Back to Home > Bulletin Board > TV News Corner > Topic: more than 61 percent of the historians say the cur

Topic: more than 61 percent of the historians say the cur

1–10 out of 10 messages
Author Message
mbinthetank Posted – 4/16/2008 10:19:23 PM | show profile
wow 7 and a half years of HISTORY? oh, i just put a coat of paint on my office wall 1 minute ago and guess what..it is still wet. darn paint wont dry. worst paint in the worrrld!! oh, you mean i have to WAIT for it to dry! you mean you can't put time in the microwave to make it history faster? if in 20-50 years time (actual history) shows bush was terrible then so be it.
thevertman Posted – 4/21/2008 8:11:27 AM | show profile
Bush is a visionary? LMAO Bwahahaha, Rotflmao...omg nothing in life is that funny. *Gasping for breath* LOL, omg...so funny. If Bush is a visionary so am I.
anovelfate Posted – 4/21/2008 12:41:38 PM | show profile
History
Time must pass and a great deal of it before GWB's presidency can be investigated for merit or lack thereof.
PluckyPane Posted – 4/21/2008 12:51:31 PM | show profile
well one thing's for sure, gwb has redefined what it means to be a conservative. reagan's hailed as the great conservative of all time and the benchmark for all conservative ideologies since 1981, but reagan was more in line with mccain's idea of conservative than gwb. gwb is tooo far right, as in neocon. strangest movement i've ever seen.
chucho Posted – 4/21/2008 1:17:52 PM | show profile
Truman had a little sign on his desk: "the buck stops here".

Bush has consistently passed that buck to his subordinates, blaming them for faulty intelligence, for the stuff that has come from embarrassing leaks, for Abu Ghraib.

It would be a disgrace to compare the two.

What isn't disgraceful is Frank's admiration for Boooooosh. That's just predictable.

PS: Calling liberals morons in one post then complaining about name-calling libs in another is so embarrassingly lacking in self awareness.
thevertman Posted – 4/21/2008 1:38:58 PM | show profile
So now we need to wait and see? I thought the FNC docucrap told us all we needed to know? Talk about shameless promotion on network supposedly 'fair and balanced'.

One thing I believe is Bush won't be solely judged on his own merits. He'll be judged by the cronies and criminals he's had in his administration. Donald Dumsfeld, worst Defense Sec of all time. Condi Rice, she's screwed up two jobs in 8 years. Michael Brown, unqualified boob who screwed up Katrina response. Scooter Libby, anti-american coward outed a cia agent.
PluckyPane Posted – 4/21/2008 4:25:43 PM | show profile
thevertman.....you left out the biggest criminal of them all: cheney.
al medio Posted – 4/21/2008 4:49:41 PM | show profile
Worst Defense Sec. of all time.
Donald Rumsfeld won two wars but couldn't secure peace.That will not place him ahead of Robert F McNamara, as the worst Defense Sec of all time. Not to mention Melvin Laird.
chucho Posted – 4/24/2008 3:01:58 PM | show profile
>> 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine <<

Send me the list. I can't wait to read it!


Also: Clinton was president eight years ago.

Also: And Clinton is relevant to Donald Rumsfeld's performance HOW?

I love this particular reply from Frank because it's like the TURKEN of obfuscating replies: it's a dead horse stuffed with straw man stuffed with a non sequitur.

Also: Don't you think it gets kind of lame that whenever somebody criticizes somebody in the Bush administration, you're best response is to drag Clinton into the debate? I mean, he was president when I was in college and i've been out of college for quite a while now.

Also: don;t forget to provide the list of the 47 people "associated with the Clinton machine". And if I play "Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon" I can associate you with Charles Manson.

Oh crap, I just dragged myself into your pointless argument. So now, instead of discussing the merits of Donald Rumsfeld's performance, we get to discuss your list of 47 people who did bad things that were associated with a president who held office when Nirvana was starting to become superstars.
chucho Posted – 4/25/2008 5:33:26 AM | show profile
Yeah, I think I received a pamphlet form some guy on the subway about all of this.

Please. If I posted left-wing versions of websites like this (and that other one you posted from that "Families for God, Country and Apple Pie") you'd dismiss it as lib-ril propaganda.

I am pretty careful in my citations. For example, recently I posted a link to Frontline about health insurance in America compared to other countries. Whatever you think about Frontline, it is like a 30-year-old instituion with very experienced reporters.

Then when I ask you for references, you send me websites like this?

This is typical of the conservative. He's free to post anything that jives with his world view, but liberals can only cite form Conservative Apprived(tm) sources of information.

As I mentioned before: I made a mistake by falling into the typical trap that goes like this:

PROGRESSIVE: "I don't like Rumsfeld because of X"

CONSERVATIVE: "Well, CLINTON, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH."

PROGRESSIVE: "What? Clinton BLAH BLAH BLAH."

CONSERVATIVE: "Yes, CLinton BLAH BLAH BLAH ... because I read it on this website, here: read for yourself."

PROGRESSIVE: "Wiat a second. Weren't we talking about RUmsfeld?"

CONSEREVATIVE: "Yes, but you forgot: CLINTON BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

PROGRESSIVE: "Wait. Clinton was president eight years ago. I don't want to talk about Clinton. I want to talk about this current war in Iraq and how we go there!"

CONSERVATIVE: "Well, CLINTON BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH."

This gets a little old after a while.
1–10 out of 10 messages