I'm gone from here until after I come home...

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Hi All,

Just in case you were wondering why I disappeared (and I'm sure most of your weren't, but I'm being polite), I will not be attending the political forum until about March next year. I have decided to clear my mind of politics in anticipation of my journey to your great nation - do as the Romans do and all that...

You know how I love to debate you on the matters of the day, but now is not the time for me. I've got too much to do and not enought time to do it, so adios for now.

Oh, and should we meet in your fair town, I won't bring up politics if you don't...

Later,

RnROS

[clambake]

Ray and Yoni said to stay away from LA and Miami, unless you want to die.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, the neocons are gone until the next invasion, so I guess that makes it more even.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I'll take Ray any time... :lol

Yoni, OTOH, probably has a stock of automatic weapons and a proclivity to use them. Is he in LA or Miami? :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

He's up here planning the invasion of east Austin.

[clambake]

I don't know. He implied it's as safe in Bahgdad as it is in LA.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Chump, I think as an Aussie and a moderate liberal, I don't really fit into either camp in American politics anyway - although I do oppose much of the neocon/republican ideology, I'm not overly impressed by the democrats either. And I'm disgusted at the whole "two tribes go to war" political setup. I'm more of an independent. ;)

[clambake]

Better check the politics on your travel agent.

[ChumpDumper]

I vote for the people I think will screw things up the least. The neocons screwed up things the most. The fact that noted historians are busting out the "worst president ever" title for Bush is premature but telling.

[Yonivore]

I vote for the people I think will screw things up the least. The neocons screwed up things the most. The fact that noted historians are busting out the "worst president ever" title for Bush is premature but telling.
Which noted historians would that be?

[ChumpDumper]

Eric Foner is the one I saw quoted.

[whottt]

Sounds good. A trip to good ole Merica is what you need to straighten you out.


By the way...unless you are biking over here...

I want to congratulate you on the millions of earth warming pollutants that will be spewed into the atmosphere as you casually jaunt about the globe on a pleasure trip.

I know, I know, but everyone does it....and America invented the evil known as the airplane.


And you'll eat some veggies to make up for it.


I think you have the makings of a fine American lib though...bitch about global warming, while hopping in a jet to travel halfway around the globe. Shit...you've got hollywood written all over you...

And remember, libs are smarter.

[Yonivore]

Eric Foner is the one I saw quoted.
Oh yeah, him. I'm sure you've analyzed his rationale.

Are you talking about his claim (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html) in the Washington Post that George Bush is the worst president ever, and that there is "no alternative" to ranking him as such.

Foner once was a good historian. His book Nothing but Freedom: Emancipation and Its Legacy is excellent, and I understand that Karl Rove, a true student of American history, has spoken well of Foner's work. But anyone who would state, in a president's sixth year of office, that there is no alternative to adjudging him our worst president has substituted partisan passion for objective historical thought.

It would be nice if such a historian would at least try to make a case. Foner can hardly be bothered. He notes that some of our bad presidents were unwilling to change course even in the face of adversity and strong public disapproval. But so, of course, were some of our great presidents, most notably Lincoln.

Foner argues that some of our bad presidents were corrupt, and goes on to assert that Bush's corruption is even worse than that of Harding. If there were a board that considers historical malpractice, Foner would have to appear before it for that one. Bush's administration has been nearly corruption free by historical standards. I may be missing someone, but the only high-profile administration offical I can think of who has faced criminal charges or had to resign in the face of scandal is Scooter Libby, who worked for the Vice President and who is not accused of corruption. Compare this record to that of President Clinton, who had dozens of administration officials, including cabinet members, in legal trouble, and who himself lost his law license because he committed perjury.

Foner's only other argument is that Bush has attempted to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date back to the Magna Carta. But neither the Magna Carta nor any other legal document grants the rights in question to foreign terrorists or enemy agents. Foner has no expertise in the law as far as I know. If he did, and if his hatred of Bush didn't continue to blind him, he would understand that the issues he refers to are novel legal ones, often with no clear answer. They are being worked out by the legal system. The rule of law is safe, and certainly safer than when it was when Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus or when Franklin Roosevelt imprisoned Amercans of Japanese origin without legal process. Foner rates Lincoln and FDR as among the three indisputably great presidents in our history.

Foner is so anxious to "mail in" his assessment that he neglects to mention the one issue that, depending on future developments, actually could cause objective historians to give President Bush low marks -- the war in Iraq. So, let's do his work for him, and compare Bush to some other post-World War II presidents when it comes to waging, or not waging, war.

Harry Truman

In early 1950, the Secretary of State fails to include South Korea in his statement of what comprises America's Pacific defense rim. A few months later, Joseph Stalin, who had vetoed a North Korean invasion of South Korea earlier, gives North Korea the go-ahead. The North Koreans invade. The U.S. is surprised and unprepared. Indeed, the Secretary of State had recently told Congress that no such invasion would likely occur.

The North Korean invaders rout the South Koreans and capture Seoul. U.S. forces intervene and eventually turn the tide, creating the prospect that North Korea can successfully be invaded. The president believes that China won't enter the war, but China does enter, forcing U.S. troops to retreat. The commander of our forces in Korea (a legendary general) wants to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese, but the president refuses and removes the commander. A long stalemate ensues. Domestic support for the war evaporates and a new president makes the peace. North Korea remains intact and now has nuclear weapons making it, nearly everyone agrees, a serious threat to the security of the region and of the U.S. In three years of combat, approximately 40,000 Americans are killed.

John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon

Not long after his botched invasion of Cuba, a young president begins a substantial U.S. involvement in South Vietnam in order to save a friendly government from being overthrown by communists. His successor escalates the war substantially, and that president's successor continues to wage war for more than five additional years. By the time it is over, approximately 60,000 Americans have been killed and South Vietnam has fallen to the communists.

Jimmy Carter

Iran, a staunch ally of the U.S., faces revolutionary pressure, the most vigorous of which is exerted by Islamic fanatics. The Shah of Iran looks to his long-time friend, the U.S., for support. The president shows nothing but comtempt and appears indifferent at best to the Shah's survival. The government, totally demoralized, loses its will to remain in power. The Shah falls and, predictably, the Islamic fanatics end up in control.

The new regime takes U.S. embassy personnel as hostages. Now it is the U.S. president who is demoralized and lacking will. Eventually, he orders an absurd rescue plan that fails utterly, bringing even further humiliation on our country. Almost 30 years later, the Islamic fanatics remain in control. They sponsor terrorists and deadly anti-western militias throughout the Middle East. They apparently are close to developing nuclear weapons.

Bill Clinton

Yet another group of anti-western Islamic fanatics is training thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan, and we know it. Terrorists launch a series of strikes against the U.S. -- the World Trade Center, Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies in Africa, the U.S.S. Cole. The terrorists training in Afghanistan are behind most if not all of these attacks. The president does essentially nothing in response. Offered several opportunities to take out the leader of the terrorist group, he declines. Later he will blame his inaction on various U.S. agencies under his control, and on the fact that taking action would have engendered criticism, since he had evaded the draft. Soon after the president leaves office, the Afghan based terrorists launch an attack on U.S. soil that kills approximately 3,000 American.

George W. Bush

Following the deadly attack against the U.S., the new president quickly brings down the regime in Afghanistan that allowed the terrorists to flourish, and routs the terrorist group there. Next, he turns to the regime in Iraq. That regime has been sponsoring terrorism for years and has engaged in the mass murder of its own citizens. It has invaded two of its neighbors, one of which is a U.S. ally. Our intelligence community believes with near unanimity that the regime possesses weapons of mass destruction. It also believes that it is capable of developing nuclear weapons in short order.

The president, strongly supported by Congress, orders an invasion. It proves to be one of the most successful military operations in our history. After toppling the regime and quickly rounding up many of its leaders, the president declares that the mission of unseating the regime is accomplished and that major combat operations have ended. He is wrong.

An insurgency develops. Although the U.S. enables the Iraqis to hold unprecedented democratic elections, enact a constitution, and elect a government of their choosing, the U.S. has not been able to quell the violence caused by the insurgency and by sectarian conflicts. So far approximately 3,000 Americans have been killed. The deaths continue at a rate of about 50 to 100 per month.

The fate of Iraq has not been settled and the broader consequences of our action there are not yet clear. But based on what we know now, it's difficult to argue that events in Iraq prove President Bush to be, comparatively speaking, even a bad modern-day president, much less our worst president ever.

Got any more "noted" historians?

[whottt]

Ruff can't be here to answer...he's got some indigenous Fiji Islanders to go help supress.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

whottt - indeed, I know about the greenhouse gas emissions from planes. They make up about 2.5% of total worldwide emissions and rising rapidly due to the proliferation of cheap air travel over the last decade. Artificially cheap airfares a major problem, and short-haul flights are the worst by comparison with alternatives like car and train travel.


A simple "rule of thumb" to remember, is that a plane uses about as much fuel, and therefore produces about as much CO2, as would every passenger driving one car the same distance. So next time you're thinking of flying thousands of miles, think how much petrol you would need to put in a car to go so far. Since take-off uses a disproportionate amount of fuel, short-haul flights emit a bit more per passenger-kilometer, and long-haul flights a bit less.
Note: the car comparison is for typical european cars, not for the less efficient american gas-guzzlers. Trains produce, on the other hand, about 1/3rd as much CO2 per passenger-kilometer (for more details on this see the "ecobalance of the Climate Train" and the bar-chart below), and could potentially be run from renewable sources of electricity.
So if they use so much fuel, why are flights so cheap now? One reason is that not a penny of tax is paid on aircraft fuel.

http://www.chooseclimate.org/flying/emit.html (sorry, first source I could find - I knew there was a rule of thumb, but couldn't remember where I read it).

Fortunate, then, that this year and last year I only drove around 6000km/yr (since I now ride my bike all the time), as against the 15000km/yr I used to drive, which is about average for most Australians. That means I'll account for this trip, in terms of returning to average CO2 emmissions, in about one more year of cycling, even without buying carbon offsets, which I think I will do anyway.

As I've already stated before, people such as myself who believe we have to do something about climate change don't believe we have to stop living our lives or go back to living in caves and eating worms - that simply isn't realistic. We do believe there is a lot we should be doing to curb emissions (reducing our general consumption, using alternative transport, buying renewable energy, investing in efficient technology, etc.), and I do those things in my everyday life. It is the paradigm change towards paying for our pollution that people like me are working for, because once we are paying the true costs for our activities our consumption and investment patterns on a societal level will change for the better in terms of long-term sustainability.

I also feel bad about this trip in terms of CO2, but my friend is getting married, and it will be my last chance to go anywhere for the next 4 years. I'm not going to stop living my life because of climate change, just as no-one else is, but I will try to do my best to reduce my part in it.

Also, the plane was going to America anyway, I just happen to be on it. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Got any more "noted" historians?Got anymore Power Line blogs to pass off as your own? That was an easy Google, wasn't it -- did you read the one where Karl Rove pimped him? Foner is about as noted as you cen get these days, Linus. I said it was premature, but hey, Pat Buchanan couldn't bring himself to put Bushie above Carter at this point. Go figure.

Link to lying Yoni's latest blatant plagiarism. (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016116.php)

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Ruff can't be here to answer...he's got some indigenous Fiji Islanders to go help supress.

WTF??? We are staying totally out of the Fijian coup, the 4th in 20 yrs.

Why would you believe that we "suppress" anyone in our region? We send a lot of peacekeepers to trouble spots, as do the New Zealanders, but we don't annex other countries. That's your job. Or the Indonesians.

Oh, and by using the word "indigenous", you display your ignorance even more bluntly. Know where most of the trouble in Fiji comes from? Maily conflict between indigenous Fijians and Indian immigrants who now make up nearly half (38.1%) of the population but have a lot of the money since they are more economically industrious. It appears that this coup has been simmering for some time and relates to the early release from prison of some of the perpetrators of the last coup. It's easy to sling crap, much harder to actually have a clue what you're talking about. Tool. :rolleyes

And as for the hypocrisy you're calling me out for, exactly what the fvck are you doing to lessen your impact on the environment? How many miles a year do you drive? Fly? How many kWh of electricity do you consume, and how is it generated? How much waste do you throw away into landfill? How much do you recycle? How much embodied energy and water do you consume in the crap you buy?

At least I know what my consumption is, and it is significantly below that of an average Westerner, and I will continually strive to drive it lower. This trip is an aberration that I will pay for in terms of time, effort and money.

When I make a consumptive life choice (and I consume very little other than food and utilities - my TV, stereo, video are over 15 yrs old, my car is 12 years old and 2nd hand, I haven't bought any new clothes in 5 years, etc.) I at least make an informed choice. Can you say that?

[Yonivore]

Got anymore Power Line blogs to pass off as your own? That was an easy Google, wasn't it -- did you read the one where Karl Rove pimped him? Foner is about as noted as you cen get these days, Linus. I said it was premature, but hey, Pat Buchanan couldn't bring himself to put Bushie above Carter at this point. Go figure.

Link to lying Yoni's latest blatant plagiarism. (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016116.php)
So, you didn't read Foner's article. Well at least the guys at Powerline did. Care to address their points?

Besides, you never give attribution to Michael Moore,

[ChumpDumper]

So, you didn't read Foner's article.I heard it quoted on a tv show.
Besides, you never give attribution to Michael Moore,Because my thoughts are my own. When I quote someone else, I don't lie about who came up with it.

Unlike you.

Liar.
Care to address their points?Sure.

Truman: PowerLineBlogger, i.e., the person you lied about being, apparently wanted a nuclear war with China. Truman and Eisenhower are respected, even admired for not doing so.

Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon: Kennedy was killed before he could prove to be anything but mediocre. Johnson's civil rights record and Nixon's opening of China mitigate their failures to only a certain extent. I have no problem putting Bushie on the same level as these if you can find some grand initiative that takes some of the stink off of his nation-building escapade.

Carter: As Buchanan mentioned, a failed presidency. The guy Yoni lied about being wanted to go to war in Iran in 1979 apparently. Doe the guy Yoni lied about being remember that the only reason the Shah was in power in the first place is because the US helped overthrow a democratically elected government in 1953? Maybe, but Yoni sure didn't. Of course, the Egypt-Israel peace accord is the mitigating circumstance here -- if Bushie can pull something like that off in the next two years, we can talk.

Bill Clinton: The guy Yoni lied about being, along with every one of Clinton's opponents, wanted Clinton to do what he didn't want him to do in Kosovo. The guy Yoni lies about being can't have it both ways. If Yoni or anyone he lies about being can show me where they wanted to invade Afghanistan and nation-build over there can post it here.

There you go.

All my own thoughts.

No lies about who I am.

Too bad Yoni can't do the same.

Bushie has two more years to secure his legacy as the not-worst president ever.

Tick-tock.

[xrayzebra]

Well, funny I should run into your post. I was just and will continue
shortly to watch on the History Channel about the little ice age
in the 13th century. And according to the narrator and all the
talking heads, it could happen again at any time. How strange. I
wonder if I should buy a copy and send to Gore.

Anyhow RNR, enjoy your planning, get everything done and come
on over to our fair city. Just remember that our "river walk" is
not really a river and is more of a creek and that it would go dry
if not for pumping water into it from our drinking water source.
Go figure.

Enjoy the trip and I do really hope you enjoy San Antonio.

[PixelPusher]

Good luck, Ruff!

[xrayzebra]

Oh, and RNR, I plan on polluting for the rest of my life. Dang'd if
I am going to peddle this old butt of mine anywhere, well maybe on
a street corner to the girls, I am so good looking I'm sure they will
pay for my services. :king :smokin :p: :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Well, someone who actually is Yoni, but Yoni lied about not being said Bushie is going to be on Mount Rushmore.

Is lying a compulsion or a hobby for you?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Thanks pp. :)

Ray, I've been to SA before and I do feel it is like a home away from home, so I will have a wonderful time, thanks. :D

Later all. Enjoy the brawl! :lol

[whottt]

Nice of Pixel pusher to give you a complete free pass on being a pollution monger...

The Lib credo is pretty obvious...hate Bush, provide aid and comfort for a medievil and unenlightened terrorist movement, blame America, and bitch about everything....this makes you a good person, regardless of how well you walk your own talk.

[whottt]

As for me...

I own a car but only use when it going out of town or if clients need a ride. I put about 3000 miles per year on my car.

I don't own a bike because the creation of tires also pollutes the environment and the alloys they are made from create a lot of hazardous waste.

I am not a meat eater. And the only fruits and vegetables I eat are those that have dropped harmlessly from the mother plant to the grown. Thus I ensure that I don't hurt a plant by picking food from them.

I then throw what's left of the acorns, fruits, vegetables or berries I have picked out in the back yard to the insects who I relucatantly had to deny food when I picked their up off the ground are able to still get something to eat.


I recycle everything and drink only filtered tap water(the process of making the plastic bottles for bottled water is extremely toxic). My home is entirely powered by solar and win power. I use nothing but rechargable batteries and am always sure to recycle those.

I haven't pissed indoors in 8 years because it's a tremendous waste of water for something that can easily be done oudoors. (5 gal per flush)

Piss kills vegetation so I piss on weeds and use my own urine as weed killer.

I do often feel guilt for taking the lives of innocent weeds but let's face it, no one eats weeds, not even insects and weeds kill other plants. It's a necessary evil and would I had the guts to give my own life so as not to kill that poor weed...but I'm weak and a hypocrite and can't bring myself to choose the life of the weed over my own.

Because of these habits I generate almost no waste or even recycling materials.


Basically the only thing I do that pollutes the environment in the slighest is use the internet...but I made my PC from an enviro pc kit, it's powered entirely by batteries I charge with solar energy and I only use dialup.

Plus...even on the internest I serve as a mod and do my part to delete bandwidth polution causing threads and to discourage over posting idiots who pollute the net, by calling them stupid and harrasing them.



That's me...

[whottt]

Let's face it...the only reason you guys are surprised to know what an enviro freak I am is because is because of my stance on nukes...


Just goes to show how trully detatched ya'll are from nature and the origin of life.


God is the atom...God is in everything, so are Atoms.

The Universe was born by a big nuclear explosion.

Every living thing on earth is given life by a big nuclear reaction.

Light is a nuclear reaction...so when God said let their be light...how do you think he did it?


Man rose as the dominant speieces on this planet as a result of a big nuke...


Noah probably got to go sailing because of some type of similar nuclear flare from the sun.


Jesus, being the son of god, was probably by his mother being exposted to some kind of raditation that mutated her into a virgin birth and likely caused her son to be born with the power to manipulate atoms(his miracles can all be attributed to this.

The son of god returned when nukes were invented in the early 20th century and since then America has been his chosen country...


When the apocalypse comes...IE when God comes...what exactly do you guys think is going to be happen?

Nuke city baby...IE god. Those that embrace god will die painlessly and be scattered back across the cosmos amongs the atoms from which they came...

Those that run from it, try to avoid it, and try to survive, will be left to live in a hell caused by a lack of god...IE solar light, radiation and warmth, and the nuclear fallout left in it's place.



So tell me again...who is more in touch with nature?


To me most enviro freaks look to be a bunch of people with a guilty conscience about thing they have no control over and who bitch about likewise...never getting the true connection and violent, radioactive nature of....nature.


Radiation is organic...just becasue it fucks humans up doesn't mean it's not....Cynaide is organic based as well...and it fucks us up too.

[Yonivore]

No lies about who I am.
Really? So your parents gave you the name ChumpDumper and you bear a striking resemblance to the guy from the Breakfast Club about to puke?


Too bad Yoni can't do the same.
I'm not lying, I'm stealing. This forum doesn't pay enough for me to craft my own answers when people I respect are doing such a good job.

Trust me, if there were anyone on the Left that could do the same, you'd be plaigerizing them. Unfortunately, for you, bullet point memes (Bush Lied, There were no WMDs, Iraq and al Qaeda had no relationship) become so widespread, their origins are lost in the static.

How about some in depth critical thinking on the war. Go ahead, steal something from a leftie blogger that I can sink my teeth into.


Bushie has two more years to secure his legacy as the not-worst president ever.
Which leads back to the original point of what "noted" historian, in his right mind, that didn't have a political bias, would claim that Bush is the worst president ever and that there is "no alternative" to ranking him as such.

Sounds to me like this Foner is no different than the "noted" historian Barbra Streisand.

So, again, got another "noted" historian and more than the recitation of a quote you heard on tv? After all, you did use the plural, "noted historians" in your original post.

Tick-tock.[/QUOTE]

[PixelPusher]

Basically the only thing I do that pollutes the environment in the slighest is use the internet...but I made my PC from an enviro pc kit, it's powered entirely by batteries I charge with solar energy and I only use dialup.

Plus...even on the internest I serve as a mod and do my part to delete bandwidth polution causing threads and to discourage over posting idiots who pollute the net, by calling them stupid and harrasing them.

I guess that means SpursTalk is the internet Chernobyl. :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

As for me...

I own a car but only use when it going out of town or if clients need a ride. I put about 3000 miles per year on my car.

I don't own a bike because the creation of tires also pollutes the environment and the alloys they are made from create a lot of hazardous waste.

I am not a meat eater. And the only fruits and vegetables I eat are those that have dropped harmlessly from the mother plant to the grown. Thus I ensure that I don't hurt a plant by picking food from them.

I then throw what's left of the acorns, fruits, vegetables or berries I have picked out in the back yard to the insects who I relucatantly had to deny food when I picked their up off the ground are able to still get something to eat.


I recycle everything and drink only filtered tap water(the process of making the plastic bottles for bottled water is extremely toxic). My home is entirely powered by solar and win power. I use nothing but rechargable batteries and am always sure to recycle those.

I haven't pissed indoors in 8 years because it's a tremendous waste of water for something that can easily be done oudoors. (5 gal per flush)

Piss kills vegetation so I piss on weeds and use my own urine as weed killer.

I do often feel guilt for taking the lives of innocent weeds but let's face it, no one eats weeds, not even insects and weeds kill other plants. It's a necessary evil and would I had the guts to give my own life so as not to kill that poor weed...but I'm weak and a hypocrite and can't bring myself to choose the life of the weed over my own.

Because of these habits I generate almost no waste or even recycling materials.


Basically the only thing I do that pollutes the environment in the slighest is use the internet...but I made my PC from an enviro pc kit, it's powered entirely by batteries I charge with solar energy and I only use dialup.

Plus...even on the internest I serve as a mod and do my part to delete bandwidth polution causing threads and to discourage over posting idiots who pollute the net, by calling them stupid and harrasing them.



That's me...

Yes. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Really? So your parents gave you the name ChumpDumper and you bear a striking resemblance to the guy from the Breakfast Club about to puke?No one else is ChumpDumper. I never stole shit off of anyone's blog and called it my own work. I am not a liar and a plagiarist. you are.
I'm not lying, I'm stealing. This forum doesn't pay enough for me to craft my own answers when people I respect are doing such a good job.You are a lying thief and a lazy one at that. I found the last thing you stole in 0.17 seconds and now you're trying to justify your lying and plagiarism and theft by saying you "respect" those you steal from and plagiarize and lie about. You have no respect for them at all or else you would give them their due credit. You are a liar and a thief and worthy of nothing but contempt.
Trust me, if there were anyone on the Left that could do the same, you'd be plaigerizing them. Unfortunately, for you, bullet point memes (Bush Lied, There were no WMDs, Iraq and al Qaeda had no relationship) become so widespread, their origins are lost in the static.Bush chose to believe a lie, there are no WMDs and any weak-ass link you can find between Iraq and Al Qaeda is no justification for 3000 American lives and $300,000,000 a day, liar.
How about some in depth critical thinking on the war. Go ahead, steal something from a leftie blogger that I can sink my teeth into.Nope, I gave you my indepth critical thinking, original and non-plagiarized. I don't play your liar's game, liar. You disgust me. You can't even own up to your own internet identitiy. You are pathetic.
Which leads back to the original point of what "noted" historian, in his right mind, that didn't have a political bias, would claim that Bush is the worst president ever and that there is "no alternative" to ranking him as such.That's his opinion. I said it was premature, but he does have a point. Bushie has quite a hole to dig himself out of. Maybe the faith-based initiative will be much more historically important than anyone now thinks.
Sounds to me like this Foner is no different than the "noted" historian Barbra Streisand.Go fuck yourself. Or maybe read a history book. Or take the word of Karl Rove. Then you would know what a giant this man is.
So, again, got another "noted" historian and more than the recitation of a quote you heard on tv? After all, you did use the plural, "noted historians" in your original post.Glady.

He's only fifth worst! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101475.html)

Maybe Nixon is a little worse! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101506.html)

"Bush will be forever handcuffed to the bottom of the presidential ladder. The reason: Iraq." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101511.html)

There you go, Yoni, or whoever you are trying to pass yourself off as now.

You are a sad excuse for a liar. Now you can show me the post where you, although you deny it was you, claimed Bushie is going up on Mount Rushmore. I'm sure you can find several noted historians that agree with you.

Liar.

[Yonivore]

No one else is ChumpDumper. I never stole shit off of anyone's blog and called it my own work. I am not a liar and a plagiarist. you are.
There's nothing to steal on the Left. Y'all are complete void of any critical analysis of contemporary political issues. Y'all's is a vast wasteland of bumper sticker sloganism that only serves to antagonize and tear down. I completely understand why you're upset that I can find intelligent support for my arguments in here and, further, why you'd rather focus on my plaigerism rather than the lack of depth, in your arguments, my thefts expose.


You are a lying thief and a lazy one at that. I found the last thing you stole in 0.17 seconds and now you're trying to justify your lying and plagiarism and theft by saying you "respect" those you steal from and plagiarize and lie about. You have no respect for them at all or else you would give them their due credit. You are a liar and a thief and worthy of nothing but contempt.
Wow, I'm impressed.

And, actually, I typed too fast. I respect the opinions of those from whom I steal...I can't claim to know any of them well enough to form a personal opinion. But, the manner in which they frame an argument and support their positions is to be envied and respected.

Look if it bothers you so much, e-mail them...they all have e-mail addresses on their website. Tell them what I'm doing. When I get the cease and desist order from their attorneys, that'll probably end the charade.

We're unpaid players on a two-bit political forum. I seriously doubt anyone gives a flying fuck about what you or I do here. We're both anonymous posters and poseurs...I seriously doubt you are anything like the asshole you portray on this board, just as I am nothing like Yonivore.

This is a diversion for me; to you, apparently, it's some kind of obsession. You're the Harriet Miers of all of Kori's Moderator appointments. No one can figure out why she would hand you the keys to a toilet, much less, give you control over the board; but, I'm sure she has her reasons, and well, who really gives a shit anyway?


Bush chose to believe a lie,
What lie? At worst it was a mistaken intelligence assessment but, we're still not sure that's the case. There are still former regime officers coming forward saying the stuff was moved from the country.


there are no WMDs
That's not true either and since you'll never let go of that Leftist article of faith, it is pointless to even engage in that argument for the umpteenth time.


and any weak-ass link you can find between Iraq and Al Qaeda is no justification for 3000 American lives and $300,000,000 a day, liar.
Well, it was more than weak-ass and the legitimacy of this war is a topic worthy of discussion. Reasonable people on both sides of the argument have made compelling cases for their positions -- none of which match your "in-depth" analysis.


Nope, I gave you my indepth critical thinking, :lmao
original and non-plagiarized.
No, just cookie cutter leftist dribble that could be pulled out of a monkey's ass.


I don't play your liar's game, liar. You disgust me. You can't even own up to your own internet identitiy.
Any idea how stupid that sounds. Internet identity? You're pathetic. Hey, here's an idea. Ignore me if I disgust you so much.


You are pathetic.
Okay. Luckily, I don't place any stock in your characterizations of anything, much less me.


That's his opinion. I said it was premature, but he does have a point. Bushie has quite a hole to dig himself out of. Maybe the faith-based initiative will be much more historically important than anyone now thinks.
Yes, and the point of my stolen material was that it is not the opinion of anyone who would like to be characterized as a "noted" historian.


Go fuck yourself. Or maybe read a history book. Or take the word of Karl Rove. Then you would know what a giant this man is.
Yeah, some giant. Historians don't normally go around predicting the future.


Glady.

He's only fifth worst! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101475.html)
Michael Lind is the Whitehead senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
This guy comes closer than the other two but, even his wikipedia entry lists him as a journalist first -- then, an historian. A "radical centrist" at that.


By contrast, George W. Bush has inadvertently destroyed only Baghdad, not Washington, and the costs of the Iraq war in blood and treasure are far less than those of Korea and Vietnam. Yet he will be remembered for the Iraq conflict for generations, long after tax-cut-driven deficits, No Child Left Behind and comprehensive immigration reform are forgotten. The fact that Bush followed the invasion of Afghanistan, which had sheltered al-Qaeda, with the toppling of Saddam Hussein, will puzzle historians for centuries. It is as though, after Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR had asked Congress to declare war on Argentina.

Why did Bush do it? Did he really believe that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Was it about oil? Israel? Revenge for Hussein's alleged attempt on Bush's father's life? The war will join the sinking of the USS Maine and the grassy knoll among the topics to exercise conspiracy theorists for generations, and the photos of torture at Abu Ghraib will join images of the napalmed Vietnamese girl and executed Filipino rebels in the gallery of U.S. atrocities.

Like all presidents, George W. Bush wants to be remembered. He will get his wish -- as the fifth-worst president in U.S. history.
This is the only discussion of Bush in the article to which you linked. Frankly, there are many who aren't puzzled about the invasion of Iraq. But, that this clown is doesn't make George Bush the fifth worse president.

Most of his article is spent explaining why Bush isn't the worst.

Noted Historian? Nope. Try again.


Maybe Nixon is a little worse! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101506.html)
David Greenberg teaches history and media studies at Rutgers University.

From his homepage:


Prof. Greenberg has written for numerous scholarly and popular publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker, Foreign Affairs, The Journal of American History, Reviews in American History, and Daedalus. He is a regular contributor to the online magazine Slate, where he writes the "History Lesson" column and other occasional reviews and essays. Before pursuing his PhD, he served as Acting Editor and Managing Editor of The New Republic magazine and, early in his career, as the assistant to author Bob Woodward, on The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House (Simon & Schuster, 1994). Prof. Greenberg holds a BA in History from Yale University (Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude, 1990) and a PhD in History from Columbia University (2001).

So, he was a flunky for Bob Woodward. And, aside from publishing papers in a couple of history journals -- which makes him published but not "noted," I can find nothing on his own webpage that would qualify him as a "noted" historian.

There are a lot of history teachers that aren't "noted." This, as far as I can tell, is one of them.


"Bush will be forever handcuffed to the bottom of the presidential ladder. The reason: Iraq." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101511.html)
Douglas Brinkley is director of the Roosevelt Center at Tulane University.

Here's what Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/32362/) had to say about him in 1999:


"Douglas Brinkley is the William Ginsburg of the Kennedy death circus. Before the crash, the boyish, gap-toothed Brinkley was known primarily as a Michael Beschloss-in-waiting, a telegenic historian fielding calls from the cable news networks. Now the University of New Orleans professor has parlayed a contributing editorship at George and a friendship with Kennedy into a job as a necropublicist. Between Saturday and Tuesday, Brinkley appeared on MSNBC, Late Edition, Meet the Press, Good Morning America, Dateline, Today (twice), and NPR (twice). He also penned columns about his relationship with Kennedy for Newsweek and the New York Times, and was quoted everywhere else ink touches paper.
Once again, the words "noted historian" aren't used.


There you go, Yoni, or whoever you are trying to pass yourself off as now.
Abysmal effort. Care to go another round?


You are a sad excuse for a liar. Now you can show me the post where you, although you deny it was you, claimed Bushie is going up on Mount Rushmore. I'm sure you can find several noted historians that agree with you.
I don't deny I said that. I still believe George W. Bush will eventually be remembered as one of the greatest presidents of all time. Yep, even to Mount Rushmore standards.


Liar.
Insufferable prick.

[johnsmith]

There's nothing to steal on the Left. Y'all are complete void of any critical analysis of contemporary political issues. Y'all's is a vast wasteland of bumper sticker sloganism that only serves to antagonize and tear down. I completely understand why you're upset that I can find intelligent support for my arguments in here and, further, why you'd rather focus on my plaigerism rather than the lack of depth, in your arguments, my thefts expose.


Wow, I'm impressed.

And, actually, I typed too fast. I respect the opinions of those from whom I steal...I can't claim to know any of them well enough to form a personal opinion. But, the manner in which they frame an argument and support their positions is to be envied and respected.

Look if it bothers you so much, e-mail them...they all have e-mail addresses on their website. Tell them what I'm doing. When I get the cease and desist order from their attorneys, that'll probably end the charade.

We're unpaid players on a two-bit political forum. I seriously doubt anyone gives a flying fuck about what you or I do here. We're both anonymous posters and poseurs...I seriously doubt you are anything like the asshole you portray on this board, just as I am nothing like Yonivore.

This is a diversion for me; to you, apparently, it's some kind of obsession. You're the Harriet Miers of all of Kori's Moderator appointments. No one can figure out why she would hand you the keys to a toilet, much less, give you control over the board; but, I'm sure she has her reasons, and well, who really gives a shit anyway?


What lie? At worst it was a mistaken intelligence assessment but, we're still not sure that's the case. There are still former regime officers coming forward saying the stuff was moved from the country.


That's not true either and since you'll never let go of that Leftist article of faith, it is pointless to even engage in that argument for the umpteenth time.


Well, it was more than weak-ass and the legitimacy of this war is a topic worthy of discussion. Reasonable people on both sides of the argument have made compelling cases for their positions -- none of which match your "in-depth" analysis.

:lmao
No, just cookie cutter leftist dribble that could be pulled out of a monkey's ass.


Any idea how stupid that sounds. Internet identity? You're pathetic. Hey, here's an idea. Ignore me if I disgust you so much.


Okay. Luckily, I don't place any stock in your characterizations of anything, much less me.


Yes, and the point of my stolen material was that it is not the opinion of anyone who would like to be characterized as a "noted" historian.


Yeah, some giant. Historians don't normally go around predicting the future.


Michael Lind is the Whitehead senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
This guy comes closer than the other two but, even his wikipedia entry lists him as a journalist first -- then, an historian. A "radical centrist" at that.


This is the only discussion of Bush in the article to which you linked. Frankly, there are many who aren't puzzled about the invasion of Iraq. But, that this clown is doesn't make George Bush the fifth worse president.

Most of his article is spent explaining why Bush isn't the worst.

Noted Historian? Nope. Try again.


David Greenberg teaches history and media studies at Rutgers University.

From his homepage:



So, he was a flunky for Bob Woodward. And, aside from publishing papers in a couple of history journals -- which makes him published but not "noted," I can find nothing on his own webpage that would qualify him as a "noted" historian.

There are a lot of history teachers that aren't "noted." This, as far as I can tell, is one of them.


Douglas Brinkley is director of the Roosevelt Center at Tulane University.

Here's what Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/32362/) had to say about him in 1999:


Once again, the words "noted historian" aren't used.


Abysmal effort. Care to go another round?


I don't deny I said that. I still believe George W. Bush will eventually be remembered as one of the greatest presidents of all time. Yep, even to Mount Rushmore standards.


Insufferable prick.



Possibly the funniest post ever on this site.

[Yonivore]

And now for some truly in-depth, critical analysis, of the current global war on terrorism and why this President's efforts will eventually be remembered as great.

Vasko Kohlmayer (http://worlddefensereview.com/kohlmayer113006.shtml), writing in the World Defense Review makes this startling observation:


In one of the most startling incidents in our history, America's sworn enemy used the term 'brotherly' when referring to one of our major political parties. The remarkable pronouncement came amidst the celebrations that erupted in the terrorist ranks after the democratic victory in the latest elections.

Given all that the democrats have done, the affection in which they are held by our foes is neither unjustified nor surprising. They have more than earned it by systematically subverting this country's war effort while simultaneously proffering assistance to those who have pledged to destroy us.

Democrats' devious deeds are too numerous to be fully recounted, but here at least are some of the highlights:

-They have tried to prevent us from listening on terrorists' phone calls
-They have sought to stop us from properly interrogating captured terrorists
-They have tried to stop us from monitoring terrorists' financial transactions
-They have revealed the existence of secret national security programs
-They have opposed vital components of the Patriot Act
-They have sought to confer unmerited legal rights on terrorists
-They have opposed profiling to identify the terrorists in our midst
-They have impugned and demeaned our military
-They have insinuated that the president is a war criminal
-They have forced the resignation of a committed defense secretary
-They have repeatedly tried to de-legitimize our war effort
-They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war.

To see just how bad things really are, ponder this question: If the terrorists were represented by a party in our political system, how would their foreign policy program substantially differ from that of the present-day democrats?

By effectively becoming a political arm of our sworn enemy, the Democratic Party has staked out a position that is unparalleled in our country's history.
Kohlmayer suggests that the inability to grasp the motives of the Democrats, sprurred on by their leftist base, has made Americans reluctant to believe in their essential treachery.

That's all very well and good; and I applaud Americans who are so fair-minded, but from a psychological perspective, their motives are not at all hard to understand. Just hard to believe.

The Democratic Party leadership is in thrall to the lunatic left, and like the terrorists they support, the political left these days makes no bones about their agenda. They are completely upfront about it, in fact.

If you have doubts about this, take James Taranto's quiz (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009319). It's a tough one.

The Democratic Party is no longer on the side of America. They are no longer on the side of freedom. It is time that the American public begin to appreciate what is so very obvious to the enemies we are fighting.

And before the trolls deride these remarks and cry foul, they should first take a long hard look at the list Kohlmayer has above. Is it just a coincidence that the left's rhetoric sounds remarkably like Ahmadinejad? Some cosmic joke, perhaps? Or (now this is the tough question) is it that the beliefs and agenda that you so mindlessly support has merged with those whose only goal is the destruction of America and its values?

Charles Krauthammer (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/democratization_policies_are_d.html) has an excellent post that should be read by all you "reality-based" realists:


Now that the "realists'' have ridden into town gleefully consigning the Bush doctrine to the ash heap of history, everyone has discovered the notion of interests, as if it were some new idea thought up by James Baker and the Iraq Study Group.

What do people think we've been doing for the last five years? True, the president's rhetoric has a tendency to go soaringly Wilsonian, e.g. the banishing tyranny stuff in his second inaugural address. But our policies of democratization in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon have been deeply rooted in the most concrete of American interests.

If we really had been in the grip of "idealism,'' we'd be deep in Chad and Burma and Darfur. We are not. We are instead trying to sustain fragile democracies in three strategically important countries -- Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon -- that form the geographic parentheses around the principal threat to Western interests in the region, the Syria-Iran axis.

We are trying to bring democracy to Iraq in particular because a pro-Western government enjoying legitimacy and popular support would have been the most enduring means of securing our interests there. Deposing Saddam & Sons was essential because they posed a permanent strategic threat to the region and to U.S. interests....

Very hardheaded realist terms: interest, stability, regional powers. But stringing them together to suggest that Iran and Syria share our interests in stability is the height of fantasy. In fact, Iran and Syria have an overriding interest in chaos in Iraq -- which is precisely why they each have been abetting the insurgency and fanning civil war.
Supporting liberty and the development of free societies in the middle east is not a utopian fantasy or even a Wilsonian dream--but a reasonable policy and expression of our national values AND national interests. September 11th taught us that we can no longer ignore the tyranny and fanaticism that deliberately brought death and destruction to our shores and declared war on everything our country stands for.

Consider this: we could have (and still can) completely obliterate the entire problem with the use of overwhelming force that is at our disposal. There are some who argue (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp) that is precisely what we should do; and that our primary target should be the source of Islamic totalitarianism since 1979. I don't even necessarily disagree with this approach.

But, Dr. Sanity discussed in this post (http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/03/yes-or-no.html) the strategic question of our time is whether or not Islam itself--not just the Islamic totalitarians who have taken over that religion--is compatible with freedom and free societies. President Bush has bet everything on the idea that it is, and that democratic reform can salvage that beleaguered religion and prevent the incredible loss of life that answering "No" (http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/03/inching-toward-no.html) to the question will entail.

In contemplating these pieces of a larger puzzle, it strikes me that more and more people (from the conservatives who now question the value of the Iraq war; to the ordinary citizens who are fed up with the antics of flying imams and the islmaophobic accusations of CAIR; to independents like myself who have resolutely supported President Bush) are beginning to inch slowly toward a negative answer to the strategic question. While many muslims are decent, tolerant and yearn to be free; Islam itself does not appear to be compatible with a free society. This ultimate conclusion is breathtaking--and heartbreaking-- in its implications. And if you doubt the seriousness in which I say this, see this post (http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/archives/2006/03/the_key_strateg_3.html). And, if you have not read this post from September, 2003 from The Belmont Club (http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html), then you should do so.


It may eventually be the case that the West becomes convinced that Islam is unable to change and is completely incompatible with freedom. We are well on our way to that eventuality, sadly. Time and again there have been opportunities for the moderates in the religion to pull it back from its suicidal historical course.

Personally, I am not convinced that Islam can change, but I hope it can, given time.

Time is not on Islam's side, however. Leaders like the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hamas in Gaza are acting in ways that will facilitate a confrontation. They foolishly believe that the West will back down--if not because of a belief in the superiority of Islam; then from doubts about the superiority of Western values and from a reluctance to act decisively and ruthlessly.

The psychopathic elements in Islam believe this is our fundamental weakness; but they are wrong. This is actually our fundamental strength. President Bush has bet that Islam can be changed if it is infused with some democratic opportunities and freed from some of the political and religious tyranny that has dominated the Middle East. If such a democratizing process had been started--and carried through-- a decade or two earlier, well who knows how much the situation might have changed by now?

And, contrary to the infantile imaginings of the antiwar and so-called "peace" movements, Bush's strategy actually represents the Best. Possible. Hope. For. Peace.

It is a strategy that faces the grim reality of Islamic contradictions and historical brutality; yet has enough optimism and goodwill in it to be genuinely worth the price we are paying. If it works, millions of deaths might be prevented. And if the peace crowd really cares about peace, then they would do well to reconsider their own antics.
It is surely possible that I place too great a hope in the idea of freedom; or that I have unrealistic expectations of how much time is needed for its moderating effects to be realized. My primary concern has always been to minimize the loss of life--our own and those who yearn for freedom but who are in the grip of Islamic totalitarianism; and the only option that seemed to me to do that was the Bush Doctrine. But there has always been the possibility that it would not work in time, implemented some 30 years too late.

SC&A (http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2006/11/30/in-the-course-of-just-over-200-years-we-have-provided-the-world-with-ideas-contributions-and-realities-that-are-in-the-consciousness-of-every-human-being-on-the-planet/) have this to say:


Freedom supports righteousness and make the world a more civilized and moral place. Notwithstanding the reality that much of the world doesn’t care about those ideals, that truth about freedom is unassailable. Those that resist and resent our involvement in helping to secure freedom for others, may at times, seem to prevail, but in the end, even that is illusory. Evolution, political and otherwise, has always meant that man was empowered and free to reach greater heights, unencumbered by the tyranny of other men asserting their dominion over his freedom, property, ideas or beliefs.

There are those that will go to great lengths to keep us from bringing freedom to others. They excoriate us, berate us, laugh at us and even support violence against us. They take great pleasure in our trials and tribulations. There are those who align themselves with evil so as to hurt us- and then rejoice in our pain. There are those that would support the propaganda and ideologies that would demoralize and weaken us. With all their might, deceit and hatred, they would relentlessly attack us- but in the end, it will all be for naught. Americans will defend freedom, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

They may at times kill or harm the messenger, but they cannot kill the message. Freedom, in the end, will prevail.
Despite the ongoing and systematic subversion of freedom's message from within by those whose rhetoric (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/30/olbermanns-special-comment-on-gingrich-we-fight-for-liberty-by-having-more-liberty-and-not-less/) mindlessly supports freedom, but whose actions have exactly the opposite effect, the courageous Democrats and ever-so-brave lunatics of the left have managed to foolishly convince themselves that the "real" enemy of freedom is Bush. They strut around convinced by their own smug, self-righteous slogans that they are defending freedom, even as they kiss up to any two-bit despot or tyrant in the world; even as U.S. military personnel confront the true enemies of freedom and civilization in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, despite their strident wails and transparent attempts to consolidate their own power and influence no matter what the cost, they are only becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Because, in the end--one way or the other--I have no doubt that freedom will indeed prevail.

Now, all of this is stolen. And, whether or not any of these people are "noted" historians, I haven't a clue. I do know they are smart professionals who can formulate an argument and support it like nobody I've seen...particularly the "noted" historian ChumpDumper marched in here after hearing a quote, with which he happened to agree, on his idiot box.

I still challenge you to come up with some in-depth analysis of our current global circumstance, written by someone on the left, that is worth reading.

[Yonivore]

I just noticed my new "tagline." Cool!

[01Snake]

You're the Harriet Miers of all of Kori's Moderator appointments. No one can figure out why she would hand you the keys to a toilet, much less, give you control over the board; but, I'm sure she has her reasons, and well, who really gives a shit anyway?




:lol

[clambake]

Predictions of the future aren't needed when the present is crystal clear. Go ahead and try to salvage whats left of his Iraqi mauled ass. The true sadness of this is the fact that they hatched this little plan back when they were flying around the country in Enron jets in 2000.

This thing has always had "plane crash" written all over it. I can't think of a more fitting sponsor, can you?

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

Hit a nerve, didn't I? I've never seen so much blog vomited up in one post. Your finger must be cramped from cutting and pasting so much. I give the opinions of a couple of historians I don't agree with and you have a plagiarism meltdown.

My work here is done. Mission accomplished.

You're still a liar and the course isn't being stayed anymore.

[Yonivore]

:lmao

Hit a nerve, didn't I?
Nope.


I've never seen so much blog vomited up in one post. Your finger must be cramped from cutting and pasting so much.
Took all of about 3 minutes.


I give the opinions of a couple of historians I don't agree with and you have a plagiarism meltdown.
You don't agree with 'em? Why would you forward their opinions? I thought the discussion was about "noted" historians anyway.


My work here is done. Mission accomplished.
Don't forget your paycheck on the way out the door.


You're still a liar and the course isn't being stayed anymore.
You're still a dumbass and we'll see what unfolds.

[ChumpDumper]

You don't agree with 'em?I said they were premature. You were so busy working yourself into a neocon lather that you missed that. Bravo.
Don't forget your paycheck on the way out the door.Still mad, I see.
we'll see what unfolds.Gee, that's what said. I'll start a conservative blog so you'll actually read what I post, dipshit.

And steal from it.

And lie about it.

[Yonivore]

I said they were premature. You were so busy working yourself into a neocon lather that you missed that. Bravo.
I didn't miss it; it was irrelevant to the whole discussion about why a "noted" historian would make such a premature conjecture and then, stake his reputation on the assertion that nothing in the coming two years can change it.

That's a stupid historian...well, maybe that's for what he is noted. Hmmm...hadn't thought of that.


Still mad, I see.
About what? You're the one declaring you're done, mission accomplished. Yet, you keep coming back.


Gee, that's what said. I'll start a conservative blog so you'll actually read what I post, dipshit.

And steal from it.

And lie about it.
Yeah, that'll happen. Look, just because you don't have the balls God gave this idiot historian to step out on a limb and actually agree with him -- even though every post you've ever made regarding President Bush's legacy screams that you believe he is the worst president ever -- don't blame me.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't miss it; it was irrelevant:lmao of course it's relevant, you just don't think it is since it wasn't on a neocon blog.
Look, just because you don't have the balls God gave this idiot historian to step out on a limb and actually agree with him -- even though every post you've ever made regarding President Bush's legacy screams that you believe he is the worst president ever -- don't blame me.I don't believe he's the worst president ever, but he's pretty fucking horrible. he's got two years to clean up his act -- something I also posted and you stupidly ignored. I'm going to see if neoconsarestillrelevant.com is registered so you can google it to actually read what I write.

[Yonivore]

:lmao of course it's relevant, you just don't think it is since it wasn't on a neocon blog.
No, I don't think it's relevant because it came from your keyboard and had nothing to do with the discussion of why this idiot is a noted historian.


I don't believe he's the worst president ever, but he's pretty fucking horrible. he's got two years to clean up his act -- something I also posted and you stupidly ignored.
I didn't ignore it, I discounted it. There's a difference.


I'm going to see if neoconsarestillrelevant.com is registered so you can google it to actually read what I write.
Well, you'd better have the type of traffic, trackbacks, and references those from whom I do steal have, or you'll be stuck with me reading your crap in here.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

"I read, but I discount."

[Yonivore]

:lmao

"I read, but I discount."
Yeah, as do most people with what you write.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, you're doing a heckuva job ignoring me, Yoni.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, you're doing a heckuva job ignoring me, Yoni.
Okay, once again, "ignore <> discount." I actually think it's kind of amusing fucking with you.

[ChumpDumper]

Gee, you don't remember your solemn pledge to ignore me?

I don't blame you. That turned out to be another lie.

[Yonivore]

Gee, you don't remember your solemn pledge to ignore me?

I don't blame you. That turned out to be another lie.
I don't remember it being "solemn." But, oh well, your crap just begs to be smacked down.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

whottt is even crazier than I suspected (yes, let's all embrace nuclear apocalypse! :rolleyes ), and this thread was hijacked into a shouting match between the extremes of left and right. Really, what is the point of the ST political forum? No-one listens, and thus no-one learns anything, there are no compromises or resolutions of problems, are acceptance of new ideas, so why bother? I guess its only real value is to work off some hatred, to throw some vitriol at the shiny screen...

I think I'm gone for good. There are other places I can better spend my time. This place has become a bad habit.

[clambake]

Come on Ruff, just a little spitballing. I actually thought some of us might agree with recommendations from the Iraq Study Group that Bush put together. Now, bush doesn't even agree. No way any rightwingers here would dare stray off W's path. Stuck in reverse.

[Yonivore]

whottt is even crazier than I suspected (yes, let's all embrace nuclear apocalypse! :rolleyes ), and this thread was hijacked into a shouting match between the extremes of left and right. Really, what is the point of the ST political forum? No-one listens, and thus no-one learns anything, there are no compromises or resolutions of problems, are acceptance of new ideas, so why bother? I guess its only real value is to work off some hatred, to throw some vitriol at the shiny screen...

I think I'm gone for good. There are other places I can better spend my time. This place has become a bad habit.
It's therapeutic. Seriously, you didn't ever have any illusions this place actually solved any debates, did you?

Safe travels!

[whottt]

whottt is even crazier than I suspected (yes, let's all embrace nuclear apocalypse! :rolleyes ), and this thread was hijacked into a shouting match between the extremes of left and right. Really, what is the point of the ST political forum? No-one listens, and thus no-one learns anything, there are no compromises or resolutions of problems, are acceptance of new ideas, so why bother? I guess its only real value is to work off some hatred, to throw some vitriol at the shiny screen...

I think I'm gone for good. There are other places I can better spend my time. This place has become a bad habit.


I hope the fact that you'll be riding in a vehicle that will spew more earth warming poutants in a 12-15 hour flight, as you lazily drift off to sleep, than I will in my entire lifetime, helps you sleep well. Way to practice what you preach you man of conviction you.

And no...I don't fly.

Sweet dreams.

[smeagol]

whottt is even crazier than I suspected
You needed 2500+ posts to realize this :lol

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

It's therapeutic. Seriously, you didn't ever have any illusions this place actually solved any debates, did you?

Safe travels!

Naaaaah. Good point. I guess I have used it as therapy from time to time as well.

Thanks for the good wishes. :)

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I hope the fact that you'll be riding in a vehicle that will spew more earth warming poutants in a 12-15 hour flight, as you lazily drift off to sleep, than I will in my entire lifetime, helps you sleep well. Way to practice what you preach you man of conviction you.

And no...I don't fly.

Sweet dreams.

Um, no. You use electricity, you drive a car. That times 70 years will spew a helluva lot more CO2 than my plane flight.

If you had any decency you would have read my post on emissions back on the first page - flying is like driving the same distance for every person in the plane seperately. Using the average emission figures for developed world citizens, I will have made up for this flight through changes in my behaviour (riding my bike, buying green energy) in about another year. I will also buy carbon offsets. I live what I say.

Oh, and BTW, although planes emit a lot of CO2, the upper tropospheric clouds they help to form actually contributes to global dimming, which cools the earth. Scientists started to investigate this after they noticed a spike in temperatures in the US in the 3 days there were no plane flights after 9/11. Not a justification for my travel, merely an interesting aside.

And you sir, with your God-nuclear axis of insanity, are a crackpot. How you sometimes manage to make sense in the basketball forums is beyond me.

[Nbadan]

Naaaaah. Good point. I guess I have used it as therapy from time to time as well.

Thanks for the good wishes. :)

You may not think this forum helps, but it beats the hell out of doing nothing, or even, feeling powerless to do anything. Sometimes its hard to tell when you influence people, but you do.

Best wishes RROS.

:hat