On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:28:53 -0500, John H wrote:


Have you ever noticed that many liberals must resort to personal insults
in any discussion.

Bye.

http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/

That's a personal insult.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:57:41 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:27:21 -0500, BAR wrote:


History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100 years.

We'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it. Look at the world
situation in 2001, then, look at it now. Iran was a problem. It still
is. Israel/Palestine? No real change. North Korea, still the same.
Now Iraq? It's still unstable and dangerous. I will admit it has the
potential to be a stabilizing influence in an unstable area, but it also
still runs the chance of getting out of control. It's way too early for
any predictions.

The perception of America by the rest of the world? Sorry, Bush has had
a negative effect.

The economy? If Obama saves us from a depression, Bush won't go down as
a "Hoover". If Obama fails, Bush and Hoover are synonymous.

At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President, more
likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.


Why are newspapers having problems with the Internet? Could it be that
the newspapers have been feeding their subscribers pages and pages of
biased crap for far too long?

BS, newspapers, and media in general, are too large to pinhole. There
are quality, non-biased papers to be found in almost every market. The
reason newspapers are having a difficult time, very few people have the
time to sit down and read a newspaper, especially when you can get all
your "news" on a cell phone.

Oh, and the Internet isn't biased? Geeze, who knew?

Bush will be remembered as the President who brought democracy to Iraq and
Afghanistan, dealing severe blows to al-Qaeda worldwide while defeating it
in Iraq, bringing this country back from the results of 9/11, and
preventing another attack during his term.

Chew on it. I've got to go play golf.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:27:21 -0500, BAR wrote:


History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100 years.

We'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it. Look at the world
situation in 2001, then, look at it now. Iran was a problem. It still
is. Israel/Palestine? No real change. North Korea, still the same.
Now Iraq? It's still unstable and dangerous. I will admit it has the
potential to be a stabilizing influence in an unstable area, but it also
still runs the chance of getting out of control. It's way too early for
any predictions.

The world has been an unstable and dangerous place since man took his
first steps. The survival instinct is strong. Family, tribe, city,
state, in that order, are where the allegiance's lie. You aren't going
to change that and that is the root of most all conflicts.

The perception of America by the rest of the world? Sorry, Bush has had
a negative effect.

The rest of the world should be in awe of us economically and militarily.

If the US is such a crappy place why do people want to emigrate to the US.

The economy? If Obama saves us from a depression, Bush won't go down as
a "Hoover". If Obama fails, Bush and Hoover are synonymous.

Obama will not save us from a depression he we pull us into a
depression. History will show that once congress went to the democrats

At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President, more
likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.

It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.

Why are newspapers having problems with the Internet? Could it be that
the newspapers have been feeding their subscribers pages and pages of
biased crap for far too long?

BS, newspapers, and media in general, are too large to pinhole. There
are quality, non-biased papers to be found in almost every market. The
reason newspapers are having a difficult time, very few people have the
time to sit down and read a newspaper, especially when you can get all
your "news" on a cell phone.

True I don't read my local newspaper, The Washington Post because it is
an admitted left-wing, socialist, liberal rag. I want unbiased news
reporting not some reporters view of the world.

Oh, and the Internet isn't biased? Geeze, who knew?

I didn't say the Internet wasn't biased. The internet allows you to
compare and contrast the same news story from many sources very quickly,
you get to determine who is pushing an agenda very quickly.

BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:27:21 -0500, BAR wrote:


History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100 years.

We'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it. Look at the
world situation in 2001, then, look at it now. Iran was a problem.
It still is. Israel/Palestine? No real change. North Korea, still
the same. Now Iraq? It's still unstable and dangerous. I will admit
it has the potential to be a stabilizing influence in an unstable
area, but it also still runs the chance of getting out of control.
It's way too early for any predictions.

The world has been an unstable and dangerous place since man took his
first steps. The survival instinct is strong. Family, tribe, city,
state, in that order, are where the allegiance's lie. You aren't going
to change that and that is the root of most all conflicts.

The perception of America by the rest of the world? Sorry, Bush has
had a negative effect.

The rest of the world should be in awe of us economically and militarily.


Yeah, with our tanked economy and our inability to win wars against
serious or smarter adversaries....

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:27:21 -0500, BAR wrote:


History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100 years.

We'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it. Look at the
world situation in 2001, then, look at it now. Iran was a problem.
It still is. Israel/Palestine? No real change. North Korea, still
the same. Now Iraq? It's still unstable and dangerous. I will
admit it has the potential to be a stabilizing influence in an
unstable area, but it also still runs the chance of getting out of
control. It's way too early for any predictions.

The world has been an unstable and dangerous place since man took his
first steps. The survival instinct is strong. Family, tribe, city,
state, in that order, are where the allegiance's lie. You aren't going
to change that and that is the root of most all conflicts.

The perception of America by the rest of the world? Sorry, Bush has
had a negative effect.

The rest of the world should be in awe of us economically and militarily.


Yeah, with our tanked economy and our inability to win wars against
serious or smarter adversaries....

Our economy was tanked by the Democrats. They held the purse strings
when the economy when it tanked.

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:27:21 -0500, BAR wrote:


History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100
years.

We'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it. Look at the
world situation in 2001, then, look at it now. Iran was a problem.
It still is. Israel/Palestine? No real change. North Korea, still
the same. Now Iraq? It's still unstable and dangerous. I will
admit it has the potential to be a stabilizing influence in an
unstable area, but it also still runs the chance of getting out of
control. It's way too early for any predictions.

The world has been an unstable and dangerous place since man took his
first steps. The survival instinct is strong. Family, tribe, city,
state, in that order, are where the allegiance's lie. You aren't
going to change that and that is the root of most all conflicts.

The perception of America by the rest of the world? Sorry, Bush has
had a negative effect.

The rest of the world should be in awe of us economically and
militarily.


Yeah, with our tanked economy and our inability to win wars against
serious or smarter adversaries....

Our economy was tanked by the Democrats. They held the purse strings
when the economy when it tanked.


A wonderful example of why you are not equipped to shovel through the
"news" and determine what is real and what is not.

Fiscal policy in this country is set by the White House. The party of
opposition does not have a working majority in congress. But I know
swallowing and regurgitating right-wing bull**** makes you feel better.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:


At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President,
more likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.

It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.

I'm just curious, what do you consider will be his successes?

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:27:21 -0500, BAR wrote:


History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100
years.

We'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it. Look at the
world situation in 2001, then, look at it now. Iran was a
problem. It still is. Israel/Palestine? No real change. North
Korea, still the same. Now Iraq? It's still unstable and
dangerous. I will admit it has the potential to be a stabilizing
influence in an unstable area, but it also still runs the chance of
getting out of control. It's way too early for any predictions.

The world has been an unstable and dangerous place since man took
his first steps. The survival instinct is strong. Family, tribe,
city, state, in that order, are where the allegiance's lie. You
aren't going to change that and that is the root of most all conflicts.

The perception of America by the rest of the world? Sorry, Bush
has had a negative effect.

The rest of the world should be in awe of us economically and
militarily.


Yeah, with our tanked economy and our inability to win wars against
serious or smarter adversaries....

Our economy was tanked by the Democrats. They held the purse strings
when the economy when it tanked.


A wonderful example of why you are not equipped to shovel through the
"news" and determine what is real and what is not.

This from the guy who claims to have graduated from Yale but Yale has no
record of Harry ever attending. This from the guy who claims to have a
36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat but has never posted a photo of it,
however, he has posted photos of his puny Parker with a childish name.
This from a man who claims to have a Dr. Dr. wife. This from the guy who
claims to have a barn on his property but, as it turns out you don't own
the property and there is no barn on the property you don't own. Shall I
keep going Harry? You are the one who has the problem with what is real
and what is not real.

Fiscal policy in this country is set by the White House. The party of
opposition does not have a working majority in congress. But I know
swallowing and regurgitating right-wing bull**** makes you feel better.

The President submits a budget, Congress puts it on the shelf and then
Congress appropriates what it wants and sends those bills to the
President to sign or veto. I know how it works Harry.

Is the federal government operating under a continuing resolution to
fund or has money actually been appropriated?

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:

The President submits a budget, Congress puts it on the shelf and then
Congress appropriates what it wants and sends those bills to the
President to sign or veto. I know how it works Harry.


Yes, that sort of is the simple-minded 7th grade civics explanation.

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:


At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President,
more likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.
It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.

I'm just curious, what do you consider will be his successes?

He did rather than talked. When action was required he took action.

A trait of leadership is being able to make a decision. It may be the
wrong decision but at least it was a decision. Contrast this with Bush's
predecessor and follower who are afraid to make decisions when the
decision need to be made. Both Clinton and Obama will wait and wait and
then they may make the decision.