #3 positions.

The second best (following Washington) would have been Alexander Hamilton, but gentlemen's agreements were generally reached as to who would run for/be president, and in the interim, Hamilton was killed a la Pushkin in a duel with Aaron Burr -- cut down in his prime. The other man who could have possibly eclipsed Washington's brilliance and grandeur, as well as humility, as president was Benjamin Franklin; but he did foster the birth of the nation.

koba65
09-03-2005, 14:50
Originally posted by rosieredwood
Andrew Johnson was the worst president, with US Grant and Andrew Jackson pulling up in the # 2 and #3 positions.

The second best (following Washington) would have been Alexander Hamilton, but gentlemen's agreements were generally reached as to who would run for/be president, and in the interim, Hamilton was killed a la Pushkin in a duel with Aaron Burr -- cut down in his prime. The other man who could have possibly eclipsed Washington's brilliance and grandeur, as well as humility, as president was Benjamin Franklin; but he did foster the birth of the nation.

I concur - and add that Ben Franklin seems to be the most popular founding father with the "ladies" at Chesters and Night Flight - that certainly has to have some bearing on where he stands in history... It appears they're not too fond of Abe Lincoln for some strange reason.

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 14:55
Wasn't Hamilton disqualified from being President because he was born outside of the 13 colonies? That's probably what will keep Arnold out of the White House, too!

koba65
09-03-2005, 15:05
Originally posted by Crazyeelboy
Wasn't Hamilton disqualified from being President because he was born outside of the 13 colonies? That's probably what will keep Arnold out of the White House, too!

I think so. There is a fascinating book about the founding fathers "Founding Brothers" that has some good details about the infamous duel.

Sparafucile
09-03-2005, 16:03
>> As for my answers - do you mean answering the rhetorical questions in your message? Sorry, to disappoint, but its not worth the time. <<

UNABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS - IN DENIAL ABOUT THE TRUTH

rosieredwood
09-03-2005, 16:21
Originally posted by Crazyeelboy
Wasn't Hamilton disqualified from being President because he was born outside of the 13 colonies? That's probably what will keep Arnold out of the White House, too!

Yes, he was born in the West Indies, but I'm almost positive an exception would have been approved.

This is one of my favorite quotes:

Grover Cleveland vigorously pursued a policy barring special favors to any economic group. Vetoing a bill to appropriate $10,000 to distribute seed grain among drought-stricken farmers in Texas, he wrote: "Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. . . . "

Crazyeelboy
09-03-2005, 16:25
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>> As for my answers - do you mean answering the rhetorical questions in your message? Sorry, to disappoint, but its not worth the time. <<

UNABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS - IN DENIAL ABOUT THE TRUTH

Hell, I finally get it - you're just a wind up! Nobody could really be like this. You had me there for a while. Thanks for the laugh!

Bluebird
10-03-2005, 18:39
Originally posted by rosieredwood
Yes, he was born in the West Indies, but I'm almost positive an exception would have been approved.

This is one of my favorite quotes:

Grover Cleveland vigorously pursued a policy barring special favors to any economic group. Vetoing a bill to appropriate $10,000 to distribute seed grain among drought-stricken farmers in Texas, he wrote: "Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. . . . " He was right...Just look at the ridiculous farming subsidies paid to EU farmers, and wide open to all sorts of graft. Not only that, for the boys, at the top of the food...Errr, sorry, farming chain....It's just a gravy train, without brakes on it...But, having said that, the EU's many nations - not one. Never a truer word said though...:)

Bluebird
10-03-2005, 18:42
Originally posted by trebor
If events in Iraq settle down and a peace CAN be found subsequently i think history will forgive the lies and judge the sacrifices to be worthwhile And, so it will be...I'm sure...

Ghost
10-03-2005, 20:47
Originally posted by Crazyeelboy
Hell, I finally get it - you're just a wind up! Nobody could really be like this. You had me there for a while. Thanks for the laugh!

Can you just imagine if this guy had any position of power or control in today's world? Every single post I read of his - without exception - makes me laugh. He's hilarious!

Bluebird
10-03-2005, 22:19
Originally posted by Ghost
Can you just imagine if this guy had any position of power or control in today's world? Hmmm, I'm trying to imagine...Trying. Trying. Nope I can't...Imagination's all run out on me, right now...:)

Sparafucile
10-03-2005, 23:40
Ghost - as usual, no reply to the point, just an off-topic ad-hominem attack... and not even a funny one.

You're humourless as well as talentless - with a nasty violent threatening streak.

When do you go for your treatment, Ghost???

Bluebird
11-03-2005, 00:51
Originally posted by Sparafucile
Ghost - as usual, no reply to the point, just an off-topic ad-hominem attack... and not even a funny one.

You're humourless as well as talentless - with a nasty violent threatening streak.

When do you go for your treatment, Ghost??? Spara...Ghost "A violent and threatening streak?" I don't see any sign of that. I'm not sure what your problem's here, but what does this have to do with my thread anyway?

If you've an axe to grind - send him a PM - I'm sure he'll be only to happy oblige with an answer.

This is all really messing up my thread man...Can't we just have a normal discussion here? I've tried to be patient and polite, but your constant tirade again'st others' who happen to hold a different view to yours, is really bang out of order and uncalled for.

Not only that man, you're making youself look a complete fool...Think about it!!! :mad:

Sparafucile
11-03-2005, 01:03
>> Can you just imagine if this guy had any position of power or control in today's world? Every single post I read of his - without exception - makes me laugh. He's hilarious! <<

Sure, Bluebird - and the quote above was really on your theme too, was it??

Do you really think I give a toss what image I cut, amidst the company gathered in this thread or this forum??

If I'm singled-out as the misfit amidst a group of Bush's ****************, then I am proud to be identified that way.

Bluebird
11-03-2005, 01:20
Originally posted by Sparafucile
>> Can you just imagine if this guy had any position of power or control in today's world? Every single post I read of his - without exception - makes me laugh. He's hilarious! <<

Sure, Bluebird - and the quote above was really on your theme too, was it??

Do you really think I give a toss what image I cut, amidst the company gathered in this thread or this forum??

If I'm singled-out as the misfit amidst a group of Bush's ****************, then I am proud to be identified that way. Because you leave yourself wide open for it, by letting your emotions get the better of you, and if you can't see that then to repeat myself....You're a fool!!!

The other thing is, that no one is or was ever purposely singling you out as a "misfit" or otherwise. And if you ever thought or think that....You're a fool!!!

And if you cannot hold a logical, counter- argument, without your "red mist" rising; with a group of Bush's********Then, again....You're a fool!!!

Bluebird
11-03-2005, 01:36
Originally posted by Bluebird
Because you leave yourself wide open for it, by letting your emotions get the better of you, and if you can't see that then to repeat myself....You're a fool!!!

The other thing is, that no one is or was ever purposely singling you out as a "misfit" or otherwise. And if you ever thought or think that....You're a fool!!!

And if you cannot hold a logical, counter- argument, without your "red mist" rising; with a group of Bush's********Then, again....You're a fool!!! All I gotta say is this, got an axe to grind that's fine....Wanna make it personal, then get it sorted....Personally...I've seen your rantings with Koba and others' and it seems rhetorical to accuse Bush of having blood on his hands, when you're really the same as he is....A warmonger....

Doesn't that sound just a little ironic to you....That kinda puts you right down with there with Bushy, in my book....Strange that....But it kinda fits...Hmmmm

Sparafucile
11-03-2005, 02:30
You're just a pathetic hypocrite, Bluebird.

I point out where Ghost is waaaaaaay off topic - but no, you don't want to hear about that, do you?

Personal attacks on me are much easier than answering the question, eh?

Like I said - I am happy to be an outsider in any grouping of the George W Bush fanclub. And this Site accepts no other viewpoint than that, without a sequence of abuse and threats in retaliation.

Big Bugga
11-03-2005, 03:31
simple answer to this thread.

"Very Yes"

Bugga'

Dijohn
11-03-2005, 04:38
There is NOTHING worse than a TRAIROR who happened to be the pPresident of of the US.....bye the way........he survived minor surgery today...................

Bluebird
11-03-2005, 12:52
Originally posted by Sparafucile
You're just a pathetic hypocrite, Bluebird.

I point out where Ghost is waaaaaaay off topic - but no, you don't want to hear about that, do you?

Personal attacks on me are much easier than answering the question, eh?

Like I said - I am happy to be an outsider in any grouping of the George W Bush fanclub. And this Site accepts no other viewpoint than that, without a sequence of abuse and threats in retaliation. Go trot off to another site then, that's the easy answer - if you can't keep up with some of the heavy debaters, on here - without blowing a fuze.

Ever heard of Prozac, by the way...???

I think you should check em out...

Errr, what question, by the way, am I or others' supposed to answer...???

Ghost
11-03-2005, 13:05
Bluebird - ignore him. Don't even bother with his ridiculous folly - let me handle your light work!

I enjoy it!

Ghost
11-03-2005, 13:08
Originally posted by Sparafucile
You're just a pathetic hypocrite, Bluebird....blah blah blah ....ad naseum....

In Sparafucile world, it's easy to go off topic. All you have to do is mention something other than Bush, WMD or the US Administration. If you do, you're immediately in violation of (his) topic!

(note, masturbation is not considered off topic, though!)

Bluebird
11-03-2005, 13:16
Originally posted by Ghost
Bluebird - ignore him. Don't even bother with his ridiculous folly - let me handle your light work!

I enjoy it! With pleasure...:)

Bluebird
11-03-2005, 13:21
Originally posted by Ghost
In Sparafucile world, it's easy to go off topic. All you have to do is mention something other than Bush, WMD or the US Administration. If you do, you're immediately in violation of (his) topic!

(note, masturbation is not considered off topic, though!) I give up....

Bluebird
11-03-2005, 13:28
Originally posted by Sparafucile
You're just a pathetic hypocrite, Bluebird.

I point out where Ghost is waaaaaaay off topic - but no, you don't want to hear about that, do you?

Personal attacks on me are much easier than answering the question, eh?

Like I said - I am happy to be an outsider in any grouping of the George W Bush fanclub. And this Site accepts no other viewpoint than that, without a sequence of abuse and threats in retaliation. As you're always wailing that no one answers your questions...Here's a question for you, and let's see if you can answer, with any degree of logic here....???

The question's relatively simple, and goes like something this....

How on earth was Ghost off topic...???

Could you answer/explain that one...???