Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest BushBacker

A Win For Bush

Recommended Posts

Earlier, Keith wrote:

I never said anything about GW's personality, I don't like his policies or those of any of his high level ass kissers. Almost seven years of this guy and you need me to explain what the problem is? Your making my point for me because either you don't see, or refuse to see what the problems are which to me implies that you are gullible. I could give you pages of examples of which I'm sure you would shrug away as untrue or that " I can't prove it".

Ok, fine. The response to hurricane Katrina is one issue.

And you were going to make a reasonable case as to why this demonstrated a problem with Bush? Or am I supposed to answer your argument before you make it?

Speaking of old, tired, and vacuous, you mean like blaming the press?

I can't figure out where to place blame for the reporting of the press other than on the press itself.

Do you think the way the press reports should be blamed on an entity other than the press?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ed-Midwest

Three Brazilian soldiers

Donald Rumsfeld briefed the president this morning. He told Bush that

three Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iran. To everyone's amazement,

all the colour drained from Bush's face, then he collapsed onto the

desk, head in hands, visibly shaken, almost whimpering.

Finally he composed himself and asked Rumsfeld, "Just exactly how

many is a brazillion?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Three Brazilian soldiers

Donald Rumsfeld briefed the president this morning. He told Bush that

three Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iran. To everyone's amazement,

all the colour drained from Bush's face, then he collapsed onto the

desk, head in hands, visibly shaken, almost whimpering.

Finally he composed himself and asked Rumsfeld, "Just exactly how

many is a brazillion?"

News must travel slowly in the Ozarks, Rumsfeld's been gone for a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Bush will be remembered as a great president. He has protected us since 9/11 by taking the fight to the enemy. 

And please oh BushWacker, pray tell WHY he didn't protect us ON 9/11?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Doubting Thomas
Of course, though I do not entirely accept the premise of your question.

Acting outside the bounds of the Constitution is by definition a strengthening of presidential power.  That should be obvious.

Questions that contain a questionable premise (such as yours above) constitute complex question fallacies.

Do you want a reputation for arguing fallaciously?

SPIN ALERT! SPIN ALERT! SPIN ALERT!

What a load of CRAP!

You conveniently overlook the FACT that strengthening preidential power IS NOT the same as strengthening the nation. THAT IS obvious!

YOU already have ta reputation for arguning fallaciously! You're getting almost as bad as PatRat and BushWacker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Doubting Thomas
Of course, though I do not entirely accept the premise of your question.

Acting outside the bounds of the Constitution is by definition a strengthening of presidential power. 

?????????????????????

Acting outside the bounds of the Constitution is by definition a strengthening of presidential power?

Are you really that delusional?

To most people with their eyes open acting outside the Constitution is UN-Constitutional, illegal, and impeachable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Bush will be remembered as a great president. 

For once you're actually at least partially correct.

Enemies of the US and the American way of life will no doubt remember Bush fondly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ed -in Midwest
Earlier, Keith wrote:

I never said anything about GW's personality, I don't like his policies or those of any of his high level ass kissers. Almost seven years of this guy and you need me to explain what the problem is? Your making my point for me because either you don't see, or refuse to see what the problems are which to me implies that you are gullible. I could give you pages of examples of which I'm sure you would shrug away as untrue or that " I can't prove it".

And you were going to make a reasonable case as to why this demonstrated a problem with Bush?  Or am I supposed to answer your argument before you make it?

I can't figure out where to place blame for the reporting of the press other than on the press itself.

Do you think the way the press reports should be blamed on an entity other than the press?

If GW were able to run for another term how would you vote and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-From Marshall,Mo
Earlier, Keith wrote:

I never said anything about GW's personality, I don't like his policies or those of any of his high level ass kissers. Almost seven years of this guy and you need me to explain what the problem is? Your making my point for me because either you don't see, or refuse to see what the problems are which to me implies that you are gullible. I could give you pages of examples of which I'm sure you would shrug away as untrue or that " I can't prove it".

And you were going to make a reasonable case as to why this demonstrated a problem with Bush?  Or am I supposed to answer your argument before you make it?

I can't figure out where to place blame for the reporting of the press other than on the press itself.

Do you think the way the press reports should be blamed on an entity other than the press?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/s...dent_in_history

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_W._Bush

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/26/...in2208918.shtml

http://www.bushlies.com/

http://www.thousandreasons.org/

Would you like more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Three Brazilian soldiers

Donald Rumsfeld briefed the president this morning. He told Bush that

three Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iran. To everyone's amazement,

all the colour drained from Bush's face, then he collapsed onto the

desk, head in hands, visibly shaken, almost whimpering.

Finally he composed himself and asked Rumsfeld, "Just exactly how

many is a brazillion?"

That would be hysterical.....................................

If it wasn't so frighteningly believable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
If GW were able to run for another term how would you vote and why?

If he were able to run I'd vote for Liberace's corpse before I'd vote for GWB.

If by some cataclysmic quirk of fate he won I'd vote to get my butt out of America and probably move to Canada or Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you unable to articulate the case yourself, then?

Why don't I just reply with twice as many URLs?

The Newsweek article barely seems aware of the divisions of power reflected in our federalist system and seems to take for granted the poor reporting from the New Orleans.

And you want me to wade through pages of that type of thing and refute it piece by piece?

This reads like you're afraid or unable to make the case yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
?????????????????????

Acting outside the bounds of the Constitution is by definition a strengthening of presidential power?

Are you really that delusional?

To most people with their eyes open acting outside the Constitution is UN-Constitutional, illegal, and impeachable.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If GW were able to run for another term how would you vote and why?

Probably for Giuliani or Romney in the primaries.

If it came down to Bush and any of the current challengers from the Democrat side, I've vote for Bush.

Why? Because they have bad policies where they're brave enough to articulate their policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Doubting Thomas
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.

Are you REALLY such an idiot or do you just play one on this board?

Are you now telling us Hitler is a role model for national leadership?

YOU should make a coherent statement yourslf before questioning others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Doubting Thomas
Are you unable to articulate the case yourself, then?

And you want me to wade through pages of that type of thing and refute it piece by piece?

This reads like you're afraid or unable to make the case yourself.

Mister BlackPot, say hello to Mister BlackKettle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Doubting Thomas
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.

As much as I believe Bush's attempts at end runs around the Constitution are sorry excuses for leadership even I wouldn't bring Hitler into comparison.

I do wish however that his Dick would take him to Burger King for lunch. Maybe if they got him one of those cardboard crowns his lust to be king would be satisfied until he swaggers back to the ranch in Texs where his talents at manipulating BULLSH*T can be better utilized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SPIN ALERT!  SPIN ALERT! SPIN ALERT!

Thanks for forewarning us about what you're about to write.

What a load of CRAP!

You conveniently overlook the FACT that strengthening preidential power IS NOT the same as strengthening the nation.  THAT IS obvious!

True, but it should also be obvious that the topic was the strength of the president in terms of leadership, not the strengthening of the nation.

Ergo, you're spinning like the proverbial top.

YOU already have ta reputation for arguning fallaciously!

That can't happen unless somebody is spreading lies about me or I am being judged by stupid people.

Otherwise you could come up with an example.

You're getting almost as bad as PatRat and BushWacker.

Pretty funny from a guy who just finished arguing against a straw man.

Bryan:

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?

dThomas:

How kind of you to offer to put YOUR words in other peoples' mouths. Quite the ego you have.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
lol

You're funny.

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

Seeing that he got his ass kicked and wound up cowering in a bunker putting a gun to his head I'd say yes, he was a weak leader.

Most people wouldn't know enough about the '30s era German constitution to anwer your question, I guess you neo-Nazi-cons have the inside line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,MO
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.

What the F*ck? You gotta be kidding me? Even I won't compare Bush to Hitler. Are you confusing strength with plain 'ol stubbornness? You keep railing on me about "making a case and proving my points". 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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stop the Stupidity
If it came down to Bush and any of the current challengers from the Democrat side, I've vote for Bush.

You certainly have low expectations of America's leaders, and they've been fulfilld.

And if you really expect more, 'they' say the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Doubting Thomas
Thanks for forewarning us about what you're about to write.

True, but it should also be obvious that the topic was the strength of the president in terms of leadership, not the strengthening of the nation.

Ergo, you're spinning like the proverbial top.

.[/color][/b]

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. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As much as I believe Bush's attempts at end runs around the Constitution are sorry excuses for leadership even I wouldn't bring Hitler into comparison.

I do wish however that his Dick would take him to Burger King for lunch.  Maybe if they got him one of those cardboard crowns his lust to be king would be satisfied until he swaggers back to the ranch in Texs where his talents at manipulating BULLSH*T can be better utilized.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...