|
God Help Us All !!! (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
^^^One day, you'll say the same thing about Bush I'll bet.;) :D |
Ok ... I suppose that's somehow still possible. Let's see, perhaps if all the terrorists realised they couldn't beat bush and surrendered, followed by a toppling of every dictatorial middle eastern government who subsequently took up secular democracies who agreed to pay back for all the deficits we accrued in this entire affair followed by a complete reversal in government policy towards secular humanism in science and civil rights followed by .... you know what forget it. I have a better chance to win the powerball, despite the fact that I don't play it, than he'll do anything that would cause me to reverse my decision. Do you actually want to bet? I'll give you good odds. |
|
|
| OurManFlint |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
^^^One day, you'll say the same thing about Bush I'll bet.;) :D |
I don't usually lash out at people personally, and I try to keep my points rational and based on arguments themselves, but seriously, why do you like sucking republican dick so much, metaphorically speeking? |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by OurManFlint
I don't usually lash out at people personally, and I try to keep my points rational and based on arguments themselves, but seriously, why do you like sucking republican dick so much, metaphorically speeking? |
Brilliant. I guess it's the same reason you like sucking the other side's?
Try and be more creative with your insults, please? I was making the perfectly rational point that very often in this country's history, great Presidents have not been popular until AFTER their time in our history had passed, and their acheivements were looked back on.
I'm not saying that 100% this will Happen to Bush, nor that he is on the level of FDR or Lincoln for example, but never-the-less, it could happen, and the one universal thing I see on this board a lot is a lack of appreciation for history.
And if you're not a Democrat, then you're certainly not a Republican either...in which case if YOU are lacking a dick to suck, then you can always come on over and suck mine. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Try and be more creative with your insults, please? I was making the perfectly rational point that very often in this country's history, great Presidents have not been popular until AFTER their time in our history had passed, and their acheivements were looked back on.
|
No, Lincoln was and still is a dick and FDR was and still is a dick. The fact that 99% of the people forget why they were dicks (Do you know?) doesn't excuse some of the things they did. The only excuse that they have was that their accomplishments were tangibly measurable and served some leverage ... which should be the goal of any president. Btw, LIncoln and FDR's popularity were significant at the time that they held office.
| quote: |
I'm not saying that 100% this will Happen to Bush, nor that he is on the level of FDR or Lincoln for example, but never-the-less, it could happen, and the one universal thing I see on this board a lot is a lack of appreciation for history.
|
A lack of appreciation for history? Really? I find it hilarious that you're attempting to compare either Presidents to Bush. To me that is the epitomy of a lack of appreciation for history. Ok well tell us how Bush can accomplish 10% of what FDR or Lincoln did in net positive accomplishments that outweigh the negatives. I'm curious as to what statistics you'll use. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
^^^OMG, you don't know your history very well, do you?
Lincoln was SURE that he was going to be defeated during the wartime election, for one thing. He was VERY unpopular by many accounts of the day.
FDR was not very popular in this country prior to the war. When most Americans were preaching Isolationism, he was dragging us kicking and screaming in to a war that had to be fought and was going to be fought, the sooner the better, before England was invaded and Europe's fate sealed. Lend-Lease, sending the Navy to guard convoys, extending out our protected coastline in to International waters, embargos against Japan, etc...he knew where we were going, and he was preparing us for it, unpopularly I might add!
Now FDR gained his appreciation later, while still in office. Lincoln's didnt' come until well after the Civil War. Bush's may yet come at the end of his Presidency, or even further down the road than that, you just never know.
To judge him right now and forever, based on today's headlines, is to show no appreciation for the lessons history can teach you. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
^^^OMG, you don't know your history very well, do you?
Lincoln was SURE that he was going to be defeated during the wartime election, for one thing. He was VERY unpopular by many accounts of the day.
|
OMG you're right!!! I SO don't know anything about history that I don't know that Lincoln won the electoral vote by 212 to 21!!! I SO don't know anything about Lincoln that he won the popular vote by 2,218,388 to 1,812,807!! A 22% margin!!!! OMG what else do I not know??? Oh right I don't know how much more of an idiot you can be!!! By all means help us out! :rolleyes: Do you even know who he ran against? FYI George B. McClellan repudiated any alternatives to the war effort and instead said he would simply run it more effecitively. I'm sure you knew that though considering how much "OMG" stuff you know about history :rolleyes:. And I know you're desperatly trying to make some kind of correlation with what's going on today, with what happened in Lincoln's time but consider this a friendly warning ... don't try because I'll call you out on it. If you're fine with that, get your research and logic ready.
| quote: |
FDR was not very popular in this country prior to the war. When most Americans were preaching Isolationism, he was dragging us kicking and screaming in to a war that had to be fought and was going to be fought, the sooner the better, before England was invaded and Europe's fate sealed. Lend-Lease, sending the Navy to guard convoys, extending out our protected coastline in to International waters, embargos against Japan, etc...he knew where we were going, and he was preparing us for it, unpopularly I might add!
|
You really would make a terrible conservative. You would make a terrible Republican even. FDR was right with respect to the war. But that only came to fruition ever since the invasion of France (not before). If hitler were contained in the ruhr valley, than that is tangibly beneficial compared to other alternitaves supposing genocide never arose.
| quote: |
Now FDR gained his appreciation later, while still in office. Lincoln's didnt' come until well after the Civil War. Bush's may yet come at the end of his Presidency, or even further down the road than that, you just never know.
To judge him right now and forever, based on today's headlines, is to show no appreciation for the lessons history can teach you. |
Well as I stated before ... what time lagged benefits are we missing out on? |
|
|
| steinbrenner |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
You can't say that something is or is not credible just because it's on the internet
|
not just "something": wikipedia. maybe you should use your superior smarts to figure out the real reason why instead of using lame strawman arguments. hint: it's not 'just because it's on the internet'. |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
I believe clinton was the one (Recently) to mention wanting to run for a 3rd term if he had the chance.
I say we do it, and have a Clinton/Bush political war, and see who wins.
Who would win? The capitalist or the war monger :p |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Eh I certainly hope the new amendment won't be introduced. Anyway, is it just me who finds it funny that there isn't the option of removing an ammendment from constitution, but that new ammendments are added to annul the previous ones instead? |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
OMG you're right!!! I SO don't know anything about history that I don't know that Lincoln won the electoral vote by 212 to 21!!! I SO don't know anything about Lincoln that he won the popular vote by 2,218,388 to 1,812,807!! A 22% margin!!!! OMG what else do I not know??? Oh right I don't know how much more of an idiot you can be!!! By all means help us out! :rolleyes: Do you even know who he ran against? FYI George B. McClellan repudiated any alternatives to the war effort and instead said he would simply run it more effecitively. I'm sure you knew that though considering how much "OMG" stuff you know about history :rolleyes:. And I know you're desperatly trying to make some kind of correlation with what's going on today, with what happened in Lincoln's time but consider this a friendly warning ... don't try because I'll call you out on it. If you're fine with that, get your research and logic ready.
You really would make a terrible conservative. You would make a terrible Republican even. FDR was right with respect to the war. But that only came to fruition ever since the invasion of France (not before). If hitler were contained in the ruhr valley, than that is tangibly beneficial compared to other alternitaves supposing genocide never arose.
Well as I stated before ... what time lagged benefits are we missing out on? |
:haha:
Look, "Google Master", I said very clearly that Lincoln was unpopular by the accounts of the day, much like Bush supposedly is now. A perfect parallel, if you recall, as Bush was slated to lose to Gore in this last election by many accounts (media, spin doctors, "experts", etc.), just as Lincoln was. Wow, I'm so afraid of your "friendly warning"...why don't you stuff it in your friendly ear?
And WW2 only ever came to fruition AFTER the invasion of France???? Yikes. :nervous: Anyone from Europe care to explain to this guy about France and England's treaty with Poland, which was invaded in 1939?
As for "time lagged benefits" that we're missing out on, wouldn't I just be the crystal-ball reader if I could tell you today? You should ask more basically intelligent questions worthy of reading. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | 
Originally posted by steinbrenner
not just "something": wikipedia. maybe you should use your superior smarts to figure out the real reason why instead of using lame strawman arguments. hint: it's not 'just because it's on the internet'. |
I was responding to the person who said things are not credible on the internet. If you go and reread my post you'll see that there was nothing strawman about my argument.
Did you register a new screen name just so that you could say that to me, you ?
I'm a big fan of Wikipedia much because it's hated by those who wish to censor our world's history. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
:haha:
Look, "Google Master", I said very clearly that Lincoln was unpopular by the accounts of the day, much like Bush supposedly is now. A perfect parallel, if you recall, as Bush was slated to lose to Gore in this last election by many accounts (media, spin doctors, "experts", etc.), just as Lincoln was. Wow, I'm so afraid of your "friendly warning"...why don't you stuff it in your friendly ear?
|
For christ's sake you mean Kerry. Even if you meant two elections ago, both were contended to be extremely close races. Lincoln won by a landslide. Nice try though. Trying to compare Bush with two presidents who faced 2 of the top 3 biggest challenges in our nation's history is a losing proposition. I have no idea why you're trying to do so.
| quote: |
And WW2 only ever came to fruition AFTER the invasion of France???? Yikes. :nervous: Anyone from Europe care to explain to this guy about France and England's treaty with Poland, which was invaded in 1939?
|
No moron, FDR’s decision to enter WW2 only became the right decision imo once Hitler invaded France. If he could have been contained within the Ruhr valley, with the absence of any genocide, than it wouldn’t have been worth it for America to go to war and lose several hundred thousand lives. The US had no such treaty with Poland, or France, or Britain. Once Hitler invaded France, than the balance of power in Europe was becoming disrupted to which point it became America’s interest to intervene on the European continent once again.
| quote: |
As for "time lagged benefits" that we're missing out on, wouldn't I just be the crystal-ball reader if I could tell you today? You should ask more basically intelligent questions worthy of reading. :rolleyes: |
Well at the time Lincoln had tangible accomplishments that could be seen as beneficial then … like the Homestead act, like the emancipation proclamation, like the National Banking Acts, etc. What can we point to from this administration as something that will be looked back favorably upon that could potentially upset all the negatives that are realized today? |
|
|
|
|
