History: Bush Was a Great President

I don't trust him. Iraq is a disaster.

Spending? The Republicans are supposed to be fiscal conservatives who cut taxes and the size of government. They've hardly done much of the former and actually done the opposite two times over on the latter...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Iraq is messy because we WAY underestimated Iran and Syria. We had NO idea they would send over so many evil terrorists.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I support every cent spent on the war on terror.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. It's the first time I chose to get fed up and respond in kind to your consistently personal stuff. It won't be a habit, but it will happen more often, if you are really that oblivious. Which I doubt.

Not that I've heard. He's been stringing this along for two years now: http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/2007/01/tom_delays_day.html

When the Italians caught that big government-connected pricefixer (milk distributor of some kind?) they had him tried within six months. Enron was still in the courts years later when Ken Lay died unexpectedly of a heart attack. The various charges against Delay are not nearly as complicated as the Italian case.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One-- the American court system is intentionally designed to be slow in order to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial.

Two-- you're a liberal-- liberals are the one's who are enamored with our slow court system which cators to the accused. Conservatives are the ones who want to speed up the process (a la Texas).

Three-- if this were a liberal who were accused of said crimes, I'm certain that you'd be praising it for its wisdome in giving the accused ample appeals to hear out his/her case.

~String

 

You've got a contradiction there, if you care about such things.

You can avoid such absurdities by having people tell you what they think , rather than you telling them. You guess wrong a lot, and it introduces moronic irrelevancies such as the above.

Has it struck you yet how much of your worldview is predicated upon the actual accuracy of these stupid little hypothetical scenes you project unto people you don't know?

It's the Texas state courts involved here. There seem to be complexities, in the "conservative" approach to court speed. Possible innocent on death row? Full speed ahead. Republican politician with fingerprints inside cookie jar? Let's ponder this a few years - -

How long did the Texas courts take to consider the eminent domain abuses around W's baseball stadium, do you recall ? If the back of my envelope is close, that was about five times the size of Whitewater, as a scandal. And directly relevant to political character in the principals, hmmmm, where's the 40 million dollar investigation when you need it, verify the greatness of our President, yes - - -

 

a slow pace does not cater to the accused it is to make sure people who are accused are truely guilty. and please don't bring up the state that has almost exacuted as many people as the rest combined as the example the nation should follow

 

I brought up Texas for that exact reason. Texans tend to rush the justice system which, for better or worse, is favored greatly by extreme conservatives.

~String

 

So it's OK for you to posit how I think and respond to things, but String can't float his hypothetical. Once again, you show yourself to be a hypocrit who will say and do anything, rhetorically speaking, to try and win an argument, one-up somebody and prove your self-assumed superiority...

 

Seeing as how (a) I can't stand Bush, (b) I'm not a Republican and (c) I'm not a fan of Texas justice, I can't imagine why you feel the need to bring up any of that rubbish. Unless you're just being as ignorant in trying to posit the ridiculous idea that I might be a any of those things.

Maybe you're the ignorant one.

I absolutely love how you are the blackest pot on this website who is enamored with calling every little kettle as black as you. Could it be that YOU are attempting to make logical jumps that are far, FAR beyond your intellectual capacity (something that I've noticed you doing a great deal of).

Wait... I forgot, Ice, you are the only person here who is qualified to make assumptions and hypothesis about other peoples and ideologies.

~String

 

I was observing your posts, actual behavior, right here. This latest being yet another example.

String is hypothesizing, about events that have not happened let alone been observed, and guessing wrong again.

There is a difference, however invisible to you, between hypothesis and observation.

Try rereading, under the apparently new and unfamiliar assumption that I was construing an argument from your posts and responding with an argument of my own, rather than monkey house shitflinging in response to yours.

That your personal stance re W or Texas or Republicans was irrelevant, in other words, and none of my concern in that part of those posts. The argument there isn't about you, see ?

 

Unless you can read my mind and know how I respond to things then you were hypothesizing about them. But if it makes you feel better to think it's OK for you to do this when others apparently can't, because your so much more brilliant than everyone else, then, hey, who am I to stop you? Have at it, man...

 

I have another way, even more mysterious to you than mindreading, of knowing how you respond to my posts: I read your responses ! That way, I don't have to hypothesize about what they might be !

Try it, with my posts. It may prove enlightening.

 

You read my responses and then attempted to describe the thought process and motive which you think generates said responses. You have no way of knowing that. So nice try, but try again. Or you could just admit you said something foolish and we'll move on to something more important...

 

No, I did not. I said this:

So far, so good - description the best prediction, as usual.

Now, about my several links and pile of evidence and arguments therefrom that W is not a simple incompetent, but something much more dangerous as well: any thoughts?

 

If Bush a future great, then none will dare call it treason.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I posted a thread regarding the absence of any crassh debris in view at the Pentagon attack site and the Shankesville, Pa., site. Both sites should have had the ground covered with aluminum scraps, engine modules, main gear and so on. A couple of years ago Bush responded to the scenario I descriibed as persons [making comment about the review of the media files recorded on 911] are looking for "Phantom Terrorists".

Here is a Phgantom Link to consider.
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/bradm/911index/pentagon.html

Whether, the lack of crasj debris scenario is as I have described it, or otherwise, the media record has sufficient data, in the form of an absence of data, that demands at the very least, some investivgation by a responsible agency, into the allegations. If the Pentagon and Shankesville sites were, indeed, void in crash debris consistent with aircraft with wingspans of over 100 feet, 9 foogt diameter fan jet engines, for the President to so cavalierly dismiss any discussion of the allegations is, in my humble opinion, gross incompetence to the level of being an impeachable offense. Me thinks he knows much more about 911 than meets the eye.

You can go on your merry way believing that the future hiustorians will jiudge Bush as "Great President",

Well, I reflect on a old adage, the source of which escapes me, but it goes something like this.: "If the conspirators in a treasonous activity are successful in their evil plot, then none will dare call it treason."
So Miss, you may be correct after all.
Geistkiesel​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You a friend of Rosie's?

http://www.rosie.com/blog/2007/03/15/wtc-7/

 

Yes, you did. Read what you wrote. I told you that I did something reluctantly and your response was to posit that what I told you was bullshit, because after reading my posts, you and and your supreme powers of intellect are able to divine what my "first reaction" and my "most natural" response is "in all situations."

You have no way of knowing that, therefore your statement is outrageous, and now, for some ridiculous reason (Pride? Arrogance?) you won't back away from it...

So say whatever you want. I'm done in this thread. You've totally derailed it for me...

 

Not "is": was. I was talking about your posts in response to mine, in all situations so far, see? That was the topic, there. You claimed to have just then, reluctantly, decided to deliver insult and personal attack. Comical assertion, that, more or less pithily dealt with. Could have ended any time.

Including the latest ones. I observed you were derailed, complained about it, specifically requested you rerail your responses to my posts, and now you blame me for derailing you.

I suppose that's easier than dealing with the actual arguments, of which there is now quite a backlog unconsidered, but hey - -

So: anyone else have any argument from any evidence to counter the multiple links and piles of evidence and argument contending that W is not merely failing, but up to no good in the first place ?

 

Dang this thread is still goin' on? I crack up every time I read the title of it, haha.

- N

 

Of course you do. Let me guess. You think Clinton was a good president

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!