Bush is a hero

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

#181052 Aug 8, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't regret my choices either.
You dont have to tell us. We know how you feel about that effin liberal War Monger.........

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181053 Aug 8, 2014
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody said, "It's none of our business and should be handled by the locals."
The comment was based on W's statement: "I mean, seriously - do you really think the United States should get involved in the sectarian fighting in Iraq (again) AND get sucked into the Syrian civil war?"
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>
In terms of annihilation ability, there is no meaningful difference between Krushchev's capabilities, and Putin's. Dead is dead, in all centuries, in all languages.
Point was,(and still is), those past leaders would've had to go NUCLEAR to accomplish their evil agenda, a huge drastic step, deadly to the entire world. Putin can accomplish his with just his military capabilities. Example: He was able to shoot down a civilian passenger jet from 32K feet, when that option was never available to him b4.
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>Your alternative history reminds me of the John Belushi SNL routine, "What if Napoleon had a B-52 at Waterloo?"
Alternative history??
Reagan told Mr Gorbechev "Tear Down This Wall". Shortly thereafter the wall came down.
Obama: "Mr Putin, remove your troops from Ukraine." The Kremlin would likely erupt into uncontrollable laughter.

GHW Bush said: "This will not stand!" Shortly thereafter Hussein was ejected from Kuwait.
Obama draws a red line in Syria, and turns into a shrinking violet when Assad calls his bluff.

GW Bush's history is still recent enough to forego the need to revisit. But he took action.
Obama sits on his......hands....and is "analyizing the situation(s)."

The only leg you had to stand on was Romney, because he had no WH track record. But I'll still speculate he would NOT be standing around with his thumb up his a$$, while world thugs are throwing the globe into "destabilization"
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>
It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion when one party gets to make up any "facts" they like for rebuttal. A drunken ramble - oh, yeah, been there done that. "What if Lee had Stuart's cavalry at Gettysburg one day earlier?," or "What if the filling in Twinkies is actually made by aliens to fatten us up for the kill?" Good stuff, there's nowhere you can't go. As Dr. Seuss wrote, "Oh, The Thinks You Can Think."
But it has nothing to do with what really happened on such and such day in history. What President X might have done is pure mental masturbation, which is basically a one-man show. You go ahead, but please spread a tarp or something.
Yada yada yada. I gave up trying to have a "meaningful discussion" with you ages ago, when you decided it was much more important for you to beat other posters over the head, knock 'em to the ground, and then kick 'em until they're seconds from death, all in your endless effort to highlight your formal debating skills, your elevated vocabulary, and your self-anointed position as "Misinformation Czar.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181054 Aug 8, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>bobby, bobby, bobby.
No matter how hard to try, no matter how loud you yell it, no matter how much you wish it so - who sits in the White House isn't the reason for the opinions I'm offering.
Never said it was YOUR reason. But it was YOU that told ME it didn't matter who sat in the WH. And it was ME that told YOU, I believe it does matter.
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
Geography (proximity) and economic interdependence place severe restrictions on the options the US has regarding Putin and Russia. It's a known fact that Presidents Eisenhower, Johnson and Bush couldn't stop previous Russian violations of the sovereignty of other nations - for one or both of the same damn reasons. It's an exaggeration of the Afghan war was unconstitutional proportions to say Putin is a greater threat now than the Soviet Union was.
I'll agree Putin will pay an enormous price for crossing over into eastern Ukraine. But Putin is threatening and Obama throws cotton balls at him. Putin is obsessed with restoring the power of the former USSR. He's already clearly stated that. Left unchecked, Putin has
NO deterrent to keep him from slowly regaining that power.

And what's the UN doing? Issuing paper condemnations! So what if Ukraine isn't a NATO country. NATO has acted b4 on behalf of non-NATO countries.
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
Air strikes can accomplish certain things, including the current mission(s) undertaken. That said, they alone cannot defeat, and probably couldn't even severely restrict, the ability of ISIS to continue to attack the Iraqi government. I'm not stupid enough to think we could EVER have a conversation about how Iraq got to the point that it was vulnerable to an ISIS (if not them, it would have been somebody else), because you're so focused on Obama you barely acknowledge that the Iraqi government exists at all.
Hogwash. Airstrikes would've been MUCH more "productive" several months ago when ISIS was streaming across the OPEN desert in western Iraq. But where was Obama when all this was happening? Studying the situation?

I'm quite aware of the Malaki, majority Shi'ia government in Iraq. The Mullahs in Iran are the ones jerking Malaki's strings most likely, and Iran favors the ISIS army destabilizing the region. If nothing else, it takes the focus off of Iran's Nuclear ambitions.
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
Either you misunderstood what I'm saying, or you are deliberately twisting my words, but I never said the situations in Ukraine or Iraq/Syria had to be handled by the locals. I have talked about the sovereignty of the nations involved, but that's not the same thing.
As I just posted for your cyber-pal, my comments were based on your previous statement:

WWW wrote: "I mean, seriously - do you really think the United States should get involved in the sectarian fighting in Iraq (again) AND get sucked into the Syrian civil war?"

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181055 Aug 8, 2014
Other than the occasional deployment of NATO forces, the United Nations is a useless entity (IMO)and is in DIRE need of reformation.

A legitimate, viable body for heading off world crises, or solving them once they've already started, CANNOT have human rights violators or despots in leadership positions, or SC chairmen, or chairmen of ANY other UN department, simply because their name was next in the rotation. That's RIDICULOUS!

These "diplomats" constantly break the law, tho mostly (but not ALL) are traffic laws, then are able to declare immunity. Most of them also constantly bad-mouth the US, even while the same country they represent are receiving BILLIONS of US tax dollars in foreign aid.

Well, I believe it's LONG past time to send the UN packing. I want them completely out of the US permanently! They can move to the Netherlands and occupy a building near the Hague. Or they can just go straight to HELL!(IMO)

:-(

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#181056 Aug 8, 2014
bad bob wrote:
Other than the occasional deployment of NATO forces, the United Nations is a useless entity (IMO)and is in DIRE need of reformation.
A legitimate, viable body for heading off world crises, or solving them once they've already started, CANNOT have human rights violators or despots in leadership positions, or SC chairmen, or chairmen of ANY other UN department, simply because their name was next in the rotation. That's RIDICULOUS!
These "diplomats" constantly break the law, tho mostly (but not ALL) are traffic laws, then are able to declare immunity. Most of them also constantly bad-mouth the US, even while the same country they represent are receiving BILLIONS of US tax dollars in foreign aid.
Well, I believe it's LONG past time to send the UN packing. I want them completely out of the US permanently! They can move to the Netherlands and occupy a building near the Hague. Or they can just go straight to HELL!(IMO)
:-(
Good post Bob. Especially the part where the UN bad mouths us. If we left the UN they would be a guard dog without teeth and what we get in return is disrespect.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181057 Aug 8, 2014
Strength and Honor wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post Bob. Especially the part where the UN bad mouths us. If we left the UN they would be a guard dog without teeth and what we get in return is disrespect.
Thanks S&H. How're ya doin' this fine Friday?

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#181058 Aug 8, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks S&H. How're ya doin' this fine Friday?
I'm doing good thanks and I hope you are as well.

“Pillars of Creation....”

Since: Jan 11

Into this world we're thrown

#181059 Aug 8, 2014
Hip and Willie dont think they made a mistake by voting for Obama. Of course they will never really know that for sure, its purely speculation.

There are many people that think Obama will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history, of course there are those who believe GW will also. Only time will tell, but I'm confident GW wont be in consideration.

Many liberals including WWW and Hip believe the R's were working against Obama, maybe they were, but its my belief that if Obama would have gotten his way, there is no doubt he would go down as the worst POTUS in our history. He should be thankful they stopped him and slowed him down. JMO..........

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#181060 Aug 8, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Alternative history??
Reagan told Mr Gorbechev "Tear Down This Wall". Shortly thereafter the wall came down.
Obama: "Mr Putin, remove your troops from Ukraine." The Kremlin would likely erupt into uncontrollable laughter.
GHW Bush said: "This will not stand!" Shortly thereafter Hussein was ejected from Kuwait.
Obama draws a red line in Syria, and turns into a shrinking violet when Assad calls his bluff.
GW Bush's history is still recent enough to forego the need to revisit. But he took action.
Obama sits on his......hands....and is "analyizing the situation(s)."
The only leg you had to stand on was Romney, because he had no WH track record. But I'll still speculate he would NOT be standing around with his thumb up his a$$, while world thugs are throwing the globe into "destabilization"
You do know that Ronald Reagan was aware, even when he gave the speech at the Wall, that Gorbachev couldn't tear it down if he'd wanted to, right?

The Berlin Wall didn't even belong to Mikhail - it belonged to Erich - and Erich had far greater reasons to want to keep it than Gorby had to tear it down. Reagan's speech played a role in the wall toppling by inspiring the people contained by it, to be sure, but there isn't near the quid pro quid you're describing above. He wasn't Joshua bringing down the walls of Jericho.

GHWB was able to assemble a coalition to drive Hussein out of Kuwait, but that was because the threat Hussein represented to the world economy was clear cut enough to enable him to build that coalition. There is no such consensus among the other countries in the world today regarding either ISIS or Crimea, and if you think it's because Obama's not a leader you've been fooled or you're fooling yourself. GHWB couldn't even bring about a consensus on what to do about Hussein after he was driven out of Kuwait, much to Stormin' Norman's chagrin.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#181061 Aug 8, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>You do know that Ronald Reagan was aware, even when he gave the speech at the Wall, that Gorbachev couldn't tear it down if he'd wanted to, right?
The Berlin Wall didn't even belong to Mikhail - it belonged to Erich - and Erich had far greater reasons to want to keep it than Gorby had to tear it down. Reagan's speech played a role in the wall toppling by inspiring the people contained by it, to be sure, but there isn't near the quid pro quid you're describing above. He wasn't Joshua bringing down the walls of Jericho.
GHWB was able to assemble a coalition to drive Hussein out of Kuwait, but that was because the threat Hussein represented to the world economy was clear cut enough to enable him to build that coalition. There is no such consensus among the other countries in the world today regarding either ISIS or Crimea, and if you think it's because Obama's not a leader you've been fooled or you're fooling yourself. GHWB couldn't even bring about a consensus on what to do about Hussein after he was driven out of Kuwait, much to Stormin' Norman's chagrin.
Who the heck is Erich?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#181062 Aug 8, 2014
If you mean Honaker he was forced to resign by Gorbechev before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181063 Aug 8, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>You do know that Ronald Reagan was aware, even when he gave the speech at the Wall, that Gorbachev couldn't tear it down if he'd wanted to, right?
The Berlin Wall didn't even belong to Mikhail - it belonged to Erich - and Erich had far greater reasons to want to keep it than Gorby had to tear it down. Reagan's speech played a role in the wall toppling by inspiring the people contained by it, to be sure, but there isn't near the quid pro quid you're describing above. He wasn't Joshua bringing down the walls of Jericho.
Apparently you feel the NEED to be PC, when my comments were only brief descriptions in response to HG's "alternate history" spiel.

Fine! <standing ovation> <Uproarious applause in correcting bad bob's generalization of Reagan's call for the destruction of the Berlin Wall>.

Honecker was a puppet of the USSR, and Reagan symbolically called on Gorbechev to tear down the wall. EXCUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSEE me for not being 1000% PC according to Weird Willie.
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
GHWB was able to assemble a coalition to drive Hussein out of Kuwait, but that was because the threat Hussein represented to the world economy was clear cut enough to enable him to build that coalition. There is no such consensus among the other countries in the world today regarding either ISIS or Crimea, and if you think it's because Obama's not a leader you've been fooled or you're fooling yourself. GHWB couldn't even bring about a consensus on what to do about Hussein after he was driven out of Kuwait, much to Stormin' Norman's chagrin.
The world is wearrrrrrrrry of war, Winston. It's gonna take a Nagasaki attack b4 people wake up to what's happening in the ME & Ukraine.

FPS, It took 40K Yazidi refugees stranded atop the mtns near Arbil(?) b4 Obama finally pulled his head out to order (limited) air strikes. Reid & Pelosi are fawning over Obama's
decision for (limited) air strikes. Imagine the OUTRAGE from these same two leading Democrats if GW Bush was the one ordering (limited) air strikes.

And Wilson, you can tell yourself every day, all day, 24/7 that Obama's lack of leadership is not a factor. But I can PROMISE you right here on this thread, you will NEVER convince me of it, so you can just put that idea in your back pocket and take it home with ya.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#181064 Aug 8, 2014
lisw wrote:
If you mean Honaker he was forced to resign by Gorbechev before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Source?

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181065 Aug 8, 2014
lisw wrote:
If you mean Honaker he was forced to resign by Gorbechev before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Yeah Erich Honecker.

As I just wrote, WWW is down to correcting PC now for the record. Geeeeeze, the guy reads a "couple of books", and suddenly becomes the head librarian for the DNC.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181066 Aug 8, 2014
edit:
make that, "head historian"!

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#181067 Aug 8, 2014
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you feel the NEED to be PC, when my comments were only brief descriptions in response to HG's "alternate history" spiel.
Fine! <standing ovation> <Uproarious applause in correcting bad bob's generalization of Reagan's call for the destruction of the Berlin Wall>.
Honecker was a puppet of the USSR, and Reagan symbolically called on Gorbechev to tear down the wall. EXCUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSEE me for not being 1000% PC according to Weird Willie.
<quoted text>
The world is wearrrrrrrrry of war, Winston. It's gonna take a Nagasaki attack b4 people wake up to what's happening in the ME & Ukraine.
FPS, It took 40K Yazidi refugees stranded atop the mtns near Arbil(?) b4 Obama finally pulled his head out to order (limited) air strikes. Reid & Pelosi are fawning over Obama's
decision for (limited) air strikes. Imagine the OUTRAGE from these same two leading Democrats if GW Bush was the one ordering (limited) air strikes.
And Wilson, you can tell yourself every day, all day, 24/7 that Obama's lack of leadership is not a factor. But I can PROMISE you right here on this thread, you will NEVER convince me of it, so you can just put that idea in your back pocket and take it home with ya.
So, the word for the day is PC?
What's the number, then?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#181068 Aug 8, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Source?
You're funny. I happen to know this is fact. You write as if inspired by God, and I don't ask for your sources.(well maybe God is the source) Find it yourself.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#181069 Aug 8, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>You're funny. I happen to know this is fact. You write as if inspired by God, and I don't ask for your sources.(well maybe God is the source) Find it yourself.
I'm sorry you don't like the way I write, lisw, but I wouldn't have asked you for a source if I'd been able to find it myself.

Excuse me for asking, though. Really. Wouldn't want to put you out.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#181070 Aug 8, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>So, the word for the day is PC?
What's the number, then?
Yeah let's talk PC. The reason that presidents like Reagan and HW , Kennedy etc were successful is that they were PC. I don't mean by mouthing truisms like Obama does (share the wealth) but because they read their times with complete accuracy. Kennedy hated the wall too but he knew it was not the right time and said it was better than war. Reagan knew Gorbechev was the head of the Communist party and really had the say so so he addressed him. It also happened that russia and eastern block countries were on the verge of financial collapse. The wall was not going to hold anymore. HW knew at the time that he could work with other countries to defeat Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, not only because it was financially beneficial but because human right violations were horrific and he knew absolutely he could win it.
All that is true political correctness, being able to read the sign of the times and know without a doubt what is going to work. Obama doesn't have that and unfortunately though he meant well GW didn't have it.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#181071 Aug 8, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>So, the word for the day is PC?
What's the number, then?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 7 min MUQ2 44,961
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 8 min vikinglovespenis 56,049
Lido Theater, Dallas (Mar '12) 30 min WaxBabydoll 423
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 39 min Toby 106,068
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 44 min andet1987 2,331
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 59 min Michael 650,325
Why did God allow sin into His universe? 1 hr WasteWater 23
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Ooogah Boogah 971,787
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 4 hr Xcentric in Vidor 445,915
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 21 hr akon mason 70
More from around the web