Is McCain as shallow as George W. Bush?

[Chef Jim]

So are you really going to try and compare the job performance and crisis handling of FDR, who was one of the best Presidents this country has ever had, with that of GWB? Really? If Bush was doing as good of a job as FDR did he could take all the vacation he wants.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what we're doing.

[DC Tom]

So are you really going to try and compare the job performance and crisis handling of FDR, who was one of the best Presidents this country has ever had, with that of GWB? Really? If Bush was doing as good of a job as FDR did he could take all the vacation he wants.

 

So FDR was great despite being on vacation when warned of an imminent attack on the country...but Bush is bad specificaly because of being on vacation when warned of an imminent attack on the country?

 

Thank you for stating so clearly for everyone that your entire argument is complete bull sh--.

[JK2000]

So FDR was great despite being on vacation when warned of an imminent attack on the country...but Bush is bad specificaly because of being on vacation when warned of an imminent attack on the country?

 

Thank you for stating so clearly for everyone that your entire argument is complete bull sh--.

 

Where did you study U.S. history? Hamburger U.?

[/dev/null]

Where did you study U.S. history? Hamburger U.?

:D

Awww snap! Now you done it

[DC Tom]

Where did you study U.S. history? Hamburger U.?

 

 

 

I don't know what part you disagree with, but you can look it up: FDR was in Warm Springs in late November when he was warned that war with the Japanese was inevitable and they would attack in the Pacific. Maybe if he had been in DC, the Pacific Fleet wouldn't have been caught flat-footed at Pearl Harbor.

 

 

Why not? Same logic you use for 9/11...

[JK2000]

 

 

I don't know what part you disagree with, but you can look it up: FDR was in Warm Springs in late November when he was warned that war with the Japanese was inevitable and they would attack in the Pacific. Maybe if he had been in DC, the Pacific Fleet wouldn't have been caught flat-footed at Pearl Harbor.

 

 

Why not? Same logic you use for 9/11...

 

Yes but FDR actually reacted to the intelligence provided to him by warning the Army and Navy in the Pacific that war with Japan was inevitible. Bush reacted to the August 6th PDB that warned of the 9/11 attacks by doing absolutely nothing until September 10th. So keep on feeling good about Bush's vacations and pretending that he isn't a lazy disengaged moron.

[DC Tom]

Yes but FDR actually reacted to the intelligence provided to him by warning the Army and Navy in the Pacific that war with Japan was inevitible.

 

Bush reacted to the August 6th PDB that warned of the 9/11 attacks by doing absolutely nothing until September 10th. So keep on feeling good about Bush's vacations and pretending that he isn't a lazy disengaged moron.

 

But your thesis was that Bush's vacation was the root cause of the lack of reaction. I thought the issue was taking vacations in the face of a threat warnings? Are you now admitting that the vacationing is irrelevent?

[JK2000]

But your thesis was that Bush's vacation was the root cause of the lack of reaction. I thought the issue was taking vacations in the face of a threat warnings? Are you now admitting that the vacationing is irrelevent?

 

Don't you get tired setting up and tearing down these retarded strawmen all day?

 

It sounds like you're saying the Bush is just as disengaged from his presidential responsibilities when he's in Washington so he might as well be in Crawford, right?

[Alaska Darin]

So are you really going to try and compare the job performance and crisis handling of FDR, who was one of the best Presidents this country has ever had,

[DC Tom]

Don't you get tired setting up and tearing down these retarded strawmen all day?

 

It sounds like you're saying the Bush is just as disengaged from his presidential responsibilities when he's in Washington so he might as well be in Crawford, right?

 

No, that's what YOU'RE saying. You're the one saying the president's vacation schedule correlates with national disasters and failures in leadership, then turning around and ignoring the very same correlation for FDR. Just admit that you're contradicting yourself already...

[JK2000]

No, that's what YOU'RE saying. You're the one saying the president's vacation schedule correlates with national disasters and failures in leadership, then turning around and ignoring the very same correlation for FDR. Just admit that you're contradicting yourself already...

 

Uhhhhhh not really, you need to work on your reading comprehension. You're Pro-Bush vacation arguments have been making so many bizarre twists and turns it's created a trail of oozing right-wing BS sludge.

[JK2000]

 

You're right, what are the opinions of Presidential scholars worth anyhow? I mean they're hardly internet forum moderators.

[/dev/null]

You're right, what are the opinions of Presidential scholars worth anyhow? I mean they're hardly internet forum moderators.

Without Presidential scholars, who would tell us what to think?

[DC Tom]

Uhhhhhh not really, you need to work on your reading comprehension. You're Pro-Bush vacation arguments have been making so many bizarre twists and turns it's created a trail of oozing right-wing BS sludge.

 

I'm not pro-Bush, I'm just disputing your ridiculous logic. The entire thread started out with you stating Bush is irresponsible and ineffective because he's in the White House less frequently than any other president. Now, when I mention FDR's vacation under similar (actually, more critical...not that you'd begin to understand that) circumstances, you swerve to "It's the quality of the man, not the vacation."

 

So which is it? Does Bush suck because he takes vacations at critical moments...in which case so must FDR? Or does Bush suck because he sucks, in which case the entire topic of "but he takes vacation" is completely irrelevent?

 

The beautiful thing about this argument is that, no matter what you answer, you've already proven you're a total schmuck.

[KD in CA]

Yes but FDR actually reacted

 

But he never sprinted for Air Force One so he must have sucked. Kinda like you.

[JK2000]

I'm not pro-Bush, I'm just disputing your ridiculous logic. The entire thread started out with you stating Bush is irresponsible and ineffective because he's in the White House less frequently than any other president. Now, when I mention FDR's vacation under similar (actually, more critical...not that you'd begin to understand that) circumstances, you swerve to "It's the quality of the man, not the vacation."

 

So which is it? Does Bush suck because he takes vacations at critical moments...in which case so must FDR? Or does Bush suck because he sucks, in which case the entire topic of "but he takes vacation" is completely irrelevent?

 

The beautiful thing about this argument is that, no matter what you answer, you've already proven you're a total schmuck.

 

Actually no it didn't start out that way. It started off in your moronic haste to defend a president whose approval rating hovers in the low thirties/high twenties by misrepresenting Jack Cafferty's words as to make it seem like he was being critical for Bush going to the Olympics. To anyone with a reading comprehension level greater than that of a first grader it was obvious Cafferty was referring to Bush hightailing it to his Crawford ranch so he can clear brush and act out his juvenile cowboy fantasies while Russia and America were on the verge of a possible second Cold War. Now please create another strawman like your idiotic Rumsfeld tangent to draw attention away from the BS you've been spweing all over this thread.

[DC Tom]

Actually no it didn't start out that way. It started off in your moronic haste to defend a president whose approval rating hovers in the low thirties/high twenties by misrepresenting Jack Cafferty's words as to make it seem like he was being critical for Bush going to the Olympics. To anyone with a reading comprehension level greater than that of a first grader it was obvious Cafferty was referring to Bush hightailing it to his Crawford ranch so he can clear brush and act out his juvenile cowboy fantasies while Russia and America were on the verge of a possible second Cold War. Now please create another strawman like your idiotic Rumsfeld tangent to draw attention away from the BS you've been spweing all over this thread.

 

Criticism of your idiocy is not defending anyone else.

 

And we're discussing the nature of leadership. Which you clearly don't understand, since you reduce it to "vacation time" and then inconsistently apply your own shallow standard. You think Bush is a poor leader because he's "out of the office" (like FDR, who you consider a great leader), and doesn't rush headlong in to things (which you then stated was a quality of leadership to Rumsfeld's credit - which is now an "idiotic tangent" now that you've been embarrassed by it, although you clearly appreciated it when you thought it made your point). Demonstrating that you not only don't know what leadership is, but you don't even know what YOUR OWN DEFINITION of leadership is. Obviously you're not fit to discuss the topic.

 

And THAT speaks directly to your shallow and stupid interpretation of Bush's reaction to events in Ossetia. You've got a single-track mind that can't even begin to understand the situation may be both less severe ("on the verge of a possible second Cold War"...wow, way to panic over something that's "on the verge of possibility". Overreact much?) and more complicated (you still haven't twigged to how the missile defenses deal with Poland might be related, and might recommend a less overt reaction) than you can clearly understand...nevermind that you seem to be recommending the same "leadership" (hasty unilateral action) that I'm sure you loathed in the invasion of Iraq.

 

Really, all this comes down to is that you don't like Bush. It's convenient, I'm sure...you don't have to understand a damn thing in the world, you don't even have to understand current events. You just have to string together keywords and blame your personal bogeyman, and then deflect any criticism of your "thought" process as defense of the same bogeyman. You automatically assume that criticism of your own idiocy is defense of Bush.

 

News flash: it has nothing to do with Bush. You're just an idiot.

[JK2000]

Criticism of your idiocy is not defending anyone else.

 

And we're discussing the nature of leadership. Which you clearly don't understand, since you reduce it to "vacation time" and then inconsistently apply your own shallow standard. You think Bush is a poor leader because he's "out of the office" (like FDR, who you consider a great leader), and doesn't rush headlong in to things (which you then stated was a quality of leadership to Rumsfeld's credit - which is now an "idiotic tangent" now that you've been embarrassed by it, although you clearly appreciated it when you thought it made your point). Demonstrating that you not only don't know what leadership is, but you don't even know what YOUR OWN DEFINITION of leadership is. Obviously you're not fit to discuss the topic.

 

That's another one of your idiotic strawmen. I don't think Bush is a poor leader just because he has taken more vacation time than any other president in the history of the United States, it's the fact that Bush is even more disengaged while on vacation than when he is in Washington. Are you too dense to realize that? Or Are you so embarassed of your position that you have to keep twisting the discussion every chance you get?

 

 

Really, all this comes down to is that you don't like Bush. It's convenient, I'm sure...you don't have to understand a damn thing in the world, you don't even have to understand current events. You just have to string together keywords and blame your personal bogeyman, and then deflect any criticism of your "thought" process as defense of the same bogeyman. You automatically assume that criticism of your own idiocy is defense of Bush.

 

News flash: it has nothing to do with Bush. You're just an idiot.

 

You don't have to "understand a damn thing in the world" to dislike Bush? So are you one of those idiots who thinks that Bush is actually doing a great job but his only problem is communicating how well his administration is doing? I bet you also think that the fact Bush is so unpopular worldwide means he must be doing a good job, right? Give it up. It seems to me like the Pro-Bush crowd here does all the "stringing together of keywords" here. Liberals, Liberals, Liberals, Socialist, Socialist, Socialist, Messiah, Messiah, Messiah, blah blah blah.

[Wacka]

molson/Elliot/ JK2000 = the textbook case of BDS.

[KD in CA]

It started off in your moronic haste to defend a president whose approval rating hovers in the low thirties/high twenties

 

 

I found this to be the perfect example of the typical molton idiocy. Because his approval ratings are in the 30s, no one should ever defend a specific action he takes? That is the height of ignorance.

 

 

p.s. clarification for retards: I am not "defending Bush". I am attacking molton/JK retard, whose approval ratings on this board would be even lower than Bush's.