Is Bush a "lame duck?"

[KCConservative]

"Hate" is your word. I never said I hated Bush. I object to his job performance. And I have every right to say something about it. As far as the "charges", their not trumped up. They are very real. But nothing is done about it because Congress is loyal to the same corporations Bush is and the American people are too stupid to care. Were more concerned about what's happening with Nick and Jessica.

"very real", "loyal to corporations", "American peaople are stupid" -- these are wonderful remarks, billo, but they mean nothing. Certainly you are entitled to this opinion and you have every right to say it. But don;t count on these things suddenly becomeing true just because it is your belief.

 

[Captain America]

I don't think being a quack is the same thing as being a lame duck Billo.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
"very real", "loyal to corporations", "American peaople are stupid" -- these are wonderful remarks, billo, but they mean nothing. Certainly you are entitled to this opinion and you have every right to say it. But don;t count on these things suddenly becomeing true just because it is your belief.

What do you have to offer that shows this isn't true?

 

[BWG]

"Until it happened, no one could have anticipated it."


This is the part I can't comprehend.

I don't care who was in charge or what party you belonged to or any of that other crap.

Why wasn't that possibility anticipated? Why wasn't every single scenario anticipated? In my (former) line of work if you hadn't considered and prepared for every single aspect of the job and something went wrong, you either got injured (or worse) or soon found yourself part of the 5 or 6 per cent of the unemployment figure.

They should have been fired for NOT ANTICIPATING the possibility!!!

 

[midniterise]

There is no doubt that Bush is a 'Lame Duck'. When your own party will not back you on something like the ports deal and actually turn against you both publicly and privately then your on a long run toward the end of your term. No doubt that over the next several months he will have no choice but to bend toward more centrist type ideas in order to be effective on any issue.

Just a few more bad choices and you could see large numbers of Republican supporters jump ship to democratic ideas because they are going to feel abandoned. The hardcore Republicans may not like the choices they are given but they will vote for their party no matter what. But, there are several voters that have supported Republican ideas that are going to swing toward the democratic candidates because there are so many issues that have yet to be addressed by the Republicans who have had power for some time now.

I think the mid-term elections will begin to tell the story of how far this presidency has fallen.

 

[Captain America]

I would have to agree that the recent turn of events and buildup to the elections has people jumping the Bush bandwagon more and more. He could possibly have just began that long walk out that backdoor.

But when this thread was started and the question was asked, it was not yet as obvious.

 

[KCConservative]

What do you have to offer that shows this isn't true?

Billo, I know it's been a long time, but think back to Junior High Debate class. How does one show that something isn't? If saying these things make them true for you, then my saying they aren't should have equal weight. You love to deal with emotional opinion. I understand that and we all have to consider it when arguing with you. "Bush is corrupt", Bush is a liar", "Bush only cares about big corporations", etc. are all wonderfully powerful remarks, but they don't mean anything, except to those who buy what you're selling.

 

[Captain America]

I hear ya...

And you are right.

Kinda like "Mission Accomplished" "Brownie's doing a heckuva job" "Terrorists hate us for our freedom" "Weapons of Mass Destruction" "Mushroom cloud"
"'Mer-uh-kuh" "Liberal traitors" "homo-lovers" "Kool-aid" :roll:

Man the list just goes on and on and on and on and on and on..........

 

[KCConservative]

I hear ya...

And you are right.

Kinda like "Mission Accomplished" "Brownie's doing a heckuva job" "Terrorists hate us for our freedom" "Weapons of Mass Destruction" "Mushroom cloud"
"'Mer-uh-kuh" "Liberal traitors" "homo-lovers" "Kool-aid" :roll:

Man the list just goes on and on and on and on and on and on..........

All of which farted to a sad finish. But stay tuned. Monday is coming. Howard Dean will have a new smear ready to go.

 

[Captain America]

All of which farted to a sad finish. But stay tuned. Monday is coming. Howard Dean will have a new smear ready to go.

No doubt. I wish someone would grab Dean by the collar and say,
"Shut the hell up you moron!"

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
Billo, I know it's been a long time, but think back to Junior High Debate class. How does one show that something isn't? If saying these things make them true for you, then my saying they aren't should have equal weight. You love to deal with emotional opinion. I understand that and we all have to consider it when arguing with you. "Bush is corrupt", Bush is a liar", "Bush only cares about big corporations", etc. are all wonderfully powerful remarks, but they don't mean anything, except to those who buy what you're selling.

What are you talking about? You rarely involve yourself in a debate at all. You just sit back with your grade-school condenscending attitude and throw out salvo's of sarcasm. I'm not just saying things that I think are true, I post sources that say the same thing to show I'm not just sitting around making them up. You on the other hand, do not contribute anything. And when you do say something that YOU think is true, you do not back it up with corroborating evidence.

Your problem is that you won't spend one nano-second thinking that maybe you are wrong. 90% of what I post I believe is true. But I still hold out 10% on the chance that I might be wrong. I'm open-minded enough to listen to a logical arguement and decide to change my opinion if it has validity and relevence. You, on the other hand, have already decided that you are 100% right on every issue you subscribe too. Do you really believe there is no way you are wrong? Do you really think that everything I post is a lie or biased partisan BS? Do you really think that you are being a good American treating every criticism towards the Administration as a "smear campaign?"

If you do, I can see where that would make sense. Because it interfer's with YOUR own ongoing "smear campaign" in this forum.

And finally, how are you helping?

 

[KCConservative]

I'm not just saying things that I think are true, I post sources that say the same thing ...

Exactly. And how does posting someone else saying the same thing make it true? You don't deal with concrete issues. Instead you deal with emotional spittle, catch phrases and the latest hate speech. It doesn't mean anything. I can go find Op Ed pieces that say what I believe and post them as "evidence", but it would be bogus. Why? Because it would just be someone else's partisan opinion. Look, you think Bush is evil and that's great. You are entitled to that opinion. Just like I'm entitled to the opinion that you're full of crap. But none of it is relative.

I've got news for you. The "Get Bush" platform isn't working. Why? Because (news flash) Bush isn't running for anything. Maybe it works in San Francisco and on Barbra Steisand's website, but it falls on the deaf ears of the average American. Think about this, Billo. What about alternative policy, a platform for the people to see and consider, a viable candidate that you can get behind? Instead of the hate, why not a solution?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
Exactly. And how does posting someone else saying the same thing make it true? You don't deal with concrete issues. Instead you deal with emotional spittle, catch phrases and the latest hate speech. It doesn't mean anything. I can go find Op Ed pieces that say what I believe and post them as "evidence", but it would be bogus. Why? Because it would just be someone else's partisan opinion. Look, you think Bush is evil and that's great. You are entitled to that opinion. Just like I'm entitled to the opinion that you're full of crap. But none of it is relative.

I've got news for you. The "Get Bush" platform isn't working. Why? Because (news flash) Bush isn't running for anything. Maybe it works in San Francisco and on Barbra Steisand's website, but it falls on the deaf ears of the average American. Think about this, Billo. What about alternative policy, a platform for the people to see and consider, a viable candidate that you can get behind? Instead of the hate, why not a solution?

Let me see if I understand your point. Even though I post a report from Amnesty International that alleges human rights abuses at GITMO, it is to be treated as a bogus and biased partisan OP-Ed lie. Without a shred of truth to the story at all. Is that right? Even if the FBI said the same thing? Even if I the UN said the same thing? Even if people released from GITMO with no charges ever being filed say the same thing? It is still all a lie? Is that what your telling me?

 

[KCConservative]

Let me see if I understand your point. Even though I post a report from Amnesty International that alleges human rights abuses at GITMO, it is to be treated as a bogus and biased partisan OP-Ed lie. Without a shred of truth to the story at all. Is that right? Even if the FBI said the same thing? Even if I the UN said the same thing? Even if people released from GITMO with no charges ever being filed say the same thing? It is still all a lie? Is that what your telling me?

Look at the word (bolded) you are forced to use in your post. You can come up with other Op Eds that allege the say thing you beleve. So what? And I am not saying they are lies, I am saying they are opinionated allegations. Hey, let's prove all of Bush's evil once and for all so we can throw the bum out. Until then, you're blowing smoke.

Now, about that alternative policy and viable democratic candidate.....?

 

[Captain America]

Let me see if I understand your point. Even though I post a report from Amnesty International that alleges human rights abuses at GITMO, it is to be treated as a bogus and biased partisan OP-Ed lie. Without a shred of truth to the story at all. Is that right? Even if the FBI said the same thing? Even if I the UN said the same thing? Even if people released from GITMO with no charges ever being filed say the same thing? It is still all a lie? Is that what your telling me?

You got it! It isn't true until Bill O'Reilly says it is.:rofl

 

[Captain America]

you're full of crap.

Again, sir, if I may borrow your words again.

I think we're supposed to use the basement when name-calling, jfuh.

 

[KCConservative]

Again, sir, if I may borrow your words again.

Yes, thank you, sir. Could you point out the name he was called?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
Look at the word (bolded) you are forced to use in your post. You can come up with other Op Eds that allege the say thing you beleve. So what? And I am not saying they are lies, I am saying they are opinionated allegations. Hey, let's prove all of Bush's evil once and for all so we can throw the bum out. Until then, you're blowing smoke.

Now, about that alternative policy and viable democratic candidate.....?

Earth to KC, I wasn't forced to us that word. It was my choice. You can call them [reports] anything you want. But you really should stop and listen to yourself jump through hoops to avoid dealing with these issues (or "opinionated allegations" in KCspeak). I know it's easier to discredit the source and call it a day. But the fact is, problems never go away until you turn to face them.

And who said Bush was evil. I just object to his job performance and want him held accountable by the authority having jurisdiction. Do you not believe people should be held accountable for their actions?

 

[lily]

I always said that they ought to make it a national holiday the day George Bush becomes a "lame duck" President. Has that day arrived? Are Senate and House Republicans now starting to distance themselves from him and not put priority on is programs? Is Congress now steering the ship with mid-term elections coming up?

Too late to weigh in on this?

When you can't get your agenda passed, then you are a lame duck.
When the senators that are running for re-election, leave when you come to town, then you are a lame duck
When you threaten to veto any bill that your party sends you, that has to do with something that you just found out about, because it hit the press, then you are a lame duck.
When you only speak in front of pre-screened crowds, or the military, then you are a lame duck.
When even your vice-resident doesn't tell you he shot somebody, then you are a lame duck.
When you can't re-build a city, in your own country, then you are a lame duck.

You know......it's odd. On another forum I post at, I posed the question, have you noticed, that people and even Republicans can now state that things aren't going as good as we were told, that we can now talk about it and not be told that we are embodening the enemy or demoralizing the troops?

 

[KCConservative]

Earth to KC, I wasn't forced to us that word. It was my choice. You can call them [reports] anything you want. But you really should stop and listen to yourself jump through hoops to avoid dealing with these issues (or "opinionated allegations" in KCspeak). I know it's easier to discredit the source and call it a day. But the fact is, problems never go away until you turn to face them.

And who said Bush was evil. I just object to his job performance and want him held accountable by the authority having jurisdiction. Do you not believe people should be held accountable for their actions?

You had no other choice than to use the word "alleged", billo. Because up until this point, you and your "sources" (the Op-ed columnists) are making allegations. Certainly people should be held accountable. When Bush gets charged with something, get back to me and we''ll both hold him accountable. But objecting to his job performance isn't enough, billo. He's the guy you didn't vote for, so of course you object. Therefore, what becomes apparant is not the President's successes or failures, but your sour grapes.

 

[Captain America]

Too late to weigh in on this?

When you can't get your agenda passed, then you are a lame duck.
When the senators that are running for re-election, leave when you come to town, then you are a lame duck
When you threaten to veto any bill that your party sends you, that has to do with something that you just found out about, because it hit the press, then you are a lame duck.
When you only speak in front of pre-screened crowds, or the military, then you are a lame duck.
When even your vice-resident doesn't tell you he shot somebody, then you are a lame duck.
When you can't re-build a city, in your own country, then you are a lame duck.

You know......it's odd. On another forum I post at, I posed the question, have you noticed, that people and even Republicans can now state that things aren't going as good as we were told, that we can now talk about it and not be told that we are embodening the enemy or demoralizing the troops?

So, in short, what you are saying is, "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck?" Hey, you get no argument from me.

Let's just hope the VP doesn't decide to go duck hunting anytime soon.:shock:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Captain America:
Let's just hope the VP doesn't decide to go duck hunting anytime soon.

Just in case he does, a little reminder:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
You had no other choice than to use the word "alleged", billo. Because up until this point, you and your "sources" (the Op-ed columnists) are making allegations. Certainly people should be held accountable. When Bush gets charged with something, get back to me and we''ll both hold him accountable. But objecting to his job performance isn't enough, billo. He's the guy you didn't vote for, so of course you object. Therefore, what becomes apparant is not the President's successes or failures, but your sour grapes.

But the issue isn't "sour grapes". That's how you rationalize the issues so you don't have to deal with them. You don't have a valid arguement to debate with, so you trash the source. Even if the Op-ed columnists are the FBI, Amnesty International, present and former GI's, Veteran's for Peace, Human Rights Watch, ICRC and even Bush himself. It's a coward's way of debating. Why don't you man-up for once and face the music with your own thoughts and debating skills instead of bouncing around and telling everyone else their wrong.

You know, you spend all your time telling people what's wrong with them, while never taking time out to think about what YOUR doing wrong. Do you ever question yourself? Do you ever go back and re-think a position? You have to clean your own house first before you can clean someone elses. And believe me, you got some issues that need attention. Like when you didn't think it was wrong to ride around on your "high horse" judging others. Remember that? Remember when you asked me, "What's wrong with a high-horse?" The fact that that was something you took exception too, says much more about you than I ever could.

 

[KCConservative]

But the issue isn't "sour grapes". That's how you rationalize the issues so you don't have to deal with them. You don't have a valid arguement to debate with, so you trash the source. Even if the Op-ed columnists are the FBI, Amnesty International, present and former GI's, Veteran's for Peace, Human Rights Watch, ICRC and even Bush himself. It's a coward's way of debating. Why don't you man-up for once and face the music with your own thoughts and debating skills instead of bouncing around and telling everyone else their wrong.

You know, you spend all your time telling people what's wrong with them, while never taking time out to think about what YOUR doing wrong. Do you ever question yourself? Do you ever go back and re-think a position? You have to clean your own house first before you can clean someone elses. And believe me, you got some issues that need attention. Like when you didn't think it was wrong to ride around on your "high horse" judging others. Remember that? Remember when you asked me, "What's wrong with a high-horse?" The fact that that was something you took exception too, says much more about you than I ever could.

That's a wonderful rant, billo. Now about the Op-eds. Got anything that moves them from the allegation category and into the fact category? Or do you just want to continue discussing our 'opinions'?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
That's a wonderful rant, billo. Now about the Op-eds. Got anything that moves them from the allegation category and into the fact category? Or do you just want to continue discussing our 'opinions'?

Considering that a fact is merely an agreement between two people, I don't see how I can with you.

Here's one anyway. It's about a GI testifying about his fellow guards at Abu Grhaib torturing a 15 year old for kicks. I'm sure you won't consider it torture, but I do. And if Gy is trolling around nearby, you told me I was "lying" when I said we tortured children at Abu Grhaib. And this guy is testifying (under oath) to some of this. So who's the liar now, dude?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Abu-Ghraib-Dog-Handler.html?_r=1&oref=slogin