Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

I like George Bush, it's a lonely place..
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ManintheMiddle



Joined: 20 Oct 2008

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whatever one might think of Bush's ideology or policies, he has not deserved the relentless campaign of demonization he has received in the liberal media.

It was Bill Clinton who while speaking at a fundraiser with both Bushes in attendance said, "Am I the only one here who really likes both of these men?"

The press likes wit, which is why they gravitated toward Kennedy. They enjoy literary repartee and shun those who they deem less literate than themselves. But they are in the main East Coast elitists or West Coast trend followers.

It wasn't cool to like Bush or to even begrudgingly admit to his good points. He remained steadfastly a family man, unlike his predecessor, and he was sincere in his convictions. Although many people were put off by what they perceived as his religious zealotry, he was clearly a man of convictions.

People conveniently forget, too, that his approval rating in the wake of 9-11 was approaching 76% or that his administration has at least managed to keep another terrorist act from our shores.

Bush the man is humorous, genuine, and willing to laugh at himself. The same can not be said for most of his detractors in the press or on Capitol Hill. Unless you lived in Texas as I did while he was governor, you might not know that he remained very popular and won over a lot of doubters in the opposition. He was just never able to make the transition to the big leagues of politics and his Achilles Heel was staying loyal to Cabinet members long after they deserved his loyalty. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind in that regard.

And Joo is correct to a point: Bush has had to face an exceptionally bad streak of luck in disasters, although he didn't help his cause any. The Democratic governor of Louisiana deserves the lion's share of the blame for the initially poor response to Hurricane Katrina but this was masked over when the media gaze shifted to the FEMA Director who was, admittedly, ill-suited to the task.

Bush did have a certain bravado that was off-putting and his was presumptuous to the point of arrogance to assume he had a mandate after either election, especially given the circumstances under which he won.

This all said, Bush was also the victim of prejudice--a sneering attitude that looks down on his Texas twang and his obvious struggle with what appears to be dyslexia or something akin to it.

And even Bono, of U2 fame, as well as former UN General Secretary Kofi Annan, have repeatedly acknowledged that he did more for African aid during his time in office than any preceding president, including Bill Clinton, who admitted to sitting on his hands during the Rwandan genocide and the breakdown of civil order in Somalia.

Hell, even that slick opportunist and �po-mo� revisionist historian filmmaker Oliver Stone had to give him some of his due.

So, no, you're not alone in your sentiments. And I suspect that when the history books are written, Bush will be treated more charitably than he is now. At the very least, some of the conniving and even outright treachery of which he has been accused in the execution of the Iraqi War will not hold muster in the long run, I suspect.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cheonmunka



Joined: 04 Jun 2004

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You ask about 9/11 then you talk about warmongering Kurds in '85. For what are you asking?

LEt's stick to the point. You make war on another country and in the guise of peace and freedom kill thousands uopn thousands of children and women and innocent men, you deserve to be put into history as all the other warmongers, as both GW's ought a be.

PS: My sources are primary, not Mike Moore. I already told you I met with refugees and hold very dear and different stories than media told you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
head-in-the-clouds



Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Location: London for now

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cheonmunka wrote:
You ask about 9/11 then you talk about warmongering Kurds in '85. For what are you asking?

LEt's stick to the point. You make war on another country and in the guise of peace and freedom kill thousands uopn thousands of children and women and innocent men, you deserve to be put into history as all the other warmongers, as both GW's ought a be.

PS: My sources are primary, not Mike Moore. I already told you I met with refugees and hold very dear and different stories than media told you.


lost cause
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cheonmunka



Joined: 04 Jun 2004

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Head in the clouds, put in the sand, same thing.

Mine is a lost cause in this place and time. I'll admit that quite readily.

No one will represent the poor.

The Bush vendetta killed thousands of thousands of innocent people. That's all I'm going to say about it. You can keep justifying it all you like.


Last edited by Cheonmunka on Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:26 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
head-in-the-clouds



Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Location: London for now

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManintheMiddle wrote:
Whatever one might think of Bush's ideology or policies, he has not deserved the relentless campaign of demonization he has received in the liberal media.

It was Bill Clinton who while speaking at a fundraiser with both Bushes in attendance said, "Am I the only one here who really likes both of these men?"

The press likes wit, which is why they gravitated toward Kennedy. They enjoy literary repartee and shun those who they deem less literate than themselves. But they are in the main East Coast elitists or West Coast trend followers.

It wasn't cool to like Bush or to even begrudgingly admit to his good points. He remained steadfastly a family man, unlike his predecessor, and he was sincere in his convictions. Although many people were put off by what they perceived as his religious zealotry, he was clearly a man of convictions.

People conveniently forget, too, that his approval rating in the wake of 9-11 was approaching 76% or that his administration has at least managed to keep another terrorist act from our shores.

Bush the man is humorous, genuine, and willing to laugh at himself. The same can not be said for most of his detractors in the press or on Capitol Hill. Unless you lived in Texas as I did while he was governor, you might not know that he remained very popular and won over a lot of doubters in the opposition. He was just never able to make the transition to the big leagues of politics and his Achilles Heel was staying loyal to Cabinet members long after they deserved his loyalty. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind in that regard.

And Joo is correct to a point: Bush has had to face an exceptionally bad streak of luck in disasters, although he didn't help his cause any. The Democratic governor of Louisiana deserves the lion's share of the blame for the initially poor response to Hurricane Katrina but this was masked over when the media gaze shifted to the FEMA Director who was, admittedly, ill-suited to the task.

Bush did have a certain bravado that was off-putting and his was presumptuous to the point of arrogance to assume he had a mandate after either election, especially given the circumstances under which he won.

This all said, Bush was also the victim of prejudice--a sneering attitude that looks down on his Texas twang and his obvious struggle with what appears to be dyslexia or something akin to it.

And even Bono, of U2 fame, as well as former UN General Secretary Kofi Annan, have repeatedly acknowledged that he did more for African aid during his time in office than any preceding president, including Bill Clinton, who admitted to sitting on his hands during the Rwandan genocide and the breakdown of civil order in Somalia.

Hell, even that slick opportunist and �po-mo� revisionist historian filmmaker Oliver Stone had to give him some of his due.

So, no, you're not alone in your sentiments. And I suspect that when the history books are written, Bush will be treated more charitably than he is now. At the very least, some of the conniving and even outright treachery of which he has been accused in the execution of the Iraqi War will not hold muster in the long run, I suspect.



Superb post. Thorough and informed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

head-in-the-clouds wrote:
bacasper wrote:
head-in-the-clouds wrote:
The problem after 93 was that the shortcomings had not been addressed. One of the many things Sir George can be accused is not a shortcoming in addressing 9/11.

Like it or not left wing Jim some aggressive action can address these previous problems and this is precisely what Bush did

He was in office for nine months whenhe could have done something, right wing Rudy.



listen Socialist sam, blame the muppet in office 93, a democrat.

It is clear that the blame for WTC '93 lies with US intelligence who supplied Egyptian cop/plot infiltrator Amad Salem with the bomb ingredients, and then just before the plan to to go into effect, they fired him because they did not want to continue his $500/week payments.

And what has Bush done since 9/11? No one has been fired, not a single head has rolled for what was the biggest intelligence failure in our history.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

head-in-the-clouds wrote:
bacasper wrote:
head-in-the-clouds wrote:
bacasper wrote:
head-in-the-clouds wrote:
The problem after 93 was that the shortcomings had not been addressed. One of the many things Sir George can be accused is not a shortcoming in addressing 9/11.

Like it or not left wing Jim some aggressive action can address these previous problems and this is precisely what Bush did

He was in office for nine months whenhe could have done something, right wing Rudy.



listen Socialist sam, blame the muppet in office 93, a democrat.

It is clear that the blame for WTC '93 lies with US intelligence who supplied Egyptian cop/plot infiltrator Amad Salem with the bomb ingredients, and then just before the plan to to go into effect, they fired him because they did not want to continue his $500/week payments.

And what has Bush done since 9/11? No one has been fired, not a single head has rolled for what was the biggest intelligence failure in our history.


stop posting on my thread conspiracy theory nerd. Episodes 7-8 of Deep space 9 isnt going to watch itself...

This is all well documented. He even recorded the phone call with his CIA handler (a big no-no in intelligence practice) in which he was fired. I've heard it myself. No "theories" here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Mod Team


Joined: 11 Mar 2008

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

head-in-the-clouds wrote:
Cheonmunka wrote:
Quote:
As for Iraq, I think everyone is clear Iraq was always an issue that needed to be dealt with

How old are you? You see, I remember the 'first' Iraq War very well. Before that, Iraq was a place of beauty. Foreign oil workers have been there since the sixties working and living. My own brother in law was there in the early eighties surveying and taking part in the local culture. I lived with a refugee who escaped during the first war - you should hear his stories, complete contrast to the bs on CNN.
You know what - even then the reasons given for going into Iraq for the first war were a crock of shit.
Saying that Iraq was always a problem is historical baloney.
There is a need for security, but Iraq was not part of it. It is now. It has become a hotbed only recently. You should realize this. Study some history.



Okay, hopefully you have got your head out of that Michael Moore book long enougth to read this.

'before that, Iraq was a place of beauty' You won't hear this coming from the mouth of a Kurd in 1985.

Maybe you liberal tree-huggers need another 9/11 wake-up call of the dangers in the muslim world, but i don't. These desert wastelands need to be shown a strong hand.


What the heck is going on here?! Is this how we comply with the TOS on the Current Events forum. I am sorry I've been busy these past few weeks, but that's not a reason to ignore the Terms of Service, fellows. For those who are complying (most of you), molto grazie.

A dopo signori....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saddam's Iraq was a place of beauty? Like Germany right before World War II.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ReeseDog



Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Location: Classified

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:
Tiger Beer wrote:
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:
Bush had more problems to confront than any president since Roosevelt.

It's a President's job to HANDLE problems. The reason Bush had SO MANY PROBLEMS is because he was incompetent with dealing with problems.

Throughout the entire eight years, every thing he mishandled, I couldn't help but thinking how well-handled it would have been if say CLINTON was in office, etc.


9-11 a unique event no?

It is easier to manage an economy when oil is 12 dollars a barrel and when Russia is down and out.

Clinton was a decent president and also a lucky president.


An extremely lucky president and a smart one, too. He let the Bush, Sr. economy really take off and was smart enough to stay out of the way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International