Bush's constant support of Musharraf aka Domanick Davis is laughable. On the one hand, he adopts a dramatic "you're with us or against us," yet with Pakistan he kind of chuckles and says thanks. I have no idea how anybody (regardless of party) thinks the Pakis are our allies. They have only been our allies to the extent that they think it makes us less likely to attack them or intervene in a confrontation with India. This isn't rocket science, and it certainly isn't new. The Taliban and barbarians of their ilk are winning the war in Pakistan. Surprise, surprise.
Then post something meaningful. I don't care if you write all day with your opinions about anything I or anyone else says. Attack our opinions all you want on FSA. But you just keep attacking other members personally, calling people names, casting insults and it's just boring us all. It's an anonymous forum and nobody cares what you think about us personally. Why don't you stop it?
just my .02........sometimes we get our dander up over some ideological belief we hold dear, but name-calling doesn't support anyone's position, so you #@^*##@ son of a ^%&@%!& quit calling each other )@#&#$(*# names or i'll #)@(*)(# got it?????????????????????
I didn't call you anything in this thread except maybe liberal or hippie. Like I said, take a laxative.
On the face of things I think you're right. Don't think by my posts with Red that I love Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. I think there's just a public face any administration has to have and then a private one.......this just isn't with Bush. There's many nuances to this stuff. Bush likes in public to make it black and white, which IMO sets a precendent that on the surface people can't understand when something like this happens in Pakistan. But I think with Musharraf and with Saudi Arabia, there's two faces to this deal. In public, Musharraf and the Saudi's can only say so much as to risk their own political footing at home. In private, I think they lay out a much different scope. With Bush doing what he does, his cowboy thing, I agree he sets a certain expectation and then with these people when they don't keep it in public, it's confusing. I've even heard Bush say he wishes he couold take back some of his cowboy crap. Bush is not the most politically astute president we have ever had. When he speaks, I don't think he even understands what those words mean around the world. I believe that is where the guy is overmatched.
You're learning . . . he's the worst President in 150 years. Well, the adults don't do it. Perhaps I'll just refer to you as a fascist or Hitler Youth. Better that we just chit-can the name-calling and stick to political discussion. In fact, I insist.
although i do like to call red a hippie on occasion, i will have to side with him on this one. lsucraig is a cheap name-caller, often unable to restrain himself from taking personal shots. other personal jab-takers, people who address the person rather than the issue: contained chaos (although he has improved) 157 minor league name callers, who are mostly restrained but can be driven to take a shot now and then: sabanfan martin above the fray: supafan nolimitmd
really? worse than nixon (i dont necessarily dislike nixon, but that is the conventional wisdom). and worse than herbert hoover? franklin pierce? it takes a lot of knowledge of history to make a claim like that. wright is alright, but as far as exciting young players go, i will take jose reyes. best ss since honus wagner. my old man, who is never wrong about anything, always says ike is his favorite president. i dunno enough about history to know different, so until somebody shows me a reason why not, i will rank ike at the top of my list too, next to reagan.
There can be no absolute certainty about subjective judgements. It's my opinion, of course, but yes he's worse than Nixon, Hoover, and Pierce. Andrew Johnson (1865-1869) was probably even worse. And I'm not alone. http://www.heartheissues.com/worstpresidents.html Worst President in History
