Yes, lefties, how YOUR MSM today would have reported the D-Day Invasion

Discussion in 'Bill Archer's Guestbook' started by Karl K, Jun 7, 2007.

  1. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    [youtube]Px_XBJHrs4I[/youtube]
     
  2. Claymore

    Claymore Member

    Jul 9, 2000
    Montgomery Vlg, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........

    What, that was supposed to be funny?
     
  3. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    No, illustrative.

    Then again, you're intellectually incapable of understanding the difference.
     
  4. Claymore

    Claymore Member

    Jul 9, 2000
    Montgomery Vlg, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Oh goody. Can I start posting TDS clips now?
     
  5. Eric B

    Eric B Member

    Feb 21, 2000
    the LBC
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I haven't watched it in a while, which Dem candidate is Stewart trying to foist on his 18-34 demo asswipes?
     
  6. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999
    Karl's link wasn't funny.

    But TDS is not funny either.

    John Stewart was widely considered a hack before "Bush bashing". He had shows on CBS and MTV, both of which were cancelled and were uncomfortably bad as many people in the audience sat silent during the jokes.

    Nothing has changed except that some people can't get enough of Bush bashing. If Al Gore had become President it would have been better because there would be no Iraq war and we wouldn't have to deal with TDS as no one would watch it.
     
  7. Claymore

    Claymore Member

    Jul 9, 2000
    Montgomery Vlg, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    People can't get enough of Bush bashing because Bush is demonstrably the biggest moron ever to hold the office; all people like Stewart have to do is wait for his next cluster-fuck, which arrives almost daily. Hell, even hardcore Republicans are starting to see this now.
     
  8. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    Takes a moron to know a moron.

    Meanwhile, Stewart can be an equal opportunity basher, thought he spends a lot more time on Bush.

    He can be funny. He can be stupid.

    When Bush is gone, and it won't be long, I predict an incredible outbreak of mental delirium tremens from the likes of Claymore and his idiotic brethren, as they no longer have any object of loathing.

    If you see someone in a convulsion on the the street, that person will be withdawing from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    I wonder what will happen to all the Bush loathers, 30 years from now, if Bush is seen by historians as a steadfast leader in the mold of say, Truman. If he does, I expect heads to explode.
     
  9. Prawn Sandwich

    Oct 1, 2003
    Bhutan
    Don't sell yourself short Karl, you'll still be here
     
  10. Claymore

    Claymore Member

    Jul 9, 2000
    Montgomery Vlg, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This post is living proof that natural selection just takes too damn long.
     
  11. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    Mine would. I gave dubya the benefit of the doubt for a very fair period. I sang as I voted for him in 2000. I figured that if he could have Iraq sorted out by the time he ran for re-election, he'd be a hero, even if his ostensible reasons for going in were dubious. I assumed that, even if dubya wasn't too experienced in foreign policy, Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell were and they'd steer him correctly.

    I was wrong, and I don't expect that this conclusion will be miraculously changed. Dubya is worse than Carter, previously the standard for terrible presidents. He's got poor judgement, no guiding philosophy, poor people selection skills, and he got us into the biggest foreign policy mistake since Vietnam. Probably an even bigger mistake than Vietnam, since Vietnam was at least consistent with previous "containment" policies.
     
  12. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    We'll, I'd take out some life insurance that will pay in the case of head explosions.

    Like all presidencies, Bush's has its successes. Toppling the Taliban and driving out al Qaeda was a huge success. Tax cuts got the economy going again.

    Iraq has been difficult, and full of mistakes, but really, name me the last time a MIddle Eastern country had true democratic elections? Can you? And as for the endless rehasing of WMDs in Iraq, do you think, really, that Sadddam Hussein was NOT going to get back into the WMD business? Especially since Iran was heading there?

    C'mon. Leave the naivete to Claybrain and his moronic ilk.

    Meanwhile, Bush put on the Supreme Court a chief justice who is probably the most talented jurist since Louis Brandeis (a pretty good "people selection" event).

    As for Iraq being the biggest foreing policy mistake since Vietnam, talk to me when the battlefield dead reach 50,000. And let's see if 1 million get slaughtered in a Stalinist genocide. And when we leave, let's see a takeover by a totalitarian regime that throws its opponents into jail and camps.

    When those things happen, I may agree with you that Iraq is worse than Vietnam. But until those three things happen, as they did in Vietnam, you're simply uttering preposterously vacuous comparisons.

    The fact is that you and I and Claybrain cannot predict the future. I can imagine one where Bush is, indeed, savaged by historians. But unlike you and Claybrain, I can also imagine a historical assessment that is far from your pessimistic predictions.

    If I were you, I wouldn't put a stake in the ground so prematurely.
     
  13. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    A better question is, what happens when we bug out of Iraq, which one will be the bigger disaster? Iraq will be, Vietnam was a disaster in the middle of nowhere. You admit that installing democracy in that hellhole is futile, and yet you defend his nation-building there? We elect these guys to figure this stuff out before learning it the hard way. WMD was always a dubious reason, because if that was a compelling argument we'd have taken out Pakistan or North Korea first. Everyone knew that Saddam would have given his entire family to get some WMD, even if they'd found a mountain of them it still would have been a dubious reason.

    And you remember who he wanted to nominate before Alito? The guy has no sense at all, he just got lucky with Roberts, one of the few times he found an acorn. If he hadn't blundered into Iraq, Roberts and Alito would have been good reasons for liking dubya, but with Iraq waiting to blow up in our faces they're not enough to bail him out.
     
  14. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    Tell me something...you're so good at the predicition business...which stock is going highest tomorrow? Will you let us in on it?

    The fact is, about the future, you and I know squat. YOU especially know squat.

    Meanwhile, tell me where I said that bringing democracy to the "hell hole is futile."

    As for Saddam, the difference between him and the North Koreans and Pakistanis is that he, in fact, USED WMDs. As for the Kim getting the bomb, who can we thank for that, ya think? The charming couple of Bill and Madeline, though for some they will always get a complete pass.

    Again, I say it again, you have to MEASURE the success or failure of Iraq. And the jury is still out. Like I said, on the important mesures -- dead troops, the size the populace allowed to bleach to skulls in the sun -- Vietnam is worse by a LONG shot RIGHT NOW. And right now is all we know.

    Finally, sure, Dubya nominated Harriet, but he did nominate Roberts -- first --and recovered nicely with Alito. So that ended well, rocky as the path was.

    Look, don't fall prey to the BDS of our lefty pals. Let history takes its course. You may be surprised by the result.
     
  15. Nutmeg

    Nutmeg Member+

    Aug 24, 1999
    I was ambivalent about Iraq before the war. I'm shifting to a pretty negative view these days. Let's say we ARE successful - which even you have to admit is unlikely - and a unified, functional, economically successful, and ethical democracy is built where Iraqis look back and are thankful the US intervened as liberators. Was the view worth the climb? Do we really think the Middle East will become stabilized, that terrorism and anti-American sentiment will subside, and that people will look back at Iraq as the turning point in the cultural overhaul?

    I'm not a predictor of the future, though I'm pretty damn good at the stock market, but if I had to place a $1,000 bet on whether our Iraqi exploration will be seen as a failure we shouldn't have gotten into or a success, I'm betting on failure right now.

    That's ALL on Bush. It will define his presidency, and things like Roberts will be fine print nobody gives him credit for.

    As for his economic policies, Bush has been a liberal in conservative clothing. He's the anti-Clinton. Tax breaks were great. The reduction in government spending? Nonexistent. At least on social issues, Bush has been consistent. He pandered to the Bible thumpers, and he was true to his word. We've largely been saved from Gay Marriage. Our social fabric is secure.

    Someday, I hope a real conservative will step forward. The candidate who wins people over on a flat tax and eliminates the stupidity of our current overly bureaucratic penalty-for-success system. The candidate who eliminates entitlement programs and reduces government to the core services it was meant to provide. The (unlikely) candidate who realizes the environment need not be a partisan issue, but who like Arnold sees burning up the environment as the worst kind of deficit spending (and big kudos to Arnold for giving Bush the finger when Bush pressured him to ease the pro-environment legislation Arnold has championed in California). Give me the conservative candidate who realizes being a conservative doesn't mean you have to be a Christian and embrace the Bible Right's stupid ideologies.

    Here's another prediction - that candidate won't win the presidency in my lifetime.

    Rant over. No idea why I posted it here, other to get it off my chest.
     
  16. Eric B

    Eric B Member

    Feb 21, 2000
    the LBC
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's either try that, drive all the Jews into the Mediterranean (which is what a vast majority of the Muslim world wants), or turn Mecca into a radioactive parking lot (which is my favorite).

    Personally, the Democaracy domino idea is sound, it's just that Bush and his people have been sloppy, as they have with a lot of things, but a "moderate" Islamic world is 500 years away, if it happens ever, so peace before victory is not an option, IMO.

    There's no one really in the GOP that seems to be a continuation of the Bush era really, so come 2009 we'll have a new direction Iraq, for better or worse...
     
  17. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    Look, what defines "success" or "failure" in Iraq?

    I certainly know what failure would look like -- a Shia theocracy, a partitioned Kurdistan that invites the Turks in, and an Anbar province overrun by Wahabist jihadists.

    Trust me, folks, we do NOT want this.

    But "success?" Success at this point may be the equivalent of "muddling along" where none of those three things happen but that, in fits and starts, with good months and awful months, a federal Iraq takes root. Over the next decade.

    Give me "muddling along" to the stupidity of and defeatism of Claybrain and Harry Reid.

    As for Bush's domestic policies -- look, he tried to tackle one of the entitlement programs that are up against the demographic tsunami...but look what the Dhimmis did. They do what they do best..they demagogued it.

    There is much about the Bush administration to dislike. Yet think about Hilary or Barack as president. Both are closet socialists. Is that what you want? Not me.
     
  18. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    And that will be Bush's legacy. At least Carter failed in more modest ways.
     

Share This Page