My position is really pretty clear. I’m not really hear to defend Bush although I certainly can when appropriate. What I am saying is u don’t even have the decency to take off yur partisan hack hat off for 1 day. The phrase RIP does have some meaning? Also, the piece u cited is a liberal hack job. I mentioned the 1 part of the argument that is laughable and uve yet to address it. When u call Obama Kennedy Johnson etc schmucks, war criminals, we can talk. Otherwise wasting time.
Its a Bush thread, there is no reason to sugar coat his actions and decisions, he isnt deserving of our sympathy at all. If you want to make a thread about other presidents and how lousy they are, feel free...or you can find one of the many about Obama or Trump and just post your feelings there.
Bush was one of the darkest most underhanded awful presidents since I've been on the earth. His public persona is for sure not at all how he acted behind the scenes. It does not take much effort to find out the truth about him, that article I linked as I stated is NOTHING about the brutal things he was responsible for and who knows what else.
Who names their petro company after a vicious killer from Mexico? I guess Bush does. Go run a search on Zapata Offshore or Zapata Petro and see what you find with regards to connections to the CIA and covert activities. That is barely the start.
0
Quote Originally Posted by shiek:
My position is really pretty clear. I’m not really hear to defend Bush although I certainly can when appropriate. What I am saying is u don’t even have the decency to take off yur partisan hack hat off for 1 day. The phrase RIP does have some meaning? Also, the piece u cited is a liberal hack job. I mentioned the 1 part of the argument that is laughable and uve yet to address it. When u call Obama Kennedy Johnson etc schmucks, war criminals, we can talk. Otherwise wasting time.
Its a Bush thread, there is no reason to sugar coat his actions and decisions, he isnt deserving of our sympathy at all. If you want to make a thread about other presidents and how lousy they are, feel free...or you can find one of the many about Obama or Trump and just post your feelings there.
Bush was one of the darkest most underhanded awful presidents since I've been on the earth. His public persona is for sure not at all how he acted behind the scenes. It does not take much effort to find out the truth about him, that article I linked as I stated is NOTHING about the brutal things he was responsible for and who knows what else.
Who names their petro company after a vicious killer from Mexico? I guess Bush does. Go run a search on Zapata Offshore or Zapata Petro and see what you find with regards to connections to the CIA and covert activities. That is barely the start.
Pardon me Slim, but there is no such thing in this forum as staying on subject past the fourth or fifth post; which tells you a lot about both the intelligence and debating skills of most posters, not to mention their mental focus. In this forum you guys can start with Donald vs. Hillary and the by the sixth post it is apples vs. oranges, and by the tenth it is Ford vs. Chevy and so on. If you don't like posts #15 and #20, you are right in step with the crowd, and probably feel you have contributed something.
You are pardoned KeyElement..however I disagree with your statement about there not being no such thing as staying on subject after the 4/5th post.. half this thread is about staying on the topic..
0
Quote Originally Posted by KeyElement:
Pardon me Slim, but there is no such thing in this forum as staying on subject past the fourth or fifth post; which tells you a lot about both the intelligence and debating skills of most posters, not to mention their mental focus. In this forum you guys can start with Donald vs. Hillary and the by the sixth post it is apples vs. oranges, and by the tenth it is Ford vs. Chevy and so on. If you don't like posts #15 and #20, you are right in step with the crowd, and probably feel you have contributed something.
You are pardoned KeyElement..however I disagree with your statement about there not being no such thing as staying on subject after the 4/5th post.. half this thread is about staying on the topic..
Pardon me Slim, but there is no such thing in this forum as staying on subject past the fourth or fifth post; which tells you a lot about both the intelligence and debating skills of most posters, not to mention their mental focus. In this forum you guys can start with Donald vs. Hillary and the by the sixth post it is apples vs. oranges, and by the tenth it is Ford vs. Chevy and so on. If you don't like posts #15 and #20, you are right in step with the crowd, and probably feel you have contributed something.
You are pardoned KeyElement..however I disagree with your statement about there not being no such thing as staying on subject after the 4/5th post.. half this thread is about staying on the topic..
Right Slim; people have to be constantly reminded to stay on subject, but after two or three posts most of them have to be reminded again. Therefore; the "stay on topic" posts pile up too.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Quote Originally Posted by KeyElement:
Pardon me Slim, but there is no such thing in this forum as staying on subject past the fourth or fifth post; which tells you a lot about both the intelligence and debating skills of most posters, not to mention their mental focus. In this forum you guys can start with Donald vs. Hillary and the by the sixth post it is apples vs. oranges, and by the tenth it is Ford vs. Chevy and so on. If you don't like posts #15 and #20, you are right in step with the crowd, and probably feel you have contributed something.
You are pardoned KeyElement..however I disagree with your statement about there not being no such thing as staying on subject after the 4/5th post.. half this thread is about staying on the topic..
Right Slim; people have to be constantly reminded to stay on subject, but after two or three posts most of them have to be reminded again. Therefore; the "stay on topic" posts pile up too.
Oh no a president lied in relation to an armed conflict. And I’ll bet, being the non partisan hack u r ( said tongue in cheek) we can go back and check all the times you referred to the other presidents who lied in relation to a conflict ( Trump, Obama, Bush 43, Reagan, Johnson, Kennedy, Fdr, polk, and virtually every other president. Seriously doubt it
Is this a thread about them or about the manipulating jerk Bush? Why deflect like that, are you making a point that Bush DIDNT do what I claim or are you trying to play lawyer ball to defend your position?
Since "schmuck" is being defined should we not also point out that "shiek" is the name of a condom?
Aside from that always ignore anyone that uses the "everybody else did it" excuse. That is the kind of the excuse the last lemming over the cliff used.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Quote Originally Posted by shiek:
Oh no a president lied in relation to an armed conflict. And I’ll bet, being the non partisan hack u r ( said tongue in cheek) we can go back and check all the times you referred to the other presidents who lied in relation to a conflict ( Trump, Obama, Bush 43, Reagan, Johnson, Kennedy, Fdr, polk, and virtually every other president. Seriously doubt it
Is this a thread about them or about the manipulating jerk Bush? Why deflect like that, are you making a point that Bush DIDNT do what I claim or are you trying to play lawyer ball to defend your position?
Since "schmuck" is being defined should we not also point out that "shiek" is the name of a condom?
Aside from that always ignore anyone that uses the "everybody else did it" excuse. That is the kind of the excuse the last lemming over the cliff used.
To the contrary not saying that at all. What I’m saying is if a democrat calls a republican pres a schmuck and a war criminal for doing the same things Democrat presidents did then by simple logic the democrat has to also call the Democrat presidents schmucks/ war criminals or else his argument has little merit and u might refer to him as a hypocrit. Lot of that going around
in fact, for my entire adult life I have taken issue w all presidents, both Bushes, Republicans and Dems, meddling in the business of other countries.
0
To the contrary not saying that at all. What I’m saying is if a democrat calls a republican pres a schmuck and a war criminal for doing the same things Democrat presidents did then by simple logic the democrat has to also call the Democrat presidents schmucks/ war criminals or else his argument has little merit and u might refer to him as a hypocrit. Lot of that going around
in fact, for my entire adult life I have taken issue w all presidents, both Bushes, Republicans and Dems, meddling in the business of other countries.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.