George W. Bush

[Husker_x]

All the way at the end...

ESPN Article

 

Just be glad that Callahan is gone after 4 years unlike Bush. I think somehow they are related, i mean one destroyed a football team and the other destroyed a nation.

 

Yes, because George Bush, as we all know, is the source of every problem in this country. It couldn't be terrorism, liberal-socialism, natural disasters overwhelming poorly-placed cities, or failing moral standards and the entitelment mentality of a modern-day American.

 

Nope. It's Bush's fault!

 

 

But as for Callahan, yes, there's a clear link between that man and failure. I'm glad he's a Christian who trusts God to guide him through tough situations, but unfortunately it does little for the practical fact of his nonperformance as our coach.

 

X

[huskernumerouno]

X

 

You nailed that one

[husker_fan]

All the way at the end...

ESPN Article

 

Just be glad that Callahan is gone after 4 years unlike Bush. I think somehow they are related, i mean one destroyed a football team and the other destroyed a nation.

 

Yes, because George Bush, as we all know, is the source of every problem in this country. It couldn't be terrorism, liberal-socialism, natural disasters overwhelming poorly-placed cities, or failing moral standards and the entitelment mentality of a modern-day American.

 

Nope. It's Bush's fault!

 

 

But as for Callahan, yes, there's a clear link between that man and failure. I'm glad he's a Christian who trusts God to guide him through tough situations, but unfortunately it does little for the practical fact of his nonperformance as our coach.

 

X

 

Yeah you are right about Bush Husker X, we should instead blaming the supreme court for overstepping their boundaries and gop racists to keep people from voting.

[sCrUmptious!]

Yes, because George Bush, as we all know, is the source of every problem in this country. It couldn't be terrorism, liberal-socialism, natural disasters overwhelming poorly-placed cities, or failing moral standards and the entitelment mentality of a modern-day American.

 

Nope. It's Bush's fault!

 

Uh oh... you just defended George W on a thread that you know a Buff's been lurking on. Those who play with fire...

 

I hate to break it to you, but it's mainly Bush's fault. Everything you just listed also occurred during the Clinton administration, and yet Americans experienced more widespread success during those 8 years than during any other period of American history. Under Bush, Privacy and personal freedoms are at an all time low, and the size of the federal government is at an all time high, not to mention the fact that the government is throwing money around like Pacman Jones at a strip club... tell me again why (some) Republicans still defend this guy? The man's about as conservative as Lenin.

 

"Yeah, but Clinton never had to deal with an unwinnable war in Iraq", the right retorted.

 

And the people on the left replied, "exactly."

[husker_fan]

Yes, because George Bush, as we all know, is the source of every problem in this country. It couldn't be terrorism, liberal-socialism, natural disasters overwhelming poorly-placed cities, or failing moral standards and the entitelment mentality of a modern-day American.

 

Nope. It's Bush's fault!

 

Uh oh... you just defended George W on a thread that you know a Buff's been lurking on. Those who play with fire...

 

I hate to break it to you, but it's mainly Bush's fault. Everything you just listed also occurred during the Clinton administration, and yet Americans experienced more widespread success during those 8 years than during any other period of American history. Under Bush, Privacy and personal freedoms are at an all time low, and the size of the federal government is at an all time high, not to mention the fact that the government is throwing money around like Pacman Jones at a strip club... tell me again why (some) Republicans still defend this guy? The man's about as conservative as Lenin.

 

"Yeah, but Clinton never had to deal with an unwinnable war in Iraq", the right retorted.

 

And the people on the left replied, "exactly."

 

Ya know i find it ironic republicans bash gays and their rights but yet more and more republicans are in the news trying to get some gay sex.....lol. I bet 5 years from now we will hear that Bush is gay.

[zoogs]

Oh gosh, political debates...these things can get nasty.

 

Let me just play devil's advocate and say, there is a difference between rights for homosexuals and expanding the definition of 'marriage.'

 

No major party in America bashes gays, or their rights. It's what the scope of the federal government ought to be in this area that's actually the subject of debate. Those who favor less central power tend to say, "Leave it up to the states," or "Marriage shouldn't even be a government issue."

 

The position of a lot of so-called 'liberals' seems to be, "Amend the constitution's definition of marriage."

 

You know, back in the day, 'liberals' favored small government and freedom of market.

[husker_fan]

Oh gosh, political debates...these things can get nasty.

 

Let me just play devil's advocate and say, there is a difference between rights for homosexuals and expanding the definition of 'marriage.'

 

No major party in America bashes gays, or their rights. It's what the scope of the federal government ought to be in this area that's actually the subject of debate. Those who favor less central power tend to say, "Leave it up to the states," or "Marriage shouldn't even be a government issue."

 

The position of a lot of so-called 'liberals' seems to be, "Amend the constitution's definition of marriage."

 

You know, back in the day, 'liberals' favored small government and freedom of market.

yes amazing how two political parties flip flop on ideas in 100 years.

[zoogs]

Not really parties, even - the political spectrum is much broader than just donkeys and elephants. I don't think the democratic party existed back in the mid 1700s. It's just, the ideal of liberalism, it's not as tied to the Democratic party as much as we often think. So I don't think it's necessarily parties flip-flopping in their philosophy, so much as having woefully inaccurate labels fixed to them.

 

Oh well. I'm not much of a fan of either party, anyway

[husker_fan]

Not really parties, even - the political spectrum is much broader than just donkeys and elephants. I don't think the democratic party existed back in the mid 1700s. It's just, the ideal of liberalism, it's not as tied to the Democratic party as much as we often think. So I don't think it's necessarily parties flip-flopping in their philosophy, so much as having woefully inaccurate labels fixed to them.

 

Oh well. I'm not much of a fan of either party, anyway

 

hm....ok...can we just get back to the bush bashing that was fun!!!!!!

[Husker_x]

Yes, because George Bush, as we all know, is the source of every problem in this country. It couldn't be terrorism, liberal-socialism, natural disasters overwhelming poorly-placed cities, or failing moral standards and the entitelment mentality of a modern-day American.

 

Nope. It's Bush's fault!

 

Uh oh... you just defended George W on a thread that you know a Buff's been lurking on. Those who play with fire...

 

I hate to break it to you, but it's mainly Bush's fault. Everything you just listed also occurred during the Clinton administration, and yet Americans experienced more widespread success during those 8 years than during any other period of American history. Under Bush, Privacy and personal freedoms are at an all time low, and the size of the federal government is at an all time high, not to mention the fact that the government is throwing money around like Pacman Jones at a strip club... tell me again why (some) Republicans still defend this guy? The man's about as conservative as Lenin.

 

"Yeah, but Clinton never had to deal with an unwinnable war in Iraq", the right retorted.

 

And the people on the left replied, "exactly."

 

1. I am not a Republican.

 

2. I am not a Bush supporter or defender.

 

3. If you think that the Middle-eastern situation is a novelty in the Bush era, you're about as informed as you are about Clinton's so-called success story.

 

4. When you say the 'government' throws around money, what does that have to do with Bush? Bush is not in the legislative branch of the government. You can by and large thank your democratically-controlled House and Senate for that one––who, by the numbers, are a 1/3 as popular as George Bush, widely seen as the least effective congress in the history of the United States. And that is under a president which uses a veto as often as a handgun, and a congress stacked to the ceiling with limousine libs disguised as Republicans.

 

5. The war in Iraq is winnable. That's not a question, actually. The question is, 'Are you willing to do what is necessary to win?'. In an age where the military has to pussyfoot around the political correctness machine, is hogtied with regard to how and when they can engage the enemy, and our nation is mortified at the thought of offending the Muslims, it makes things that much more difficult. But at the end of the day they said virtually the same thing about the Japanese––they'll never support us, too steeped in their traditions, too patriarchal, too stubborn, too impoverished. I can't really see the Japanese islands from my window here, but from what they tell me, things are working out pretty well.

 

6. Oh, and what freedom was it specifically that you don't experience anymore that you did before? I know I was a little disappointed when I couldn't phone overseas and talk about the simple joys of terrorist plots and molotov cocktail making.

 

But back to the original topic, no, I'm not a Bush defender. And no, he's not a conservative. But almost as exhausting as Callahan's rhetoric is the left's rhetoric. I actually feel sorry for their ridiculous socialist party; after Bush is gone they'll have nothing. Their very beating heart is George W. Bush and his poor speaking ability and controversial administration. Much like they've always been, they're not a party of ideas, they're a party of anti-ideas.

 

Good luck with Hillary, by the way. This should be a good one.

 

X

[rawhide]

ceegar

[808Husker in KCMO]

Yes, because George Bush, as we all know, is the source of every problem in this country. It couldn't be terrorism, liberal-socialism, natural disasters overwhelming poorly-placed cities, or failing moral standards and the entitelment mentality of a modern-day American.

 

Nope. It's Bush's fault!

 

Uh oh... you just defended George W on a thread that you know a Buff's been lurking on. Those who play with fire...

 

I hate to break it to you, but it's mainly Bush's fault. Everything you just listed also occurred during the Clinton administration, and yet Americans experienced more widespread success during those 8 years than during any other period of American history. Under Bush, Privacy and personal freedoms are at an all time low, and the size of the federal government is at an all time high, not to mention the fact that the government is throwing money around like Pacman Jones at a strip club... tell me again why (some) Republicans still defend this guy? The man's about as conservative as Lenin.

 

"Yeah, but Clinton never had to deal with an unwinnable war in Iraq", the right retorted.

 

And the people on the left replied, "exactly."

 

1. I am not a Republican.

 

2. I am not a Bush supporter or defender.

 

3. If you think that the Middle-eastern situation is a novelty in the Bush era, you're about as informed as you are about Clinton's so-called success story.

 

4. When you say the 'government' throws around money, what does that have to do with Bush? Bush is not in the legislative branch of the government. You can by and large thank your democratically-controlled House and Senate for that one––who, by the numbers, are a 1/3 as popular as George Bush, widely seen as the least effective congress in the history of the United States. And that is under a president which uses a veto as often as a handgun, and a congress stacked to the ceiling with limousine libs disguised as Republicans.

 

5. The war in Iraq is winnable. That's not a question, actually. The question is, 'Are you willing to do what is necessary to win?'. In an age where the military has to pussyfoot around the political correctness machine, is hogtied with regard to how and when they can engage the enemy, and our nation is mortified at the thought of offending the Muslims, it makes things that much more difficult. But at the end of the day they said virtually the same thing about the Japanese––they'll never support us, too steeped in their traditions, too patriarchal, too stubborn, too impoverished. I can't really see the Japanese islands from my window here, but from what they tell me, things are working out pretty well.

 

6. Oh, and what freedom was it specifically that you don't experience anymore that you did before? I know I was a little disappointed when I couldn't phone overseas and talk about the simple joys of terrorist plots and molotov cocktail making.

 

But back to the original topic, no, I'm not a Bush defender. And no, he's not a conservative. But almost as exhausting as Callahan's rhetoric is the left's rhetoric. I actually feel sorry for their ridiculous socialist party; after Bush is gone they'll have nothing. Their very beating heart is George W. Bush and his poor speaking ability and controversial administration. Much like they've always been, they're not a party of ideas, they're a party of anti-ideas.

 

Good luck with Hillary, by the way. This should be a good one.

 

X

Unitl the American pulbic is faced with making sacrifices in this war (IE rationing a la WWII) people will blindly support a war that has no end. This war is not winnable. A Soldiers job in Iraq is to keep from dying for 15 months until they get home. There is no strategy and there are no goals.

[HUSKER 37]

Yes, because George Bush, as we all know, is the source of every problem in this country. It couldn't be terrorism, liberal-socialism, natural disasters overwhelming poorly-placed cities, or failing moral standards and the entitelment mentality of a modern-day American.

 

Nope. It's Bush's fault!

 

Uh oh... you just defended George W on a thread that you know a Buff's been lurking on. Those who play with fire...

 

I hate to break it to you, but it's mainly Bush's fault. Everything you just listed also occurred during the Clinton administration, and yet Americans experienced more widespread success during those 8 years than during any other period of American history. Under Bush, Privacy and personal freedoms are at an all time low, and the size of the federal government is at an all time high, not to mention the fact that the government is throwing money around like Pacman Jones at a strip club... tell me again why (some) Republicans still defend this guy? The man's about as conservative as Lenin.

 

"Yeah, but Clinton never had to deal with an unwinnable war in Iraq", the right retorted.

 

And the people on the left replied, "exactly."

 

1. I am not a Republican.

 

2. I am not a Bush supporter or defender.

 

3. If you think that the Middle-eastern situation is a novelty in the Bush era, you're about as informed as you are about Clinton's so-called success story.

 

4. When you say the 'government' throws around money, what does that have to do with Bush? Bush is not in the legislative branch of the government. You can by and large thank your democratically-controlled House and Senate for that one––who, by the numbers, are a 1/3 as popular as George Bush, widely seen as the least effective congress in the history of the United States. And that is under a president which uses a veto as often as a handgun, and a congress stacked to the ceiling with limousine libs disguised as Republicans.

 

5. The war in Iraq is winnable. That's not a question, actually. The question is, 'Are you willing to do what is necessary to win?'. In an age where the military has to pussyfoot around the political correctness machine, is hogtied with regard to how and when they can engage the enemy, and our nation is mortified at the thought of offending the Muslims, it makes things that much more difficult. But at the end of the day they said virtually the same thing about the Japanese––they'll never support us, too steeped in their traditions, too patriarchal, too stubborn, too impoverished. I can't really see the Japanese islands from my window here, but from what they tell me, things are working out pretty well.

 

6. Oh, and what freedom was it specifically that you don't experience anymore that you did before? I know I was a little disappointed when I couldn't phone overseas and talk about the simple joys of terrorist plots and molotov cocktail making.

 

But back to the original topic, no, I'm not a Bush defender. And no, he's not a conservative. But almost as exhausting as Callahan's rhetoric is the left's rhetoric. I actually feel sorry for their ridiculous socialist party; after Bush is gone they'll have nothing. Their very beating heart is George W. Bush and his poor speaking ability and controversial administration. Much like they've always been, they're not a party of ideas, they're a party of anti-ideas.

 

Good luck with Hillary, by the way. This should be a good one.

 

X

Unitl the American pulbic is faced with making sacrifices in this war (IE rationing a la WWII) people will blindly support a war that has no end. This war is not winnable. A Soldiers job in Iraq is to keep from dying for 15 months until they get home. There is no strategy and there are no goals.

 

Sounds like our coaching staff.

 

The Comedians will miss Bush

fpZdv8YBdaE

[HuskerExpat]

 

The position of a lot of so-called 'liberals' seems to be, "Amend the constitution's definition of marriage."

 

 

 

That's funny, since there is no definition of marriage in the U.S. constitution.

[HuskerExpat]

 

6. Oh, and what freedom was it specifically that you don't experience anymore that you did before? I know I was a little disappointed when I couldn't phone overseas and talk about the simple joys of terrorist plots and molotov cocktail making.

 

Well, lets start with the freedom to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Bush thinks he can search anyone, anytime, as long as he asserts an undefined "executive privilege," and he doesn't even need to go through the trouble of getting a search warrant. Then there is the freedom from being arrested and held without charge. Bush thinks he can arrest any American citizen and not charge them with a crime, as long as they are labeled an "enemy combatant," and wait, he doesn't even think if he arrests me, that I should be allowed access to the courts since his administration says the right to petition for habeus corpus doesn't exist if you are labled an enemy combatant. Then there is the freedom of the press that is being taken away, since the Bush administration sued various newspapers for restraining orders to prevent them from publishing articles about the lies he told about Iraq. And how about the freedom of religion, since Bush is advocating the prosecution of nearly anyone donating to muslim charities, since he knows that all muslim charities are really terrorist organizations (i.e., the Bush administration refuses to tell anyone what muslim charities to which i can legally make a donation). Oh wait, better add that freedom of speech is also being eroded, since now I'm not allowed to make a speech about how Bush screwed us in Iraq, otherwise I might get my right to foreign travel abridged. Freedom of assembly and protest is also going in the crapper, since you can't protest at a Bush event, without getting arrested.

 

I could go on, but you get the point. I guess I still have the freedom to be a mindless lemming and follow the Bush crowd. Yay!!!

 

It's funny how we are supposedly fighting in Iraq for the freedom of Iraqis while Bush is simultaneously taking away our freedoms.