[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
It doesn’t “beg any questions”. Learn how to fucking speak English.
http://begthequestion.info/
[/quote]
Heh.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
vroom wrote:
JeffR wrote:
timmay
Jerffy, that begs the question, loyal “to what”?
It doesn’t “beg any questions”. Learn how to fucking speak English.
http://begthequestion.info/
[/quote]
He should have said irregardless. Since their great guide used that non-word, they love it.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
It’s too early to start pinning labels on W’s legacy.
If future presidents stick it out and build Iraq into a stable, secular, Westernized Republic, then W will go down as one of the better Presidents in the history of the U.S…
If they tuck tail and run, then W will be regarded as a failure.
I might choose “idealist” (being a little generous, here). I think W had a good grasp on the big picture, and he had a clear idea of what he wanted as an end-result in Iraq, but he greatly underestimated the resistance he would face (both domestic and foreign), and he mismanaged the small details that have put a big dent in his plans.
A-fucking-men.
I couldn’t agree more. I am not saying he rates as positive, not rating negative. Incomplete. Time will tell.
[/quote]
That’s not how it works. He can’t dump his problems in someone else’s lap. That’s what he wants to do, that’s what he used to do all his life, but he won’t get away with it, not this time.
History will judge him harshly. He will leave the US a poorer and less powerful nation than he found it. His successor will face more problems and have less options than he had.
9/11 happened during his watch. Ok, he wasn’t watching, he was clearing brush in Texas. But that’s the point. If he wanted to have long vacations on his ranch, he shouldn’t have run.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ChuckyT wrote:
It doesn’t “beg any questions”. Learn how to fucking speak English.
Heh.
[/quote]
Irregardless, the question stand.
Loyal to what? or to whom?
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
That’s not how it works. He can’t dump his problems in someone else’s lap. That’s what he wants to do, that’s what he used to do all his life, but he won’t get away with it, not this time.
History will judge him harshly. He will leave the US a poorer and less powerful nation than he found it. His successor will face more problems and have less options than he had.
9/11 happened during his watch. Ok, he wasn’t watching, he was clearing brush in Texas. But that’s the point. If he wanted to have long vacations on his ranch, he shouldn’t have run.[/quote]
Can you read?
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
If they tuck tail and run, then W will be regarded as a failure.
[/quote]
W’s legacy will depend on the outcome of Iraq. The outcome of Iraq will depend on future Presidents.
Thus, W’s legacy will depend on future Presidents.
This doesn’t mean that W will come out smelling like roses regardless of what happens.
If Iraq works out well, then W will be hailed as having the foresight and the cojones to get the ball rolling and keep it rolling despite widespread unpopularity.
If Iraq is not rebuilt, then W will be blamed for screwing it all up.
[quote]vroom wrote:
JeffR wrote:
timmay
Jerffy, that begs the question, loyal “to what”?[/quote]
Loyal to Skull and Bones.
Re: Begging The Question
How about pointing to a real page instead of some crap MFA (made for adsense) page?
Next time I’m taking a logic or philosophy class I’ll choose my language more carefully… pedantic nitwits.
[i]More recently, “begs the question” has been used as a synonym for “invites the question” or “raises the question,” or to indicate that “the question ought to be addressed.” In this usage, “the question” is stated in the next phrase.
For example: “This year’s budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?” This usage has met with substantial resistance among logicians, academic philosophers, and prescriptive linguists.
Although it is clear that this usage is disfavored in some circles, argument over whether this usage should be considered “incorrect” is an example of the debate between linguistic prescription and description.[/i]
Criminal or maybe Unconstitutional
And while I agree that the future of Iraq will be important to Bush’s legacy, there will be other events at play…
Suspending habeus corpus, torture of prisoners, illegal domestic spying, the Katrina aftermath, being appointed by the court rather than elected, the Jack Abramoff bribery scandals, record deficits, Valerie Plame outing, and generally just being a divisive president who pitted Americans against each other as a way to leverage his own power. That is also going to play a part of Bush’s legacy, IMO.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Criminal or maybe Unconstitutional
And while I agree that the future of Iraq will be important to Bush’s legacy, there will be other events at play…
Suspending habeus corpus, torture of prisoners, illegal domestic spying, the Katrina aftermath, being appointed by the court rather than elected, the Jack Abramoff bribery scandals, record deficits, Valerie Plame outing, and generally just being a divisive president who pitted Americans against each other as a way to leverage his own power. That is also going to play a part of Bush’s legacy, IMO.[/quote]
A lot of what you wrote could be said about Lincoln also. Lincoln had spy networks, arrested newspaper editors and publishers (putting them all on an island off New York), suspended HB, introduced an income tax, and was pretty divisive, since a few states tried to leave the ‘party’. Also, 600,000 or so soldiers died and the South was economically devestated for the next 20 years at least.
Do you have a low opinion of Lincoln as well?
[quote]bradley wrote:
Criminal or maybe Unconstitutional
And while I agree that the future of Iraq will be important to Bush’s legacy, there will be other events at play…
Suspending habeus corpus, torture of prisoners, illegal domestic spying, the Katrina aftermath, being appointed by the court rather than elected, the Jack Abramoff bribery scandals, record deficits, Valerie Plame outing, and generally just being a divisive president who pitted Americans against each other as a way to leverage his own power. That is also going to play a part of Bush’s legacy, IMO.[/quote]
Hello, bradley.
Saying I’ve missed you would be an exaggeration.
However, it’s nice to see that you’ve got your talking points condensed into an easily read and digested format.
I applaud you for synthesizing them. It will be much easier to disseminate them.
No surprise that they are mostly garbage. Lies, half-truths, and self-serving crap.
However, you can’t help being you.
Welcome back!!!
JeffR
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
vroom wrote:
JeffR wrote:
timmay
Jerffy, that begs the question, loyal “to what”?
Loyal to Skull and Bones.
[/quote]
To answer the muffin man,
Loyal to Iraqi Democracy.
Loyal to the American Soldiery who want to see this through.
Loyal to his subordinates and friends.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Loyal to Iraqi Democracy. [/quote]
Pretense!
I say loyal to the PNAC, oil lobby, and MIC.
Because of him, more than 3000 of them died, the rest had their duty tours extended in the hell-hole. Fabricating a “mission accomplished” stunt adds insult to injury. How’s that loyalty?
You mean like standing by Gonzales after the circus he made of himself?
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Loyal to Iraqi Democracy.
Pretense!
I say loyal to the PNAC, oil lobby, and MIC.
Loyal to the American Soldiery who want to see this through.
Because of him, more than 3000 of them died, the rest had their duty tours extended in the hell-hole. Fabricating a “mission accomplished” stunt adds insult to injury. How’s that loyalty?
Loyal to his subordinates and friends.
You mean like standing by Gonzales after the circus he made of himself? [/quote]
Wrong headed.
Wrong thread.
JeffR
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
History will judge him harshly. He will leave the US a poorer and less powerful nation than he found it. His successor will face more problems and have less options than he had.
[/quote]
My optimistic tendency leads me to believe that this will actually make us a stronger nation (when GWB leaves office). See? The silver lining.
[quote]Headhunter wrote
Do you have a low opinion of Lincoln as well? [/quote]
I don’t blame the Civil War on Lincoln. Your post indicates that you do.
To Jeffy
I missed you too buddy.
I missed your elementary school-level writing style.
For example, your inability to ever form a proper paragraph.
Or is it a dramatic use of the Return button?
It’s hard to tell.
In any case, think about taking a remedial writing course.
Then, maybe you’ll learn what a paragraph is.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
That’s not how it works. He can’t dump his problems in someone else’s lap. That’s what he wants to do, that’s what he used to do all his life, but he won’t get away with it, not this time.
History will judge him harshly. He will leave the US a poorer and less powerful nation than he found it. His successor will face more problems and have less options than he had.
9/11 happened during his watch. Ok, he wasn’t watching, he was clearing brush in Texas. But that’s the point. If he wanted to have long vacations on his ranch, he shouldn’t have run.
Can you read?
tGunslinger wrote:
If they tuck tail and run, then W will be regarded as a failure.
W’s legacy will depend on the outcome of Iraq. The outcome of Iraq will depend on future Presidents.
Thus, W’s legacy will depend on future Presidents.
This doesn’t mean that W will come out smelling like roses regardless of what happens.
If Iraq works out well, then W will be hailed as having the foresight and the cojones to get the ball rolling and keep it rolling despite widespread unpopularity.
If Iraq is not rebuilt, then W will be blamed for screwing it all up.
[/quote]
Can you read?
History will judge him harshly. He will leave the US a poorer and less powerful nation than he found it. His successor will face more problems and have less options than he had.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
bradley wrote:
Criminal or maybe Unconstitutional
And while I agree that the future of Iraq will be important to Bush’s legacy, there will be other events at play…
Suspending habeus corpus, torture of prisoners, illegal domestic spying, the Katrina aftermath, being appointed by the court rather than elected, the Jack Abramoff bribery scandals, record deficits, Valerie Plame outing, and generally just being a divisive president who pitted Americans against each other as a way to leverage his own power. That is also going to play a part of Bush’s legacy, IMO.
Hello, bradley.
Saying I’ve missed you would be an exaggeration.
However, it’s nice to see that you’ve got your talking points condensed into an easily read and digested format.
I applaud you for synthesizing them. It will be much easier to disseminate them.[/quote]
Disseminating no less. This should be fun. Effr0 on a disseminating rampage…
Oh, I can hardly wait.
This is disseminating? I’m somewhat disappointed. Sounds a lot like name calling. If it’s name calling, why not call it name calling? Why call it disseminating?
[quote]
However, you can’t help being you.
Welcome back!!!
JeffR[/quote]
Hey, most of us are just grateful we’re not you.
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Loyal to Iraqi Democracy.
Pretense!
I say loyal to the PNAC, oil lobby, and MIC.
Loyal to the American Soldiery who want to see this through.
Because of him, more than 3000 of them died, the rest had their duty tours extended in the hell-hole. Fabricating a “mission accomplished” stunt adds insult to injury. How’s that loyalty?
Loyal to his subordinates and friends.
You mean like standing by Gonzales after the circus he made of himself? [/quote]
Hey, not fair. What about Rummy!
And Powell. Ok, he wasn’t a friend, he was a useful tool. Remember when people urged Powell to run for president. But he decided to lay low and hang on to his friend Bush. Yup, he took the easy road.
And what about that guy that handled the Katrina relieve effort? That “heckuva job” dude?
And all the generals that got an early pension for speaking up. Perhaps they didn’t qualify as friends?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Criminal or maybe Unconstitutional
And while I agree that the future of Iraq will be important to Bush’s legacy, there will be other events at play…
Suspending habeus corpus, torture of prisoners, illegal domestic spying, the Katrina aftermath, being appointed by the court rather than elected, the Jack Abramoff bribery scandals, record deficits, Valerie Plame outing, and generally just being a divisive president who pitted Americans against each other as a way to leverage his own power. That is also going to play a part of Bush’s legacy, IMO.
A lot of what you wrote could be said about Lincoln also. Lincoln had spy networks, arrested newspaper editors and publishers (putting them all on an island off New York), suspended HB, introduced an income tax, and was pretty divisive, since a few states tried to leave the ‘party’. Also, 600,000 or so soldiers died and the South was economically devestated for the next 20 years at least.
Do you have a low opinion of Lincoln as well?
[/quote]
Absolutely!
Isolated on essentially all issues of international relevance, from global warming to Iraq and the Middle East in general, based on his seeming inability to accept mistakes and listen to opposing opinions.
Misguided in his neo-con agenda to change political culture by an aggressive foreign policy and the ‘war on terror’.
But finally, as the Economist stated once - unamerican in his treatment of the great American traditions of liberty, justice and freedom. I think this is the one that will haunt the US for the longest once he’s finally out of office.
Makkun