A Win For Bush

[Guest Guest]

Please Bryan, prove to me that GW is a good president and not just a stubborn little rich kid that has lost touch with reality. If he was ever in touch in the fist place. I belive that you share those same qualities with GW which would explain your rabid support for the man. He's ruining YOUR country too!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim Beam apparently causes permanent damage, it hardens brain cells and limits their ability to process new information, thus the term 'pickled'.

GW is scheduled to be proved an almost, kinda, maybe semi-competent president immediately following the awarding of the NRA Firearms Safety Medal to Dick Cheney.

[Guest Guest]

lol

You're funny.

Hitler went outside the bounds of the German constitution, also.  Was he therefore a weak leader?

Think of some coherent and consistent way to define your terms and get back to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought BushWacker was the champion of ASININE posts but you are really giving him a great challenge with that response.

[Bryan]

Here's a hint, strapo yoursef to a chair and make no posts until the room stops spinning.

It should be obvious to you that leadership and strengthening of the nation are inseparable.

They are--but that does not make them the same topic.

A strong leader can weaken a nation. A weak leader can strengthen a nation.

If you can't understand that strong leadership and strengthening of the nation go hand in hand you're even denser and more narrow minded than I thought.

But maybe I should cut you some slack, if you've been a cowboy fan a longtime you've probably forgottn what leadershipo is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just look at all the stupid stuff you write.

You try to change the topic, and then you get aggressive when I call you on it.

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

It isn't consistent to criticize Bush for expanding presidential powers while also calling him weak.

Unless you have a unusual definition of "weak" in mind.  If that's the case, it would help if more effort were made to make that clear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So typically off point of you. Apples and Oranges.

Criticizing him and calling him weak are two distinctly different things.

I will CONTINUE to criticize him NOT FOR AS YOU SAY expanding presidential powers but for attempting to do so outside the bounds of the Constitution.

And I will continue to say he is weak in ability to lead, within or without the bounds of the Constitution.

It would be helpful if you made yourself clear, I see only two possibilities.

1) You're either completely delusional and making your posts from the penthous at Bergen Pines.

2) You purposely continually go off point and argue in circles because you enjoy cranking people up.

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

Hitler made some terrible decisions, but it's crazy to argue that he was a weak leader.  He did an amazing job of getting the German people to rally to his cause, flauted the terms of the Treaty of Versailles without the other European leaders having the chutzpah to call him on it, and came within a gnats eyelash of dominating Europe.  If he had kept his pact with the USSR a bit longer, it's likely that all of Europe would have been dominated by Hitler.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just more of your fallacious arguments. When Hitler went into the Rhineland in 1936 the French Army outnumbered the Germans and did nothing. It really has nothing to do wit Hitler being strong or weak, the others were weak and offered no opposition. Even the proverbial 98 pound weakling can tie some whupass on your favorite whipping boy straw man.

In summary, I still believe you're full of crap.

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

Unless you have a unusual definition of "weak" in mind.  If that's the case, it would help if more effort were made to make that clear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I originally said was:"and as far as weakness, I think the FACT that Bush has issued more signing statements than all other presidents COMBINED shows a GREAT WEAKNESS in his ability and willingness to govern within the bounds of the Constitution."

It would help if YOU made an effort to have some idea of just what the hell you're talking about BEFORE you post your usually off the mark, delusional crap.

[Bryan]

What I originally said was:"and as far as weakness, I think the FACT that Bush has issued more signing statements than all other presidents COMBINED shows a GREAT WEAKNESS in his ability and willingness to govern within the bounds of the Constitution."

You wrote that in response to this (found in post #163 in this thread):

(Bryan):

That's the way it is.

And you'll turn around within a few posts and claim that Bush has seized unconstitutional power, won't you? Or do you depart from your liberal brethren on that one?

I brought up the contradictory notion of expanding presidential power, which is taken by sane individuals to count as an attempt to strengthen the presidential branch. Would a weak president bother with that?

And you plow right into the problem by asserting that going after increased presidential power is a weakness.

That's just stupid, DT.

It would help if YOU made an effort to have some idea of just what the hell you're talking about BEFORE you post your usually off the mark, delusional crap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If only you could take your own advice.

[Bryan]

So typically off point of you. Apples and Oranges.

You're just illustrating that you're an idiot, DT.

Where you quoted me in the post to which I am now replying, you left an attribution arrow intact.

That arrow links back to the post that you replied to, and in that post I make the point that there is a difference between a "weak" president and a "bad" one--the exact point you seem to be making here--but you accuse me of going off topic.

That, DT, is crazy.

Criticizing him and calling him weak are two distinctly different things.

And why can't you give me credit for pointing that out before you presented it as your proof that I was comparing "apples and oranges"?

I will CONTINUE to criticize him NOT FOR AS YOU SAY expanding presidential powers but for attempting to do so outside the bounds of the Constitution.

No doubt without bothering to draw any useful distinction between the one and the other.

And I will continue to  say he is weak in ability to lead, within or without the bounds of the Constitution.

And if you contradict yourself, what of it?

It would be helpful if you made yourself clear, I see only two possibilities.

1) You're either completely delusional and making your posts from the penthous at Bergen Pines.

2)  You purposely continually go off point and argue in circles because you enjoy cranking people up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is that on point?

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

Just look at all the stupid stuff you write.

You try to change the topic, and then you get aggressive when I call you on it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You accusing anyone of writing stupid stuff while apparently being quite pleased with your own stupid writings is comical.

I try to change the subject? YOU are the one that CONSISTENTLY replies with off point comments and flies off on tangents.

Aggressive? I wouldn't waste the energy, you're not worth it. Pedants seldom are.

[Guest Keith-Marhsall,Mo]

Evidently your mind cannot wrap itself around the fact that "weak" leader and "bad" leader are two different things.

Hitler made some terrible decisions, but it's crazy to argue that he was a weak leader.  He did an amazing job of getting the German people to rally to his cause, flauted the terms of the Treaty of Versailles without the other European leaders having the chutzpah to call him on it, and came within a gnats eyelash of dominating Europe.  If he had kept his pact with the USSR a bit longer, it's likely that all of Europe would have been dominated by Hitler.

And somebody suggests that Hitler was weak for committing suicide.

That's just not a serious argument.

It isn't consistent to criticize Bush for expanding presidential powers while also calling him weak.

Unless you have a unusual definition of "weak" in mind.  If that's the case, it would help if more effort were made to make that clear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You respect Hitler?

[Guest Guest]

Bush will be remembered as a great president. He has protected us since 9/11 by taking the fight to the enemy. While terrorist attacks have occurred around the world, he has kept us safe. In addition:  market is way up, unemployment is way down, economy is way up, deficit is way down, and he's lowered our taxes.

  If you're a Daffy Defeatocrat who's still crying for Gore and Kerry then you'll think Bush is the "worst president ever", but the facts don't back you up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Keep telling yourself that.

And your definition of 'way' is poor.

The deficit in not way down. Considering there wasn't one when he took office.

It's just not has high as they projected it. They like to play a numbers game where

they forcast worse numbers then come back and say "Hey! We did such a good job

we didn't get to that number we predicted."

Man you are gullible.

[Guest Steve_C]

Bush will be remembered as a great president. He has protected us since 9/11 by taking the fight to the enemy. While terrorist attacks have occurred around the world, he has kept us safe. In addition:  market is way up, unemployment is way down, economy is way up, deficit is way down, and he's lowered our taxes.

  If you're a Daffy Defeatocrat who's still crying for Gore and Kerry then you'll think Bush is the "worst president ever", but the facts don't back you up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Keep telling yourself that.

And your definition of 'way' is poor.

The deficit in not way down. Considering there wasn't one when he took office.

It's just not has high as they projected it. They like to play a numbers game where

they forcast worse numbers then come back and say "Hey! We did such a good job

we didn't get to that number we predicted."

Man you are gullible.

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

If only you could take your own advice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Adivice that YOU should take to heart.

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

And you plow right into the problem by asserting that going after increased presidential power is a weakness.

That's just stupid, DT.

If only you could take your own advice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please show me EXACTLY where I ever asserted going after increased presidential power is a weakness. I believe I said he is WEAK in his ability to act within the bounds of the Constitution.

If you don't understand the difference you are even dumber than I thought........if that's possible.

And since it seems you have great difficulty trying to understand things let me make this very clear.

I think you're a pedantic putz.

I'm not going back to re-read all of your crap because you're not going to change your opinion or min and in all honesty no credence in your statements and no value on your opinions.

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

You're just illustrating that you're an idiot, DT.

Where you quoted me in the post to which I am now replying, you left an attribution arrow intact.

That arrow links back to the post that you replied to, and in that post I make the point that there is a difference between a "weak" president and a "bad" one--the exact point you seem to be making here--but you accuse me of going off topic.

That, DT, is crazy.

And why can't you give me credit for pointing that out before you presented it as your proof that I was comparing "apples and oranges"?

No doubt without bothering to draw any useful distinction between the one and the other. 

And if you contradict yourself, what of it?

Is that on point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's something totally on point: YOU argue in circles and make little/no sense.

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

And if you contradict yourself, what of it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And if you ask STUPID, BASELESS questions, what of it?

I don't believe I've contradicted myself, I believe you consistently attempt to twist things around and are skilled at attempts to bait people, in fact you're a master.

I guess that makes you a MasterBaiter.

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

I brought up the contradictory notion of expanding presidential power, which is taken by sane individuals to count as an attempt to strengthen the presidential branch.  Would a weak president bother with that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A weak president not only would bother with that, he already has. A strong president would have enough character, knowledge, and ability to act within the powers given to the Executive Branch and accomplish his goals, something you apparently find a difficult concept. You apparently suffer the delusion of confusing arrogance with strength. What makes you think his attepting to expand presidential power indicates strength? I say it only indicates his lack of respect for the Constitution and his inability to do the job he's been given, expanding presidential powers unilaterally IS NOT IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION.

You proven your silliness by saying you'd vote for Bush a third time. Given the state of Iraq after four years, if you're satisfied with his performance you obviously have low expectations or you suffer the inanity of repeating the same action and expecting different results.

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

You're just illustrating that you're an idiot, DT.

Where you quoted me in the post to which I am now replying, you left an attribution arrow intact.

That arrow links back to the post that you replied to, and in that post I make the point that there is a difference between a "weak" president and a "bad" one--the exact point you seem to be making here--but you accuse me of going off topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Being labeled an idiot by a double-talking pedantic putxz doesn't mean JackSh*t to me.

I quoted you saying:"It isn't consistent to criticize Bush for expanding presidential powers while also calling him weak.

Unless you have a unusual definition of "weak" in mind. If that's the case, it would help if more effort were made to make that clear."

To which I replied:"So typically off point of you. Apples and Oranges.

Criticizing him and calling him weak are two distinctly different things."

Other than that I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Guest Guest]

Keep telling yourself that.

And your definition of 'way' is poor.

The deficit in not way down. Considering there wasn't one when he took office.

It's just not has high as they projected it. They like to play a numbers game where

they forcast worse numbers then come back and say "Hey! We did such a good job

we didn't get to that number we predicted."

Man you are gullible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on!

The economy is wonderful, the shrub said so!

Ford eliminating half its work force? Hey, Taco Bell has a few hundred openings.

GM cutting one third? MacDonalds created 137 jobs just today.

Chrysler cutting over 10,000 jobs? No problem, Burger King has a few openings.

[Guest a proud american]

Keep telling yourself that.

And your definition of 'way' is poor.

The deficit in not way down. Considering there wasn't one when he took office.

It's just not has high as they projected it. They like to play a numbers game where

they forcast worse numbers then come back and say "Hey! We did such a good job

we didn't get to that number we predicted."

Man you are gullible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Haven't you learned by now that these people who support Bush are delusional. Al-Queda attacked us and what does he do? Attacks Iraq. Meanwhile his solution to the problem is to General shop until he finds one that will agree with his position. Keeping us safe? We need someone who will keep us safe from him and his merry band of constitutional pirates. What you have to understand is that they are loyal viewers of the Fox News Channel, you know the republican spin station. The station that employs Bill O. What I try to do is humor them because after all, reading their blather at the end of the day makes it easy to understand the importance of getting a good education. And by not having to post our names gives you the opportunity to wonder which one of them is taking your order at Mc Donalds or greeting you at Wal Mart.

[Guest BushBacker]

Haven't you learned by now that these people who support Bush are delusional. Al-Queda attacked us and what does he do? Attacks Iraq. Meanwhile his solution to the problem is to General shop until he finds one that will agree with his position. Keeping us safe? We need someone who will keep us safe from him and his merry band of constitutional pirates. What you have to understand is that they are loyal viewers of the Fox News Channel, you know the republican spin station. The station that employs Bill O. What I try to do is humor them because after all, reading their blather at the end of the day makes it easy to understand the importance of getting a good education. And by not having to post our names gives you the opportunity to wonder which one of them is taking your order at Mc Donalds or greeting you at Wal Mart.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm happy to see you enjoy watching Fox News , the #1 cable news show. Did you know that Bill O'Reilly is also #1 of all the cable news show hosts. His "O'Reilly Factor" draws more viewers than any other show on cable. But of course you know all that, thanks for watching. (And don't forget to say; God Bess George Bush, he's keeping us safe. Semper Fi.)

[Guest Guest]

I'm happy to see you enjoy watching Fox News , the #1 cable news show.  Did you know that Bill O'Reilly is also #1 of all the cable news show hosts. His "O'Reilly Factor" draws more viewers than any other show on cable. But of course you know all that, thanks for watching. (And don't forget to say; God Bess George Bush, he's keeping us safe. Semper Fi.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IF your contentions were true and considering the source it's highly doubtful the only thing it proves is there's always an audience for boobs

[Guest Guest]

I'm happy to see you enjoy watching Fox News , the #1 cable news show.  Did you know that Bill O'Reilly is also #1 of all the cable news show hosts. His "O'Reilly Factor" draws more viewers than any other show on cable. But of course you know all that, thanks for watching. (And don't forget to say; God Bess George Bush, he's keeping us safe. Semper Fi.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IF your contentions were true and considering the source it's highly doubtful the only thing it proves is there's always an audience for boobs

[Guest God]

  (And don't forget to say; God Bess George Bush, he's keeping us safe. Semper Fi.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the future DO NOT attempt to blame this cock up on me or there's gonna a HOT TIME in your future!

[Guest Guest]

I'm happy to see you enjoy watching Fox News , the #1 cable news show.  Did you know that Bill O'Reilly is also #1 of all the cable news show hosts. His "O'Reilly Factor" draws more viewers than any other show on cable. But of course you know all that, thanks for watching. (And don't forget to say; God Bess George Bush, he's keeping us safe. Semper Fi.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You do realize of course that Rupert Murdoch, the owner of your precious FOX news channel admitted in an interview that FOX news official position was to push for the war in Iraq? Guys like you bought it hook,line and sinker.