I submit Mother Theresa for the bashfest.

I am sure Joe will join the fray as well as a few others.......

"Let him without sin (or flaw if you prefer) cast the first stone"

The Pope is number one on my list. The original 'Wolfe in Sheep Clothing'. Perhaps the traditional views of the office more than any individual Pope. Still, with a little balls, any of the ol´buggers could have stand up for a more modern, civilized and emphatic agenda resulting in far less suffering and death in the world.

Wasn't the pope manning a Flugabwehrkanone for the Fuehrer in the big one?

Possibly, but I doubt it. He is a wimp. They both were.

Yes - apparently he said he never pulled a trigger because "he had a sore thumb".

"I know nussing!!!!!"

Victor,
I like your avatar!!

Did Ghandi die? I forget.

Yes

You assume he is "dense" because he does not deliver speeches as well as Slick Willy and you think that a president should have to prove that he won some fist fights in high-school in order to some day be capable of being commander in chief. You also seem to think that any American who was born into a wealthy family should not be allowed to become successful (I assume the Kennedies are exempt in your mind though). :rolleyes:

In order to get our heads around him Ghandi had to be reinvented by Western academics and the entertainment-media industrial complex.

That India gained her independence through non-violent means (at least in kicking out the Brits) was a stroke of strategic genius and a moral way of going about it.

But talk with Indians in India today and the measure of the man is decidedly more mixed. Some doubt him on his wisdom of political realities once the Brits would be gone and others take him to task for his views towards the caste system.

But bash Ghandi? No thanks.

I didnt know that - was it an 8.8 or a 3.7

"Tim, to some degree it goes with the territory. Welcome to the White House. I was here, and a liberal Democrat, when we talked about Clinton. Buck up.

Also, and I have never been anything but fully upfront about this.....I really don't like Dubya. First, I really, honestly, candidly, think he is dense. Dull. Not smart. His words and facial expressions and decisions......all point me to this conclusion.

Another thing I am not shy about is my impression of him as a wimp. From the first moment I saw a video of him before he was elected the first time, he struck me very clearly as the silver-spoon kid who would NEVER have graduated from my high school with his level of arrogance. The guys I went to school with would have moderated his bravado SUBSTANTIALLY. He strikes me as a protected coward. Interestingly, since that time I have met someone who knew him in college. This person punched his lights out at that time, and reports that my impression is accurate.

Finally, and I have said this before many times as well, while I respect folks who want to reshape or minimize government, I abhor the politicians who are actively trying to destroy it. This party, this Republican party and its operatives, are anarchists in my mind. Traitors. Look at it this way: Democrats want to use government to accomplish their goals. The goals we have in mind can only be addressed by the community itself. We want cooperation toward some greater public good. Republicans don't like government, don't know how to run it and wish for only two goals. First, they want to control government. Of course. That's where the power and money is. Failing that, or at least in between their opportunities to take the wheel, they want to make government run as poorly as possible. So.....when a Republican is in office, one of his main goals is to throw a wrench in the works. He's in power now, which is nice, and hopefully when he leaves, there will be a more poorly functioning government left behind. That gives him a better shot at returning. if the R's can keep gubmit from operating effectively, then voters will stay pissed at the Democrats.

No, I'm not going to ease up on Dubya. We're having a very American debate here, and that means you can say what you like. And so can I. And I think that is potentially constructive. In the meantime, I think your "president" is flushing my country down the drain in ways that will take decades to repair. I suspect you disagree. I hope you disagree. If you agree with my observations and are comfortable with that, then we are truly at odds and our goals are not shared. I suspect they are, as I think we all want a free and prosperous country. But if the mismagagement and tearing down of my government is your goal, then we're enemies, you and I. Make no mistake about it. I do not resent being called a liberal. But I would resent being called a traitor. I love my country. I truly believe that Dubya is comfortable with the idea that the country will suffer from his administration, but that commerce will prosper. I think he's okay with that. I'm NOT.

Dubya couldn't carry Gandhi's sandals.

Am I being clear?"

I would say yes a little more than you think. Your "dislike" borders on obsessive. And your summation of Republican vs. Democratic ideals borders on hysterical.

Bush will be out of office soon enough. And maybe the Breck girl will make it, who knows? (Now there's somebody who could have used a good 'ol fashioned high school ***** kicking. Of course he wouldn't carry Ghandi's sandals either- he would have a minion do it)

BTW I'm pretty liberal too. But I have no illusions about either party standing for any greater ideal or possessing a greater ability to run the government.

We're all human, thus we have faults and we can all be "bashed". To me, the people who ask for it are the ones who use their celebrity or notoriety in one area (sports, entertainment, politics, etc...) to get on their soapbox and speak about something that they know nothing about. We're all subject to criticism, but the "celebrities" tend to ask for it....

The Pope is the Antichrist.

Superman, about your Bush bashing

"Another thing I am not shy about is my impression of him as a wimp. From the first moment I saw a video of him before he was elected the first time, he struck me very clearly as the silver-spoon kid who would NEVER have graduated from my high school with his level of arrogance. The guys I went to school with would have moderated his bravado SUBSTANTIALLY. He strikes me as a protected coward. Interestingly, since that time I have met someone who knew him in college. This person punched his lights out at that time, and reports that my impression is accurate."

I have had my lights punched out a couple times, been beat unconscious in an alley and won some. Because I have had my lights punched out doesn't mean everyone can do it and I don't think I am really a wimp.
Like Bush, I just need to chose my fights.

But feel free to continue bashing GW, I can hardly wait for the queen of the dims to get elected.

I don't put words in your mouth, please do not mischaracterize my remarks. NONE of the above matches my beliefs. Rich folks are welcome to public office. I am not making a judgement based solely on Dubya's widely recognized oratory problem. I don't care how many fistfights a presidential candidate has had. NONE of your assumptions about me are consistent with my beliefs.

I know a coward when I see one, and this monkey in the White House is a pussy. That's part of the reason it was so easy for the neocons to coax him into clobbering those Muslims.

I see it all the time, and I'm surprised more people don't. From time to time I deal with some guy or other who, it is obvious, got picked on quite a bit as a child. On the other side of the coin, I run into people who have strived and accomplished, who have achieved substantial goals, who have been successful, as part of a team, in competitive sports. It makes a huge difference. It is as obvious to me as hair color. This Dubya guy has psychological problems. No question in my mind.

You know, Jim, I think your aggressions are a bit misplaced. Maybe you should be upset about the fact the Democrats can't get their act together to face off against Bush. Look how they caved to this latest Iraq war spending bill. They're the real wimps, pussies, spoiled brats, etc. It's all talk and hyperbole with them. The Dems are absolutely pathetic at this point. In fact, at this point, I don't even think the Democrats can win what should be a "slam dunk" election in '08.

Is it interesting to anyone how different the view is when you get close to something? People who work for and with public agencies and programs have a great deal more respect for those public servants and programs than folks who simply notice the long line at the drivers' license office once every three years. They know, for example, that the effective functioning of government offices is supported by some legislators and ACTIVELY TARGETED FOR INEFFICIENCY by others. Imagine managing a drivers' license office, or food program office, and getting 74% of the minimum budget you told the legislature you NEED in order to maintain minimally decent service. Who is at fault for gubmit inefficiency when the R's are the ones ensuring those offices are understaffed? But hey, it works well for them. Getting citizens pissed off at gubmit. Real cute. Real patriotic, eh?

WTF is wrong with you Supe, what I posted is exactly what you were saying. Are you drinking today? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You bring up "silverspoon in his mouth"

then: "First, I really, honestly, candidly, think he is dense. Dull. Not smart. His words and facial expressions and decisions......all point me to this conclusion."

and this: "The guys I went to school with would have moderated his bravado SUBSTANTIALLY. He strikes me as a protected coward. Interestingly, since that time I have met someone who knew him in college. This person punched his lights out at that time, and reports that my impression is accurate."


Can you not see the forest through the trees? :confused:

You would be more engaging if you had better information. Or at least, more accurate assumptions. About three days ago I read about a woman researcher who is going to write about her experiences trying to feed herself on the food stamp allowance here. That allowance is $21 per week. You wanna lose weight? Try eating at a cost of $1 per meal.

And that's the cost of food stamps. For one reason or another, lots of hungry people do not get food stamps. You guys can deny whatever is convenient, but the world knows we are a nation where starving and undernourished children (lots of them, frankly) live in the same communities with folks who spend hundreds of dollars for a cool steering wheel.

And you guys think that's "good."