Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

subego · Oct 21, 2006, 01:09 PM

...that things are bad in Iraq.

I've heard a dozen pundits say this in the last few days. Anyone buy this?

I think Bush knows down to the decimal point how bad things are in Iraq. I imagine his staff drawing straws to figure out who has to be in the room for the "Daily Presidential Ass-Chewing"

Staffer 1: "Oh no, not me again!"

Staffer 2: "Turn the other cheek this time!"

mania · Oct 22, 2006, 07:01 PM

I wonder if it will ever dawn on him that he is responsible. that he is a failure.

prolly not. oh well.

subego · Oct 22, 2006, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by mania

I wonder if it will ever dawn on him that he is responsible. that he is a failure.

prolly not. oh well.

I'm not quite so sure.

I mean, he's obviously not Mr. Introspective, but I think people forget that he's been positively reinforced through success to say dumb things.

That doesn't mean he actually is dumb.

Dakar² · Oct 22, 2006, 08:44 PM

For some reason this thread title made me think of light hitting a plant.

xi_hyperon · Oct 22, 2006, 09:21 PM

Whether it's dawning on him or not, he's the head cheerleader. He will never admit being party to a clusterf*ck, no matter the size.

olePigeon · Oct 23, 2006, 01:00 PM

My position on the war has never changed, but I've seen an incredible amount of Republicans (and a few Democrats) change their positions practically 180 degrees and exclaim how it was impossible for anyone to know.

Bunch of bullsh*t. It was obvious from day one where this war was heading. Pretty soon, all I'll have to do is post a link to my War Prediction thread from a few years ago about as often as Kevin's ad hominems and hyperboles.

Dakar² · Oct 23, 2006, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Bunch of bullsh*t. It was obvious from day one where this war was heading. Pretty soon, all I'll have to do is post a link to my War Prediction thread from a few years ago about as often as Kevin's ad hominems and hyperboles.

Oh but I've been starting to see on these forums the rationalizations for why the war has gone this way: Because people like you predicted it would.

Monique · Oct 23, 2006, 02:38 PM

Of course he will never realized that he is a failure and that Iraq was a mistake (staying there too long). If he thinks too much I am afraid his tiny brain is going to explode.

I wonder if Rumfeld is gaga because he is old, or he was always incompetent!

sek929 · Oct 23, 2006, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Oh but I've been starting to see on these forums the rationalizations for why the war has gone this way: Because people like you predicted it would.

What a flawless argument!

The war went bad because of the huge amount of people that didn't support it, not because of those in charge

Shaddim · Oct 24, 2006, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by mania

I wonder if it will ever dawn on him that he is responsible. that he is a failure.

prolly not. oh well.

I wonder if it will dawn on the Dems that their leadership gave him his power, not once, but many times?

Probably not, oh well.

Shaddim · Oct 24, 2006, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

If he thinks too much I am afraid his tiny brain is going to explode.

Rarely is a post so rich with irony.

Kevin · Oct 24, 2006, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

I wonder if it will dawn on the Dems that their leadership gave him his power, not once, but many times?

Probably not, oh well.

It's much more fun to make threads like this in the PL and put your zealot pin on.

Dakar² · Oct 24, 2006, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Rarely is a post so rich with irony.

You might wanna check her post history then.

ironknee · Oct 24, 2006, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

I wonder if it will dawn on the Dems that their leadership gave him his power, not once, but many times?

Probably not, oh well.

yes bush has the power and both houses run by republicans for 6 years now...who's responsible for the corruption, mismanagement of bush's personal war, letting iran and n korea gain power, running up the deficit to 8.5 trillion dollars or letting osama go free?

Kevin · Oct 24, 2006, 02:51 PM

Letting them get power.

Shaddim · Oct 24, 2006, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by ironknee

yes bush has the power and both houses run by republicans for 6 years now...who's responsible for the corruption, mismanagement of bush's personal war, letting iran and n korea gain power, running up the deficit to 8.5 trillion dollars or letting osama go free?

Like looking the other way while Los Alamos was being robbed?

Tell ya what, count the number of Dems that voted for his special Presidential powers. Count the Dems that voted for the Patriot Act. See how many of your noble leaders backed Bush and gave him their rubber stamp to fight and fund this war.

Get your head out of your ass.

subego · Oct 24, 2006, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

I wonder if it will dawn on the Dems that their leadership gave him his power, not once, but many times?

Probably not, oh well.

If, for the sake of argument, we say this has dawned on us, what do you claim we fail to infer from it?

Shaddim · Oct 24, 2006, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by subego

If, for the sake of argument, we say this has dawned on us, what do you claim we fail to infer from it?

The idiots you propose to put into office are no better than he is.

At least all of this is entertaining!

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Nicko · Oct 24, 2006, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

The idiots you propose to put into office are no better than he is.

At least all of this is entertaining!

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Gore never would have invaded Iraq.

olePigeon · Oct 24, 2006, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

It's very disturbing reading Republicans quoting The Who.

ironknee · Oct 24, 2006, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Like looking the other way while Los Alamos was being robbed?

ke?

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Tell ya what, count the number of Dems that voted for his special Presidential powers. Count the Dems that voted for the Patriot Act. See how many of your noble leaders backed Bush and gave him their rubber stamp to fight and fund this war.

the dems and america were told that there WERE indeed wmd and the damn liberal media spread the message. i say vote out all of the dems who voted for the war.

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Get your head out of your ass.

me? you support the dumb dumb and his iwaq strategery and can't see anything wrong with it

Pendergast · Oct 24, 2006, 06:06 PM

Bush's new objective: save face, or maintain the status quo and put the blame elsewhere. either by pointing in (any of) the required direction, or by letting others put their foot in their mouth..

DBursey · Oct 24, 2006, 06:10 PM

Forget Iraq. Save the United States from uncivil war.

dcmacdaddy · 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

The idiots you propose to put into office are no better than he is.

At least all of this is entertaining!

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Originally Posted by Nicko

Gore never would have invaded Iraq.

Shhh! Don't tell them that. They might regret voting for Bush.

Although, I would have supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban with whomever was in the White House. Although I am disappointed to see that five years after 9/11, the Taliban still are in power in parts of Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden is nowhere to be found.

Why was it necessary to necessary to divert military resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, before the job in Afghanistan--removing the Taliban from power and finding Osama bin Laden--was done? That is what I will never understand. While I would have opposed still the decision to invade Iraq regardless of when it happened I would have liked to have seen the war in Afghanistan--The war against those who attacked us on 9/11--to continue to its completion before our military turned its attention to a nation that, while threatening, had never acted on its threats against the US. I don't think I will ever understand the logic of that decision.

How was invading Iraq more important than eliminating the Taliban and catching Osama bin Laden? How . . .

undotwa · Oct 25, 2006, 03:45 AM

I must say I'm one of those 'conservatives' that has completely turned 180 degrees. I used to be staunchly pro-Bush. I have just come to realise what a poor deluded fool I have been. Not only has he purused a very irresponsible foreign policy, from what I hear his fiscal policy is equally bad - huge budget deficits, massive spending programmes.

I just cannot accept someone could get Iraq so wrong.

subego · Oct 25, 2006, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by undotwa

I must say I'm one of those 'conservatives' that has completely turned 180 degrees.

Thank you. That took stones.

As a "liberal" I wish I could say we had candidates who had a lot to offer.

subego · Oct 25, 2006, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

The idiots you propose to put into office are no better than he is.

At least all of this is entertaining!

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

While we are perhaps dealing with an equal magnitude of suck, I'd say there are distinct differences between them in terms of their variety of suck.

How the Democrats sucked for dealing with the implications of authorizing the President to go to war is of a wholly different nature than how the President sucked once he went there.

At worst, the Democrats acted like, well... Democrats. I'm sure they did all the things that torque you off about Democrats times a million-billion.

Even if one were to say arrogance, greed and a lust for revenge are just Republicans acting like Republicans, I would say the level the President has taken it to is obscene.

Even for a Republican.

Shaddim · 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Nicko

Gore never would have invaded Iraq.

Gore is too much of a puss to invade anyone, he's far too weak to be President.

Shaddim · Oct 25, 2006, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

It's very disturbing reading Republicans quoting The Who.

Maybe because no one in the mainstream political system is any better. They're all scum, Republicans and Democrats. Vote in a different party and you end up with the same ****.

PS. I vote Democrat more than Republican, sunshine.

Shaddim · Oct 25, 2006, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by ironknee

ke?

the dems and america were told that there WERE indeed wmd and the damn liberal media spread the message. i say vote out all of the dems who voted for the war.

me? you support the dumb dumb and his iwaq strategery and can't see anything wrong with it

Wow, you do a better job at playing dumb than Bushie.

Plus, you're too ignorant/blind to see that I don't support Bush any longer, and haven't for some time.

Here's your reality check, US politics are corrupt, regardless of party. Until we dump this 2 party system, it's not going to change. How's that? Or is it too heavy for ya at this time of the morning?

Shaddim · Oct 25, 2006, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by ironknee

ke?

the dems and america were told that there WERE indeed wmd and the damn liberal media spread the message. i say vote out all of the dems who voted for the war.

me? you support the dumb dumb and his iwaq strategery and can't see anything wrong with it

Originally Posted by subego

While we are perhaps dealing with an equal magnitude of suck, I'd say there are distinct differences between them in terms of their variety of suck.

How the Democrats sucked for dealing with the implications of authorizing the President to go to war is of a wholly different nature than how the President sucked once he went there.

At worst, the Democrats acted like, well... Democrats. I'm sure they did all the things that torque you off about Democrats times a million-billion.

Even if one were to say arrogance, greed and a lust for revenge are just Republicans acting like Republicans, I would say the level the President has taken it to is obscene.

Even for a Republican.

Oh really? Three letters for you, LBJ.

olePigeon · Oct 25, 2006, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Wow, you do a better job at playing dumb than Bushie.

Plus, you're too ignorant/blind to see that I don't support Bush any longer, and haven't for some time.

Here's your reality check, US politics are corrupt, regardless of party. Until we dump this 2 party system, it's not going to change. How's that? Or is it too heavy for ya at this time of the morning?

I just thought I'd never see MacNStein say that. *sniff* I promised myself I wouldn't cry!

analogika · Oct 25, 2006, 12:18 PM

Which reminds me: Is moki too busy campaigning to get Bush impeached? He hasn't posted-and-run here in weeks!

xi_hyperon · Oct 25, 2006, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Here's your reality check, US politics are corrupt, regardless of party. Until we dump this 2 party system, it's not going to change. How's that? Or is it too heavy for ya at this time of the morning?

I heartily agree on this point. It's frustrating, and to a large degree a source of the pessimism that people have towards the government.

ironknee · Oct 25, 2006, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Wow, you do a better job at playing dumb than Bushie.

Plus, you're too ignorant/blind to see that I don't support Bush any longer, and haven't for some time.

why are you so angry man?

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Here's your reality check, US politics are corrupt, regardless of party. Until we dump this 2 party system, it's not going to change. How's that? Or is it too heavy for ya at this time of the morning?

relax man it's only wednesday

if they are all corrupt then vote the bums out. if the dems get in and do a sh1ty job vote them out the next time

Shaddim · Oct 25, 2006, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I just thought I'd never see MacNStein say that. *sniff* I promised myself I wouldn't cry!

I said it 6 months ago too.

subego · 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Oh really? Three letters for you, LBJ.

The exception that proves the rule, unless you want to claim it was the Republicans who ultimately spiked him.

finboy · Oct 25, 2006, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Letting them get power.

Yeah, that's rich. Like there was some kind of alternative. Shows how people really don't understand the situation -- they just parrot what they hear on TV and read in newspapers.

subego · Oct 25, 2006, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Until we dump this 2 party system, it's not going to change.

This is an ironic statement from someone who "plays" a testosterone laden, partisan "character" for their own amusement.

ironknee · Oct 25, 2006, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Here's your reality check, US politics are corrupt, regardless of party. Until we dump this 2 party system, it's not going to change. How's that? Or is it too heavy for ya at this time of the morning?

so instead of seeing what's wrong with bush, it's the 2 party system that's wrong...well, i suppose this is a back peddling in a way

Shaddim · Oct 25, 2006, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by subego

This is an ironic statement from someone who "plays" a testosterone laden, partisan "character" for their own amusement.

We all have fun in our own little ways, comrade.

Shaddim · Oct 25, 2006, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by ironknee

so instead of seeing what's wrong with bush, it's the 2 party system that's wrong...well, i suppose this is a back peddling in a way

I know what's wrong with Bush, it's what's wrong with all career politicians, they're shithe@ds.

Shaddim · Oct 25, 2006, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by subego

The exception that proves the rule, unless you want to claim it was the Republicans who ultimately spiked him.

No, it's the norm, decent politicians are the exception.

subego · Oct 25, 2006, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No, it's the norm, decent politicians are the exception.

LBJ isn't the exception because he was decent, he's the exception because he didn't act like a Democrat normally would.

The rule that this proves is that there is a fundamental difference in the way the parties suck.

The way this is proven is not by LBJ being the exception, it is proven by the fact that when confronted with the exception the Democrats acted like they were the anti-war party, which is exactly the way they're acting now.

The Republicans ended up against the war too, but IIRC (which I'll admit is tough because I wasn't born yet) they weren't into all the hippy ****, and didn't go about things in a hippy **** like manner.

Kevin · Oct 28, 2006, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by finboy

Yeah, that's rich. Like there was some kind of alternative. Shows how people really don't understand the situation -- they just parrot what they hear on TV and read in newspapers.

They don't want to understand the situation. They are just anti-Bush zealots

mania · Oct 28, 2006, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

They don't want to understand the situation. They are just anti-Bush zealots

Bush is a bad man. He is responsible for many more deaths than Saddam, Kim, and Mahmoud combined.

Thou shalt not murder.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors oil.

Pendergast · Oct 29, 2006, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No, it's the norm, decent politicians are the exception.

Could it also be that politics turn unattentive men into less decency?

I am pretty certain that 90% of the politicians have all the best intentions, but entering the arena involves them to make compromises constantly to the point they lose track, or turn unable to accomplish what they wanted to see happen.

My feeling is that most politicians are probably very disappointed (but can't always admit it publicly) of their turn in the power seat.

ebuddy · Oct 29, 2006, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by mania

Bush is a bad man. He is responsible for many more deaths than Saddam, Kim, and Mahmoud combined.

Only the most extreme elements of Bush opposition hold this view. i.e. you're in historically, the worst of bad company here.

Thou shalt not murder.

Yet something tells me you would not be calling for Bush's right of defense against this charge as much as you would for say... Saddam, Kim, and Mahmoud.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Ignorance is not false witness. You're quoting Scripture here, I'm expecting you know at least a little about the text?

For example; If your neighbor Joe tells you he's going to kill you with his 9mm and you tell your friends that you're concerned Joe may kill you with his 9mm, have you borne false witness?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors oil.

While funny, this begs for qualification. This no more covetous than wanting Joe's gun away from Joe. In the geo-political arena, oil is the only WMD you need. Russia knows this. China knows this. Iran knows this. Syria knows this. Really, the only one who doesn't seem to know this is you.