Jump to content

Hating Bush Is Like Hating Paris Hilton


Recommended Posts

This is certainly true. But I would at least want somebody who is somewhat respected in a certain field. Someone who has at least one sort of intellectual strength, be it with economics, the law, political science, running a successful business, or something that demonstrates that they have the capacity to excel at their chosen field. I mean, it's a big country, am I really asking for all that much?And no, being able to fly a plane doesn't count. Unless, BG, you're suggesting that we send Bush over to Iraq to clean things up personally and to fly air missions. Because, personally, I'm 100% fine with that. I'm sure he's a fantastic pilot.
I would rather he ran a business from the ground up. Being an expert in a certain field means nothing to me. In fact it would imply a long time in academia which in my mind a big negative strike against you.It's almost like we're throwing in our personal world view into our opinion of what would make a good president...weird.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Really? You think Bush II is as intelligent as Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and Bush I? I think they're all worlds beyond Bush II, even Reagan, and especially Clinton.
Clinton is smart?How do you judge that? Because he was really good at lying? Because in the world of scummy politics he was awesome? Because he was a good public speaker? Because in his world, cheating on your wife after going to church on Easter Sunday is okay as long as you don't get caught?About the only thing he ever really accomplished was dodging the draft in 69 by going back to England where he helped organize anti-war protest, against his government, in a foriegn country. Snopes linkHe recieved the Democrat nomination after everyone else dropped out. He was never going to win except Perot took 19% of the vote that more than likely would have gone Republican, he did the same thing in '96. See Primary Colors, we all know it was more truth than fiction.His presidency was a series of nothing really going on. He was even called a leader of mediocre leaders during one of the G8 summits by the major newspapers. If it wasn't for the interweb, the stock market would never have reached the levels it did, and if it wasn't for a poorly controlled SEC the bubble would not have been allowed to happen, and the burst which ate up 60% of my SEP would not have happened. Bitter? You bet.Bush is not a genius, not a great man, not even a good speaker. But an idiot, come on man. You should at least talk to the man once in your life before you judge him with that label.
Link to post
Share on other sites
First ,good call,I was drunk, waiting for my gf to get off work, now my head is pounding and I can barely open my eyes.Bolded parts aboveAbout the "Nukes"...."A U.N. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there was some concern about the legality of the U.S. transfer because the nuclear material belonged to Iraq and was under the control and supervision of the IAEA. The U.S. Energy Department statement said "the U.S., consistent with its authorities and relevant United Nations resolutions, took possession of and removed the materials to ensure the safety and security of the Iraqi people." Iraqi officials "were briefed about the removal and sources prior to evacuation," the statement said. In 1992, after the first Gulf War, all highly enriched uranium — which could be used to make nuclear weapons — was shipped from Iraq to Russia, the IAEA's Zlauvinen said. After 1992, roughly 2 tons of natural uranium, or yellow cake, some low enriched uranium and some depleted uranium was left at Tuwaitha under IAEA seal and control, he said."The "nukes" were known about the whole time. Under seal of the IAEA.Your a joker BG, a joker. Start reading the links you are posting seriously, you don't get embarrassed?and lol at the gay/conservative arguement
So the UN was protecting the uranium. Oh that makes me feel much better.The whole point of my original statement was there were not enough WMDs found to make a big difference. You said there were none, zero. I showed you links to the few we found. I am not in the they moved them camp. Nor am I a believer in the Iraqi General who wrote a book that he personally oversaw the movement of them. I don't really care about the WMDs. Saddam was a necessary domino that had to fall in the region. You want to pretend the WMDs were the only reason. They were not, they were a reason, and one most trumped because the truth is the government, not just ours, many times says the easiest thing it can to manipulate the people to support something like a war. Of course they should be 100% honest, but when you figure that 42% of this country's voters were dumb enough to vote for Clinton in 92 it makes uyou understand why the government should have a low opinion of the masses.The links I gave you were spot on though. You failed to understand them.Here is the link to the CIA's report on WMDs. This pretty much proves my point.CIA ReportIf you want to nit pick, then nit pick the CIA.Be careful though, I heard clicking on the CIA link will flag you. I wouldn't talk on your cell phone for 3 months
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's so funny when liberals try to argue a point... usually it just ends up with them getting fired up, calling someone or another an "idiot", and nothing being said. You're like a nation of Keith Olbermanns.The only thing I've really gotten out of much of this so far has been a bunch of hyperbole and nothing substantial, except that the President is "an idiot"... lol.Well, except for my side of the argument. TYTY Balloon Guy, wp etc.Btw, I'm sure in some parts of the country it's harder to be gay than conservative. I should've clarified. That's not the case where I live, and I don't think that's the case as much with today's youth.- TR

Link to post
Share on other sites
So the UN was protecting the uranium. Oh that makes me feel much better.The whole point of my original statement was there were not enough WMDs found to make a big difference. You said there were none, zero. I showed you links to the few we found. I am not in the they moved them camp. Nor am I a believer in the Iraqi General who wrote a book that he personally oversaw the movement of them. I don't really care about the WMDs. Saddam was a necessary domino that had to fall in the region. You want to pretend the WMDs were the only reason. They were not, they were a reason, and one most trumped because the truth is the government, not just ours, many times says the easiest thing it can to manipulate the people to support something like a war. Of course they should be 100% honest, but when you figure that 42% of this country's voters were dumb enough to vote for Clinton in 92 it makes uyou understand why the government should have a low opinion of the masses.The links I gave you were spot on though. You failed to understand them.Here is the link to the CIA's report on WMDs. This pretty much proves my point.CIA ReportIf you want to nit pick, then nit pick the CIA.Be careful though, I heard clicking on the CIA link will flag you. I wouldn't talk on your cell phone for 3 months
You found none.You gave links to a partially detonated bomb with a small amount of nerve gas in it. That your own military officer said, afterwards, they still had no proof of WMD in Iraq.And the uranium was left there by the Russians and was being protected by an international body. So all you have is a partially detonated bomb with nerve gas traces(which we still don't know if tests were conclusive) that your own army officer said it was not a WMD.sounds like 0 to me.Anyway, you've lied blatantly at least 3 times, I'm stepping away from this one. My urge to say my views keeps blinding me from seeing the concrete wall that is your mind.
Although, I like him more after watching it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's almost like we're throwing in our personal world view into our opinion of what would make a good president...weird.
I'm not sure what this means.
It's so funny when liberals try to argue a point... usually it just ends up with them getting fired up, calling someone or another an "idiot", and nothing being said. You're like a nation of Keith Olbermanns.
Oh, don't confuse my insulting of Bush with my attempts to argue against him. I personally don't think he's intelligent and I'm against the vast majority of his philosophies. I don't mind pointing that out. However, there are many real reasons to call him a bad president. I could go one about those, but I'm not going to. It's much more fun to spend my time on the internet condemning Bush based on, as BalloonGuy says, opinions based on my world view than on his actual policies.I could talk about a horribly mismanaged war, rising national debt, a bloating government, tax cuts that cut in the wrong places, a failure to fix social security, a failure to address health care issues, a failure to address schools substantially (No Child Left Behind failed), working against a woman's health by narrowing her medical choices during pregnancy, thinking abstinence rather than condom use is the way to solve Africa's Aids problems (ha), leading a type of White House that feels it must sneak around the people instead of being accountable to them, wiretapping, Guantanamo Bay, torture, making enemies of countries that would otherwise be neutral to us, failing to meaningfully address countries that are not called Iraq that should be our main focus of concern, dogs and cats living together...I liked it better when he was just dumb.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're like a nation of Keith Olbermanns.
:club::ts:D:D:4h:5c:D the most intelligent blow hard...and bigest jackass on TV...I used to love him on ESPN and then he had to go open his mouth....
Link to post
Share on other sites
the most intelligent blow hard...and bigest jackass on TV...I used to love him on ESPN and then he had to go open his mouth....
Meh. He's better than O'Reilly (and waaaay better than Hannity).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Olberman, Maher, Oreilly and Hannity are so alike in their approach. Whether liberal or conservative, they act as if they are the voice of reason all the time pretending the agenda does not exist. I was watching Olberman the other night. I enjoy him from time to time but their is no questioning where he is coming from. He was talking to a short brown haired woman from Air America ( don't remember her name ) discussing Bush. They talked as if they were objective about the subjet and that they were the voice of reason. It was comical and I enjoyed a good laugh. From the other side, Hannity is the worst and is almost unwatchable because he is not funny, just annoying. As far as Maher and Oreilly, they make good points from time to time, agenda aside.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Entertaining Value:MaherO'ReillyKeithHannityPisses me off value:Hannity.........O'ReillyKeithMaher
Just save time and listen to Dennis Miller. Entertainment and won't piss you off.and he's on two hours AR
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just save time and listen to Dennis Miller. Entertainment and won't piss you off.and he's on two hours AR
That's true, I find Miller to be entertaining. I'll have to check him out.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's true, I find Miller to be entertaining. I'll have to check him out.
Keep an encyclopedia of obscure European writers handy for some of his jokes. Hard to look them up and drive, but those hybrids don't go fast enough to really worry about anyway.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember watching Miller at the initial Clinton inagurual gala in 1993. At that time, pre 9/11, his views were left leaning. He had a funny quote talking to the democratic audiance, and I am paraphrasing here " It's pretty cool, those nuke weapons are ours now. Let's not get rid of them after all" After 9/11, his views cahnged and is now leaning toward the right but not as much as the others mentioned and can he be very insightful and entertaining.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis Miller for President!! I really wanted a T-shirt that had that, but didn't see any on his website which is a bummer. He is hilarious, intelligent, and I find my political thoughts and views to be very close to his !I am a conservative but I find Hannity pretty annoying (not sure what it is, lack of humor?) and O'Reilly way too smug with himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dennis Miller for President!! I really wanted a T-shirt that had that, but didn't see any on his website which is a bummer. He is hilarious, intelligent, and I find my political thoughts and views to be very close to his !I am a conservative but I find Hannity pretty annoying (not sure what it is, lack of humor?) and O'Reilly way too smug with himself.
Dittos on this post, but the highlighted:O'Reilly wrote a atuobiography style book that I read, then right after I read his fiction novel. ( Wife loves him )One of the main charactes in the novel had almost exactly the same life as Bill's real life. Except in the novel the guy was an awesome lover of women, with details.Oh and he goes back and brutally murders the people in his past that pissed him off, with even more details.I got chills reading the book thinking how big of an ego do you need to write this type of story.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dittos on this post, but the highlighted:O'Reilly wrote a atuobiography style book that I read, then right after I read his fiction novel. ( Wife loves him )One of the main charactes in the novel had almost exactly the same life as Bill's real life. Except in the novel the guy was an awesome lover of women, with details.Oh and he goes back and brutally murders the people in his past that pissed him off, with even more details.I got chills reading the book thinking how big of an ego do you need to write this type of story.
One thing I would love to read about O'Reilly is his settlement with that chick, never happen.Agree with you BG about Hannity and of course Rush is like aged scotch just gets better!111111highhourss.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to the dude who said I'm an idiot because I think it's easier to be gay than conservative...You obviously don't attend a liberal arts college in modern day America. Homosexuality may not be cool with the older folk, but it's quite normal and tolerated among my peers. As it should be, in my opinion.The few flames I've received in this thread just validate my point lol.Yeah, it's not hard to be conservative surrounded by a sea of liberals. It's not hard to hear how terrible your country is day in and day out. You're right. It's not hard to have my opinions shut down by a professor in the middle of class because I'm "ignorant and thickheaded"... even though my argument was as simple as supporting my country. You're right. Good point. I'm obviously mentally handicapped. It's not hard at all to have your beliefs and ideas degraded day after day.Good point, buddy.
Hmm....whoishe.gif
Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of this discussion from the beginning was about public hate for paris hilton. though i personally don't like him, I can see why people like Bush. But paris is just a "stupid, spoiled whore" and a really bad image for the kids, right? I can't see anyone disagree with that? except the original poster perhaps...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until we stop requiring our presidential candidates to have nothing in their past that's the least bit controversial, we'll continue to have mediocre candidates. Most of our best and brightest became that way by making mistakes and learning from them. And I'm not talking about sexual piccadillos. I'm talking about supporting the "wrong" guy, making the "wrong" statement, going to the "wrong" church, etc. Most of your best and brightest can be counted on to try different ideas, philosophies, knowledge, lifestyles out before they become the best and the brightest. And as long as we want the press to go dig up the "dirt" no matter if said "dirt" has nothing to do with the person today, we will not attract any quality candidates to the presidential pool. Or to politics period.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Until we stop requiring our presidential candidates to have nothing in their past that's the least bit controversial, we'll continue to have mediocre candidates. Most of our best and brightest became that way by making mistakes and learning from them. And I'm not talking about sexual piccadillos. I'm talking about supporting the "wrong" guy, making the "wrong" statement, going to the "wrong" church, etc. Most of your best and brightest can be counted on to try different ideas, philosophies, knowledge, lifestyles out before they become the best and the brightest. And as long as we want the press to go dig up the "dirt" no matter if said "dirt" has nothing to do with the person today, we will not attract any quality candidates to the presidential pool. Or to politics period.
Well the argument you present implies that there can be no quality in a person without some embarressing past sins.And I think I speak for everybody on both sides of the political spectrum and say that our guy is great, it's the other guy that's a lying thieving crook.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...