Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Nicko · May 3, 2007, 10:34 AM

OldManMac · May 3, 2007, 03:04 PM

Thanks for reminding me; one of my daughters gave me a key fob with an LCD countdown timer, and a black T-shirt, with 01.20.09 in large white numerals on the front, and I haven't worn it in a long time! It's on now.

kobi · May 3, 2007, 11:49 PM

Wow that's depressing that we have to put up with him for that much longer.

The best bumper sticker I have seen in the past week said:

1.20.09--The Rein of Terror ends

Atomic Rooster · May 4, 2007, 12:18 AM

Ugg...too long.

kobi · May 4, 2007, 09:06 AM

True but what can you do?

Big Mac · May 4, 2007, 09:13 AM

All I can say is, get used to saying President Giuliani.

smacintush · May 4, 2007, 10:21 AM

Sorry, wrong thread. I didn't realize that this was the anti-Bush circle-jerk.

OldManMac · May 4, 2007, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Sorry, wrong thread. I didn't realize that this was the anti-Bush circle-jerk.

You're entitled to your opinion, even when it's wrong.

smacintush · May 4, 2007, 10:53 AM

But seriously folks…

I understand dislike. Policies and ideals aside I couldn't stand Clinton. To me he seemed so phony it was sickening. He always acted like the guy who knew that you didn't know he was banging your wife. I could never understand how people could get behind such an obvious self-centered fake.

But I never once got this idea that my life would magically get better once he was gone. I mean, do you people really think this way?

OldManMac · May 4, 2007, 11:26 AM

It isn't that my life will magically get better once Bush is gone; it's the hope that our country will recover from the damage his administration has done.

smacintush · May 4, 2007, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by KarlG

it's the hope that our country will recover from the damage his administration has done.

This doesn't seem a little "hyperbolic" to you?

You "hope", as in, "ever"?

C'mon.

RAILhead · May 4, 2007, 11:56 AM

Yes. Yes, they believe that.

tie · May 4, 2007, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

This doesn't seem a little "hyperbolic" to you?

Not really.

Just one example. We have no chance of any success in Iraq until Bush is out of office. Bush refuses to come up with any policy besides staying the course. Meanwhile thousands of people are dying because of his incompetence and lies. The situation can't be compared to Clinton's presidency at all.

smacintush · May 4, 2007, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by tie

Not really.

Just one example. We have no chance of any success in Iraq until Bush is out of office. Bush refuses to come up with any policy besides staying the course. Meanwhile thousands of people are dying because of his incompetence and lies. The situation can't be compared to Clinton's presidency at all.

I was just using Clinton as an example of my personal distaste for a President, not trying to compare their presidencies.

osiris · May 4, 2007, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by KarlG

It isn't that my life will magically get better once Bush is gone; it's the hope that our country will recover from the damage his administration has done.

more like the world will recover from the damage inflicted by the child idiot president and his assorted cast of loons.

smacintush · May 4, 2007, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by osiris

more like the world will recover from the damage inflicted by the child idiot president and his assorted cast of loons.

Oh yeah the whole world is REELING…

besson3c · May 4, 2007, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

But seriously folks…

I understand dislike. Policies and ideals aside I couldn't stand Clinton. To me he seemed so phony it was sickening. He always acted like the guy who knew that you didn't know he was banging your wife. I could never understand how people could get behind such an obvious self-centered fake.

But I never once got this idea that my life would magically get better once he was gone. I mean, do you people really think this way?

Why are your emotional perceptions of his persona relevant? Why not just base your opinion on the job he did (or didn't do)?

besson3c · May 4, 2007, 09:35 PM

Comon Republicans, any person with any experience in politics will know not to expect a panacea and utopia the day Bush leaves office, but try to understand some perspective here now that there is such an astounding selection of bad tasting politics, mistakes, corruption, and scandal out in the open. Do you still enthusiastically defend Bush like you did in years past? Has some wind been taken from your sails? I sure hope so.

That is all that is being expressed here, just a sense of being fed up and anxious for his replacement, and perhaps a chance to be a little optimistic, even if misguided.

You've had many years of complete control of both houses and the Whitehouse, and not many would give Bush a flattering report card. Is it really that hard to understand the perspectives of those looking forward for new leadership? I mean, really...

smacintush · May 4, 2007, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why are your emotional perceptions of his persona relevant? Why not just base your opinion on the job he did (or didn't do)?

The same reason we all do the same thing, we're human.

Anyone who says that 100% of their view towards their President is based upon their job is a liar.

That's why we here so many insulting personal attacks at Bush in here. It's personal. You don't call someone a moron, a loser, evil, child idiot, Hitler, shrub, chimp etc. based upon job performance. Obviously it's personal.

If Bush's record were like that of his predecessor, he would still be despised by many of you.

Performance wasn't my point, but if it weren't for that goofy-eared psycho in '96 we'd be comparing Bush to Dole now. Clinton's first term, (the one where he had congress for the first half) kinda sucked.

smacintush · May 4, 2007, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

You've had many years of complete control of both houses and the Whitehouse, and not many would give Bush a flattering report card.

This is nothing more than the nature of our system as it stands today. Whenever we have a President with a like-party congress it sucks.

besson3c · May 4, 2007, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

The same reason we all do the same thing, we're human.

Anyone who says that 100% of their view towards their President is based upon their job is a liar.

That's why we here so many insulting personal attacks at Bush in here. It's personal. You don't call someone a moron, a loser, evil, child idiot, Hitler, shrub, chimp etc. based upon job performance. Obviously it's personal.

If Bush's record were like that of his predecessor, he would still be despised by many of you.

Performance wasn't my point, but if it weren't for that goofy-eared psycho in '96 we'd be comparing Bush to Dole now. Clinton's first term, (the one where he had congress for the first half) kinda sucked.

Sure it's normal, and sure we all do it, but it doesn't make it valid debate material.

besson3c · May 4, 2007, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

This is nothing more than the nature of our system as it stands today. Whenever we have a President with a like-party congress it sucks.

So, the results of the 2006 election were uplifting to you?

smacintush · May 4, 2007, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

So, the results of the 2006 election were uplifting to you?

Absolutely.

I sincerely hope we don't end up with a single-party controlled government in '08 too.

tie · 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

That's why we here so many insulting personal attacks at Bush in here. It's personal. You don't call someone a moron, a loser, evil, child idiot, Hitler, shrub, chimp etc. based upon job performance. Obviously it's personal.

If Bush's record were like that of his predecessor, he would still be despised by many of you.

I can't agree. The only insult in this thread was ~~Karl's~~ Osiris's "child idiot" thing. No moron, loser, idiot, Hitler, shrub or chimp. These insults are pretty rare as far as I can see (but perhaps I am just overlooking them?). Certainly "incompetent" isn't so rare, but that's a different kind of insult -- certainly no neutral third party could argue that Bush's handling of Iraq has been competent, for example. (I don't know that Bush himself would argue it.)

On the other hand, I see insults all the time about Democrats. Pelosi is a bitch or a witch. Gore is eGore and a number of other insults in the "hypocrite" thread. Some posters' childishness may be excusable (perhaps they are children -- this is the internet), but for example Crash Hard-drive is one of the biggest slingers of insults and I don't think he is a child.

Anyway, I guess all I can say is that I for one would not despise Bush if his record was like that of his predecessor. Since Bush's record is so vastly worst than that of his predecessor, this is pretty academic, though.

I sincerely hope we don't end up with a single-party controlled government in '08 too.

Well, I wouldn't mind a couple years of Democrats. Some things have to be turned around, and some problems need to be dealt with. We've had no national policies for combatting global warming, for example, and this is potentially a huge risk that we need to insure against. But generally I certainly agree. I want a balanced budget. Democrats may be more fiscally conservative than Republicans but I still don't trust them.

smacintush · May 4, 2007, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Sure it's normal, and sure we all do it, but it doesn't make it valid debate material.

Are we in a debate here? Is there gonna be a winner declared at the end?

My posts are intended to reflect reality as I see it, not to "debate properly".

Trying to separate out our personal feelings is futile. All we are doing is kidding ourselves.

besson3c · May 4, 2007, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

The same reason we all do the same thing, we're human.

Anyone who says that 100% of their view towards their President is based upon their job is a liar.

That's why we here so many insulting personal attacks at Bush in here. It's personal. You don't call someone a moron, a loser, evil, child idiot, Hitler, shrub, chimp etc. based upon job performance. Obviously it's personal.

If Bush's record were like that of his predecessor, he would still be despised by many of you.

Performance wasn't my point, but if it weren't for that goofy-eared psycho in '96 we'd be comparing Bush to Dole now. Clinton's first term, (the one where he had congress for the first half) kinda sucked.

Moreover, in the Bush report card thread you talk about a lot of the left-wing grievances of Bush to be unfair and misdirected. I would agree that many are based on emotional gut feeling sort of stuff, just like yours in the post above.

We need to stop this sort of thing if we want our politics to get any better. We really do.

smacintush · May 4, 2007, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Moreover, in the Bush report card thread you talk about a lot of the left-wing grievances of Bush to be unfair and misdirected. I would agree that many are based on emotional gut feeling sort of stuff, just like yours in the post above.

We need to stop this sort of thing if we want our politics to get any better. We really do.

No, I disagree. We need to start respecting what our feelings are telling us AND balance it with the facts.

Too many people are letting their emotions RULE their opinions I agree, but that is not to say that we should remove the emotional aspect. For that matter, those who are over-analytical and TRY to base everything upon pure facts and statistics are making just as big a mistake because they are trying to ignore a very large and very important part of who we all are.

Helmling · May 4, 2007, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Sorry, wrong thread. I didn't realize that this was the anti-Bush circle-jerk.

Really? You couldn't tell? Not too quick on the uptake, eh...

besson3c · May 4, 2007, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

No, I disagree. We need to start respecting what our feelings are telling us AND balance it with the facts.

Too many people are letting their emotions RULE their opinions I agree, but that is not to say that we should remove the emotional aspect. For that matter, those who are over-analytical and TRY to base everything upon pure facts and statistics are making just as big a mistake because they are trying to ignore a very large and very important part of who we all are.

Okay, I see some validity in what you are saying, but so much is being guided by emotions now (including politicians on both sides who seem to be talking over each other) that I'd say we should try to be as analytical as we can, and just trust that our emotions will come through naturally, as they most definitely will.

besson3c · May 4, 2007, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Absolutely.

I sincerely hope we don't end up with a single-party controlled government in '08 too.

We really need a strong third party.

hyteckit · May 4, 2007, 10:57 PM

Giuliani can't win. He has no hair.

OldManMac · May 4, 2007, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by tie

I can't agree. The only insult in this thread was Karl's "child idiot" thing. No moron, loser, idiot, Hitler, shrub or chimp. These insults are pretty rare as far as I can see (but perhaps I am just overlooking them?). Certainly "incompetent" isn't so rare, but that's a different kind of insult -- certainly no neutral third party could argue that Bush's handling of Iraq has been competent, for example. (I don't know that Bush himself would argue it.)

On the other hand, I see insults all the time about Democrats. Pelosi is a bitch or a witch. Gore is eGore and a number of other insults in the "hypocrite" thread. Some posters' childishness may be excusable (perhaps they are children -- this is the internet), but for example Crash Hard-drive is one of the biggest slingers of insults and I don't think he is a child.

Anyway, I guess all I can say is that I for one would not despise Bush if his record was like that of his predecessor. Since Bush's record is so vastly worst than that of his predecessor, this is pretty academic, though.

Well, I wouldn't mind a couple years of Democrats. Some things have to be turned around, and some problems need to be dealt with. We've had no national policies for combatting global warming, for example, and this is potentially a huge risk that we need to insure against. But generally I certainly agree. I want a balanced budget. Democrats may be more fiscally conservative than Republicans but I still don't trust them.

Ummm, I wasn't the one who called him a "child idiot." It's no big secret here that I don't like the guy, and that he's no brain surgeon, but I wouldn't call him an idiot. I will say he's incompetent, as he's being lead by people like President Cheny and Vice President Karl Rove, and the rest of the neocons. I have no doubt that he actually believes that he's right, but he's certainly no leader of men.

smacintush · May 5, 2007, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by tie

I can't agree. The only insult in this thread was Karl's "child idiot" thing. No moron, loser, idiot, Hitler, shrub or chimp. These insults are pretty rare as far as I can see (but perhaps I am just overlooking them?). Certainly "incompetent" isn't so rare, but that's a different kind of insult -- certainly no neutral third party could argue that Bush's handling of Iraq has been competent, for example. (I don't know that Bush himself would argue it.)

On the other hand, I see insults all the time about Democrats. Pelosi is a bitch or a witch. Gore is eGore and a number of other insults in the "hypocrite" thread. Some posters' childishness may be excusable (perhaps they are children -- this is the internet), but for example Crash Hard-drive is one of the biggest slingers of insults and I don't think he is a child.

I wasn't trying to imply that the childish remarks were somehow only from the left. A lot of people do it, I've been guilty of it occasionally.

Well, I wouldn't mind a couple years of Democrats. Some things have to be turned around, and some problems need to be dealt with. We've had no national policies for combatting global warming, for example, and this is potentially a huge risk that we need to insure against. But generally I certainly agree. I want a balanced budget. Democrats may be more fiscally conservative than Republicans but I still don't trust them.

I don't think a couple of years is not a big deal. I DO think that if you were to have 8 years of Dem rule in congress and the white house you will see a similar "blank check" mentality. They may not spend it on a war, but they'll BLOW it on crap we don't need nonetheless.

tie · May 5, 2007, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by KarlG

Ummm, I wasn't the one who called him a "child idiot."

Sorry, I should have doubled-checked.

Originally Posted by smacintush

I don't think a couple of years is not a big deal. I DO think that if you were to have 8 years of Dem rule in congress and the white house you will see a similar "blank check" mentality. They may not spend it on a war, but they'll BLOW it on crap we don't need nonetheless.

Agree completely.

ebuddy · May 5, 2007, 09:00 AM

I'm actually encouraged by what I'm seeing in here.

- People being honest about their distaste for our current state of affairs.
- People being honest about problems in their own party.
- People being open about the need for a legitimate third party.
- People being honest about needing a light at the end of the tunnel, an opportunity for hope and a new direction.

I hope we continue to view things in terms of right or wrong, not left or right. We've been duped by this two-party system, turned against one another while voting out of a stagnant pool of the same tired elites from Ivy League colleges and societies who are primarily concerned with their survival in office over our sovereignty and survival as a country. The sooner we stop fighting one another, the better we'll be at holding our elected officials to account. This requires openness, honesty, and a great deal of discipline in remaining optimistic. I must admit, I've not been optimistic at all.

I'll work on it in the spirit of agreement.

osiris · May 5, 2007, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by tie

I can't agree. The only insult in this thread was Karl's "child idiot" thing. No moron, loser, idiot, Hitler, shrub or chimp. These insults are pretty rare as far as I can see (but perhaps I am just overlooking them?). Certainly "incompetent" isn't so rare, but that's a different kind of insult -- certainly no neutral third party could argue that Bush's handling of Iraq has been competent, for example. (I don't know that Bush himself would argue it.)

On the other hand, I see insults all the time about Democrats. Pelosi is a bitch or a witch. Gore is eGore and a number of other insults in the "hypocrite" thread. Some posters' childishness may be excusable (perhaps they are children -- this is the internet), but for example Crash Hard-drive is one of the biggest slingers of insults and I don't think he is a child.

The child idiot comment was mine. But I really didn't know a serious conversation was attempting to take place in a thread celebrating the end of the Bush presidency.