GWB's address to the United Nations
BartSimpson @ Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:58 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
Why get angry? I just shake my head at how utterly inept George Bush's speeches are, and how they become more and more inept with every speech. It's nothing but rhetoric.
You would know.
TheGup @ Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:05 pm
Still, no one has responded to Bart's challenge..
Scrappy @ Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:07 pm
Can that man do anything right in the eyes of the Haters? I like Bush, sorry but I do, yes I'm sure he's made mistake but what World Leader hasn't. I don't see much being written on them here. I find it insulting that the literate crowd mock him because he speaks with an accent and talks like a normal everyday fella with out pontificating from a soap box. I don't judge a man who speaks plain English, it's refreshing considering Cretien couldn't speak English very well.
Zipperfish @ Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:13 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Calgary123 Calgary123:
I watched the whole thing this morning on Yahoo News online. If you watched it closely, you could see many of the people in attendance shaking their heads slightly while listening to him.
How anyone could take him seriously is beyond me. He's so full of shite, it's coming out of his ears.
How anyone could take him seriously is beyond me. He's so full of shite, it's coming out of his ears.
Funny how you people want to dismiss the man out of hand without citing any of the speech.
I used to challenge people who said that "Clinton was better than Bush" with one question:
Name one specific action directly attributable to Clinton that was better a similar specific action that can be directly attributable to Bush?
Amazingly, I almost always got glassy-eyed stares from these same people who could not tell me one specific action that Clinton had done that they liked, let alone give me a specific example of why they disliked Bush.
You're in the same class.
You call him names but are unable to cogitate and compose a valid and arguable statement to support your position.
Clinton presided over eight of the most prosperous years in US history that were overwhelmingly peaceful, while at teh same time limiting the size and role of government. Bush has presided over seven of the most violent years in US history, run up record deficits and massively increased the cost and role of government.
Clinton was an internationalist who respected international treaties, for the most part, and sought to increase trade wiht other nations. Bush is a unilateralist who has thrown away a number of important treaties, disgraced his country in front of the UN and instituted protectionist policies.
Hardy @ Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:27 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I used to challenge people who said that "Clinton was better than Bush" with one question:
Name one specific action directly attributable to Clinton that was better a similar specific action that can be directly attributable to Bush?
Name one specific action directly attributable to Clinton that was better a similar specific action that can be directly attributable to Bush?
I'm no fan of Clinton's, but how about this:
For about 2 years, he held weekly meetings on coping with the threat of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. They did not result in a capture or a kill, obviously, but at least they were making an effort. When Bush took over, Clinton met with him and told him that Al Qaeda was a huge threat to American security, and that one of his biggest regrets was that they had not succeeded in arresting or killing Bin Laden during his presidency. Five days after taking office, Bush received a memo from counterterrorism director Clarke, which said "We urgently need a Principals-level review of the al-Qaeda network." That meeting would not happen until after 9/11. And, within 6 months of 9/11, Bush said that he didn't care about finding Bin Laden anyway.
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority... I am truly not that concerned about him." -- GWB, 3/13/02
I'd have to give Clinton the edge.
Arctic_Menace @ Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:01 pm
Hardy Hardy:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I used to challenge people who said that "Clinton was better than Bush" with one question:
Name one specific action directly attributable to Clinton that was better a similar specific action that can be directly attributable to Bush?
Name one specific action directly attributable to Clinton that was better a similar specific action that can be directly attributable to Bush?
I'm no fan of Clinton's, but how about this:
For about 2 years, he held weekly meetings on coping with the threat of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. They did not result in a capture or a kill, obviously, but at least they were making an effort. When Bush took over, Clinton met with him and told him that Al Qaeda was a huge threat to American security, and that one of his biggest regrets was that they had not succeeded in arresting or killing Bin Laden during his presidency. Five days after taking office, Bush received a memo from counterterrorism director Clarke, which said "We urgently need a Principals-level review of the al-Qaeda network." That meeting would not happen until after 9/11. And, within 6 months of 9/11, Bush said that he didn't care about finding Bin Laden anyway.
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority... I am truly not that concerned about him." -- GWB, 3/13/02
I'd have to give Clinton the edge.
Haven't you heard? That is nothing but leftist media bullcrap.
Nicely done.
Jaime_Souviens @ Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:02 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
Why get angry? I just shake my head at how utterly inept George Bush's speeches are, and how they become more and more inept with every speech. It's nothing but rhetoric.
Yeah. It's a speech. That's what rhetoric is...
Jaime_Souviens @ Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:19 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Clinton presided over eight of the most prosperous years in US history that were overwhelmingly peaceful, while at teh same time limiting the size and role of government. Bush has presided over seven of the most violent years in US history, run up record deficits and massively increased the cost and role of government.
"Clinton presided over eight of the most prosperous years in US history"
Clinton presided over an economic bubble built on overvalued tech stocks that was already collapsing in 2000.
"that were overwhelmingly peaceful"
where the United States was repeatedly being attacked & did nothing responsive; remember the synchronized embassy bombings, the USS Cole? the constant low level shooting over Iraq?
"while at teh same time limiting the size and role of government"
when he lost Congresss and Republicans forced welfare reform on him.
"Bush has presided over seven of the most violent years in US history,"
except for, of course, every major war, such as the Revolution, the Civil War, and WWII, the non-stop interventionism from 1890-1920, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War.
"run up record deficits"
run up deficits in line with American fiscal policy over the past 50 years
"and massively increased the cost and role of government"
mostly because of 'homeland security' issues and defending the nation from direct attack.
"Clinton was an internationalist who respected international treaties, for the most part, and sought to increase trade wiht other nations."
particularly when he was being bribed by the Chinese.
"Bush is a unilateralist who has thrown away a number of important treaties, disgraced his country in front of the UN and instituted protectionist policies."
By, for examaple, ending the softwood standoff with Canada? Or was it Kyoto? --No, the Senate killed Kyoto.
Carefully feel your forehead, Zip, you seem to be a little feverish.
Jaime_Souviens @ Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:41 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Calgary123 Calgary123:
I watched the whole thing this morning on Yahoo News online. If you watched it closely, you could see many of the people in attendance shaking their heads slightly while listening to him.
How anyone could take him seriously is beyond me. He's so full of shite, it's coming out of his ears.
How anyone could take him seriously is beyond me. He's so full of shite, it's coming out of his ears.
Funny how you people want to dismiss the man out of hand without citing any of the speech.
I used to challenge people who said that "Clinton was better than Bush" with one question:
Name one specific action directly attributable to Clinton that was better a similar specific action that can be directly attributable to Bush?
Amazingly, I almost always got glassy-eyed stares from these same people who could not tell me one specific action that Clinton had done that they liked, let alone give me a specific example of why they disliked Bush.
I've got a better challenge. Everyone on the Left always went on about how brilliant Clinton was.
My challenge, cite Clinton saying any more intelligent than an average high school teacher. Anything. Any great insight. Anything brilliantly profound.
The most famous quote of Clinton's is, of course, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." Which wasn't all that bright.
Hardy @ Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:06 pm
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
My challenge, cite Clinton saying any more intelligent than an average high school teacher. Anything. Any great insight. Anything brilliantly profound.
US politicians don't make a lot of brilliant statements. Jefferson made some, but he was a fluke. The most one can usually hope for is that they will refrain from saying anything embarassing.
You can dig through their speeches and find something once in a while, but who was the last US president to completely write any of their own speeches, anyway? Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy?
Jaime_Souviens @ Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:08 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
IceOwl IceOwl:
Why get angry? I just shake my head at how utterly inept George Bush's speeches are, and how they become more and more inept with every speech. It's nothing but rhetoric.
Yeah. It's a speech. That's what rhetoric is...
As usual, reading comprehension conveniently fails you.
Rhetoric for its own sake is meaningless, as are Bush's speeches.
But I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand something as complex as that...
rhetoric, n. 1. a. The art of using language so as to persuade or influence others; the body of rules to be observed by a speaker or writer in order that he may express himself with eloquence.
Oxford English Dictionary.
Do you wake up in the morning planning to be a jackass, or does it just come over you all of a sudden?