• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Happy Jack

Bush on Leno

104 posts in this topic

I've said it before, and will say it again. I am impressed with the way GWB has conducted himself since leaving office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before, and will say it again. I am impressed with the way GWB has conducted himself since leaving office.

Which is more than we can say for Malarkey since Obama did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've said it before, and will say it again. I am impressed with the way GWB has conducted himself since leaving office.

Which is more than we can say for Malarkey since Obama did.

 

If Dr. Malarkey had half the class and dignity shown by W since he left office, it would undoubtedly make him Happy, Jack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush is a Class act, completely unlike the sarcastic arrogance of the current occupant of the White House.

 

Oh yeah. 'Cause nothing says "class act and non-arrogance" like telling enemies of the United States to "Bring it on."

 

Bush was arrogant back when arrogant was cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bush is a Class act, completely unlike the sarcastic arrogance of the current occupant of the White House.

 

Oh yeah. 'Cause nothing says "class act and non-arrogance" like telling enemies of the United States to "Bring it on."

 

Bush was arrogant back when arrogant was cool.

 

Why are you looking backward? B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes him feel better than looking at the present?

 

It is clear sarcasm escapes you.

 

Next time, I'll make sure to make it easy for even you to spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You initial response was level headed and adult. Then you went back to middle school with your bitchy girlfriends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Ben like to look at the current landscape. He needs relief, an escape from the everyday.

Bush Hating just feels so right to so many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little doubt the man was thrown into a most difficult situation. Read Decision Points if you want to have a better understanding of why he did what he felt needed to be done.

Funny guy. Shame we couldn't see more of that side of the guy when he was Commander in Chief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little doubt the man was thrown into a most difficult situation. Read Decision Points if you want to have a better understanding of why he did what he felt needed to be done.

Funny guy. Shame we couldn't see more of that side of the guy when he was Commander in Chief.

 

It's on my "to read" list.

 

That said, he may be a funny guy. But, that is not even close to the top of the list of attributes I look for in a leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You initial response was level headed and adult. Then you went back to middle school with your bitchy girlfriends.

 

I am so deeply touched you are keeping tabs on me. Gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Ben like to look at the current landscape. He needs relief, an escape from the everyday.

Bush Hating just feels so right to so many.

 

 

Every so often I run a 3 for 1 sale on clues, and today just happens to be your lucky day:

 

Clue 1: I think Obama is a shitty president.

 

Clue 2: The subject of this thread is Bush, a past President of the United States, being directly compared to a current President as less arrogant. My comment was in direct response to that.

 

Clue 3: A criticism of someone does not, in any way, reflect "hate". (See clue #1, which I doubt will result in that assessment) I realize how sensitive some people are whenever Bush's name is mentioned in a negative light, but if someone want's to start a thread about him, I won't be shy about hurting your feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Bush is a Class act, completely unlike the sarcastic arrogance of the current occupant of the White House.

Oh yeah. 'Cause nothing says "class act and non-arrogance" like telling enemies of the United States to "Bring it on."

 

Bush was arrogant back when arrogant was cool.

that was AFTER we were attacked on 911. Obviously you do not understand the difference between arrogance and defiance.

 

History will look back and judge on his presidency, but one thing is clear during the days and weeks after 911 he was the right man in the right spot. His words and deeds united the nation and filled us with hope. Defiance was exactly what the country wanted and needed. He delivered it with style and pride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't remember when he said bring it on do you? It wasn't right after 911.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little doubt the man was thrown into a most difficult situation. Read Decision Points if you want to have a better understanding of why he did what he felt needed to be done.

Funny guy. Shame we couldn't see more of that side of the guy when he was Commander in Chief.

 

 

You initial response was level headed and adult. Then you went back to middle school with your bitchy girlfriends.

 

I am so deeply touched you are keeping tabs on me. Gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

 

I stopped reading at touched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone catch were he talked about Putin? Stated he liked the guy despite the fact that Putin made fun of his dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't remember when he said bring it on do you? It wasn't right after 911.

. You are correct I was thinking of the New York visit where he said "soon the whole world will hear you"

 

Doesn't change the point IMOP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Little doubt the man was thrown into a most difficult situation. Read Decision Points if you want to have a better understanding of why he did what he felt needed to be done.

Funny guy. Shame we couldn't see more of that side of the guy when he was Commander in Chief.

 

It's on my "to read" list.

 

That said, he may be a funny guy. But, that is not even close to the top of the list of attributes I look for in a leader.

I disagree, respectfully. A leader needs to have the ability to laugh at himself. I shows a human side that is lost on so many leaders who take themselves way too seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Bush is a Class act, completely unlike the sarcastic arrogance of the current occupant of the White House.

Oh yeah. 'Cause nothing says "class act and non-arrogance" like telling enemies of the United States to "Bring it on."

 

Bush was arrogant back when arrogant was cool.

that was AFTER we were attacked on 911. Obviously you do not understand the difference between arrogance and defiance.

 

History will look back and judge on his presidency, but one thing is clear during the days and weeks after 911 he was the right man in the right spot. His words and deeds united the nation and filled us with hope. Defiance was exactly what the country wanted and needed. He delivered it with style and pride.

 

Really? Because Bush himself admitted it was a mistake here:

 

 

I reccomend not telling me that Bush hates himself.

 

Rather, defend him for saying it and now defend him for apologizing that he said it. You can now even rack up "humble" as a postive trait. He's a humble man for apogizing for having style and pride.

 

How many days and weeks after 911 did he make the statement, by the way? It's a lot, and I don't have a calculator handy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush is a Class act, completely unlike the sarcastic arrogance of the current occupant of the White House.

Oh yeah. 'Cause nothing says "class act and non-arrogance" like telling enemies of the United States to "Bring it on."

 

Bush was arrogant back when arrogant was cool.

that was AFTER we were attacked on 911. Obviously you do not understand the difference between arrogance and defiance.

 

History will look back and judge on his presidency, but one thing is clear during the days and weeks after 911 he was the right man in the right spot. His words and deeds united the nation and filled us with hope. Defiance was exactly what the country wanted and needed. He delivered it with style and pride.

Really? Because Bush himself admitted it was a mistake here:

 

 

I reccomend not telling me that Bush hates himself.

 

Rather, defend him for saying it and now defend him for apologizing that he said it. You can now even rack up "humble" as a postive trait. He's a humble man for apogizing for having style and pride.

 

How many days and weeks after 911 did he make the statement, by the way? It's a lot, and I don't have a calculator handy.

. I already admitted that I was thinking of a different speech.

 

But you knew that didn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Bush is a Class act, completely unlike the sarcastic arrogance of the current occupant of the White House.

Oh yeah. 'Cause nothing says "class act and non-arrogance" like telling enemies of the United States to "Bring it on."

 

Bush was arrogant back when arrogant was cool.

that was AFTER we were attacked on 911. Obviously you do not understand the difference between arrogance and defiance.

 

History will look back and judge on his presidency, but one thing is clear during the days and weeks after 911 he was the right man in the right spot. His words and deeds united the nation and filled us with hope. Defiance was exactly what the country wanted and needed. He delivered it with style and pride.

 

Really? Because Bush himself admitted it was a mistake here:

 

 

I reccomend not telling me that Bush hates himself.

 

Rather, defend him for saying it and now defend him for apologizing that he said it. You can now even rack up "humble" as a postive trait. He's a humble man for apogizing for having style and pride.

 

How many days and weeks after 911 did he make the statement, by the way? It's a lot, and I don't have a calculator handy.

 

Yes you do. You are posting from a computer Ben.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Little doubt the man was thrown into a most difficult situation. Read Decision Points if you want to have a better understanding of why he did what he felt needed to be done.

Funny guy. Shame we couldn't see more of that side of the guy when he was Commander in Chief.

 

 

You initial response was level headed and adult. Then you went back to middle school with your bitchy girlfriends.

 

I am so deeply touched you are keeping tabs on me. Gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

I stopped reading at touched.

Lie #12,857

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Little doubt the man was thrown into a most difficult situation. Read Decision Points if you want to have a better understanding of why he did what he felt needed to be done.

Funny guy. Shame we couldn't see more of that side of the guy when he was Commander in Chief.

 

 

 

You initial response was level headed and adult. Then you went back to middle school with your bitchy girlfriends.

 

I am so deeply touched you are keeping tabs on me. Gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

I stopped reading at touched.

Lie #12,857
sooo sarcasm from happy = lie

 

Sarcasm from Ben, SE, D'ranger.... = ok.

 

Your double standard is showing.

 

I can't believe I just defended Jack. Need to go wash my typing fingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Little doubt the man was thrown into a most difficult situation. Read Decision Points if you want to have a better understanding of why he did what he felt needed to be done.

Funny guy. Shame we couldn't see more of that side of the guy when he was Commander in Chief.

 

It's on my "to read" list.

 

That said, he may be a funny guy. But, that is not even close to the top of the list of attributes I look for in a leader.

I disagree, respectfully. A leader needs to have the ability to laugh at himself. I shows a human side that is lost on so many leaders who take themselves way too seriously.

Leno: "That's a nice picture of "Bob", George. Can you do one of "Matt" for us?"

 

20h3olt.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Little doubt the man was thrown into a most difficult situation. Read Decision Points if you want to have a better understanding of why he did what he felt needed to be done.

Funny guy. Shame we couldn't see more of that side of the guy when he was Commander in Chief.

 

It's on my "to read" list.

 

That said, he may be a funny guy. But, that is not even close to the top of the list of attributes I look for in a leader.

I disagree, respectfully. A leader needs to have the ability to laugh at himself. I shows a human side that is lost on so many leaders who take themselves way too seriously.

 

I disagree, as well - respectfully. I didn't say I don't want a leader to be humorless. I said it wasn't near the top of my list of attributes I would prefer.

 

Anyway, W comes across as folksy and charming. And, he has conducted himself in a dignified and humble manner since leaving the Oval Office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

W is much better as an ex-President than he was as a President.

 

I expect Obama will be a failure when he leaves just as he is now. Too much ego in that guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of class we get crass

 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The last point I'll make is that in terms of expectation setting, there's no doubt that in an environment in which we had to fight tooth and nail to get this passed, it ended up being passed on a partisan basis -- not for lack of trying, because I met with an awful lot of Republicans to try to get them to go along -- but because there was just ideological resistance to the idea of dealing with the uninsured and people with preexisting conditions. There was a price to that, and it was that what was already going to be hard was operating within a very difficult political environment. And we should have anticipated that that would create a rockier rollout than if Democrats and Republicans were both invested in success.

One of the problems we've had is one side of Capitol Hill is invested in failure, and that makes, I think, the kind of iterative process of fixing glitches as they come up and fine-tuning the law more challenging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama seems to see the opposition as the enemy rather than the adversary. Big difference, the old masters at the game like Teddy, Tip, reagan, somewhat Clinton, and others accomplished 75 percent of their goals even when the numbers are stacked against each side.

Obama seems to look at the opposition as an enemy to be vanquished,and the ObamaCare bill is what comes out of that kind of all or nothing approach.

I guess when you come from Chicago you simply steamroll your opposition. Team up with Nancy "giant gavel" Pelosi and Harry "Hammer" Reid and we get the mess we have today.

Democrats felt like victors after the October "shutdown" because they felt like once again they "won." The irony is that the Republicans were mainly trying to stop ObamaCare, which in hindsight would have been a benefit to Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How timely:

"A good President needs a big comfort zone. He should be able to treat enemies as opportunities, appear authentic in joy and grief, stay cool under the hot lights. But humility doesn't come naturally to those who decide they are qualified to run the free world. So the sign that the Obama presidency had reached a turning point came not when his poll numbers sank or his allies shuddered or the commentariat went hunting for the right degree of debacle to compare to the rollout of Obamacare."


http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2158133,00.html#ixzz2lIyGnKZb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Little doubt the man was thrown into a most difficult situation. Read Decision Points if you want to have a better understanding of why he did what he felt needed to be done.

Funny guy. Shame we couldn't see more of that side of the guy when he was Commander in Chief.

 

It's on my "to read" list.

 

That said, he may be a funny guy. But, that is not even close to the top of the list of attributes I look for in a leader.

I disagree, respectfully. A leader needs to have the ability to laugh at himself. I shows a human side that is lost on so many leaders who take themselves way too seriously.

Leno: "That's a nice picture of "Bob", George. Can you do one of "Matt" for us?"

 

20h3olt.jpg

319f484be2377e26430f6a70670003dd_origina

 

I put a higher responsibility for the death of an American Border Agent than humiliation of Iraqi Prisoners, but hey each to their own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama seems to see the opposition as the enemy rather than the adversary. Big difference, the old masters at the game like Teddy, Tip, reagan, somewhat Clinton, and others accomplished 75 percent of their goals even when the numbers are stacked against each side.

Obama seems to look at the opposition as an enemy to be vanquished,and the ObamaCare bill is what comes out of that kind of all or nothing approach.

I guess when you come from Chicago you simply steamroll your opposition. Team up with Nancy "giant gavel" Pelosi and Harry "Hammer" Reid and we get the mess we have today.

Democrats felt like victors after the October "shutdown" because they felt like once again they "won." The irony is that the Republicans were mainly trying to stop ObamaCare, which in hindsight would have been a benefit to Obama.

 

Sorry, WC - but, I've got to take exception w/a portion of your comment, namely, that it's not just Obama, or his cabinet, or the Democrats that are behaving in the manner you decry. There are damn few members of our electorate for whom their personal and professional behaviors are exempt from similar reproach. Likewise, honest discussion in our populace seems to have taken a backseat to folks looking hard for some reason to be offended by something someone else said. The tone and intention of discourse needs to change, and if we don't start with ourselves, first, it's not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TM,

There's not enough time in the day to address all those darned Liberals and their darned lies.

And don't get me started on Ben, the biggest Lying Liberal here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Little doubt the man was thrown into a most difficult situation. Read Decision Points if you want to have a better understanding of why he did what he felt needed to be done.

Funny guy. Shame we couldn't see more of that side of the guy when he was Commander in Chief.

It's on my "to read" list.

 

That said, he may be a funny guy. But, that is not even close to the top of the list of attributes I look for in a leader.

 

 

I disagree, respectfully. A leader needs to have the ability to laugh at himself. I shows a human side that is lost on so many leaders who take themselves way too seriously.

 

 

Leno: "That's a nice picture of "Bob", George. Can you do one of "Matt" for us?"

 

20h3olt.jpg

 

 

319f484be2377e26430f6a70670003dd_origina

 

I put a higher responsibility for the death of an American Border Agent than humiliation of Iraqi Prisoners, but hey each to their own

 

 

How many suicide bombers and IED planters (the people that kill US soldiers) do you think were inspired by the events at Abu Ghraib?

 

This is why we have no business doing this nation building shit. People just don't understand how it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How many suicide bombers and IED planters (the people that kill US soldiers) do you think were inspired by the events at Abu Ghraib?

This is why we have no business doing this nation building shit. People just don't understand how it works.

 

Good thing hellfire missiles launched from drones that blow up bad guys along with their wife, kids and the extended family are all chill and good with the suicide bombers and IED planters. Otherwise you might have to actually blame Obama for something... Perish the thought....

 

 

PS I bet the current generation of suicide bombers and IED planter don't even know what Abu Ghraib is.but I bet they know that Obama reneged on his promise to close Gitmo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush is a Class act, completely unlike the sarcastic arrogance of the current occupant of the White House.

Oh yeah. 'Cause nothing says "class act and non-arrogance" like telling enemies of the United States to "Bring it on."

 

Bush was arrogant back when arrogant was cool.

that was AFTER we were attacked on 911. Obviously you do not understand the difference between arrogance and defiance.

 

History will look back and judge on his presidency, but one thing is clear during the days and weeks after 911 he was the right man in the right spot. His words and deeds united the nation and filled us with hope. Defiance was exactly what the country wanted and needed. He delivered it with style and pride.

 

Really? Because Bush himself admitted it was a mistake here:

 

 

I reccomend not telling me that Bush hates himself.

 

Rather, defend him for saying it and now defend him for apologizing that he said it. You can now even rack up "humble" as a postive trait. He's a humble man for apogizing for having style and pride.

 

How many days and weeks after 911 did he make the statement, by the way? It's a lot, and I don't have a calculator handy.

 

Yes you do. You are posting from a computer Ben.

 

A horse walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Why the long face."

 

Sneezy: "Well, because he's a horse. Horses have long faces."

 

 

You must be a real hit at parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush is a Class act, completely unlike the sarcastic arrogance of the current occupant of the White House.

Oh yeah. 'Cause nothing says "class act and non-arrogance" like telling enemies of the United States to "Bring it on."

 

Bush was arrogant back when arrogant was cool.

that was AFTER we were attacked on 911. Obviously you do not understand the difference between arrogance and defiance.

 

History will look back and judge on his presidency, but one thing is clear during the days and weeks after 911 he was the right man in the right spot. His words and deeds united the nation and filled us with hope. Defiance was exactly what the country wanted and needed. He delivered it with style and pride.

Really? Because Bush himself admitted it was a mistake here:

 

 

I reccomend not telling me that Bush hates himself.

 

Rather, defend him for saying it and now defend him for apologizing that he said it. You can now even rack up "humble" as a postive trait. He's a humble man for apogizing for having style and pride.

 

How many days and weeks after 911 did he make the statement, by the way? It's a lot, and I don't have a calculator handy.

. I already admitted that I was thinking of a different speech.

 

But you knew that didn't you?

 

It's quite possible to have an editor window open writing a post, while others are adding posts. But you knew that didn't you? At least it allowed you to dodge the fact that Bush apologized for what you thought was just a dandy remark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Obama seems to see the opposition as the enemy rather than the adversary. Big difference, the old masters at the game like Teddy, Tip, reagan, somewhat Clinton, and others accomplished 75 percent of their goals even when the numbers are stacked against each side.

Obama seems to look at the opposition as an enemy to be vanquished,and the ObamaCare bill is what comes out of that kind of all or nothing approach.

I guess when you come from Chicago you simply steamroll your opposition. Team up with Nancy "giant gavel" Pelosi and Harry "Hammer" Reid and we get the mess we have today.

Democrats felt like victors after the October "shutdown" because they felt like once again they "won." The irony is that the Republicans were mainly trying to stop ObamaCare, which in hindsight would have been a benefit to Obama.

 

Sorry, WC - but, I've got to take exception w/a portion of your comment, namely, that it's not just Obama, or his cabinet, or the Democrats that are behaving in the manner you decry. There are damn few members of our electorate for whom their personal and professional behaviors are exempt from similar reproach. Likewise, honest discussion in our populace seems to have taken a backseat to folks looking hard for some reason to be offended by something someone else said. The tone and intention of discourse needs to change, and if we don't start with ourselves, first, it's not going to happen.

Leadership starts at the top.

Your point is well taken, but my point addresses the current state of leadership at the WH, which in my opinion is the worst in terms of relationship and consensus building in recent history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Obama seems to see the opposition as the enemy rather than the adversary. Big difference, the old masters at the game like Teddy, Tip, reagan, somewhat Clinton, and others accomplished 75 percent of their goals even when the numbers are stacked against each side.

Obama seems to look at the opposition as an enemy to be vanquished,and the ObamaCare bill is what comes out of that kind of all or nothing approach.

I guess when you come from Chicago you simply steamroll your opposition. Team up with Nancy "giant gavel" Pelosi and Harry "Hammer" Reid and we get the mess we have today.

Democrats felt like victors after the October "shutdown" because they felt like once again they "won." The irony is that the Republicans were mainly trying to stop ObamaCare, which in hindsight would have been a benefit to Obama.

 

Sorry, WC - but, I've got to take exception w/a portion of your comment, namely, that it's not just Obama, or his cabinet, or the Democrats that are behaving in the manner you decry. There are damn few members of our electorate for whom their personal and professional behaviors are exempt from similar reproach. Likewise, honest discussion in our populace seems to have taken a backseat to folks looking hard for some reason to be offended by something someone else said. The tone and intention of discourse needs to change, and if we don't start with ourselves, first, it's not going to happen.

Leadership starts at the top.

Your point is well taken, but my point addresses the current state of leadership at the WH, which in my opinion is the worst in terms of relationship and consensus building in recent history.

Next to the bush that is…. otherwise yes I agree with you 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see now? While Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are trying to save the world; Shrub is painting pretty pictures....??

 

L-0-S-E-R......!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see now? While Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are trying to save the world; Shrub is painting pretty pictures....??

 

L-0-S-E-R......!!

 

He is apparently the only one smart enough to realize that if it couldn't be done during his term in office, it's time to leave it alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see now? While Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are trying to save the world; Shrub is painting pretty pictures....??

 

L-0-S-E-R......!!

.

 

Staying out of the lime light has been a presidential tradition for many years. I guess you missed where his work with wounded warriors was lightly touched upon.

 

Both carter and Clinton do wonderfull charity work

But they also can't keep their mouths shut when it comes to the nation's business. So fuck off with attacking GW for showing the same class as the 41 other presidents that understand you do not undermine the office regardless of the letter after the occupants name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit to knowing little of what he has done since leaving office, so I did a little reading.

 

Co-establishing the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund is a noble endeavor, and keeping a low profile is notable. Especially, when you can seek publicity for visiting the Fort Hood shooting victims, and you make sure it is kept quiet.

 

I repeat, I am impressed with the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if he feels bad about the thousands of Iraqi civilians who died as a result of the unjustified, unlawful war his government prosecuted to stop Saddam from using WMD that turned out not to exist? Or the American and Iraqi soldiers who also died?

 

Sorry, that is his legacy, no amount do-gooding afterwards can wash that away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if he feels bad about the thousands of Iraqi civilians who died as a result of the unjustified, unlawful war his government prosecuted to stop Saddam from using WMD that turned out not to exist? Or the American and Iraqi soldiers who also died?

 

Sorry, that is his legacy, no amount do-gooding afterwards can wash that away.

 

Remember the no fly zone? Saddam slowly committing genocide in the north and south?

 

The real mistake was instead of wasting billions trying to nation build in Iraq we should have done away with Khamenei and al-Assad at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Carter and Clinton have served as ambassadors to sitting Presidents. I don't know about GHWB but I'm pretty sure none of the other recent Presidents have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Both Carter and Clinton have served as ambassadors to sitting Presidents. I don't know about GHWB but I'm pretty sure none of the other recent Presidents have.

Never heard of that care to support it with a cite including the countries they were appointed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carter negotiated with Havana. Clinton most recently fetched some hikers from NK. A little reading on your part would help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Both Carter and Clinton have served as ambassadors to sitting Presidents. I don't know about GHWB but I'm pretty sure none of the other recent Presidents have.

Never heard of that care to support it with a cite including the countries they were appointed to.

 

I think spelling it with a lower-case "a" would indicate a sort of casual type thing, as opposed to a full-blown appointment.

 

Probably just as well. What with the mess over the Senate not confirming anyone. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carter negotiated with Havana. Clinton most recently fetched some hikers from NK. A little reading on your part would help.

LOL

 

A little reality on your part would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality hasn't worked with you so far.

You said ambassadors that would mean an actual posting . - not an honorary title to go on a good will mission. I bet you think the key to a city actual opens a lock or a honorary degree from a college of medicine allows you to be a doctor.

 

You are rapidly becoming irrelevant on this site with this type of logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Reality hasn't worked with you so far.

You said ambassadors that would mean an actual posting . - not an honorary title to go on a good will mission. I bet you think the key to a city actual opens a lock or a honorary degree from a college of medicine allows you to be a doctor.

 

You are rapidly becoming irrelevant on this site with this type of logic.

Becoming? He’s been irrelevant for as long as I can remember…. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Reality hasn't worked with you so far.

You said ambassadors that would mean an actual posting . - not an honorary title to go on a good will mission. I bet you think the key to a city actual opens a lock or a honorary degree from a college of medicine allows you to be a doctor.

 

You are rapidly becoming irrelevant on this site with this type of logic.

 

 

1: an official envoy; especially : a diplomatic agent of the highest rank accredited to a foreign government or sovereign as the resident representative of his or her own government or sovereign or appointed for a special and often temporary diplomatic assignment
2 a : an authorized representative or messenger b : an unofficial representative <traveling abroad as ambassadors of goodwill>

So you gonna continue with your own definition, or join the reality where dictionaries tell you what words mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Reality hasn't worked with you so far.

You said ambassadors that would mean an actual posting . - not an honorary title to go on a good will mission. I bet you think the key to a city actual opens a lock or a honorary degree from a college of medicine allows you to be a doctor.

 

You are rapidly becoming irrelevant on this site with this type of logic.

 

1: an official envoy; especially : a diplomatic agent of the highest rank accredited to a foreign government or sovereign as the resident representative of his or her own government or sovereign or appointed for a special and often temporary diplomatic assignment

 

 

2 a : an authorized representative or messenger b : an unofficial representative <traveling abroad as ambassadors of goodwill>

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambassador

 

 

So you gonna continue with your own definition, or join the reality where dictionaries tell you what words mean?

. Oh goody Ben the independent checks in with definitions. Put it on your résumé along with spell checker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really possible to determine one's political persuasion by whether or not he cracks open a dictionary? Really?

 

 

Here's a word to look up: Victimhood.

 

Boo hoo. Run normal candidates ("I'm not a witch" is not a normal campaign slogan) and stop pandering to voters whose votes you will always have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Reality hasn't worked with you so far.

You said ambassadors that would mean an actual posting . - not an honorary title to go on a good will mission. I bet you think the key to a city actual opens a lock or a honorary degree from a college of medicine allows you to be a doctor.

 

You are rapidly becoming irrelevant on this site with this type of logic.

 

1: an official envoy; especially : a diplomatic agent of the highest rank accredited to a foreign government or sovereign as the resident representative of his or her own government or sovereign or appointed for a special and often temporary diplomatic assignment

 

 

2 a : an authorized representative or messenger b : an unofficial representative <traveling abroad as ambassadors of goodwill>

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambassador

 

 

So you gonna continue with your own definition, or join the reality where dictionaries tell you what words mean?

. Oh goody Ben the independent checks in with definitions. Put it on your résumé along with spell checker.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that applying the literal meaning of words reveals me to be leftist?

 

Conversely, I don't think that you making up your own meanings of words has anything to do with your ideology. Just because YOU do it, does not mean those on the right do. I give them far more credit than that.

 

YOU can't get dates, quotes, OR definitions correctly. Let's just leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Little doubt the man was thrown into a most difficult situation. Read Decision Points if you want to have a better understanding of why he did what he felt needed to be done.

Funny guy. Shame we couldn't see more of that side of the guy when he was Commander in Chief.

 

It's on my "to read" list.

 

That said, he may be a funny guy. But, that is not even close to the top of the list of attributes I look for in a leader.

I disagree, respectfully. A leader needs to have the ability to laugh at himself. I shows a human side that is lost on so many leaders who take themselves way too seriously.

Leno: "That's a nice picture of "Bob", George. Can you do one of "Matt" for us?"

 

20h3olt.jpg

 

 

He should have simply said that he didn't know anything about it until he read about it in the paper. Problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben+Sol, should you ever decide to come over to the Left I'd be honored to help out. Your application requires two sponsorship letters and an introduction at the new member dinner. BTW, you are not required to be lesbian, black or poor. Still you do need to indicate on your application whether you would volunteering for the Stop Global Warming or End Genocide Committees.

 

Should you decide to remain independent, your money is always good at the bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben+Sol, should you ever decide to come over to the Left I'd be honored to help out. Your application requires two sponsorship letters and an introduction at the new member dinner. BTW, you are not required to be lesbian, black or poor. Still you do need to indicate on your application whether you would volunteering for the Stop Global Warming or End Genocide Committees.

 

Should you decide to remain independent, your money is always good at the bar.

So my committee choices are Stop Global Warming or End Genocide Now vs. That is So Unfair or That Is A Complete And Utter Outrage committees.

 

Tough call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben+Sol, should you ever decide to come over to the Left I'd be honored to help out. Your application requires two sponsorship letters and an introduction at the new member dinner. BTW, you are not required to be lesbian, black or poor. Still you do need to indicate on your application whether you would volunteering for the Stop Global Warming or End Genocide Committees.

 

Should you decide to remain independent, your money is always good at the bar.

 

I've defended Bush, BP, and have been critical of Obama.

 

However, I have said bad things about Bush, and also consult dictionaries. Those two right there preclude all other positions and make me a far left, liberal, Obamitron socialist. All that's left is to pick up a couple of bottles of cheap rum to exchange for sponsorship letters and I'm in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in·de·pend·ent

ˌindəˈpendənt/

adjective

1.

free from outside control; not depending on another's authority.

"the study is totally independent of central government"

synonyms: freethinking, free, individualistic; More

antonyms: orthodox, constrained

(of a country) self-governing.

"India became independent in 1947"

synonyms: self-governing, self-ruling, self-determining, sovereign, autonomous, free, nonaligned More

antonyms: subservient, dependent

not belonging to or supported by a political party.

"the independent candidate"

(of broadcasting, a school, etc.) not supported by public funds.

synonyms: private, private-sector, non-state-run, fee-paying; More

antonyms: public, state-run

not influenced or affected by others; impartial.

"a thorough and independent investigation of the case"

synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, neutral, disinterested, uninvolved, uncommitted, detached, dispassionate, objective, nonpartisan, nondiscriminatory More

antonyms: biased

historical

Congregational.

adjective: Independent

2.

not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence.

"I wanted to remain independent in old age"

synonyms: self-sufficient, self-supporting

 

Yep deciding what a poster is saying rather than what they wrote is wrong. Sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben, just so's y'all know, coming from the Left, you+Sol+JMD come off as pretty darned independent and very readable.

TM, deciding what a poster is saying rather than what they wrote is part and parcel of comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben, just so's y'all know, coming from the Left, you+Sol+JMD come off as pretty darned independent and very readable.

TM, deciding what a poster is saying rather than what they wrote is part and parcel of comprehension.

Is it something on the water? Please explain how calling someone an independent means lefty? Boy I bet that is news to all the fans of happy jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ben, just so's y'all know, coming from the Left, you+Sol+JMD come off as pretty darned independent and very readable.

TM, deciding what a poster is saying rather than what they wrote is part and parcel of comprehension.

Is it something on the water? Please explain how calling someone an independent means lefty? Boy I bet that is news to all the fans of happy jack

 

Referring to someone continually as an "independent" on this forum is usually sarcasm. It implies that they are not.

 

If you want to pretend you didn't know how that works, then don't post an actual example of it in your post while you are feigning ignorance. Or maybe you literally were referring to "fans" of Happy Jack? Who are his "fans"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Ben, just so's y'all know, coming from the Left, you+Sol+JMD come off as pretty darned independent and very readable.

TM, deciding what a poster is saying rather than what they wrote is part and parcel of comprehension.

Is it something on the water? Please explain how calling someone an independent means lefty? Boy I bet that is news to all the fans of happy jack

Referring to someone continually as an "independent" on this forum is usually sarcasm. It implies that they are not.

 

If you want to pretend you didn't know how that works, then don't post an actual example of it in your post while you are feigning ignorance. Or maybe you literally were referring to "fans" of Happy Jack? Who are his "fans"?

. So definitions count sometimes. Got it

 

My referring to you as an independent has little to do with your political leanings. It has everything to do with your selective attacks.

As an example if I had posted to Olsonist that GHWB Was the US ambassador to the United Nations but have no clue about Clinton or Carter I would expect your selective wit would still have been applied in my direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Ben, just so's y'all know, coming from the Left, you+Sol+JMD come off as pretty darned independent and very readable.

TM, deciding what a poster is saying rather than what they wrote is part and parcel of comprehension.

Is it something on the water? Please explain how calling someone an independent means lefty? Boy I bet that is news to all the fans of happy jack

Referring to someone continually as an "independent" on this forum is usually sarcasm. It implies that they are not.

 

If you want to pretend you didn't know how that works, then don't post an actual example of it in your post while you are feigning ignorance. Or maybe you literally were referring to "fans" of Happy Jack? Who are his "fans"?

. So definitions count sometimes. Got it

 

My referring to you as an independent has little to do with your political leanings. It has everything to do with your selective attacks.

As an example if I had posted to Olsonist that GHWB Was the US ambassador to the United Nations but have no clue about Clinton or Carter I would expect your selective wit would still have been applied in my direction.

 

Yes. Definitions do indeed cound sometimes. When it comes to sarcasm, they don't. When you call someone on a literal definition (like "ambassador", they do. And I'm glad you finally "got it". Let me know if I can help in any other areas. I'm a giver.

 

As far as my "selective attacks", what you would expect me to do doesn't carry the water. You've got to stop relying on other people's imagination to make your point.

 

I once made a statement along the lines of "the first ammendment grants you the right to free speech". Our resident pitbull of logic, President Eisenhowler, corrected me in that it doesn't "grant" anything, but actually protects a right we already have. I didn't question his political affiliation, his definition of words, his selective "attacks", or my expectations of what he would do in other situations.

 

I humbly admitted my mistake, learned to choose my words carefully, and moved on. Consider that approach. Far more constructive than tap dancing, and way less time consuming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really possible to determine one's political persuasion by whether or not he cracks open a dictionary? Really?

 

 

Here's a word to look up: Victimhood.

 

Boo hoo. Run normal candidates ("I'm not a witch" is not a normal campaign slogan) and stop pandering to voters whose votes you will always have.

 

Wouldn't it be normal if that was a response to an accusation aimed at you in a campaign?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ben, just so's y'all know, coming from the Left, you+Sol+JMD come off as pretty darned independent and very readable.

TM, deciding what a poster is saying rather than what they wrote is part and parcel of comprehension.

Is it something on the water? Please explain how calling someone an independent means lefty? Boy I bet that is news to all the fans of happy jack

Referring to someone continually as an "independent" on this forum is usually sarcasm. It implies that they are not.

 

If you want to pretend you didn't know how that works, then don't post an actual example of it in your post while you are feigning ignorance. Or maybe you literally were referring to "fans" of Happy Jack? Who are his "fans"?

. So definitions count sometimes. Got it

 

My referring to you as an independent has little to do with your political leanings. It has everything to do with your selective attacks.

As an example if I had posted to Olsonist that GHWB Was the US ambassador to the United Nations but have no clue about Clinton or Carter I would expect your selective wit would still have been applied in my direction.

 

Yes. Definitions do indeed cound sometimes. When it comes to sarcasm, they don't. When you call someone on a literal definition (like "ambassador", they do. And I'm glad you finally "got it". Let me know if I can help in any other areas. I'm a giver.

 

As far as my "selective attacks", what you would expect me to do doesn't carry the water. You've got to stop relying on other people's imagination to make your point.

 

I once made a statement along the lines of "the first ammendment grants you the right to free speech". Our resident pitbull of logic, President Eisenhowler, corrected me in that it doesn't "grant" anything, but actually protects a right we already have. I didn't question his political affiliation, his definition of words, his selective "attacks", or my expectations of what he would do in other situations.

 

I humbly admitted my mistake, learned to choose my words carefully, and moved on. Consider that approach. Far more constructive than tap dancing, and way less time consuming.

 

 

And THIS, Ben - is why I consider you one of the reasonable participants in this forum, even when we disagree.

Please, sir - carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your opinion I find Ben injecting himself into conversations that do not involve him typical of some on this site who rarely comment on the actual topic instead they inject snide comments in bens case usually directed at those that lean right. I would love to see the context of the post were he humbly admitted he was wrong. Because in my experience he always has to get in the last word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your opinion I find Ben injecting himself into conversations that do not involve him typical of some on this site who rarely comment on the actual topic instead they inject snide comments in bens case usually directed at those that lean right. I would love to see the context of the post were he humbly admitted he was wrong. Because in my experience he always has to get in the last word.

TM - I'd humbly suggest you consider his comments w/a slightly broader perspective. That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wonder if he feels bad about the thousands of Iraqi civilians who died as a result of the unjustified, unlawful war his government prosecuted to stop Saddam from using WMD that turned out not to exist? Or the American and Iraqi soldiers who also died?

 

Sorry, that is his legacy, no amount do-gooding afterwards can wash that away.

 

Remember the no fly zone? Saddam slowly committing genocide in the north and south?

 

The real mistake was instead of wasting billions trying to nation build in Iraq we should have done away with Khamenei and al-Assad at the same time.

Just a suggestion. Next time the president of the US has a vendetta against a dictator, just offer the billions to the people of his country to take care of him.

 

If you do the math, each and every Iraqi citizen could have been offered many thousands of dollars to ditch Saddam any way they liked.

 

He would have lasted 2, maybe 3 days. The Iraqi people would be enriched (and maybe could afford to buy something made in the US for a change) and no American soldiers would die.

 

Of course, certain US defense and security contractors wouldn't be quite as rich, but maybe that would be ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Carter and Clinton have served as ambassadors to sitting Presidents. I don't know about GHWB but I'm pretty sure none of the other recent Presidents have.

Bush cannot freely travel the world like Carter and Clinton. Chances are he'd be nabbed and put on trial in the Haag if he ever went overseas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's your opinion I find Ben injecting himself into conversations that do not involve him typical of some on this site who rarely comment on the actual topic instead they inject snide comments in bens case usually directed at those that lean right. I would love to see the context of the post were he humbly admitted he was wrong. Because in my experience he always has to get in the last word.

TM - I'd humbly suggest you consider his comments w/a slightly broader perspective. That is all.

Fair enough. But like anything else it is a two way street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wonder if he feels bad about the thousands of Iraqi civilians who died as a result of the unjustified, unlawful war his government prosecuted to stop Saddam from using WMD that turned out not to exist? Or the American and Iraqi soldiers who also died?

 

Sorry, that is his legacy, no amount do-gooding afterwards can wash that away.

 

Remember the no fly zone? Saddam slowly committing genocide in the north and south?

 

The real mistake was instead of wasting billions trying to nation build in Iraq we should have done away with Khamenei and al-Assad at the same time.

Just a suggestion. Next time the president of the US has a vendetta against a dictator, just offer the billions to the people of his country to take care of him.

 

If you do the math, each and every Iraqi citizen could have been offered many thousands of dollars to ditch Saddam any way they liked.

 

He would have lasted 2, maybe 3 days. The Iraqi people would be enriched (and maybe could afford to buy something made in the US for a change) and no American soldiers would die.

 

Of course, certain US defense and security contractors wouldn't be quite as rich, but maybe that would be ok.

 

What does the number 8,891 mean to you?

 

As a fellow Canadian and a naturalized citizen of the Unites States of America I am one of the few privileged enough to call both home. I am also blessed that I can not foresee a day when I would have to choose loyalty to one over the other.

 

8,891 is the length in km of the boarder between these nations. By a large margin it is the longest boarder in the world and along its length there is not a single tank or soldier aimed at the other side. Nor has there been for almost two centuries. In fact Christmas Eve next year will mark the two hundredth anniversary of the treaty of Ghent.

 

Canada long history of peace and security is a blessing guaranteed in part by those US defense contractors you sneer at.

 

There are some six airports remaining whose runways straddle that boarder. Thousands of shiny new aircraft landed at these airports under American flag by day and left under Canadian colours by night.

 

Living in Nanaimo I am confident you've been thorough Douglas crossing and seen the Peace arch inscribed with "Children of a common mother" and "Brethren dwelling together in unity". A gated arch whose Iron gate bares a plaque with the words "May these gates never be closed".

 

So forgive me if I'm galled by the rantings of a left wing Canadian against the US trying to peddle the myth that American defense contractors are owned by a cabal of greedy Daddy Warbucks engaged in war profiteering.

 

US defense contractors are public corporations largely owned by small private investors and larger pension funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of many Presidents other than Bush with whom I would like to shoot the shut over a beer. Probably Clinton, because it would take place at the Red Garter or some equivalent establishment, swarming with top flight stinky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wonder if he feels bad about the thousands of Iraqi civilians who died as a result of the unjustified, unlawful war his government prosecuted to stop Saddam from using WMD that turned out not to exist? Or the American and Iraqi soldiers who also died?

 

Sorry, that is his legacy, no amount do-gooding afterwards can wash that away.

 

Remember the no fly zone? Saddam slowly committing genocide in the north and south?

 

The real mistake was instead of wasting billions trying to nation build in Iraq we should have done away with Khamenei and al-Assad at the same time.

Just a suggestion. Next time the president of the US has a vendetta against a dictator, just offer the billions to the people of his country to take care of him.

 

If you do the math, each and every Iraqi citizen could have been offered many thousands of dollars to ditch Saddam any way they liked.

 

He would have lasted 2, maybe 3 days. The Iraqi people would be enriched (and maybe could afford to buy something made in the US for a change) and no American soldiers would die.

 

Of course, certain US defense and security contractors wouldn't be quite as rich, but maybe that would be ok.

 

That was being tried during the inter-war period with the no-fly zone and Operation Desert Fox which was targeted at Iraqi WMDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd sail with Kennedy.

Interesting you would spend time with the man who got us into Vietnam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd sail with Kennedy.

Interesting you would spend time with the man who got us into Vietnam?

Truman? Definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'd sail with Kennedy.

Interesting you would spend time with the man who got us into Vietnam?
Truman? Definitely.
Truman dropped the atomic bomb twice How would you tolerate the man who incinerated so many in radioactive fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd sail with Kennedy.

 

You'd have to figure out a way to prop him up in the cockpit, and he wouldn't be much help at all on the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd sail with Kennedy.

 

You'd have to figure out a way to prop him up in the cockpit, and he wouldn't be much help at all on the boat.

Groan.

 

I've sailed with people who contributed to the effort at that level. They were perhaps more helpful with the onboard conversation, but not much more.

 

I was thinking along the lines of recent (i.e. Alive) past Presidents when I posted the part about knocking back a cold one and shooting the breeze, but if we could bring dead presidents to life for such an event, I would pick either Thomas Jefferson, who had a most interesting mind, or George Washington, to find out how the football team from his University keeps going undefeated year-in, year-out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I'd sail with Kennedy.

Interesting you would spend time with the man who got us into Vietnam?
Truman? Definitely.
Truman dropped the atomic bomb twice How would you tolerate the man who incinerated so many in radioactive fire

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGGR3b8vycY

. Dodge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd sail with Kennedy.

You'd have to figure out a way to prop him up in the cockpit, and he wouldn't be much help at all on the boat.

He was pretty helpful on the PT-109, bad back and all. But that's probably what you were getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'd sail with Kennedy.

You'd have to figure out a way to prop him up in the cockpit, and he wouldn't be much help at all on the boat.
He was pretty helpful on PT-109, bad back and all. But that's probably what you were getting at.
. He was rammed by a jap destroyer. Wouldn't want him driving my boat at a crowded starting line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy didn't get his PT boat rammed by a Jap destroyer. Why was that?

 

enlistees-ronald-reagan-sized.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I would certainly include him in the presidents I wish I could have met in person. Oh that includes JFK and FDR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy didn't get his PT boat rammed by a Jap destroyer. Why was that?

 

enlistees-ronald-reagan-sized.jpg

He was too busy telling stories of being in Europe filming concentration camps. Truth was he never saw Europe Or a concentration camp, unless it was a back lot at Universal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Nixon would be a fascinating dinner companion. LBJ too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LBJ would probably order some awesome BBQ.

And some new slacks. Greatest Presidential tape ever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites