Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board. (The 2012 window is now closed; thanks for playing.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 :
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.
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 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?
