lostfan Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Aw f*** Balta you're gonna make me go upstairs and get my pint of Hennessy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I feel bad for all those people with the 1-20-09 bumper stickers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 19, 2009 -> 08:16 PM) Aw f*** Balta you're gonna make me go upstairs and get my pint of Hennessy? Yes. Bottle of Jim Beam beside me. But then again, I'm next to Death Valley in a town of 100 people. But I do have a transistor radio for tomorrow morning. Damn, those years sucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Well technically, you didn't use the exact phrase, so my liver is in the clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 04:21 AM) I feel bad for all those people with the 1-20-09 bumper stickers. I saw a "thank you George W. Bush for keeping our country safe" bumper sticker today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Bill Clinton did a better job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 19, 2009 -> 08:32 PM) Bill Clinton did a better job. So Did William Henry Harrison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 So Did William Henry Harrison. Yeah but the people with that Bush bumper sticker haven't been programmed to hate William Henry Harrison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 are you sure of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 well his name does sound pretty elitist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 8 years ago, our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity ended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Looking back, maybe 10 years from now, we'll have a better idea of Bush's place in history. But that isn't to say we can't judge some of his actions now, and as of this point, I can't think of a worse President since the Depression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 There's still a lot of stuff we don't know. I would say more like 15 years from now, when some of the records are released... we will be able to judge better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 09:04 AM) There's still a lot of stuff we don't know. I would say more like 15 years from now, when some of the records are released... we will be able to judge better. What some people making the "we can't judge him for a while" argument miss (and I don't mean you or anyone else here, but the Bush apologist articles) is that we could very well end up viewing him even worse than we do now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 09:48 AM) What some people making the "we can't judge him for a while" argument miss (and I don't mean you or anyone else here, but the Bush apologist articles) is that we could very well end up viewing him even worse than we do now. Could be. My perceptions of various Presidents changed as time passed after they left, some for better (Clinton, Bush 41), some for worse (Reagan, Carter). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 10:07 AM) Could be. My perceptions of various Presidents changed as time passed after they left, some for better (Clinton, Bush 41), some for worse (Reagan, Carter). I think they're just grasping on to "but Truman left with bad ratings and look at him now!" while ignoring the (many more) Presidents who left with bad ratings and are still viewed as terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 10:15 AM) I think they're just grasping on to "but Truman left with bad ratings and look at him now!" while ignoring the (many more) Presidents who left with bad ratings and are still viewed as terrible. I think there are a wide variety of examples of all cases. Reagan was so very popular, but over time, looked a little less perfect. Clinton was popular but not Reagan-esque and was personally despised by many, and yet he seems to have come off a bit better since. Carter was seen as pretty bad then, even worse now. Bush 41 is one who was not well-evaluated at the time, but seems now was not nearly so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Looking back, maybe 10 years from now, we'll have a better idea of Bush's place in history. But that isn't to say we can't judge some of his actions now, and as of this point, I can't think of a worse President since the Depression. I really cant differentiate between Bush, Carter, Nixon and Reagan. There's reasons you can say each one of those guys was worse than the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Well, it's time for some change I can believe in... hopefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Awesome photo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 The Pundits Who Had Not A Clue Two Years Ago Mark Nickolas Managing Editor, PoliticalBase.com On this historic day, I thought it would be instructive to look back on just how wrong some of the pundits were when Barack Obama (D) launched his bid for the presidency two years ago, including the embarrassing remark by an esteemed member of the self-described "Best Political Team on Television" (CNN): "Illinois Senator Barack Obama's announcement this week that he's likely to enter the Presidential race adds a dash of glamour and excitement to the Democratic field. But all of his media attention doesn't change the basic truth of the 2008 primary contest: The race is between Hillary Rodham Clinton and everybody else." The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, Jan. 18, 2007. "Ask yourself, is there any other major public figure who dresses the way [Obama] does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of 'GQ' to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable. And maybe that's not the comparison a possible presidential contender really wants to evoke... Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the axis of evil, why, this could leave his presidential hopes hanging by a thread. Or is that threads?" CNN Senior Analyst Jeff Greenfield, "The Situation Room," CNN, Dec. 11, 2006. "That Sen. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. chose the day of 'American Idol's' season premiere to launch his presidential exploratory committee is nicely symbolic. If this were a contest about looks and style, Obama might have an edge. If it were a competition about which candidate is the best orator, he'd win. But it is neither." Cal Thomas, Washington Times, Jan. 19, 2007. "The country will simply not elect a novice in wartime... [Obama] only has to do reasonably well in the primaries to become such a compelling national figure as to be invited onto the ticket as vice presidential nominee... Then, if the Democrats win, he will have all the foreign policy credentials he needs for life." Charles Krauthammer, Oct. 27, 2006. Obama "is a black man with a Muslim name who would be seeking the presidency in a historically racist nation currently at war against Muslim extremists. One wonders if there is enough handsomeness, intelligence and charisma in the world to overcome all that." Leonard Pitts, Miami Herald, Jan. 19, 2007. "To the surprise of many whites and dismay of his supporters, Barack Obama trailed Hillary Clinton among black Americans by a 40-point margin in a recent Washington Post-ABC poll... The sad truth... is that Obama is being rejected because many black Americans don't consider him one of their own and may even feel threatened by what he embodies." Orlando Patterson, Time.com, Feb. 8, 2007. "What's a guy with only two years' experience in the U.S. Senate and none as governor, someone few outside his immediate family and the Internal Revenue Service ever heard of three years ago, doing running for president? And why is everybody--or anybody, for the matter--taking him seriously?" John Farmer, The New Jersey Star Ledger, Dec. 12, 2006. So, whose compass was registering properly two years ago? How about former House Speaker Newt Gingrich? "Well, Abraham Lincoln served two years in the U.S. House, and seemed to do all right." Newt Gingrich, "Meet the Press," NBC, Dec. 17, 2006, when asked about Obama's lack of experience. "I do think every Republican ought to look at the reception Barack Obama got a week ago [during his very well-received first visit to New Hampshire]... The interest in him tells you something about Americans more than it tells you about him." Newt Gingrich, Dec. 15, 2006. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 01:44 PM) LINK Newt is one of the most intelligent leaders we have had. I am not surprised he did not dismiss Obama's candidacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Newt is a historian. I wish he knew how to keep his pants zipped up, but that's another story. Funny how he's judged so poorly for that and Clinton's episodes "didn't matter". With that said, Newt is a very, very smart politician - no matter what party affiliation he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 09:08 PM) Funny how he's judged so poorly for that and Clinton's episodes "didn't matter". What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 03:10 PM) What? Newt's infidelity was one of his major downfalls. For Clinton, "it didn't matter". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts