- from George Washington's Farewell Address, September, 1796.
Happy 275, Mr. President!
I've been referencing the texts of a number of religions recently, and all of their end time scenarios would involve Dubya getting his ass kicked by a conqueror on horse back. Why? Well, the New Testament certainly condemns men like him, as do the Mahabharata and Puranas, etc. and of course since King Bush swore to uphold the Constitution, he is also an oath-breaker. Not much luck there.
"Too much ale, and a man's heart is laid bare."
So I doubt anyone will see King Bush the Redeless like Washington in many years from now.
What does Bush have to do with Washington's birthday?
What does Bush have to do with Washington's birthday?
Really nothing, which is why the oblique (and specious) comparison of the two presidents in the original post was silly.
Maybe you're right. If only the knucklehead PA voters who voted Casey into office in last Fall would have seen the oblique and specious comparison between him and the senior... Now that we have a majority democratic commonwealth, we can't even handle six inches of snow. I blame Casey, Specter, and Rendell for the I-78 debacle.
I knew the title would draw you out but I thought you'd read it differently. I never mentioned the current president nor did I draw any comparisons to him; you did. I merely linguistically spun "W" to the vernacular but if you're so obsessed with Bush that you can't fathom that others can be named George W then I can't help that.
Maybe you're right. If only the knucklehead PA voters who voted Casey into office in last Fall would have seen the oblique and specious comparison between him and the senior... Now that we have a majority democratic commonwealth, we can't even handle six inches of snow. I blame Casey, Specter, and Rendell for the I-78 debacle.
Why exactly? Why not blame PennDOT? And does this mean everyone on the Left is inherently snow-incompetent? Well, hail Rohan. Sounds like a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument to me.
I knew the title would draw you out but I thought you'd read it differently. I never mentioned the current president nor did I draw any comparisons to him; you did. I merely linguistically spun "W" to the vernacular but if you're so obsessed with Bush that you can't fathom that others can be named George W then I can't help that.
Well, it's not an unreasonable interpretation given that the 29%-ers think Bush will be revered as a great leader in the future.
The "religion and morality" quote only strengthens this suspicion. I'm tired of hearing it from the right, given that the red states lead the nation in divorce, murder, and tax-leaching.
Enough already. The gravy train is over for them. They can pay for their own stop signs from now on.
IIRC, your old blog and certainly this one appeals to past leaders and events on a number of occasions in a straining effort to justify, e.g., Bush shining the Iraq turd. I wish I were a badass like Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and everyone else in the completely authentic and not at all poser BushCo posse, but I have other priorities now.
Cheney probably was a draft dodger, as were a lot of other who are in powerful positions today. Maybe some of your teachers and other influences in your life were too.
Remember the election of 1996? Dems told us that
military service was not a prerequisite for being president. In 2004, they told us it was.
red states lead the nation in divorce, murder, and tax-leaching
That doesn't imply that the Republican voters are the ones committing those acts. Nice try. I hope you're not planning on being a lawyer.
Why not blame PennDOT?
PennDOT is just an arm of state government, thus, state government can be blamed for the incompetence of the I-78 mess. Media logic since 2001 dictates those at the top are solely responsible for every single action of those under them. If Bush can be blamed for hurricanes, then certainly our senators and the governor can be solely responsible for six inches of snow closing interstates for a few days.
Well, it's not an unreasonable interpretation given that the 29%-ers think Bush will be revered as a great leader in the future
I wonder what the numbers were for Lincoln around 1865. I bet it was less than 29%. I, however, do not think Bush will be revered as a great leader, nor do I say he is. I do believe he has the right idea even if he executes his plans poorly. My whole point is that instead of trying to stop Bush at every turn and blame him for every problem, and obsess oneself with every single thing he does or does not do, people should look to the likes of Washington and Lincoln for guidance. Look at what their decisions were based in. Religion and morals played a strong role. We need that from our leaders today. Even if they don't practice what they preach, at least maybe they can exert some influence in the right direction. Ironically, if politicians were do this, I think more people would focus on themselves and be able to restrain themselves when necessary and push themselves when necessary. This would lead to stronger will and would be a real step towards curbing social maladies like obesity, illiteracy, innumeracy, laziness, decadence, hedonism, and right of entitlement that are the real problems we need to address.
Remember the election of 1996? Dems told us that
military service was not a prerequisite for being president. In 2004, they told us it was.
I don't care.
That doesn't imply that the Republican voters are the ones committing those acts.
Maybe not, but it wouldn't surprise me.
They should start producing candidates who exemplify self-reliance, instead of leeching the tax revenues generated by the blue states.
If Bush can be blamed for hurricanes, then certainly our senators and the governor can be solely responsible for six inches of snow closing interstates for a few days.
Why didn't I see that coming?.
I do believe he has the right idea even if he executes his plans poorly.
Well, so much for rewarding results and not effort. Give yourself a star, Jesus Bush!
Almost no one really believes we are in the Middle East to introduce democracy or remove extremists. Otherwise we would have gone after Saudi Arabia, where tyrants rule, wingnut Wahabi Islam prevails, and the womenfolk can't drive. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi noble. Oh wait, forget it, Osama bin Laden is probably 'best friends forever' with everyone in the CIA. Never mind.
Bush's domestic policy has also been a disaster. I don't care if the deficit is approaching zero now; he ran up the already huge national debt to levels that make Raygun look positively miserly. We're a debtor nation to MEXICO.
Who's going to pay for this mess? The bleeding-heart Rohirrim of Middle-earth? And why are we still subsidizing zillionaire corporations on the backs of future generations?
Even if they don't practice what they preach, at least maybe they can exert some influence in the right direction.
The New Testament (just to name one religious text) makes it explicitly clear that the Right's Scheinheiligkeit isn't going to get anyone anywhere good.
Ironically, if politicians were do this, I think more people would focus on themselves and be able to restrain themselves when necessary and push themselves when necessary. This would lead to stronger will and would be a real step towards curbing social maladies like obesity, illiteracy, innumeracy, laziness, decadence, hedonism, and right of entitlement that are the real problems we need to address.
So you're saying that a bunch of Johnny-come-lately pretend Christians of the 'Nuke the Gay Baby Whales for Jesus' ilk will convince people to behave righteously? I'm not convinced.
Would you also suggest that subsidizing zillionaire oil companies who already sit on barrows full of gold will cure America's decadent sense of entitlement to 99 cent a gallon gas? Suck it up, guys.
The illiteracy and innumeracy are rooted in a long running anti-intellectual current here, observed among others by the late Edsger Dijkstra.
I wouldn't worry about the other things, as they'll cease to be problems very quickly when all that cheap oil runs out.
I don't care
Yes you do, otherwise you wouldn't bother reading my posts and comments.
a bunch of Johnny-come-lately pretend Christians
Where to I ever mention Christians?
The illiteracy and innumeracy are rooted in a long running anti-intellectual current here, observed among others by the late Edsger Dijkstra.
I agree.
As for the crime aspect, you might be right. Cities like Philadelphia (rising murder rate, corruption in city gov't) or Detroit (higher child murder rate than LA or Chicago, police corruption), usually vote Republican at a ratio of 90-10, don't they? C'mon, Chris, you know better than that. Why do you think Democrats want to allow ex-cons the right to vote? If convicted felons were a majority Republican, would Hilarity really consider this? There are plenty of Republican criminals out there, for sure, but the Democratic Party seeks them out because they know it's a barrel full of votes for them.
Chris, you're making me more conservative. I didn't think you had the power of persuasion but I guess you do.
Yes you do, otherwise you wouldn't bother reading my posts and comments.
What I'm saying is that I don't really care what the Democrats are saying.
But this blog is my #1 source of trolling fodder.
I comment here then pass the links around to my friends; raucous fits of Ashkenazic laughter ensue consequently.
Where to I ever mention Christians?
Here. And you implicitly continued the McJesus nonsense here.
Chris, you're making me more conservative. I didn't think you had the power of persuasion but I guess you do.
Of course. A wingnut's response to anything is "clockwise to tighten" (i.e., go further to the right).
Oy vey, my ribs are aching!
I never mentioned Christianity by name in this post. "McJesus?" Ah yes, intolerance... What religion are you? Actually, it doesn't matter because I won't criticize it nor stereotype it. I respect the right of others to choose a religion of their choice or abstain from all religion. One day you'll mature and think the same; maybe.
We are sorry. New comments are not allowed after 21 days.
Archives
