Bush is a stud

[Spike327]

Inq, good job on defense there. I completely agree, for most liberal-minded folk there's nothing the President can do that is 'good' or 'right.' They'll change their own definitions of what is a 'right' action before they'll let the President have one.

I think its important to note that regardless of what Bush does or does not do, John Kerry can't catch a football. Thank you, that is all.

[Flagrant da Nut]

Inq, good job on defense there. I completely agree, for most liberal-minded folk there's nothing the President can do that is 'good' or 'right.' They'll change their own definitions of what is a 'right' action before they'll let the President have one.

I think its important to note that regardless of what Bush does or does not do, John Kerry can't catch a football. Thank you, that is all.

gots to wonder how many of da fencing nerds and dorks here can catch a football or dribble a basketball!
ROFL
not likely from a page of wimps lmao lmao
Kerry was a fencer too so you can even call him you're own poster boy of nerdness
hail dorks and geeks with sharp pointy things

[esskreemr]

Inq, good job on defense there. I completely agree, for most liberal-minded folk there's nothing the President can do that is 'good' or 'right.' They'll change their own definitions of what is a 'right' action before they'll let the President have one.

I think its important to note that regardless of what Bush does or does not do, John Kerry can't catch a football. Thank you, that is all.

Yes, great argument. Let's get your opinion on this:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...516309920.html

That makes two. If I was Dubya and I still liked ma pretzels e'er now an' then, I'd want Kerry on my cabinet.

[The0ne]

gots to wonder how many of da fencing nerds and dorks here can catch a football or dribble a basketball!
ROFL
not likely from a page of wimps lmao lmao
Kerry was a fencer too so you can even call him you're own poster boy of nerdness
hail dorks and geeks with sharp pointy things

and yet you take time out of your obviously supercool life to post on a message board filled with "dorks and geeks with sharp pointy things." I wanna be just like you when I grow up.

[esskreemr]

and yet you take time out of your obviously supercool life to post on a message board filled with "dorks and geeks with sharp pointy things." I wanna be just like you when I grow up.

Just ignore him like his parents do...

[jBirch]

Wow.

That was just...wow.

On the story at hand, Bush waded into a crowd and yanked his SS man inside. Big deal. No heroics. Lots of stupidity. On all sides. On topic, it was stupid because there were countless other ways to deal with it that were more advantageous. It was not heroic because the SS man really wasn't in trouble and Bush didn't do anything but forcibly pull the man through with him. It was a pissing contest with the Chilean security dudes. Bush should have slapped his SS guy for making an issue out of something that shouldn't be made an issue out of instead of joining him in the farce.

On the sidebar that's about to erupt in full blown warfare, wow. I say wow, because I honestly think that this is the most inane argument to get involved in. Because mrbiggs et al didn't label Bush's actions as heroic, they are immediately branded as not giving the guy a fair shake. Then we take this bizarre and childish twist into Bush policies which really have no bearing on this conversation. Which end up in some totally inane comparison about Kerry (of all people) not being able to catch a football. Why are we back on Kerry again? Didn't W win the election? Now we are on about nerds and pointy things and how parents ignore people who deride nerds and pointy things.

Say what? Wow. That was truly an interesting digression into the totally inane.

[ReverseLunge]

Even the title of this thread is a joke. And that was my impression before I read some of these lame posts trying to defend the actions of a President Gone Wild.
Where's the video? 1-800-SPRINGER?

Loser.

A: I hate the current leader and wish for anyone other than him to lead.
B: That seems like a reckless lunge towards an ill-defined solution.
A: Call it what you will, but change is necessary.
B: It is true that all things change in time, but deliberate change should be thoughtful and considered.
A: The situation has gone too far and reform is not possible, thus only replacement will satisfy me.
B: Be careful not to replace one broken part with another. What ideology are you asserting?
A: My ideology is change and progress.
B: Ah, then you seek to move towards the future, yes?
A: Absolutely. And I am not the only one who desires the future!
B: The future comes regardless of what a person or herd wants, so you will surely get what you desire.
A: I should mention that we also want freedom and rights in addition to change, progress, and the future.
B: Yes, and I assume you would also like to make society better rather than worse.
A: Precisely so!
B: You clearly have a heart and good intentions, but have no mind for political thinking and would do well to get out of the way of people who promote rational ideas instead of empty rhetoric.

[Maeve_Mari]

Might as well cite your source:

http://www.datejesus.com/ November 8, 2004

Though, for the life of me I don't know what you were doing on a DateJesus site! Are you seeking solace? Or just preparing yourself?

[Westley]

"I'm no liberal either. I recognize that injustice, murder, war, ethnic hatred and genocide are not just permanent fixtures of our world, but are necessary methods for evolving better human beings. Trying to get rid of these things in order to create a Utopia is an insane practice that will lead us further into illusion and make the name of that Utopia the banner under which we kill, much as occurred during the Crusades. Incoherent minds would have you believe that if we cease certain behaviors, the world will be perfect and everyone will be equal, but to anyone who has spent time in a forest, "perfection" is a misplaced goal as it is the unbalances and inequalities of life that drive the natural system toward greater heights of evolution and efficiency. There is no end, and it is flexible in any situation, thus more perfect than any Utopian order." From the Same site. Wow. Jesus has changed in the last thousand years.

[Epee_Pox]

You've gotta explain that one. How was Pox saying anything with "no kindness in his heart" ? It sure looks to me like just a "hey, cool!" post.

Yeah! My widdle feewings are hurt.

Seriously though, CutLass, what did my kindness or lack thereof have to do with posting the CNN link?

[Inquartata]

And in the eyes of certain other people, he could not possibly do anything wrong. Not one blessed thing.

Goes without saying---but we're not discussing those people and their remarks at the moment. So it's not really very relevant to the point at hand to note that others are guilty of a similar offense, is it? ( I spare you the usual Latin. )

[Inquartata]

On the story at hand, Bush waded into a crowd and yanked his SS man inside. Big deal. No heroics. Lots of stupidity. On all sides. On topic, it was stupid because there were countless other ways to deal with it that were more advantageous. It was not heroic because the SS man really wasn't in trouble and Bush didn't do anything but forcibly pull the man through with him. It was a pissing contest with the Chilean security dudes. Bush should have slapped his SS guy for making an issue out of something that shouldn't be made an issue out of instead of joining him in the farce.

Interesting how so many people who weren't there just know exactly what the tenor of the situation was and just exactly what everyone involved should have done.

As you yourself said---wow. Just...wow.

[telkanuru]

Inq, you've started doing something silly and I think it's time to call you on it. You proffer an argument similar to a creationist I once encountered preaching on a corner. He said something in the vein of "If an evolutionist tells you life evolved over a period of 4.3 million [sic] years, you should ask him, 'Were you there? Did you see it?'"

True, some people who proffer their opinions here have not gone to law school, or were not in specific situations, but this does not mean that they are either not qualified to offer opinions or dismiss said opinions out of hand. I am fairly sure the thread starter was not in attendance, but I don't see you arguing his spin on the situation.

Please stop doing this.

[Inquartata]

True, some people who proffer their opinions here have not gone to law school, or were not in specific situations, but this does not mean that they are either not qualified to offer opinions or dismiss said opinions out of hand.

The example you cite ( creationist arguments ) is a little bit different than the sort of armchair generalship and Monday-morning quarterbacking going on here, don't you think?

Do you really believe that we're able to read a journalist's account of an incident and know what was going on and the "best" way to have acted in the circumstances? And then make judgements about the morality or intelligence of someone doing any other thing? And be "right"?

Opinions are all very well, but we shouldn't make too great an obeisance to their sanctity.

As for myself, I have not made any judgement one way or another about Bush's actions, have I? Only shaken my head at the arrogance of the many immediate attacks on it, from those who weren't there and don't know all the facts---merely because it's another opportunity to express their disdain for the man.

Please stop doing this.

Sorry I cannot oblige. I call them as I see them.

[telkanuru]

As for myself, I have not made any judgement one way or another about Bush's actions, have I? Only shaken my head at the arrogance of the many immediate attacks on it, from those who weren't there and don't know all the facts---merely because it's another opportunity to express their disdain for the man.

You have, by only shaking your head at the arrogance of the many immidiate attacks on it. I didn't see you chastising Rogue or Epee_Pox for making assumptions going the other direction, as the article itself contained (as it should) no evaluation of the toughness of the man, but simply reported his actions.

[Inquartata]

Well, I can only say that that's a curious standard to apply: that I approve of any opinion upon which I don't venture a comment. By that standard I wholeheartedly endorse all remarks made on threads about foil and epee fencing tactics, just as one example.

There are quite enough of you prepared to leap at the throat of anyone who says anything vaguely complimentary about Bush without my joining the pack. That base is well covered.

[telkanuru]

Thanks for distorting the argument. I assume it's on purpose, I don't think you're that foolish. Let me try again

Because you complain about the bias of one side while ignoring the bias of another, this places you in the camp of the latter, and therefore unable to rant about bias, due to your own.

Better?

[Inquartata]

Not really. It's an unwarranted assumption however it's phrased.

There is not time in the day to critique each and every post. One must needs be selective to some extent. I tend to focus on the lapses of one side more than the other, that is true; the ranks of the more liberal side are overfilled as it is around here, and scarcely need another participant. And again: because I do not leap to point out the logical shortcomings or partisan tendencies of a given post does not mean that I therefor agree with it. Often it's the degree of the thing that determines which I comment upon...and both Epee Pox and Rogue made fairly mild characterizations in comparison to which followed to the contrary. At least, they did not use the positive contrary versions of words like "stupid" or "reckless", "childish" or "bullying"...

[jBirch]

Interesting how so many people who weren't there just know exactly what the tenor of the situation was and just exactly what everyone involved should have done.

As you yourself said---wow. Just...wow.

Fair enough. The tone of the article and the title of the post and the tenor of the first post seemed to be congragulatory for the action. I read the article and from that information offered the opinion that the action was not only not congragulatory, but also quite unwise in the circumstance (again, using the information I had at hand). True, there may be mitigating circumstance that wasn't reported on, hence my opinion and not my fact deduced from observation.

I can not envisage any circumstance where any leader should behave thusly. I offered my opinion about why it was unwise based on the information I had available through the article. Would you like to argue the contrary?

[achilleus]

So, I saw a clip of the incident last night.

The article really distorts things.

The article describes him as 'diving into a crowd to rescue' his agent. He walked (quickly) pushed his way past one person, and told the security to let his guard in.

The White House should downplay the situation. Nothing courageous, nor negative really happened.

It was utterly unremarkable.