What should we do about bin Laden?

ziggy wrote:A whole lot more than 2/10ths of one percent of Americans disagree with Bush about Iraq.

Yes, but they don't agree with your liberal politics.

TerryRC wrote:A whole lot more than 2/10ths of one percent of Americans disagree with Bush about Iraq.

It is more like 2/3 of Americans think that Bush has been doing a sub-par job.

Probably a little higher then that. And it still doesn't make them liberals like you and Ziggy.

Aaron wrote:

TerryRC wrote:A whole lot more than 2/10ths of one percent of Americans disagree with Bush about Iraq.

It is more like 2/3 of Americans think that Bush has been doing a sub-par job.

Probably a little higher then that. And it still doesn't make them liberals like you and Ziggy.

And so your point is what- that one does not have to be a liberal to realize that The Decider is a doofus?

Good work, Sherlock.

ziggy wrote:
And so your point is what- that one does not have to be a liberal to realize that The Decider is a doofus?

Good work, Sherlock.

Thanks Homes...appreciate that.

My point is, that even though 70% (your numbers a little low) may think GWB is doing a sub-par job, 99% still think your politics are pretty much bunk.

And it's amazing to me that someone who couldn't even pay himself from his own business is calling a successful businessman, governor of the largest state and 2 term President of the United States a doofus.

He’s obviously much more successful then you could even dream about so if he’s a doofus, what exactly does that make you?

Aaron wrote:Thanks Homes...appreciate that.

My point is, that even though 70% (your numbers a little low) may think GWB is doing a sub-par job, 99% still think your politics are pretty much bunk.

And it's amazing to me that someone who couldn't even pay himself from his own business is calling a successful businessman, governor of the largest state and 2 term President of the United States a doofus.

He’s obviously much more successful then you could even dream about so if he’s a doofus, what exactly does that make you?

That depends on what you mean by "couldn't even pay himself from his own business" and by "successful".

Some people would say that Lyndon Johson was "successful". You say that Bush was /is "successful". But the fact is that both lead this country into and/or deeper into unnecessary wars- based on years and years of one goddamned lie after another. And that will be their legacies forever.

If that's what "success" is, then I don't want any part of it.

Btw, I still receive a tidy monthly income from the business I ran for twenty-three years and sold- part of it for "cash" 8 years ago, and the rest 6 years ago- which I financed at 8 percent interest. How? It's a part of that compounded interest I was telling you about yesterday, and which you obviously still don't have a clue about.

In 7 years George Bush spends billions of dollars that neither he nor the nation has, and on which your grandchildrten we will be paying interest- compounded interest- for decades. And you call that success.

Yet I defy the odds of small business success and operate an honest business for 23 years, sell it for what its buyers and I agree it's worth, finance about 60 percent of that at 8 percent compounded monthly, and so have a continuing respectable income from it, and you and SamCogar poopoo that as some kind of failure to succeed.

You have a screwed up, even FUBARed to borrow a Cogarism, notion of what constitutes "success".

I would say that what we call "success" in this country is frequently off the mark, left or right.

For example, I know of people who take care of ailing elders, in situations very dire and difficult, with no one applauding. That kind of selflessness I call "success," I would be ten times prouder of my boy if he did that than if he ran a baseball team or was the President.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Thanks Homes...appreciate that.

My point is, that even though 70% (your numbers a little low) may think GWB is doing a sub-par job, 99% still think your politics are pretty much bunk.

And it's amazing to me that someone who couldn't even pay himself from his own business is calling a successful businessman, governor of the largest state and 2 term President of the United States a doofus.

He’s obviously much more successful then you could even dream about so if he’s a doofus, what exactly does that make you?

That depends on what you mean by "couldn't even pay himself from his own business" and by "successful".

Some people would say that Lyndon Johson was "successful". You say that Bush was /is "successful". But the fact is that both lead this country into and/or deeper into unnecessary wars- based on years and years of one goddamned lie after another. And that will be their legacies forever.

If that's what "success" is, then I don't want any part of it.

Btw, I still receive a tidy monthly income from the business I ran for twenty-three years and sold- part of it for "cash" 8 years ago, and the rest 6 years ago- which I financed at 8 percent interest. How? It's a part of that compounded interest I was telling you about yesterday, and which you obviously still don't have a clue about.

In 7 years George Bush spends billions of dollars that neither he nor the nation has, and on which your grandchildrten we will be paying interest- compounded interest- for decades. And you call that success.

Yet I defy the odds of small business success and operate an honest business for 23 years, sell it for what its buyers and I agree it's worth, finance about 60 percent of that at 8 percent compounded monthly, and so have a continuing respectable income from it, and you and SamCogar poopoo that as some kind of failure to succeed.

You have a screwed up, even FUBARed to borrow a Cogarism, notion of what constitutes "success".

Pride goeth before the fall AND it's an aboimination before God. You might want to work on that dude. It's really not very becoming of you. But hey, that's just me.

As for GWB, he's one of 43 men to lead this great nation. He's screwed the pooch on some things, been very successful on others and and average on the majority, had to deal with a bit more then some joke blowing smoke in his face, but all and all, given his resume, yeah, I'd say it's just a tad more impressive then that of a tow truck driver. Once again though, that's just me.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
And so your point is what- that one does not have to be a liberal to realize that The Decider is a doofus?

Good work, Sherlock.

Thanks Homes...appreciate that.

My point is, that even though 70% (your numbers a little low) may think GWB is doing a sub-par job, 99% still think your politics are pretty much bunk.

And it's amazing to me that someone who couldn't even pay himself from his own business is calling a successful businessman, governor of the largest state and 2 term President of the United States a doofus.

He’s obviously much more successful then you could even dream about so if he’s a doofus, what exactly does that make you?

Bush was a lousy businessman who stole taxpayer dollars using a quasi-governmental authority he invented. Texas is not really the largest state, and to say he "governed" is a stretch. The Governor of Texas is extremely weak, and Bush governed the way he has for the bulk of his Presidency....by letting everyone else do his thinking for him.

SheikBen wrote:I would say that what we call "success" in this country is frequently off the mark, left or right.

For example, I know of people who take care of ailing elders, in situations very dire and difficult, with no one applauding. That kind of selflessness I call "success," I would be ten times prouder of my boy if he did that than if he ran a baseball team or was the President.

Right on, Michael! You know, I read Aaron's post about how successful the "W" is because he was elected president and I wouldn't call him a successful President. Yes he won the White House, but he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and in many respects the way was paved for him by his parents. I don't think his success at winning the presidency was as impressive of that of Bill Clinton. I can't stomach Clinton, but he didn't have the advantages that GWB had.

I look at his daughters and see two pretty decent young women. I see a couple of girls who obviously have genuine love and admiration their father. That's what I see as his success.

As far as our friend Ziggy is concerned, imho he is a pretty darn successful man, at least what I know of him. He has a marriage that has lasted decades. He has raised a family and run his own business. He has developed and maintained lifelong friendships. He is true to his convictions and he's comfortable in his own skin. Yeah, I think Ziggy has been every bit as successful as our current President, if not more so. While I have no doubt Ziggy came from a loving home, he never had a trust fund or an Ivy League legacy.

Congrats, Ziggy.

SFCraig wrote:Bush was a lousy businessman who stole taxpayer dollars using a quasi-governmental authority he invented. Texas is not really the largest state, and to say he "governed" is a stretch. The Governor of Texas is extremely weak, and Bush governed the way he has for the bulk of his Presidency....by letting everyone else do his thinking for him.

Nothing but pure unadulterated Bush hating partisan tripe.

Stephanie wrote:
Right on, Michael! You know, I read Aaron's post about how successful the "W" is because he was elected president and I wouldn't call him a successful President. Yes he won the White House, but he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and in many respects the way was paved for him by his parents. I don't think his success at winning the presidency was as impressive of that of Bill Clinton. I can't stomach Clinton, but he didn't have the advantages that GWB had.

Are you serious?

Steph, ...... tell me, ........ just why did the DNC pick Bill Clinton as their POTUS candidate ......... over all the other possible ones?

Here are some "impressive" clues:

1992 Democratic presidential primary candidates

Bill Clinton
Jerry Brown
Paul Tsongas
Penn. Gov. Robert P. Casey
Rep. Pat Schroeder
Larry Agran
Al Gore

Many well-known Democrats who were potential candidates who did not run included:

House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri
Governor Mario Cuomo of New York
Representative Pat Schroeder of Colorado
Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas
Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey
Senator Al Gore of Tennessee
Reverend Jesse Jackson of Illinois
former Senator George McGovern of South Dakota
Representative Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma
Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia
Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia
Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

The DNC et el ........ did not want to win the WH ......... and Clinton was their "losing pick".

Clinton wasn't supposed to win, ....... the DNC wanted the Republicans to win.

The US economy had all the "signs" of sliding farther into the septic tank ...... and the Democrats didn't want to be in the "driver's seat" when it hit bottom.

And neither did "Read My Lips" Bush I.

.

I think "Bumpers" is the greatest name ever.

Probably a little higher then that. And it still doesn't make them liberals like you and Ziggy.

So I must be a liberal even though you just stated that you don't have to be a liberal to think Bush has done a suck job?

Did your parents amuse themselves by poking their fingers in your soft spot when you were an infant?

Sam,

I said what I meant and I meant what I said. You think the party expected and wanted Bubba to be a loser? That may be, but that would only make his victory all the more impressive.

Stop making me say anything good about that creep. Ew

Didn't mean to delete the post...

What it said was...

Why do you a problem with the term liberal. It clearly describes many of your posted points of views!!!

Aaron wrote:

SFCraig wrote:Bush was a lousy businessman who stole taxpayer dollars using a quasi-governmental authority he invented. Texas is not really the largest state, and to say he "governed" is a stretch. The Governor of Texas is extremely weak, and Bush governed the way he has for the bulk of his Presidency....by letting everyone else do his thinking for him.

Nothing but pure unadulterated Bush hating partisan tripe.

What? What is it that you disagree with? Bush's oil business failed, did it not? Even while others thrived and he had the advantage of name recognition and wealthy investors. The Sports Authority was a landgrab, paid for by Texans but cashed out by Bush for millions.

RE: Texas. Many states have weak executives by design. Texas is one of them. Try to stick to "fact-based" realities here.

Stephanie wrote: I don't think his success at winning the presidency was as impressive of that of Bill Clinton. I can't stomach Clinton, but he didn't have the advantages that GWB had.



Congrats, Ziggy.

I would add that I don't think even the DNC "wanted" Bill. In truth, I think much of Bill's detractors were more mad that a poor hillbilly "won" the office. He was not considered good enough to be President (in this land where "anyone can be President").

And certainly not better than Bush the Elder's blueblood credentials.

Classism, pure and simple.

And I agree about Ziggy. We should all be so successful.

SFCraig wrote:I would add that I don't think even the DNC "wanted" Bill. In truth, I think much of Bill's detractors were more mad that a poor hillbilly "won" the office. He was not considered good enough to be President (in this land where "anyone can be President").

And certainly not better than Bush the Elder's blueblood credentials.

Classism, pure and simple.

And that's why Ross Perot didn't get elected, ...... credentials and classism, ....... RIGHT?

SFCraig wrote:And I agree about Ziggy. We should all be so successful.

You two calling "shidthouse luck" as being successful.

Or do ya mean like ..... "successful at living good on welfare all your life"?

.

Luck plays a role in everyone's life, Sam. What you do with the luck you receive, good and bad, is what determines how successful, or unsuccessful, you are.

Like rapists, murderers and bank robbers who are "lucky enough" to not get caught ....... are all successful people, ...... right?

.

They're successful criminals.

Why do you a problem with the term liberal. It clearly describes many of your posted points of views!!!

Like what, Aaron?

I'm against hate crime laws, universal health care, affirmative action, and am not keen on the UN, social security and the public school system (as it exists now).

I am for the unrestricted bearing of arms by non-felons, privatization of the space industry and the death penalty.

What is "liberal" about any of those things?

I don't care that you call me a liberal. If I was one, I'm sure I would be proud of it. What I care about is that you refer to me incorrectly and use that as an argument ender - "You don't understand because you are a liberal."

It is poor and unethical debating, on your part.

I think you would rather be righteous than right.

I didn't say it described ALL of your beliefs. I said liberal described the stance you've taken in the points you discuss with me. It's been that way for over a year now.

Also Terry I would point out that you appear to believe in Science and reason.

Many times those on the Right equate that with being "liberal." LOL...

Aaron wrote:As for GWB, he's one of 43 men to lead this great nation. He's screwed the pooch on some things, been very successful on others and and average on the majority, had to deal with a bit more then some joke blowing smoke in his face, but all and all, given his resume, yeah, I'd say it's just a tad more impressive then that of a tow truck driver. Once again though, that's just me.

No, it's not just you. The tendency to try and build up our heroes by talking down to or about someone else is pervasive in much of America..

If the best you can do to try to make GWB "just a tad more impressive" is to try to belittle a tow truck driver, then that tells us more about both you and GWB than about any tow truck driver.

Bush is not a failure as a tow truck driver. He is a failure as president- more specifically as Commander-in-Chief.