Dubya gets some respect, finally


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Dubya gets some respect, finally

Postby mike renfro » Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:49 am

According to an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune, a right wing rag which makes Fox News seem like a bunch of pinkos, There is a Proposition S on the San Francisco ballot which would rename a wastewater treatment plant the "George W Bush Sewage Treatment Plant". The voters phamplet pro argument was in the form of a haiku (I didn't count sylables.

Need Bush memor'l?
Sweage plant available.
How appropriate.

You rock George!
mike renfro
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Dubya gets some respect, finally

Postby Daisy » Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:55 am

I heard of this. At first I thought it was bad for him but on second thoughts is it so bad? A sewage plant take crap and turn it into water (sometimes drinkable). Is that so bad?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:00 am

It's Prop R, not S and here's a rebuttal (on a Cal site):

As of this writing, 4139 servicemen and women have been killed since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The number of Iraqis who have been killed as a result of the invasion and occupation of their country cannot be measured. The proponents of this measure may consider the Bush Administration to be a joke. However, the consequences of the decision to invade are not a laughing matter for families of those who have died during the past five years. This measure, whatever its intentions, disrespects them.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby bad hammy » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:00 am

I think it is Measure R. In any event, it is pretty bad when the guy who is writing the arguments against the measure says:

Arguments against Measure R wrote:I agree that the invasion of Iraq is the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the US. I also agree that Bush has been the most ignorant man to ever occupy the office of President. To call him the worst President since Warren Harding is to insult the memory of Harding, who at least did not enter this country into any unnecessary wars.


http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/sf/meas/R/
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:00 am

Very funny as a Daily Show jape, but in real life I think that's in exceedingly poor taste and is an unacceptable denigration of the land's highest official. (Seriously)
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Mennisco » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:13 am

gh wrote:Very funny as a Daily Show jape, but in real life I think that's in exceedingly poor taste and is an unacceptable denigration of the land's highest official. (Seriously)


Even if he's committed multiple atrocious denigrations of the land's highest office, and only has the support of 25% of the population - Bush is nothing short of despicable, and being President of the United States should in no way command respect when the office has been dumped on and disrespected beyond the pale. Respect is earned, not commanded.

btw that 25% support ain't coming out of Mensa, rest assured.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:01 pm

Mennisco wrote:
gh wrote:Very funny as a Daily Show jape, but in real life I think that's in exceedingly poor taste and is an unacceptable denigration of the land's highest official. (Seriously)


Even if he's committed multiple atrocious denigrations of the land's highest office, and only has the support of 25% of the population - Bush is nothing short of despicable, and being President of the United States should in no way command respect when the office has been dumped on and disrespected beyond the pale. Respect is earned, not commanded.

btw that 25% support ain't coming out of Mensa, rest assured.

Be careful there. Some of our fellow track fans would vote for Bush again if it were constitutional for him to run again. Having said that, there's no doubt that internationally, Bush will go down in history as our most despised president ever.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:08 pm

jazzcyclist wrote: Having said that, there's no doubt that internationally, Bush will go down in history as our most despised president ever.


passage of time may judge him better

9/11 happened on his watch & he had to do something to protect his country

many smarter guys if they'd been in his shoes may have done worse...
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby gm » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:08 pm

My only thought on this... what a load of crap.
gm
 
Posts: 4556
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby bad hammy » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:14 pm

gm wrote:My only thought on this... what a load of crap.

The GW Bush Wastewater Treatment Plant will take care of that . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby dukehjsteve » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:19 pm

I respect the office of the Presidency, and I even respect that George W. Bush tried to do what he ( with the advice of others such as Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc.) thought was right to do. Having said that, I can say that he is for sure the worst President is US history. Let me repeat that just to be sure it is clear: George W. Bush is the worst President in US history. Franklin Pierce, Warren Harding, etc., move over. GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY.
Last edited by dukehjsteve on Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:21 pm

eldrick wrote:passage of time may judge him better

9/11 happened on his watch & he had to do something to protect his country

He had to do Afghanistan, he didn't have to do Iraq.

eldrick wrote:many smarter guys if they'd been in his shoes may have done worse...

Can you name one?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:23 pm

dukehjsteve wrote:GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY.

Sadly, I agree.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:24 pm

Marlow wrote:
dukehjsteve wrote:GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY.

Sadly, I agree.

Amen! :!:
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:28 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
eldrick wrote:passage of time may judge him better

9/11 happened on his watch & he had to do something to protect his country

He had to do Afghanistan, he didn't have to do Iraq


personally, i feel he had to do iraq for what his pa failed to do

eldrick wrote:many smarter guys if they'd been in his shoes may have done worse...

Can you name one?


al gore
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby gh » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:32 pm

dukehjsteve wrote:I respect the office of the Presidency, and I even respect that George W. Bush tried to do what he ( with the advice of others such as Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc.) thought was right to do. Having said that, I can say that he is for sure the worst President is US history. Let me repeat that just to be sure is is clear: George W. Bush is the worst President in US hisotory. Franklin Pierce, Warren Harding, etc., move over. GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY.


Even if all that is true, I believe it is disrespectful to the office, and its integrity shouldn't be compromised by a juvenile stunt.
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby cullman » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:35 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:
dukehjsteve wrote:GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY.

Sadly, I agree.

Amen! :!:

Hold on thar...you guys got the double whammy of James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce who fiddled while America was splitting apart. I think they deserve a little more consideration for the top step of the podium.

cman :?:
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:46 pm

eldrick wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
eldrick wrote:passage of time may judge him better

9/11 happened on his watch & he had to do something to protect his country

He had to do Afghanistan, he didn't have to do Iraq


personally, i feel he had to do iraq for what his pa failed to do

So you condone him spending our nation's blood and treasure to protect his family's honor? :?

eldrick wrote:
eldrick wrote:many smarter guys if they'd been in his shoes may have done worse...

Can you name one?


al gore

Wrong! Gore spoke out against the war before it started and called out the sinister neocons who were behind it.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:00 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:So you condone him spending our nation's blood and treasure to protect his family's honor? :?


only shedding blood which wouda, shouda been shed 12y before

Wrong! Gore spoke out against the war before it started and called out the sinister neocons who were behind it.


& if he had done nothing, you might have been looking at another 1/2 dozen 9/11s

war in iraq showed terrorists worldwide 1 thing - america had a big stick & were prepared to use it, probably saving you from many more attacks
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby mike renfro » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:13 pm

gh wrote:Very funny as a Daily Show jape, but in real life I think that's in exceedingly poor taste and is an unacceptable denigration of the land's highest official. (Seriously)


Garry, I don't live in the bay area anymore, but my understanding is that the prop does not designate a President of the United States Wastewater Treatment Plant. Last I looked, the person holding the office was not there by divine right, and is fair game.
mike renfro
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: San Diego

Postby dukehjsteve » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:19 pm

gh wrote:
dukehjsteve wrote:I respect the office of the Presidency, and I even respect that George W. Bush tried to do what he ( with the advice of others such as Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc.) thought was right to do. Having said that, I can say that he is for sure the worst President is US history. Let me repeat that just to be sure is is clear: George W. Bush is the worst President in US hisotory. Franklin Pierce, Warren Harding, etc., move over. GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY.


Even if all that is true, I believe it is disrespectful to the office, and its integrity shouldn't be compromised by a juvenile stunt.


And I agree with that.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Postby bad hammy » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:33 pm

eldrick wrote:war in iraq showed terrorists worldwide 1 thing . . .

Yep, that under certain circumstances the US can be just about the dumbest country on earth . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:43 pm

eldrick wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:So you condone him spending our nation's blood and treasure to protect his family's honor? :?


only shedding blood which wouda, shouda been shed 12y before

Your casual disregard for innocent life sounds like something an 18th century king might say. I'm glad Poppa Bush sees it my way.
George H. W. Bush wrote:Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect rule Iraq. There was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome.


eldrick wrote:
Wrong! Gore spoke out against the war before it started and called out the sinister neocons who were behind it.


& if he had done nothing, you might have been looking at another 1/2 dozen 9/11s

war in iraq showed terrorists worldwide 1 thing - america had a big stick & were prepared to use it, probably saving you from many more attacks

That's pretty neat the way you changed the subject. First you said Gore would have invaded Iraq. Then when I disproved that, you tried to tie Iraq to 9/11, despite the fact that even Bush himself admits that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. But it doesn't seem to matter to you that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They ARE all Arabs after all. I thought you were better than that eldrick. :(
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:16 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Your casual disregard for innocent life sounds like something an 18th century king might say. I'm glad Poppa Bush sees it my way.
George H. W. Bush wrote:Trying to eliminate Saddam..


i'm from a country which saw unimagineable sacrifice on the western front '14 - '18

we know how to shed blood & tough it out

as for pa bush, he wouda got a UN mandate to invade if he wanted & extrication/occupation wouda been a UN problem - likely handled better than US alone but if not, iraqi civil war was price worth paying for kuwait & saudi's long term safety

That's pretty neat the way you changed the subject. First you said Gore would have invaded Iraq. Then when I disproved that, you tried to tie Iraq to 9/11, despite the fact that even Bush himself admits that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. But it doesn't seem to matter to you that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They ARE all Arabs after all. I thought you were better than that eldrick. :(


no need to change subject ( & afganis are not arabic & i'm happy that was invaded as well - i was more interested in western allies being protected in '91 & '03 & their oil )

what gore said & what he wouda done if in the hotseat is completely unknown

it hardly needs pointing out democrats are well capable of going to war - look up who was prez when US went into :

- ww1
- ww2
- korea
- vietnam
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:48 pm

eldrick wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Your casual disregard for innocent life sounds like something an 18th century king might say. I'm glad Poppa Bush sees it my way.
George H. W. Bush wrote:Trying to eliminate Saddam..


i'm from a country which saw unimagineable sacrifice on the western front '14 - '18

we know how to shed blood & tough it out

as for pa bush, he wouda got a UN mandate to invade if he wanted & extrication/occupation wouda been a UN problem - likely handled better than US alone but if not, iraqi civil war was price worth paying for kuwait & saudi's long term safety

That's pretty neat the way you changed the subject. First you said Gore would have invaded Iraq. Then when I disproved that, you tried to tie Iraq to 9/11, despite the fact that even Bush himself admits that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. But it doesn't seem to matter to you that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They ARE all Arabs after all. I thought you were better than that eldrick. :(


no need to change subject ( & afganis are not arabic & i'm happy that was invaded as well - i was more interested in western allies being protected in '91 & '03 & their oil )

what gore said & what he wouda done if in the hotseat is completely unknown

it hardly needs pointing out democrats are well capable of going to war - look up who was prez when US went into :

- ww1
- ww2
- korea
- vietnam

It's funny how you talk about what "we" did in 1914-18. Were "we" alive in 1914-18? I guess I just place a higher value on life than you do eldrick, but to each his own.

And in case you didn't know it, the folks who perpetrated 9/11 were Arabs like the Iraqis, not Afghans. As for Gore, you have nothing to support you assertion that Gore would have invaded Iraq, while his pre-War statements indicate that he wouldn't have. And I don't know what the actions of other Democratic Presidents has to do with anything. I never claimed this was a partisan issue.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:05 pm

go to any decent school in GB & you are extensively taught about war history, a subject re-inforced by walking into the assembly hall for morning prayers & seeing the huge embossed board showing all he alumni who died in both wars, some barely 18

as for the rest, many of the terrorists trained in afghanistan ( as if that needed mentioning )

as for gore - you have no idea of his thoughts under pressure - his claims of origin of the web & his flawed eco film give no confidence in the reliability of his statements

the mention of democratic prezs' is to demonstrate they have no hesitation in going to war
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:44 pm

eldrick wrote:go to any decent school in GB & you are extensively taught about war history, a subject re-inforced by walking into the assembly hall for morning prayers & seeing the huge embossed board showing all he alumni who died in both wars, some barely 18

as for the rest, many of the terrorists trained in afghanistan ( as if that needed mentioning )

as for gore - you have no idea of his thoughts under pressure - his claims of origin of the web & his flawed eco film give no confidence in the reliability of his statements

the mention of democratic prezs' is to demonstrate they have no hesitation in going to war

I agree that Democratic Presidents can be just as reckless as Republican Presidents. As a matter of fact, historically, they've been more reckless. But what does that have to do with Gore? Surely you don't judge people by whether they have a "D" or an "R" in front of their name, do you?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:55 pm

jazzcyclist wrote: Surely you don't judge people by whether they have a "D" or an "R" in front of their name, do you?


it indicates the "machinery" that supports a democratic prez has no qualms in going to war - no particular pacifist leanings
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests