RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush

RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/28/2007 3:45:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Wouldn't it sort of stand to reason that the most admired people, would be those with exposure on the national level? I'm sure we all have people we admire more ... teachers, authors, parents, etc ... but would any of them have enough exposure to win an award like this? caitlyn, Just tweaking a few tails.[:D] Firm Good recovery, Firm. Nobody would ever believe that you are now or have ever been a supporter of George W. Bush or the Neo-Cons or the Iraqi invasion or... at any time in the past. How is that Surge you promoted a few months back working out for you? Sinergy You know Synergy, I saw a term the other day that appears to me to apply quite well to the thought processes behind your post above: liberal facism. Firm

farglebargle -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/28/2007 4:14:06 PM)
I notice you didn't answer the simple question....

FirmhandKY -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/28/2007 9:20:45 PM)
Spelling correction to my above post: liberal fascism Some pretty interesting concepts that I've not yet had time to delve into deeply, but instinctively, the concepts I've seen mesh very well with the world around me, and the ideology I see in the so-called "progressive" movements of today. Some references: Ideo-fascism: The Fourth Reich: The Campaign Against Diversity Of Thought H.G. Wells's "Liberal Fascism" The Progressive Wellsian State Wells, Hitler and the World State (by George Orwell) If and when I get the time, I'll likely to start a thread or three about the ideas surrounding this concept. Other things ... quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I notice you didn't answer the simple question.... 1. If it was a question from you, I likely didn't read it, as I normally don't read your posts, unless they are really, really short, and/or I'm really really bored. 2. Even then, if I did read it, most of your stuff doesn't deserve much of an answer, as little or no thought occurs in your mind about subjects which consume your fevered brain. What you need is some kind of "brain fireman". Which I decline the "honor" of being. shrugs Or maybe just some really good and effective psychotropic drugs. Firm

farglebargle -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/28/2007 9:38:17 PM)
Permit me to refresh your memory, while ignoring your childish and ineffective attempts at being either humorous or insulting... You replied to a comment containing this question. quote: How is that Surge you promoted a few months back working out for you? Sinergy Without answering the simple question: Has the Surge been successful in achieving the goals set prior to its execution? If you were wrong then, why should anyone give credibility to what you say now?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/28/2007 10:06:15 PM)
What ... you want to "fight the pros and cons of the war" again? For what ... the 10 millionth time here on the CM forums? Why? You and most of your amen corner choir don't even bother to read what I or anyone else with a reasoned and principled position say on the subject. What's the point of continuing to engage you and your like-minded brethren again, when you brandish willful blindness like a weapon against the slightest possibility that someone else might actually have something to say that's different than what you do? No, what you wish is simply a proxy - a kind of blow-up doll - so that you can lash out in your powerlessness and helplessness in a vain attempt to give some justification to your existence. I've no interest in being your blow-up doll. Go spew your smegma elsewhere, please. Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/29/2007 12:04:16 AM)
the reasoned and principled word on the subject is right here, a fucking Gallup poll 10 percent of the poll admired bush, how was it conducted? yep front screen 10% admired his ignorant and fuckwad cowarly ass.....from what total population was the omicron -1? couple thousand? think that was a telephone poll? did they call you stud? or did they waltz into an alzheimers home for old people and say this is where you gotta check it dad? I am amazed at all these 'right minded conservatives' that wont suck cock to protect america, leaving off on all the reasoned and authoritative (and unproven) arguments they make not saying a word on the surge, lets get some links back in there. I am amazed with all the HAPPY COCKSUCKERS out here, ther was a study of 'conservative, in the closet' fuckweasels who; taking a moment from tapping their feet in the MPLS airport said ----------what? Willfull blindness-------- Uh, you aint really fought no good fight out here, not by a damn site, and do not include me with some engagement you made, cause you simply haven't made one. consider: You said some time ago that the military is exceeding its goals, and how is that working for you? You said we need the surge to work, and you picked a two week or so period out of about 8 years and how is that working for you? and you ------------ well look, you may or may not see that the discourse of your 'right reason' falls a little short of patience.............as mercutio said, 'tis a scratch, but 'tis enough......... Ron

farglebargle -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/29/2007 12:41:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY What ... you want to "fight the pros and cons of the war" again? For what ... the 10 millionth time here on the CM forums? Don't try to change the subject. You were asked, by Sinergy: quote: How is that Surge you promoted a few months back working out for you? which I expanded after you neglected to respond to Sinergy... quote: Has the Surge been successful in achieving the goals set prior to its execution? If you were wrong then, why should anyone give credibility to what you say now? Being needlessly evasive doesn't indicate credibility... BUT, I can understand your reluctance. With a success rate of 16.67% in meeting the benchmarks set in US Law, the Iraqi Government plainly failed to achieve the stated goals in any meaningful way, and clearly, the strategy failed. Continuing to examine this, it's quite obvious that anyone who supported this failed strategy has either made a mistake of some sort in their decision making process, or didn't really understand the problem at hand AND was so out-of-touch, they were unaware of their ignorance. Either way, it doesn't lend confidence in that person's FUTURE analysis and claims -- leastways, not until they can clearly explain their failure, and convince people that they have learned not to make the same errors again. I'll give you an out, so you can exit the thread without wasting everyone's time and energy... Run along kid, I hear your mama callin you....

NorthernGent -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/29/2007 2:34:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY liberal fascism Ideo-fascism: The Fourth Reich: The Campaign Against Diversity Of Thought You must see the irony? 1) Your campaign to change the natives in Iraq isn't exactly promoting diversity of thought. 2) Worse still, your campaign is underpinned by coercion/force/violence. You're not exactly living up to your self-imposed classical liberal tag, here - i.e. the tag of those who advocated non-intervention. I suppose where liberalism is combined with the righteousness of organised religion, there's a real problem: see Tony Blair, the christian missionary who wants to save the world by giving them some English pills.

caitlyn -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/29/2007 6:07:00 AM)
Excellent post NorthernGent. Answer to the question posed by Sinergy and Fargle ... like it or not, a simple search of "Casualty Figures in Iraq" will give you a bit of evidence that the surge is in fact working. 2007 U.S. Casualties Jan -83 Feb - 81 Mar - 81 Apr - 104 May - 126 Jun - 101 July - 78 Aug - 84 Sept - 65 Oct - 38 Nov - 37 Dec - 20 (link not provided, because this information is available from about 300 sources, using just a quick search) What's important to note, is the sharp decrease in casualty figures, almost immediately after the full surge took effect, in month that were the heaviest casualty months the previous two years. Also important to note, is that the additonal troops have done a lot ot cut down on the flow of IED's from Iran, and increase the training pace of Iraqi forces. As a general note ... I'm against the was too. I think it's probably one of the single, most foolish things we have ever done as a nation. That said, Sinergy and Fargle just offer the pro-war people a bat to beat us over the head with, when you ignore the clear facts, because you dont' happen to like them. I have a different opinon. I think the Surge is working, and I'm damn glad ... because the faster it works, then faster our guys can come home!!!

farglebargle -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/29/2007 7:36:13 AM)
quote: Answer to the question posed by Sinergy and Fargle ... like it or not, a simple search of "Casualty Figures in Iraq" will give you a bit of evidence that the surge is in fact working. A list of US Casualty Figures isn't the benchmark used to determine success. A list of IRAQI casualties might me more relevant, however it is still useless for the purposes of this discussion. While there may be reports you can point to to illustrate some measure of "progress", the benchmarks set in US LAW are the measures used to gauge success, and the Iraqis met only THREE OUT OF EIGHTEEN ( 16.67% ) 17% out of 100% is a Failure. Period. They had their chance. The failed to meet the set goals. The Strategy WAS WRONG. The supporters of the strategy were WRONG in their support. So, why should the opinions of people who were wrong before, be considered relevant going forward, unless they've identified THEIR OWN PERSONAL FAILURE TO PROPERLY ANALYZE THE SITUATION?

Petronius -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/29/2007 9:19:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Answer to the question posed by Sinergy and Fargle ... like it or not, a simple search of "Casualty Figures in Iraq" will give you a bit of evidence that the surge is in fact working. 2007 U.S. Casualties Jan -83 Feb - 81 Mar - 81 Apr - 104 May - 126 Jun - 101 July - 78 Aug - 84 Sept - 65 Oct - 38 Nov - 37 Dec - 20 (link not provided, because this information is available from about 300 sources, using just a quick search) But the "surge" is not working and the thinking here is ass backwards. Here's a list of the U.S. casualty forces (and Iraqi casualty forces injured by the U.S.) with the withdrawal strategy: Jan - 0 Feb - 0 Mar - 0 Apr - 0 etc. etc.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/29/2007 10:42:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY What ... you want to "fight the pros and cons of the war" again? For what ... the 10 millionth time here on the CM forums? Don't try to change the subject. Who died and made you "Forum God"? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle You were asked, by Sinergy: quote: How is that Surge you promoted a few months back working out for you? which I expanded after you neglected to respond to Sinergy... quote: Has the Surge been successful in achieving the goals set prior to its execution? If you were wrong then, why should anyone give credibility to what you say now? Being needlessly evasive doesn't indicate credibility... I'm not being "needlessly evasive". I point blank say that neither you nor Synergy merit much in the way of efforts because you can't break out of the prison of your own beliefs, and the mental bands that constrict your own thinking. It's analogous to attempting to have a deep and reasoned debate with a man on LSD. You can do it (or at least have the appearance of doing it). Words are exchanged, sentences are used. But ... I am obviously unhinged because I can't see Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, or the pink elephant flying in the stars .... Why waste the time and effort in something like that, unless you are a masochist? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle BUT, I can understand your reluctance. With a success rate of 16.67% in meeting the benchmarks set in US Law, the Iraqi Government plainly failed to achieve the stated goals in any meaningful way, and clearly, the strategy failed. Continuing to examine this, it's quite obvious that anyone who supported this failed strategy has either made a mistake of some sort in their decision making process, or didn't really understand the problem at hand AND was so out-of-touch, they were unaware of their ignorance. Either way, it doesn't lend confidence in that person's FUTURE analysis and claims -- leastways, not until they can clearly explain their failure, and convince people that they have learned not to make the same errors again. I'll give you an out, so you can exit the thread without wasting everyone's time and energy... Run along kid, I hear your mama callin you.... blah, blah, blah .... same ole shit. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/29/2007 10:47:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail the reasoned and principled word on the subject is right here, a fucking Gallup poll 10 percent of the poll admired bush, how was it conducted? yep front screen 10% admired his ignorant and fuckwad cowarly ass.....from what total population was the omicron -1? couple thousand? think that was a telephone poll? did they call you stud? or did they waltz into an alzheimers home for old people and say this is where you gotta check it dad? I am amazed at all these 'right minded conservatives' that wont suck cock to protect america, leaving off on all the reasoned and authoritative (and unproven) arguments they make not saying a word on the surge, lets get some links back in there. I am amazed with all the HAPPY COCKSUCKERS out here, ther was a study of 'conservative, in the closet' fuckweasels who; taking a moment from tapping their feet in the MPLS airport said ----------what? Willfull blindness-------- Uh, you aint really fought no good fight out here, not by a damn site, and do not include me with some engagement you made, cause you simply haven't made one. consider: You said some time ago that the military is exceeding its goals, and how is that working for you? You said we need the surge to work, and you picked a two week or so period out of about 8 years and how is that working for you? and you ------------ well look, you may or may not see that the discourse of your 'right reason' falls a little short of patience.............as mercutio said, 'tis a scratch, but 'tis enough......... Ron I'm not ignoring you, Ron. I'm holding my comments in abeyance for now. I'd like to see if you are going to continue in this vein or not before I respond. Firm

farglebargle -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/29/2007 11:33:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY What ... you want to "fight the pros and cons of the war" again? For what ... the 10 millionth time here on the CM forums? Don't try to change the subject. Who died and made you "Forum God"? Don't try to change the subject. You were asked, by Sinergy: quote: How is that Surge you promoted a few months back working out for you? which I expanded after you neglected to respond to Sinergy... quote: Has the Surge been successful in achieving the goals set prior to its execution? If you were wrong then, why should anyone give credibility to what you say now? Being needlessly evasive doesn't indicate credibility... Everyone is onto this tactic of attacking ME because you just don't like the HONEST answers you'd have to give if you possessed a shred of Integrity, so give it a rest. Really.. .When you have to insinuate that we're "dosed" and otherwise irrational it's just childish, and I think you're capable of showing the requisite maturity to avoid that crap. It's evidence of Bad Faith, and supports the "Lacks Credibility" assessment of your judgment. Which is better than some, I guess. Rather than flat-out lie, you just pick a fight with me personally, hoping to derail the original question... The evasion and inability to understand where you made your mistakes in assessing the strategy initially, does say volumes about the level of Honesty and Integrity evidenced however. The "Surge Troofers" are just as bad as the "9/11 Troofers"... The only difference is where their blind-spot is. They have BDS.. Bush Derangement Syndrome -- That's when you're so deranged, you support Bush.

TreasureKY -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/29/2007 12:47:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY liberal fascism Ideo-fascism: The Fourth Reich: The Campaign Against Diversity Of Thought You must see the irony? 1) Your campaign to change the natives in Iraq isn't exactly promoting diversity of thought. 2) Worse still, your campaign is underpinned by coercion/force/violence. You're not exactly living up to your self-imposed classical liberal tag, here - i.e. the tag of those who advocated non-intervention. I suppose where liberalism is combined with the righteousness of organised religion, there's a real problem: see Tony Blair, the christian missionary who wants to save the world by giving them some English pills. Firm here, under Treasure's account: As we have discussed in length before NG, you are the one who uses absolutistism in your thinking. Classical liberals believed in exporting the ideals of human rights, freedom of religion and open economic systems to the benighted and repressed peoples of the world. This is what made them "liberals", rather than "conservatives" - they believed in a better lot for all members of humanity, not just the fortunate few. You, and all of the "liberal" anti-war groups use the argument that it is better to allow people to live in tyranny and poverty, than to sacrifice or make any efforts in an attempt to bring them out of darkness. I don't know what you call that attitude nowadays, but "liberal" as in "classical liberalism" it ain't. Now ... liberal fascism, as I've mentioned .... does seem to resonate. Firm

JackM1 -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/29/2007 1:28:33 PM)
firstly; people seriously admire that bitch hillary? please...not even feminists want her as president. shes that classic kind of bitch where shes only good to you as long as youre good to her, and changes her opinion like she changes underwear, to make sure that the majority are good to her. as for bush...suppose that more people were smart enough to understand what he was doing, you know...liberating a country that was suffereing at the hands of the government(and when i say ' a country' i mean of course the women and children, who were being the most mistreated. the men had it pretty good, considering that even though they were mistreated, they could and did mistreated their children and wives rather than try to protect them). dont forget, we tried to go the route through the united nations at first to make it stop, but when they said that they wouldnt be willing to help us, we did what we thought was best. also dont forget, that these people were thought to be harboring the leader of the terrorist group which had organized an attack on our country. it was well within our right to seek these people out and gain retribution, especially since they continued to make threats against us. the country that they were thought to be in didnt make any move to help us find this terrorist organization, so we declared war on them as the only way to gain access to their country. and then, when we were already in there we couldnt just leave, those countries would simply fall appart. and if they were to fall appart, then the terrorist groups that are so bent on destroying us would gain control and the fighting would inevitably continue, only undoubtably more of those attacts would find their way onto our soil. IMO, bush was and is doing what he feels is best for our country. public opinion isnt very high, but we're safe, arent we? those terrorist groups havent gained control because of the hard work our troops are putting in at the direction of the president. i dont always agree with his opinions or what he does, but i cant argue with the fact that hes done everything in his power to keep this country safe. just for that, hes a good president.

NorthernGent -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/29/2007 1:41:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY As we have discussed in length before NG, you are the one who uses absolutistism in your thinking. The facts: Iraq - you want to change them through means of coercion. Me? I'll put a strong argument forward, and others can take it or leave it; if they don't fancy it, fair enough - their call. quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY Classical liberals believed in exporting the ideals of human rights, freedom of religion and open economic systems to the benighted and repressed peoples of the world. On another thread, you claimed John Stuart Mill is the founder of Classical Liberalism. Mill was a non-interventionist, so, somewhere along the line, you've lost sight of what you claim to be. quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY This is what made them "liberals", rather than "conservatives" - they believed in a better lot for all members of humanity, not just the fortunate few. Both liberals and conservatives were aiming for the "better lot for all" - I mean, that's politics in its essence: harmony/security etc - the difference being that liberals believed the best means to achieve this was through individual sovereignty, whereas conservatives believed the better was option was authoritarianism (man's nature is war, let's ensure stability through order etc). quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY You, and all of the "liberal" anti-war groups use the argument that it is better to allow people to live in tyranny and poverty, than to sacrifice or make any efforts in an attempt to bring them out of darkness. Speaking for others again, Firmhand. Incorrect: I think you're living in darkness with your righteousness. You fundamentalist types are two peas in a pod in my eyes: they want to change you, you want to change them. You're in the wrong age, you'd have enjoyed yourself in the age of religious strife i.e. the 16th century.

farglebargle -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/29/2007 2:18:26 PM)
Don't forget that the argument is predicated on the hypothesis that the Savages NEED to be Uplifted, because they're too primitive to do it for themselves. Dey De "White Mon's Burden"... In other words, EVERYONE calling for the US to invade and occupy Iraq to "Free Them" is an unrepentant racist.

dcnovice -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/29/2007 2:29:48 PM)
<fast reply> Came across a CBS News story on this topic, and it contained two interesting tidbits: "When people were asked to name the man they most admire, 10 percent picked Mr. Bush, his lowest figure in the seven years he has been president." "Whoever is president has won the most-admired title every year since 1981." Emphases added.

dcnovice -> RE: Most Admired Man in World 2007: GW Bush (12/29/2007 2:40:01 PM)
<fast reply> The CBS story had Bush and Hillary Clinton as the most admired people in America, not the world.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875