karlunity Posted July 15, 2007 Report Share Posted July 15, 2007 Well, yes, higher motives are better ... the trouble is Dems will ascribe low motives to Reps and vice versa. Does anyone here believe that Clinton's gun control moves were 'high minded'? Similarly, few lefties would consider the Iraq war a noble enterprise CG. That is true. I was talking to a friend of 30 years, he hates Mr. Bush with the same passion he hated LBJ and Nixon. Both of us trust and would do most any thing to help the other, but we cannot discuss politics with out wanting to kill the other. We simply cannot accept what the other sees as simple truth. I think that the old divides of our youth have returned for one final clash. Wonder what the kids think of it? Karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothmog Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 Well as this is a bit of a split off from the 'President' thread, I think part of it does go to leadership. Presidents such as Reagan seemed to command the trust and respect of most although even he had vitriolic attackers who were part of the Democratic party base. However, many mainstream Dems came to accept his leadership ... Bush seems to have spent all his political capital early and long wars of attrition have never been popular in America. However, despite the quality of leadership, there is an ever widening political divide in America with no compromise possible. I see a similar state of affairs in Canada. I am quite pessimistic about the outcome, which I believe will be civil war, or at least widespread civil unrest ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlunity Posted July 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 I am quite pessimistic about the outcome, which I believe will be civil war, or at least widespread civil unrest ... CG. I fear that that may be the most probable outcome. Still you know that I am a man of peace and reason above all so how about this? You fellas toss in Quebec and we will toss in Cali and Massachusetts as the new home land for the left from both of our nations. Then we deport them there and let them "social engineer "each other to their Utopian hearts content? Karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothmog Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 I don't know what California is like, but Quebec will never willingly leave a nickel in the Federal treasury that they believe they are entitled to. For that reason they will never truly separate from Canada (the financial backer of their hare brained socialist schemes), they would in fact require eviction! PS - You might wish to alter 'Baby Bloomers' to Baby Boomers'. 'Baby Bloomers' are diapers, I think! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlunity Posted July 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 Thanks CG. Back to proof reading 101 for me. As to their going "willingly" ...How about this: We tell them that there will be a huge "Save the Earth concert" at those locations with FREE drugs and free love and free food! FREE>>FREE ... Once they all head out...we change the locks on our national front doors : ) Karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothmog Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 They would instantly suspect a ruse ... they know that they call the shots in our respective nations, and as such, will let us know when these things will take place. Besides, too many people depend on their votes to threaten a voter base of millions of people, no matter how eccentric and self centered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 They would instantly suspect a ruse ... they know that they call the shots in our respective nations, and as such, will let us know when these things will take place. Besides, too many people depend on their votes to threaten a voter base of millions of people, no matter how eccentric and self centered. Sounds like ya'll have a wetback problem before they even get there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fritz Posted July 17, 2007 Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 "Bush seems to have spent all his political capital early and long wars of attrition have never been popular in America." Bush spent his political capital as governor of Texas. As such he was known as the "Uniter". He had the ability (as governor of Texas) to pull both sides together. We got a lot of legislation passed in Texas during his term. But friends, I must now reveal to you the rest of the story. There was a man named Bob Bullock in Austin way before Bush decided to sell his baseball team, before he got out of the oil business his daddy started. Bob Bullock was there to guide him through the hoops and make things happen in Texas. Bob Bullock was a Democrat. He died in 1999. The year before he died, he endorsed Bush for reelection. I wonder if he would do so again, if he were alive. And now you know the rest of the story! fritz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlunity Posted July 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2007 Mr. Bush has a BA from YALE and an MBA from Harvard Now Yale or Harvard are not my favorite schools, (That may be just sour grapes on my part, as I did not attend Ivy league schools. : ) ) but I have yet to meet anyone who earned a degree from them who was stupid. Mr. Bush went on to be a fighter pilot, if you check with the AF, they require a fair bit of intelligence before they let people fly their aircraft. In short, despite the disinformation put out by the Dem's , Mr.Bush's accomplishments are those a very smart man. Karl PS. I know that Mr. Bush had C's in Yale...but so did Mr. Kerry, who so far as I know does NOT hold a grad degree, so by what logic or reason, except politics, is Mr. Kerry an intellectual and Mr. Bush a dunce? Karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fritz Posted July 18, 2007 Report Share Posted July 18, 2007 Mr. Bush has a BA from YALE and an MBA from Harvard Now Yale or Harvard are not my favorite schools, (That may be just sour grapes on my part, as I did not attend Ivy league schools. : ) ) but I have yet to meet anyone who earned a degree from them who was stupid. Mr. Bush went on to be a fighter pilot, if you check with the AF, they require a fair bit of intelligence before they let people fly their aircraft. In short, despite the disinformation put out by the Dem's , Mr.Bush's accomplishments are those a very smart man. Karl PS. I know that Mr. Bush had C's in Yale...but so did Mr. Kerry, who so far as I know does NOT hold a grad degree, so by what logic or reason, except politics, is Mr. Kerry an intellectual and Mr. Bush a dunce? Karl Those are supposedly "noble" accomplishments by Bush, but what did he accomplish after he left Texas? In Texas, he surrounded himself with intelligent people (he listened to what Bob Bullock said). When he got to Washington, he refused to listen to Colin Powell and other intelligent people. Instead he listened to the bad advise of Donald Rumsfeld and the infamous mr. Rove (whom he still consults on a daily basis). Bush had his chance to rise above politics, to do what he did in Texas (get things done). Instead he chose ideology over ideals. As Leonard Pitts put it---"We finally exit an eight-year sojourn in a political fantasy where there were no ideals---only ideologies, expediencies, angles to be worked and appeals to the base. Was nothing real? Was nothing true? Was nothing beyond politics?" The answer has been self-evident for a long time now: No, nothing was. fritz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlunity Posted July 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2007 http://www.counterpunch.org/pitts02022004.html Leonard Pitts ..If any of you would like to get an idea of the political views of Mr. Pitts. Check out the about short cut. "he surrounded himself with intelligent people " fritz Hum..when the AF let him fly those fighters, who did he "surround" the cockpit with? Karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fritz Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 "Hum..when the AF let him fly those fighters, who did he "surround" the cockpit with?" Now Karl, You are not trying to make a joke about the Air Force are you? About the Marines never letting such a fellow at the controls? I was in the Air Force, so let them alone. Besides, at the time, Bush was not in it over his head (like he now is). And I am sure he had a parachute. Come to think of it, he has a parachute today. The problem is that he is too arrogant to use it, so down in flames he goes. Bush's ratings are so low that the only thing he is above is the law! BTW, was that link to Leonard Pitts supposed to mean something? I only quoted him because you are so afraid of what the other side writes. fritz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlunity Posted July 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 "BTW, was that link to Leonard Pitts supposed to mean something? I only quoted him because you are so afraid of what the other side writes" fritz Demonstrating the objectivity and academic quality of your sources. Since you were in the Air Force and I was not, I ask you again, does the Air Force let dumb or stupid people fly their fighters? Bush's ratings are so low that the only thing he is above is the law fritz Alas, that is true and it took 7 years to get them that low...the democratic Congress is last I saw 5 points or so LOWER and they did it in 7 MONTHS. Yep, the Dem's can do things quicker...wonder who is doing their thinking...Cindy ? Karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fritz Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 "Demonstrating the objectivity and academic quality of your sources. Since you were in the Air Force and I was not, I ask you again, does the Air Force let dumb or stupid people fly their fighters?" On the first---likewise, I am sure! On the second---I was not a fighter pilot, I was in the Strategic Air Command, but I can tell you this--SAC would never let a fellow who was dumb or stupid fly a B-52. What the Texas Air National Guard did, I have no idea. BTW, how long did Bush fly those fighters? Karl, Taking your advise to read more before posting, I present this (taken off the web as you suggested)--- The unit in which Bush served was known as a "Champagne unit," where the scions of the Texas aristocracy could avoid combat duty with relatively few demands on their time. Serving in that unit with Bush were the sons of three prominent men: Democratic Governor John Connally, Democratic Senator and future Vice-Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen, and Republican Senator John Tower, as well as seven members of the Dallas Cowboys professional football club, and a man named James R. Bath, who would become a longtime friend of Bush's. fritz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlunity Posted July 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 Thank you. That was interesting. I am not defending Mr. Bush's war record. Mr. Gore has a better one. My issue is with the arrogance of the left that assumes that any political leader who disagrees with them is "stupid". If you don't agree with a person's political views, tell me why. Names..dates..and facts..a reasoned arquement..not insults and feelings. In most cases, imho, the left cannot give their reasons for fear that the American people would reject them at the voting booth. Karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.