Slashdot Mirror


George H.W. Bush, 41st President of the United States, Dies At 94 (washingtonpost.com)

George H.W. Bush, the 41st president of the United States, has passed away tonight at the age of 94. As The Washington Post reports, he was "the last veteran of World War II to serve as president, he was a consummate public servant and a statesman who helped guide the nation and the world out of a four-decade Cold War that had carried the threat of nuclear annihilation." From the report: Although Mr. Bush served as president three decades ago, his values and ethic seem centuries removed from today's acrid political culture. His currency of personal connection was the handwritten letter -- not the social media blast. He had a competitive nature and considerable ambition that were not easy to discern under the sheen of his New England politesse and his earnest generosity. He was capable of running hard-edge political campaigns, and took the nation to war. But his principal achievements were produced at negotiating tables.

Despite his grace, Mr. Bush was an easy subject for caricature. He was an honors graduate of Yale University who was often at a loss for words in public, especially when it came to talking about himself. Though he was tested in combat when he was barely out of adolescence, he was branded "a wimp" by those who doubted whether he had essential convictions. This paradox in the public image of Mr. Bush dogged him, as did domestic events. His lack of sure-footedness in the face of a faltering economy produced a nosedive in the soaring popularity he enjoyed after the triumph of the Persian Gulf War. In 1992, he lost his bid for a second term as president.
Bush's spokesman Jim McGrath announced his death on Twitter, but didn't provide the cause of death. In 2012, he announced that he had vascular Parkinsonism, a condition that limited his mobility.

UPDATE: George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, has issued a statement on the passing of his father: "Jeb, Neil, Marvin, Doro, and I are saddened to announce that after 94 remarkable years, our dear Dad has died. George H. W. Bush was a man of the highest character and the best dad a son or daughter could ask for. The entire Bush family is deeply grateful for 41's life and love, for the compassion of those who have cared and prayed for Dad, and for the condolences of our friends and fellow citizens."

199 of 408 comments (clear)

  1. RIP by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thus goeth the last Republican politician that I still respected.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    1. Re:RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Eisenhower died a long fucking time ago.

    2. Re:RIP by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      George HW Bush ushered in the era of Republican smear campaigns, that's his legacy.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:RIP by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Eisenhower presided over the McCarthy era and a lot of FBI abuses. He seems to have been a likable guy, but the best you can say is his eyes were half closed during his presidency.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:RIP by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Someone else did it?

      Jed Bush.....to gain sympathy for his next presidential run. He had access, motive.......it all lines up.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      McCarthy was Congress, Hoover wasn't exposed yet, FBI was SOP for the day. Typically the oversight role was Congress and the courts. The best you can do is go re-read your books with both eyes open.

    6. Re:RIP by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Betcha he played better golf than the new guy...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:RIP by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Interesting

      George HW Bush ushered in the era of Republican smear campaigns, that's his legacy.

      You might want to read up on Richard Nixon. He was a master smearer, but even he did not originate the artform.

      His smear describing his 1950 senate campaign opponent, Helen Douglas, as "Pink right down to her underwear" is a classic.

      Dick Nixon was, of course, the target of plenty of Democratic smears himself.

    8. Re:RIP by spintriae · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Eisenhower wasn't responsible for McCarthy and by all accounts didn't like or approve of him. It's not as if the president can just fire a congressman he doesn't like.

    9. Re:RIP by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ike despised McCarthy, but felt that publicly confronting him would strengthen the Taft wing of the Republican Party. Many people on the right viewed Ike as a RINO. So he worked behind the scenes to undermine McCarthy.

      But it should also be noted that when Soviet archives were opened in the 1990s, some of the people that Joe McCarthy was accused of unjustly persecuting turned out to have actually been commie agents.

    10. Re:RIP by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, and John Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." *a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant*

      And Jefferson! "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." *a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.*

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    11. Re:RIP by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But it should also be noted that when Soviet archives were opened in the 1990s, some of the people that Joe McCarthy was accused of unjustly persecuting turned out to have actually been commie agents.

      That's how it always is.......there is a problem in the world, but then a stupid politician (or group) comes along and tries to co-opt it for their own purposes.

      Yeah there are terrorists in the middle east, but Bush used that to manipulate the public into supporting an Iraq invasion. Yes, there were Russian spies in America, but McCarthy used that fact to push his own agenda. Yes, atmospheric CO2 does have an effect on global temperature, but plenty of people have tried to use that problem for their own agenda (and the agenda can be anything from winning an election to wealth redistribution).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Helen Gahagan Douglas, you mean. The original She Who Must Not Be Named! Hadn't thought about her in a long time.

      A lot of the "smears" against Nixon turned out to be true, BTW.

    13. Re:RIP by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Turns out, a lot of those people back then really were communists or communist sympathizers, and they really did mean to use their influential positions to overthrow the US government. And why not? It worked well in China, Yugoslavia and would have worked in Italy and Greece had the Americans not colluded with dark forces to alter the results of democratic elections.

      Is this performance art, or are you really so far out there you can see Pluto from your house?

    14. Re:RIP by jpaine619 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But it should also be noted that when Soviet archives were opened in the 1990s, some of the people that Joe McCarthy was accused of unjustly persecuting turned out to have actually been commie agents.

      That is the most retarded....... If I accuse everyone in a room of being a dick sucking homosexual, statistically I'll be right 15% of the time.. Yeah, that's the exact same logic you just used, asshole.

      Cast a wide enough net.....

    15. Re:RIP by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It's not nuttery. Far from it. After the Soviet Union fell, we got to see just how many communist sympathizers and traitors there really were. There were a lot. Many people we think of today as unjustly accused were in fact justly accused.

      Why would the communists NOT want to run a campaign of subversion and undermining? It's how they operated. After WWII communism was *on a roll*. They overthrew government after government with these tactics. China was the big one. The legitimate Chinese government was full of secret communists who abused their positions of trust to aid the communists to take over. This is established historical fact and not under debate.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    16. Re:RIP by Megol · · Score: 1

      So Hitler was right because a few of the 6* million was really shitty people? Really...
      (* I know...)

    17. Re:RIP by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      I agree here - someone that you could still politely disagree with.

      He wasn't really someone that was able to "sell" himself as becoming a president, he more had the appearance of an accountant. But he did a decent job in the office.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    18. Re:RIP by MxMatrix · · Score: 1

      I concur. He was remarkably humane and in a shrill contrast to the current.

      --
      Bach says it all.
    19. Re: RIP by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      Yikes.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    20. Re:RIP by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You obviously know very little about China in the 1930s-40s.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    21. Re:RIP by gtall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bush Jr. invaded Iraq, Bush Sr. invaded Kuwait. He made two big mistakes. Telling the Iraqi Shi'ites to rebel against Saddam and then didn't back them...they never forgave the U.S. for that. The other mistake was giving Kuwait back to the fat boys in the robes. What should have happened to give Kuwait to the Palestinians. It would have removed the biggest threat to Israel, paid the Kuwaitis back for being such fuck ups, and given the Iranians and Saudis their own private Palestinian problem. It have been an easy sell to the PLO, Arafat was always a sleaze and it comes with its own oil supply.

    22. Re:RIP by gtall · · Score: 1

      Damn, I sure hope no one at FOX is reading this.

    23. Re:RIP by gtall · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the Deep State. Known to be behind all nefarious designs, and have super-earthly powers to do anything they please, even repeal global warming and the laws of gravity. Then, get this, they offed Bush Sr. to cover their tracks. Yes, yes, it all makes sense now.

    24. Re:RIP by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eisenhower presided over the McCarthy era and a lot of FBI abuses. He seems to have been a likable guy, but the best you can say is his eyes were half closed during his presidency.

      I remember McCarthyism. Night after night of pundits representing the minority party that had run out of ideas accusing the President and his associates of being stooges for the Russians. Aren't we glad that era is long gone?

    25. Re:RIP by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it should also be noted that when Soviet archives were opened in the 1990s, some of the people that Joe McCarthy was accused of unjustly persecuting turned out to have actually been commie agents.

      Not really surprising, if you let the cops break down doors at random in violation of the 4th amendment they'd probably find a lot of guilty people too. In retrospect you can always claim the times you were right were justified and the times you were wrong were honest mistakes. There's no doubt more guilty people would go to jail if you lowered the standard from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "probably", but a whole lot more innocent men too. And beyond that you have guilt by association and "no smoke without fire", statistically you're probably more likely to be a communist if your friends are communists than the general population. And there's probably more rapists among those accused of rape than those who've never been accused. It's just a terrible way to run a justice system. And beyond that lies putting the blame on entire populations, which is how you end up with genocide.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    26. Re:RIP by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the era where the party heading the executive branch openly partners with Russians for business is a refreshing change of pace. The minority party party hardly has to do any of the work themselves, there's barely anything left for them since it's all transparent now. Cutting out the middleman on corruption, and operating the alleged shadow government in broad daylight turned everything upside down.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    27. Re:RIP by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Communist spies, not Russian. None of them were Russian, as far as I know. Homegrown traitors.

      McCarthy pushing his own agenda? What was that, exactly? Getting people who advocate the overthrow of democracy out of government? That's a pretty sound agenda.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    28. Re: RIP by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Informative

      And yet roughly 2 million of them are now Jordanian citizens.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    29. Re:RIP by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You just can't serve in the US government when your goal is to overthrow said government. That's all.

      Too bad somebody forgot to tell Steve Bannon that.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    30. Re:RIP by Junta · · Score: 2

      The last republican *president* worthy of respect, but there have been plenty of respectable republican politicians.

      Of course it's hard to notice them among the rabid anti-science, racist, and sycophantic behavior that dominates the party.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    31. Re:RIP by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      Not exactly by McCarthy directly but people with the same outlook and tactics (and access to the FBI) hounded Robert Oppenheimer out of government service during that time for "disloyalty". No reasonable person would say Oppenheimer wasn't innocent.

    32. Re: RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Back when Britain was dividing up the Middle East after the Ottoman Empire was broken up, the plan was for Jordan to be Palestinian and Israel to be Jewish. The rub has always been where to draw the line. That and the Arab desire to get rid of the state of Israel and keep the Jews as an oppressed minority.

    33. Re:RIP by hey! · · Score: 2

      Bob Dole is still alive -- the last Presidential candidate of the Greatest Generation and the last nominee to run as a genuine conservative.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    34. Re: RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      OK, I'll bite: who were some of the people who were accused who were innocent?

      Quoting from Wikipedia:

      Nelson Algren, Lucille Ball, Alvah Bessie, Elmer Bernstein, Leonard Bernstein, David Bohm,
      Bertolt Brecht, Archie Brown, Esther Brunauer, Charlie Chaplin, Aaron Copland, Bartley Crum,Howard Da Silva, Jules Dassin, Dolores del RÃo, Edward Dmytryk, W.E.B. Du Bois, George A. Eddy, Albert Einstein, Hanns Eisler, Howard Fast, Lion Feuchtwanger, Carl Foreman, John Garfield, C.H. Garrigues,
      Jack Gilford, Allen Ginsberg, Ruth Gordon, Lee Grant, Dashiell Hammett, Elizabeth Hawes, Lillian Hellman, Dorothy Healey,Lena Horne, Langston Hughes, Marsha Hunt, Sam Jaffe, Theodore Kaghan,
      Garson Kanin, Benjamin Keen, Otto Klemperer, Gypsy Rose Lee, Cornelius Lanczos,Ring Lardner Jr., Arthur Laurents, Philip Loeb, Joseph Losey, Albert Maltz, Heinrich Mann, Klaus Mann, Thomas Mann, Thomas McGrath, Burgess Meredith, Arthur Miller, Jessica Mitford, Dimitri Mitropoulos, Zero Mostel, Joseph Needham, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Dorothy Parker, Linus Pauling, Samuel Reber, Al Richmond, Martin Ritt, Paul Robeson, Edward G. Robinson, Waldo Salt, Jean Seberg, Pete Seeger, Artie Shaw, Irwin Shaw, William L. Shirer, Lionel Stander, Dirk Jan Struik, Paul Sweezy, Charles W. Thayer, Dalton Trumbo, Tsien Hsue-shen, Sam Wanamaker, Orson Welles, Gene Weltfish.

      and that is just some of the notable people. Think of the thousands of others fired, blacklisted, and deported. Also read Yates v. United States, Watkins v. United States.

      We aren't talking about people going to jail here. You just can't serve in the US government when your goal is to overthrow said government. That's all.

      Somebody isn't familiar with the history of Red Scares in America, which preceded McCarthy, and include false accusations of violence(Haymarket Square), imprisonment (Debs), deportation, subversion(cointelpro), blacklisting(Dalton Trumbo), and more acts of oppression like forbidding the flying of the Bolshevik flag.

      Even school children were punished for not saying the pledge of allegiance.

      Only a few percent of their population were Communists, and they nonetheless dominated over a hundred million of their countrymen. They invented the GULAG.

      Gulags were actually implemented under the Russian Tsars, they just called them Katorga. And of course, the idea of deportation to the colonies existed in Great Britain (Australia, the Americas), and even older examples like the Babylonian Captivity exist.

    35. Re: RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I remember McCarthyism. Night after night of pundits representing the minority party that had run out of ideas accusing the President and his associates of being stooges for the Russians. Aren't we glad that era is long gone?

      Actually, that era was full of bipartisan accusations and hysteria, and McCarthy was the same party as the President from 1953 on, and most of the victims were individuals at lower levels.

      Meanwhile, in contrast, Trump is actually being pointedly challenged with his own behavior and actions. Which is why he is so desperate to portray it as a witch hunt. But the fact is, he's blowing smoke which does not conceal a fire.

      And of course, the issues with his behavior extend beyond the Russians. His treatment of the Saudi's and their murder of a journalist, his lies over the border, his own attempts at persecution of his political opponents, they're kinda revealing a very disreputable individual.

    36. Re:RIP by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      GHWB killed JFK.
      Serious as a heart attack.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    37. Re:RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      they only appear racist to you because they don't buy into identity politics.

    38. Re:RIP by rworne · · Score: 1

      Here is what I think:

      He was responsible for this highlight in US-Japan relations.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    39. Re:RIP by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      I like your thoroughness. Going from memory here, so it might not be super accurate...(we learned about McCarthyism in school) it was hundreds.... I want to say that more top actors/actresses were investigated (or accused) than were not.

      It was a shameful witch hunt... Lots of people (several hundred) had their careers destroyed simply because they were investigated and things were implied...

    40. Re:RIP by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Yeah there are terrorists in the middle east, but Bush used that to manipulate the public into supporting an Iraq invasion.

      Some perspective is needed here. Bush, like all American presidents, was given detailed intelligence estimates by the CIA. The intel given said definitively Hussein had WMD's. Hussein's own internal intelligence said he had WMD's because they were terrified to lie to Hussein. Hussein himself stated publicly Iraq had WMD's and intended to use them.

      Let's imagine this scenario: during your annual physical, your doctor says you have cancer. He recommends immediate, very invasive and debilitating surgery -- say, amputating a limb -- as the only way to save your life. Not being a fool, you go to two more doctors for second opinions. Both doctors concur with the first doctor: you have cancer and the only way to save your life is the surgery. Since you're not a doctor and you want to live, you trust the three opinions and have the surgery. Surprise! Post-op you discover you didn't have cancer and all three doctors were wrong! Only now it's too late and you're short a limb.

      Did you err? No, you trusted the experts and acted on what you thought was a reliable diagnosis. Did the doctors lie to you in some grand conspiracy to get your limb amputated? No, they were mistaken, an unfortunate thing that sometimes happens despite everyone's best efforts.

      Bush didn't have a crystal ball. If the entire US intelligence apparatus said Hussein had WMD's and was ready to use them, the president has to decide what to do about it. Bush asked for military action and Congress -- including nearly every major Democrat -- agreed. This is not "manipulating" things. If anyone can be accused of manipulation it might be the CIA but only if they refused to share any doubts they had about their own intelligence with the president.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    41. Re:RIP by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Some perspective is needed here. Bush, like all American presidents, was given detailed intelligence estimates by the CIA.

      Bush wanted to invade Iraq before he became president. The people he hired tried to get Clinton to invade Iraq.

      It wasn't about WMD until Bush tried to sell it to the United Nations.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    42. Re: RIP by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Gulags were actually implemented under the Russian Tsars

      While true your comment is somewhat disingenuous. Other may have "invented" the gulags but it took the Soviets to perfect it into the truly horrifying and near-genocidal machine everyone now associates with the term. If you've never read "The Gulag Archipelago", do so. Even Hitler's death camps were mere amateur efforts compared to the crimes the Soviet system inflicted on its own people over decades of inhuman repression and extermination of undesirables.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    43. Re:RIP by DaFallus · · Score: 2

      That is the most retarded....... If I accuse everyone in a room of being a dick sucking homosexual, statistically I'll be right 15% of the time.. Yeah, that's the exact same logic you just used, asshole.

      Cast a wide enough net.....

      Actually, you'd be right about 4% of the time, if we're just talking about homosexuals. If you're talking about male homosexuals, probably only about 2% of the time.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    44. Re: RIP by kenh · · Score: 1

      Yes, the era where the party heading the executive branch openly partners with Russians for business is a refreshing change of pace.

      What?

      There is no law against a private citizen conducting business in Russia.

      Trump (not the Republican Party) attempted to build a Trump Tower in Russia, but didnâ(TM)t, and the effort fell apart before he was the GOP Presidential candidate.

      Must Presidential candidates that hold no public office cease any and all international business dealings?

      ATTEMPTING to do business with Russians is not a crime.

      DOING business with Russians is not a crime.

      --
      Ken
    45. Re:RIP by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah. I forgot about Bob Dole.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    46. Re: RIP by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      That is simply a lie.
      McCarthy claimed there were Soviet agents at many levels inside the US government. The left insisted this was absurd: after the Venona decrypts and the Mitrokhin archive, it became abundantly clear that there were, in fact, many highly placed Soviet agents in the US government, exactly as described.

      The Rosenbergs, famously a cause celebre for the left about innocent victims of the Red Scare...turned out to likely be Soviet agents.
      Harry Hopkins, FDR's closest advisor, was likely a Soviet agent.

      What you're complaining about - broad brush accusations - was more from HUAC (with which McCarthy had no involvement), but I doubt trivialities like facts will change your mind, right?

      --
      -Styopa
    47. Re:RIP by edwdig · · Score: 1

      You're leaving out the part where the UN and most European countries didn't agree with the evidence Bush was presenting.

      Iraq had a lot of centrifuges, but they weren't high enough quality to make the weapons being claimed.

      There was evidence of Iraq having chemical weapons 15 years prior... but the chemicals had a shelf life of 5 years, so they would have long since degraded.

      UN inspectors weren't finding any traces of weapons programs.

      Hussein talked a big game, wanting people to believe he had WMDs so that the rest of the world would be too afraid to attack him. Bush bought into the bluff, while most of the rest of the world didn't. The UN wasn't even saying that there definitely weren't weapons - only that they hadn't found any signs of them yet, and wanted more time to keep looking. That was the part that got people most upset about the whole thing. It made the whole thing seem like the decision to go to war was made, then they tried to find an excuse to justify it after.

    48. Re:RIP by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      McCarthy pushing his own agenda? What was that, exactly?

      Making specious accusations of anybody and everybody who dared to criticize him.
      However, he did so inefficiently as he lacked the twitter account of the current idiot-in-chief.

    49. Re:RIP by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      If anyone can be accused of manipulation it might be the CIA but only if they refused to share any doubts they had about their own intelligence with the president.

      They didn't.
      Cheney and Rumsfeld manipulated the CIA report to push poor dumb George into a costly and foolish war.

    50. Re:RIP by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      one has to wonder just how far off the mark McCarthy was

      Since several Jews have done bad things, one has to wonder just how far off the mark the Nazis were. /s

    51. Re:RIP by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It's not nuttery.

      Its the definition of nuttery. The whole anti-communist hysteria is predicated on ignoring the 1st Amendment, and not just for the freedom of speech but the freedom of association. That and hating on democracy - which is why the US has overthrown so many elected socialist governments.

    52. Re:RIP by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      well, I did specify dick sucking.. so that'd be male. But yes, you are correct.. I don't know where I got the 15% from.... Your numbers are correct and mine were in error.

      The general point remains the same though..

    53. Re: RIP by jpaine619 · · Score: 1
      Facts like how Joe McCarthy was censured? He was an asshole and if anything it was HE who was un-american. What I said was absolutely valid.. If you cast a wide enough net.. That was my whole point. McCarthy may not have investigated as many people as the HUAC, but he was involved in a LOT of hearings.

      McCarthyism is the practice in the United States of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. The term refers to U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) and has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting from the late 1940s through the 1950s

      Quit acting like he was an angel. He was such an asshole that he last unwittingly lent his name to a practice...

    54. Re:RIP by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Since, statistically, half of the people in the room are women who cannot -- by definition -- be "dick sucking homosexuals", you're claiming that 30% of men are. That's unlikely.

      Who the fuck said there were women in the room? It's my imaginary room. My numbers were in error, as already pointed out, but nevertheless, nobody said anything about women.. What the fuck?

    55. Re:RIP by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Well, they wouldn't be lesbians if they were sucking dick, would they?

    56. Re:RIP by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Huh? #1 it wasn't hysteria, they really did mean to overthrow our government. Just like they did so many other countries. #2 advocating the overthrow of our democratic government is NOT free speech. The constitution is not a suicide pact. Moreover it is beyond bizarre to see a far leftist, of all people, advocating for the First Amendment. WTF you people don't believe in freedom of speech! You censor all the time!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    57. Re:RIP by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      They were criticizing him because he was wrecking the communists who were trying to overthrow the US government with their positions of trust. Just like they did in China. It worked there, why wouldn't it work in America?

      Howd you shoehorn Trump in there? WTF we weren't talking about that at ALL. You have TDS or something? Or am I talking to a script?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    58. Re:RIP by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Duh? All you're doing is repeating fact-free McCarthyism in defense of McCarthyism. But by all means, compare the number of countries overthrown by the USSR to the number of democracies overthrown by the US/UK/France.

    59. Re:RIP by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The Communists very openly declared their intention to overthrow every government in the world, including the USA, and unite the world under a single governance. This wasn't a secret, it was loudly trumpeted from Moscow. It's one of the reasons they were so terrifying. They had science on their side. It had been proven empirically that their system was better and ours was doomed to failure. That's one reason so many intellectuals got on board and betrayed America. Why stick with a losing team? What, you some kind of moron anti-intellectual science denier?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    60. Re:RIP by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      You're leaving out the part where the UN and most European countries didn't agree with the evidence Bush was presenting.

      You're leaving out the part where the main critics had political, economic, or military entanglements with Iraq that made their objections somewhat self-serving.

      Iraq had a lot of centrifuges, but they weren't high enough quality to make the weapons being claimed.

      We know that now. At the time nobody was sure how many centrifuges Iraq had. The Iraqis themselves stated they had enough to make a bomb and that was their stated goal. Sure, they were bluffing, but we didn't know that for sure at the time. Hindsight is always perfect. A decision had to be made at the time based on the information in hand at the time. They were, in fact, doing the exact opposite: acting like they had WMD's and were intent on hiding them from inspectors.

      There was evidence of Iraq having chemical weapons 15 years prior... but the chemicals had a shelf life of 5 years, so they would have long since degraded.

      This assumes no new weapons were acquired or produced during those 15 years, something no one could conclusively prove or disprove at the time.

      UN inspectors weren't finding any traces of weapons programs.

      You should read some of the many books based on what was going on at the time. Iraqis were doing everything in their power to obfuscate and interfere with the inspectors. Based on this behavior, the conclusion that "nothing was found" was irrelevant. The UN demanded unencumbered inspections to guarantee compliance and Iraq was doing the exact opposite.

      Hussein talked a big game, wanting people to believe he had WMDs so that the rest of the world would be too afraid to attack him. Bush bought into the bluff, while most of the rest of the world didn't.

      Bush believed the CIA's estimates so technically it was the CIA that "bought into the bluff." It's very trendy to blame the President these days but it requires everyone overlook the fact that a President makes decisions based on information presented to him by people who are supposed to be competent, objective, and well-informed. Bush had credible intel WMD's existed. It was flawed intel but nobody knew that for sure at the time. That, coupled with Hussein's bluster and posturing, sealed the deal. Blaming Bush requires you ignore everything that was going on at the time and assuming he somehow had magical access then to data we only know to be true now.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    61. Re:RIP by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Cheney and Rumsfeld manipulated the CIA report to push poor dumb George into a costly and foolish war.

      And yet "poor dumb George" was somehow such a clever mastermind he managed to get the Democrats in Congress to go along with him. So which is it? If he was a moron then the Democrats were even more moronic. If he was a genius who outsmarted the Dems, he can't be "poor dumb George." Gotta pick one. You don't get to have it both ways.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    62. Re:RIP by mcswell · · Score: 1

      "Your numbers are correct and mine were in error." I salute you, sir, for admitting an error, and for not trying to come up with excuses. That's rare in general, and even rarer here on /. If only more of us were willing to admit it when we made an error.

    63. Re:RIP by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Another thing Eisenhower was accused of at the time was allowing the Soviets to create a "missile gap", i.e. build a bunch of nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Kennedy used this alleged missile gap as a "weapon" during the 1960 election. It turned out that there was indeed a missile gap, but that it favored the US: we had more ICBMs than the Soviets. So at least in this case, the accusations that Eisenhower had his eyes closed turned out to be wrong.

    64. Re:RIP by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Not really surprising, if you let the cops break down doors at random in violation of the 4th amendment they'd probably find a lot of guilty people too. In retrospect you can always claim the times you were right were justified and the times you were wrong were honest mistakes.

      Cops have learned how to handle that situation; they do not document the times they were wrong so they are always right and you cannot prove otherwise.

    65. Re:RIP by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      And I can openly declare my intention to win a Superbowl, but the chances of my fat ass even making it to see the game (much less play in it) are slim to none, and Slim's on his way out of town. Can you even name one country that the Soviets overthrew the way the CIA overthrew the elected governments of Iran and Chile (plus dozens of others)?

      Going with the Warsaw Pact countries is problematic, as that was the tomato to the US/UK setting up capitalist regimes across western Europe. I know you know just how hard the west fucked Russia over by installing Yeltsin, so the Soviets weren't acting out of paranoia when they wanted a buffer against western aggression.

    66. Re:RIP by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Czechoslovakia, China, Italy and Greece were all infiltrated and either overthrown or almost overthrown. France was close. Look up "scientific socialism" to find out why so many intellectuals got on board. They had proven with science that capitalism would collapse and socialism win.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    67. Re: RIP by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Conflicts of interest exist. Your argument only makes sense if they don't.

    68. Re: RIP by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Well, being an asshole doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, either.

      Let's recall that "McCarthyism" was a term coined by his political enemies, and given wide cultural currency by the media and Hollywood...who leaned strongly left and in fact turned out to ACTUALLY BE COMMUNISTS.

      Is it really a "Red Scare" when a lot of the people being accused actually turn out to be what they're accused of?

      I guarantee you that MI5 and MI6 - while of course publicly excoriating McCarthy as all "right thinking" people do - would have loved to have had McCarthy clumsily swinging his accusations around Britain in the 1950s. (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)

      Curiously, McCarthy being so hated directly led to Watergate; Eisenhower despised McCarthy, and even had State Dept file cabinets moved to the Oval Office to protect them from McCarthy's committee subpoenas per 'executive privilege'. The general recognition that whatever was physically in that office was thus legally off-limits certainly had some impact on one of McCarthy's junior investigators, Mr Richard Nixon.

      --
      -Styopa
    69. Re:RIP by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      So, what are the numbers, does anybody know?

      Total number accused = (TP + FP) = hundreds you said (that's one number out of four)
      What is the number of correctly accused (TP)
      What is FN - people who he did not accuse but who were spies.
      What is TN - people who he did not accuse and who were not spies. (that's not the whole bunch of people on earth, that must be a reasonable pool of say all contemporary celebrities)

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    70. Re:RIP by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      With the exception of China, those are all examples of the Soviet tomato to the US/UK's ta-mah-toe, of setting up compliant capitalist toady regimes (with dozens of military bases for American occupiers) after WWII that I already mentioned. Having suffered two devastating foreign invasions in 130 years (plus a smaller one from the US/UK after WWI) Soviet Russia wanted a buffer of their own. Which, after the fall of the USSR, the United States made clear was totally irrational, when it doubled the size of NATO and expanded it all the way to Russia's border, before overthrowing a former bloc country in a coup.

  2. A reason to respect him by koavf · · Score: 3, Informative

    Tho you can say a lot of things good and bad about him, I will always respect how he stood by Dan Quayle as his running mate, essentially knowing it would cost him the election. Any other snark or criticism aside (and there is plenty, sure) I think that speaks a lot to his character.

    1. Re:A reason to respect him by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I will always respect how he stood by Dan Quayle as his running mate

      He had no choice. The lesson from 1972 is that you always always always stick with your VP choice no matter how utterly unqualified he turns out to be.

      Besides, after Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle doesn't look so bad.

    2. Re:A reason to respect him by koavf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the way Thomas Eagleton was treated was shameful. The difference is that mental illness was not a good reason to ditch him but there were compelling reasons to ditch Quayle. It would be really easy for a long-term establishment person like Bush I to quietly convince him to "spend more time with his family" and choose a more attractive running mate.

    3. Re:A reason to respect him by drnb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ross Perot cost him the election, not Quayle.

    4. Re:A reason to respect him by koavf · · Score: 1

      Depression is a mental illness, not a "mental illness".

    5. Re:A reason to respect him by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Total myth. Perot "took" votes from Democrats as well as Republicans, and Clinton was passing Bush when Perot dropped out of the race before dropping back in.

    6. Re:A reason to respect him by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dan Quayle? The man who spoke out against single mothers? Remember when Murphy Brown stopped her hit TV show, broke character, and spoke directly to him and all the misogynist bigots just like him, vigorously defending single mothers?

      History judges such people harshly.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:A reason to respect him by drnb · · Score: 2

      Total myth. Perot "took" votes from Democrats as well as Republicans, and Clinton was passing Bush when Perot dropped out of the race before dropping back in.

      Perot took more from conservatives. Conservatives includes some democrats, democrats that were more inclined to support a Reason or Bush than a Carter, Mondale or Clinton. There were once these strange creatures called conservative democrats and moderate republicans that leaned conservative on defense and public safety but leaned liberal on social and civil rights.

      Polls don't mean crap, especially in such timeframes as between Perot's exit and return.

      Perot gave us Clinton. Nader gave us Bush Jr. Sanders gave us Trump.

    8. Re:A reason to respect him by koavf · · Score: 1

      The Nader lie is empirically untrue: most Nader voters would have not voted. This is just a canard.

    9. Re:A reason to respect him by drnb · · Score: 1

      The Nader lie is empirically untrue: most Nader voters would have not voted. This is just a canard.

      No, you are merely ill informed. Nader claimed that exit polls said 25% of his voters would have gone Bush, 38% would have gone Gore and the remaining (37%) would not have voted. That is a net 13% for Gore, and with Nader receiving 97K votes in Florida that is a net gain by Gore of 12K votes in Florida. Bush won Florida by 500.

      Nader voters would have otherwise leaned to Gore, as Perot voters would have otherwise leaned to Bush.

    10. Re:A reason to respect him by koavf · · Score: 1

      But Pat Buchanan "taking" votes from George W. Bush didn't swing the election? The other left-wing or progressive parties who got more than 527 votes didn't spoil it? *Bush* took more Democratic votes from Gore than Nader did. This is just a nonsense claim.

    11. Re:A reason to respect him by gtall · · Score: 2

      Pence is a carbon copy of Quayle with better media handlers...although I tend to think Pence is more of an evangelical nutjob than Quayle.

    12. Re:A reason to respect him by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      Besides, after Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle doesn't look so bad.

      Damning with faint praise...

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    13. Re:A reason to respect him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dan Quayle? The man who spoke out against single mothers? Remember when Murphy Brown stopped her hit TV show, broke character, and spoke directly to him and all the misogynist bigots just like him, vigorously defending single mothers?

      History judges such people harshly.

      There is nothing wrong with single mothers (or fathers) /per se/, but it's not something that should be encouraged or looked on as an ideal situation. At the time that is how I interpreted his message (regardless of what he did or did not actually intend).

    14. Re:A reason to respect him by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      You mean Candace Bergen, who waited until she was married to a millionaire before having a child, and then married another millionaire after he died? "History" is just a story, truth is always the truth.

    15. Re:A reason to respect him by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Remember when Murphy Brown stopped her hit TV show, broke character, and spoke directly to him and all the misogynist bigots just like him, vigorously defending single mothers?

      Yeah. Nothing makes a fictional scripted show better than blatant fourth wall breaking propaganda.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    16. Re:A reason to respect him by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      At the time that is how

      That is how it is ALL the time, not only AT the time.

      We need to dig deeper. Face it: we are witnessing relentless destruction and disappearance of a family as a concept.

      Think about incomplete families as orphan kids with single guardians instead of parents even when the single guardian is biologically a parent.

      Compare to the family with a widow or a widower as a single parent: the other parent exists in the best shape and form preserved as a shiny example of a human being, as a legend. Same about families where father is often not home because of his work: the mother creates an image of the father.

      That does not happen in broken, divorced families. At best, the parent is silent because there is no really good answer to "where is my daddy" when you are divorced.

      In other words: the family is almost dead. Is it good or bad? Does not matter. It's inevitable because destruction of the family reflects the current economic basis of society: post-industrial society with consumer economics.

      We truly needed people all our history: all our history more people meant better gang to attack a mammoth, better gang to exterminate the other tribe, more people in Manhattan Project. We needed people to produce: more production meant better life for everyone. This has been slowly breaking since more than hundred years ago when the first overproduction crises started to happen. We did not need that much grain, we needed people capable of buying it.

      At that time we needed people with qualities: qualities of industrial workers, qualities of engineering.

      Gradually, we are shifting to the society when we need more and more people with only one quality: consumption. People who can consume all kind of crap we produce nowadays, who can cheerfully spend their money oiling up post-industrial air-generating industry.

      For that you do not need families. Not at all. It is much easier to produce a consumer than a responsible worker or an engineer or a scientist. All is needed is turn off AdBlock Plus and NoScript when the child is browsing and the deed is done.

      Old human needed to be diverse. New human does not - everybody is equal. There is no talent difference between buying an iPad or an SUV.

      There is growing drone class of consumers soon to be fed by UBI, that will do absolutely nothing, similar to Seinfeld gang. All grown up in social "single mother-my-ass" incubators, the batteries for the Matrix.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    17. Re:A reason to respect him by drnb · · Score: 1

      Nader had 6x the votes as Buchanan, Buchanan is insignificant numerically. He is only noteworthy in the butterfly ballot controversy sense. A symbol of the f'up that is 2000 Florida.

    18. Re:A reason to respect him by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Total myth. Perot "took" votes from Democrats as well as Republicans

      He took equally from Democrats and Republicans. But the Democrats that voted for Ross were from the centrist "pro-business" wing of the party, and many of them would have drifted to Bush in a two person race.

      The Republicans that voted for Ross were those steamed about Bush's reversal on taxes. They would have never voted for Bill Clinton.

    19. Re:A reason to respect him by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      He is only noteworthy in the butterfly ballot controversy sense.

      This happened in Broward County, which is so electorially dysfunctional that it is often referred to as "The Florida of Florida".

    20. Re:A reason to respect him by Yosho · · Score: 2

      In other words: the family is almost dead. Is it good or bad? Does not matter. It's inevitable because destruction of the family reflects the current economic basis of society: post-industrial society with consumer economics.

      "The family" is very much still alive. The concept you have idealized in your head is simply no longer accepted as the only type of family. Families with divorced parents are not "broken," and you demonizing them does nothing to help.

      I, for one, will not mourn the loss of children growing up in households where mommy and daddy are constantly angry and fighting with each other just because it's socially unacceptable for them to go their separate ways.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    21. Re:A reason to respect him by drnb · · Score: 1

      Perot took more from conservatives. Conservatives includes some democrats, democrats that were more inclined to support a Reagon or Bush than a Carter, Mondale or Clinton. There were once these strange creatures called conservative democrats and moderate republicans that leaned conservative on defense and public safety but leaned liberal on social and civil rights.

      In short your failure is attempting to break things down by party rather than beliefs.

    22. Re: A reason to respect him by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Dan Quayle was one of the last examples the leftish US press had of being able to entirely control the message bandwidth, before talk radio (and then the internet) tore that from their clutching talons forever.

      --
      -Styopa
    23. Re:A reason to respect him by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      He took equally from Democrats and Republicans. But the Democrats that voted for Ross were from the centrist "pro-business" wing of the party, and many of them would have drifted to Bush in a two person race.

      Doesn't change the fact that Clinton would have won without Perot in the race.

      The Republicans that voted for Ross were those steamed about Bush's reversal on taxes. They would have never voted for Bill Clinton.

      They wouldn't have voted for Bush either. They would have sat out the election if they couldn't vote third party, same as NeverHillary democrats or NeverTrump republicans did in 2016.

    24. Re:A reason to respect him by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Perot gave us Clinton.

      Doubling down on the myth doesn't make it true. Clinton would have won without Perot in the race, as proven by the trajectory of the race before Perot dropped out (before dropping back in). Facts.

      Nader gave us Bush Jr. Sanders gave us Trump.

      More dumb myths. The 300,000 registered Democrats in Florida that voted for Bush had a wee bit more to do with Bush's election than a much smaller group of people split between Democrats, Republicans and people who would have otherwise stayed home. But this goes to show how the Democratic Party establishment hates the left more than Republicans do, when Democrats get a free pass to vote for right-wing Republicans but they want to shove anyone who votes to the left into a Pinto and set it on fire. As for Trump, he would have won the popular vote (which really isn't a thing in the US) if all the conservative third party votes were added to his column the way Democrats feel Green Party votes were owed to Hillary. More Facts.

    25. Re:A reason to respect him by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Perot was responsible. Bush had it in the bag as recently as just before the Democratic convention. Then Perot drops out the day Clinton is to give his acceptance speech, saying the Democtratic party is invigorated, so all eyes turn to Clinton that night to see what he will say.

      Later he jumps back in to seal the deal.

      Perot didn't want to win. He wanted Bush to lose. God only knows why but when Bush was CIA director and Perot helped bail out the NYSE in the 1970s, the sky is the limit.

      Continue with your fantasy if you like, but US history is rife with split tickets causing the main guy of that party to lose. 1912, or 2000 with a very minor split ticket.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    26. Re:A reason to respect him by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Buffoon, Clinton wouldn't have gotten that far had Perot not dropped out the day of Clinton's acceptance speech to give him a huge boost by his lost supporters looking for a new candidate.

      Then he jumps back in later to divert all those who didn't want to support Clinton, just in case.

      There's infinitely more than just looking at who might have voted for someone else instead, after the end, itself questionable given people look more fondly on the winner.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    27. Re:A reason to respect him by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Hand wave as much as you want, it wont change the fact that Clinton was leading Bush and Perot before the latter dropped out. And that's coming from someone who thinks Slick Willie should be in the Hague for war crimes.

    28. Re:A reason to respect him by drnb · · Score: 1

      ... as proven by the trajectory of the race ...

      There goes your credibility.

      ... a much smaller group of people split between Democrats, Republicans and people who would have otherwise stayed home.

      Exit polling indicates Nader took about 12K democratic votes away from Gore in a race decided by around 500 votes.

    29. Re:A reason to respect him by drnb · · Score: 1

      Perot didn't want to win. He wanted Bush to lose. God only knows why but when Bush was CIA director and Perot ...

      Perot was a Vietnam POW conspiracy theorist. Perot believed Bush knowingly left America POWs behind in Vietnam.

  3. "Read My Lips...." by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He was famous for saying, "Read my lips, no new taxes." and then raising taxes. Awful liar.

    In retrospect, that was a fairly harmless lie compared to what's come since.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:"Read My Lips...." by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and then raising taxes. Awful liar

      Not raised on his initiative or by his choice. At least he didn't promise that every family would save $2500 on their health insurance in order to ram a massive new tax through.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:"Read My Lips...." by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He was famous for saying, "Read my lips, no new taxes." and then raising taxes. Awful liar.

      This lie, more than anything else, is why he lost in 1992. All politicians lie, but his promise of "no new taxes" was the core of his campaign. This promise was pretty much the only thing he ran on, and he repeated it over and over. Then he won, and immediately abandoned it.

    3. Re:"Read My Lips...." by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nonsense... he has that southern drawl that makes him difficult to understand.

      If you understand redneck fluently (6 years in Florida helped me learn), he clearly said "Read my lips. No new taxis"

      And he stood by that 10000%, no matter where I traveled during that era within the US, there wasn't a single new taxi in service. They were falling apart left and right and I believe he double downed on his promise because I'm pretty sure he made it so that absolutely no service would be performed on those taxis either.

      I've always though that was unfair of people to falsely interpret his speech impediment to mean taxes instead of taxis.

      Golf carts on the other hand, they're not really taxis, so those did receive lots of updates.

    4. Re: "Read My Lips...." by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      He should have thought about that before promising it then, don't you think?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:"Read My Lips...." by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      He chose to sign the bill. What a president signs, a president owns. If he'd been a little smarter about it, he could have vetoed it the first time and then let it pass into law without his signature - and gotten a second term.

    6. Re:"Read My Lips...." by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      He realized that he needed to raise taxes to protect US from a debt which at the time had just begun ballooning. No president since has given more than lip service to the debt crisis and that's why your great grandchildren will all be speaking Chinese in 100 years.

    7. Re:"Read My Lips...." by beachmike · · Score: 2

      True, 0bama was the worst liar of ANY president.

    8. Re:"Read My Lips...." by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      He realized that he needed to raise taxes to protect US from a debt

      This need was obvious before the election. So he should have been honest about it, instead of lying.

      No president since has given more than lip service to the debt crisis

      Bill Clinton raised taxes and put the budget into surplus. Without lying. He only lied about sex.

      ... and that's why your great grandchildren will all be speaking Chinese in 100 years.

      My kids speak fluent Mandarin. They are already prepared for the New World Order.

    9. Re:"Read My Lips...." by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Then he won, and immediately abandoned it.

      He didn't abandon it. He held his position so long that there was a government shutdown. Congress never submitted him a spending bill that didn't include tax increases. He thought a government shutdown was not appropriate, so he compromised and signed the bill congress gave him rather than veto it.

      America elected a president on one promise, but a congress on another. Somebody was gonna lose. I wonder if he had decided to stand his ground, let the government shutdown, and force congress to either change or override his veto -- would have done better or worse in the eyes of the public? Ultimately, his real mistake was apologizing. Since then, presidents have learned never to apologize. Blame, deflect, even lie - but never apologize.

    10. Re:"Read My Lips...." by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

      Civics 101: The President doesn't make the budget. The President suggests a budget, but ultimately it's Congress who gets to decide what does or doesn't make it into the budget. The President only gets to sign or veto the whole thing as one lump sum. He can't excise the parts of it he doesn't like while keeping the rest.

      The Democrats controlled both branches of Congress during his Presidency, and insisted the budget should have a tax increase. Bush refused to sign it to the point where the government went into shutdown. But he ultimately decided stopping the shutdown from further harming the economy was more important than keeping his promise, so he blinked and signed. The Democrats won, got their tax increase, and managed to dump the blame for it on Bush.

      The more you know...

    11. Re:"Read My Lips...." by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      He realized that he needed to raise taxes to protect US from a debt which at the time had just begun ballooning. No president since has given more than lip service to the debt crisis and that's why your great grandchildren will all be speaking Chinese in 100 years.

      Not to defend Bush or attack Clinton as all presidents are asses on this, but one of the things Clinton ran on in 1992 was how Bush had done the biggest tax increase in history, how awful.

      Then he, himself, looks at the still-ballooning deficit and throws up his hands and gives up on balancing the budget himself, as far into the future as the eye can see.

      Then does an even bigger tax increase.

      Then bass ackwards into the Internet boom where private investment loosens trillions in effort to jump on the bandwagon, the budget is briefly balanced as taxes to government skyrockets (fed and state) and the legislatures can't keep up.

      But they rise to the challenge and soon spend it all and start borrowing more, because that's how the system is designed.

      All are asses on spending because no matter how much comes in, they realize they can borrow more to spend with no voter consequences, and often rewards.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    12. Re:"Read My Lips...." by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Bill Clinton added $1.396 trillion to the debt.

      Thanks for playing.

  4. Comparisons and policies... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    He's only viewed with rose-colored glasses because the current vulgarian is so awful. He was a warmonger and the US incarceration rate increased 40%(!) during his tenure as President. We're still paying for some of the policies of his era today.

    Frankly, I think this country would have been a better/different place today if Michael "card-carrying ACLU" Dukakis had won in 1988. I don't really have much else to say about the guy, honestly. I have no emotional interest in mourning him.

    1. Re:Comparisons and policies... by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And we'll be paying for Clinton's balanced budget for decades to come. We'll pay for Reagan's mass deflation of currency forever. We'll pay for Obama's limp dicked social healthcare which started as "Healthcare for all" to a piece of paper that said "Affordable Healthcare Act" and really meant "There's nothing left in here from the original policy and we've let every politician in America earmark the shit of it. Oklahoma can no declare black people as aliens and teach creationism as science. But at least I passed my bill".

      Rule #1 : If you think you're the right person to represent hundreds of millions of people with hundreds of millions of different and generally conflicting needs. You probably should be shot before entering office.

      Rule #2 : If you need to associate with a political party who will sell you a chance at the presidency in return for what few drops of your soul you have left... you should not run for president.

      Rule #3 : If you are either a conservative or a liberal... you can not represent people fairly. You should not be allowed to run for present.

      Rule #4 : If you actually become president and when midterms come around you're supporting only one political party or worse... you're supporting a political party instead of the merits of the individual candidates... you should be burned on a cross.

      Please don't pretend like one president is better than the next. The system specifically permits only bankers and lawyers and oilmen into the office. They are people who like to play the game or to represent themselves and their families. After two Bushes and a Trump, American is clearly becoming something of an oligarchy.

      Worse, we see things like Hillary running for office because well if GWB can be president after daddy, then shouldn't she be able to be president after Bill? And the most fucked up thing is, she might have been the most technically qualified presidential candidate we've had since the founding fathers died since she might be the only candidate that actually had real experience running the country because she and Bill were a team. Now, considering that like all other presidents, Bill sucked at the job.. even with her help, I'm not sure if that's a good thing.

      Dukey was a mess. He would have been a lame duck. Nah... he'd have been a limp dick. He was almost as stupid as Al Gore.

      We sit here judging US presidents as though we really think there's such a thing as a possibility of having a good one. When you have one part of a country who get's their education from the Westboro Baptist Church, another part of the country idolizing and learning from Kim Kardashian, another part rallying for Donald Trump and wearing hats specifically designed to target rednecks, another part like Jamaica Queens NY where there are multiple police officers on every corner all day and night trying to either maintain the peace, simply keep people alive, or beating teenaged kids for carrying a joint... and then close to a hundred million retired people who mostly have burned through their savings that were stored based on 10 years of life after retirement but now everyone is living 20-30 more...

      You know what... I can make a list that sounds like Billy Joel's we didn't start the fire that lists everything from modern day hippies to wall street one per-centers and I would never get close to covering even the smallest portion of America.

      Let's make it simple... GHWB wasn't any worse than the rest of them. When he went to war and he incarcerated people for being poor.... he wasn't being any worse than the rest of them. He was an unqualified person being controlled by an unqualified party voted for by unqualified voters and criticized publicly by unqualified journalists who were trying to make a buck by turning The New York Times into just another tabloid like the rest of them with bold and shocking headlines.

      Guess what... bold shocking headlines aren't bold or shocking when you've shocked everyone so much that no one gives a shit anymore. If the Post

    2. Re:Comparisons and policies... by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      You ignore the Democrats had the majority in the senate (the only reason it was passed) and the Senate version was the bill passed. Just a handful of Republican amendments; it was mostly a creation of the Democrats, and they own it's consequences to this day.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Comparisons and policies... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      He's only viewed with rose-colored glasses because the current vulgarian is so awful.

      He handled the end of the Soviet Union really well (even sending $1biilon to the former enemy). His team handled the end of the El Salvador civil war with (especially in retrospect) surprising skill. He also committed to "full enforcement" of the Anti-Apartheid Act in South Africa (unlike the Reagan administration). In many his foreign policy was great (and again, in retrospect, he made the right decision to not conquer Iraq).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Comparisons and policies... by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Just a handful of Republican amendments; it was mostly a creation of the Democrats"

      Republicans added 161 amendments to the bill, then refused to vote on it. It was based on the Heritage Foundations earlier proposal (including the hated mandate).

      One hell of a handful there.

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    5. Re:Comparisons and policies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Stop with the myths.

      The Heritage Foundation ran a special issue about health care, incorporating many suggestions from people all over the political spectrum. I know this may sound strange to you modern youth, but once upon a time people listened to multiple viewpoints.
      In that issue, one person proposed a plan like the PPACA, including the individual mandate. At least two writers wrote responses criticizing that plan. Several other plans were presented as well, with critical responses as well.
      At NO time did the Heritage Foundation ever endorse the PPACA or anything like it.

      And before you repeat the Romneycare myth either, remember that Romney VETOED that bill. The Democrat legislature overrode his veto to pass the law. He opposed it.

    6. Re:Comparisons and policies... by shess · · Score: 1

      He's only viewed with rose-colored glasses because the current vulgarian is so awful.

      No, there was also some other Republican guy in there, I can't quite remember his name, who had a pretty awful run. I mean, that President didn't himself seem like a bad person, but he was very hands-off and let some very bad people take control of the levers of government.

    7. Re:Comparisons and policies... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      So by your reasoning, because the Democratic Party tried to swing the 2016 Republican primary to Trump (because they thought he would be easy to run against), the Democrats are therefore responsible for Trump being in the White House, and the fact that we have a buffoon for President is the Democrats' fault?

      Everyone is allowed to contribute to the process - if you're vilified for contributing, it's no longer a democracy. But ultimate responsibility lies with your final vote. The Republicans are responsible for Trump being President because they voted for him in the end. If they didn't like him being their nominee, they should have voted for someone else (many of them did, voting for Clinton or third party). The Democrats are responsible for Obamacare because they passed it in the end. If they didn't like the amendments, they either should have voted not to include them (they did hold significant majorities in both House and Senate), or should have voted against Obamacare because of the amendments. (A few dozen Democrats in the House did vote against it, but none of the Democrat Senators did.)

    8. Re:Comparisons and policies... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Stop with the myths.

      The Heritage Foundation ran a special issue about health care, incorporating many suggestions from people all over the political spectrum. I know this may sound strange to you modern youth, but once upon a time people listened to multiple viewpoints.
      In that issue, one person proposed a plan like the PPACA, including the individual mandate. At least two writers wrote responses criticizing that plan. Several other plans were presented as well, with critical responses as well.
      At NO time did the Heritage Foundation ever endorse the PPACA or anything like it.

      It was essentially the major health care proposal from the right. It never got big traction because... well it turns out it's hard to find a health care proposal that's acceptable to US conservatives and the general public. But you can't just write it off as some random article from the Heritage Foundation, it's not like they were running around the streets asking people to implement it, but among fixes for health care that was one of their winners.

      If Romney had run and won in 2008 it's not inconceivable that he'd push and implement something very similar to the ACA.

      And before you repeat the Romneycare myth either, remember that Romney VETOED that bill. The Democrat legislature overrode his veto to pass the law. He opposed it.

      You might want to find more reliable sources of analysis.

      Romney signed the bill. He only vetoed 8 sections (Massachusetts has line-item vetoes), but the mandate, the boogeyman of the right, was not among them.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    9. Re:Comparisons and policies... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If Romney had run and won in 2008 it's not inconceivable that he'd push and implement something very similar to the ACA.

      You might as well point out that McCain actually ran on a plan that was very similar to the one finally implemented.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Comparisons and policies... by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      Hold on... hold on... so you're telling me that a man willing to sell his soul to a room full of devils in order to pass a useless bill that in its present form should have been burned instead of signed is less guilty of stupidity than the other idiots?

      And... dude... whoever agreed to vote for one party or the other and turn the country into something that looks like it's run by Hulk Holgan and friends instead of representatives of the people are to blame.

      Do you know what caused the downfall of the Romans and allowed the Caesars to take control? Simple, it was turning the senate into a sporting event.

      Americans are so hell-bent on screaming Republican this or Democrat that they don't listen to the sound of the bullshit as it rises above their ears shortly before drowning. This is not the republicans or democrats fault. This is the fault of the spectators who support their childish bickering and enable them.

      Social medicine is a simple concept. If you don't want to pay for someone to sit on the couch playing XBox while you're working because he says he has a boo boo, then send his ass to the doctor. He'll say "I can't afford a doctor" so you pay for it. Then he goes to the doctor, the doctor says "He has a boo boo and I can make it better but it will cost" and you say "Fine.. fix the thing... he ass is going to work" and then you chip in with all your tax payer friends and make him better. Then he says "But I don't have a job" so you educated him. And when he has no options left, you find him a government job.

      Guess what... that's more expensive sometimes than letting him play XBox, but at least you're not working and grinding your teeth and busting your ass while he's sitting at home drinking schlitz and swearing at 12 year olds while playing CoD.

      Social medicine can't work at a state level because you have places like Mississippi and Alabama and Oklahoma who even if you gave them billions of dollars would hire some expert super duper programming firm that would take the money and run and they still wouldn't have a health care system. And if you want the U in USA to mean anything, you'll have to pay for them too. So, federal is the only possibly way it will work.

      There's a problem however with federal healthcare... if you implement it, then 10% of the entire countries top paying jobs will disappear almost instantly. Insurance companies will simply collapse. They work now based on different rules they've negotiated state by state until they've found a way to squeeze as much money as possible out of the customers and pay the least amount of money possible to the doctors in each state. In addition, they have partitioned their companies to limit risk in a way that will allow them to file bankruptcy and reestablish under a new name almost over night in each state. By nationalizing it, it would make it too expensive for many of them to operate... and they'd lay off all their people. That's up to 10% of the national white color workforce if you also consider the companies that support those companies.

      ACA was guaranteed to fail no matter who implemented it. There is simply no solution to that problem other than....

      Wait for it....

      Wait for it...

      Long term thinking.

      That's right, you'd have to start with something like Medicare and Medicaid and create long term solutions that would extend it to everyone over time. It would allow wealthier people to keep their insurance and exploit private clinics and it would allow everyone else to get healthcare when they need it. This is what countries like Norway and Sweden have.

      But what Obama did was say "let's just push anything at all through and that's better than nothing" and when went through was just garbage.

      So... if you're going to vote democrat or republican and then complain about the other one... you sir are in fact the problem. You're not afraid to speak up and you're not afraid to voice your opinion. Go out and tell people that you all fucked up by letting these democrat and republican assholes play pro-wrestling with your health and your future. It's time to write in your votes.

    11. Re:Comparisons and policies... by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      The politicians in Washington passed.... stop pretending like Democrats or Republicans are any different than each other. Every one of them sold their souls to get you to sell your soul.

      Quit blaming anyone but yourself and the people around you. You and everyone around you that voted democrat or republican are precisely the reason this happened.

    12. Re:Comparisons and policies... by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      Team Red and Team Blue... you get to decide which team to support as they fight using nothing but the weapons you give them to an eventual death of western civilization.

      Dude... what kind of world is this when we televise and get our rocks off on a 80+ year old cripple smacking some ass by reading 150 pages from the odyssey to fuck their rival team or keep their team from getting fucked in return? And then the next day we publish headlines all across the world about how this geriatric suit wearing loser kicked some major ass to the other party.

      Washington is about representing the interests of the American people. It's about trying to present the needs of the people from each state within a forum where mature responsible adults can work together to provide the best balance between want and need for the people with the least amount of compromise from each side. For this system to operate, it requires multiple view points and representatives who are genuinely passionate about the actual needs of their constituents.

      What we have is team red and team blue and sport fan supporters on both sides fighting over whose team is better. And what's even dumber is that instead of the representatives listening to the needs of the people, they listen to what the people claim to want and then go kick some ass.

      It is absolutely 100% the Democratic and Republican party's fault that Donald Trump is president. They didn't present as options to the people genuine candidate that could best represent them. They chose the candidates they believed had the greatest change to dominate the other party and forced the people to choose between them.

      This is true for every election in modern times. We don't choose between good and bad or right and wrong. In fact, we should be choosing more good and more right. Instead we're choosing between Red and Blue. Believe it or not, many people are choosing More Red or More Blue.

      Tell me... what percentage of the people who voted for Trump could actually be represented by him? How many of his voters does Trump understand the needs of well enough to represent them in Washington and throughout the world? I'd imagine that it's just about the same pitiful amount that could be represented by Hillary.

      Why are we voting for people who can't fairly represent us? Why are we choosing red or blue when there's clearly a spot when you can write in the name of someone you believe could represent you?

  5. Reelect Em All by mentil · · Score: 1

    One thing I've marveled at is that he was the most recent President to NOT be reelected. And that was almost 25 years ago. That's probably a good argument in favor of term limits.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Reelect Em All by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      That's probably a good argument in favor of term limits.

      We already have term limits for presidents.

      22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution

    2. Re:Reelect Em All by mentil · · Score: 1

      I meant it's probably a good thing they're there, and it's an argument in favor of them in general.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    3. Re:Reelect Em All by drnb · · Score: 1

      His re-election failure was a fluke. Like Trump, Bill Clinton won the election with a minority of the votes. 3rd party candidate Ross Perot split the conservative vote, allow the fluke that was Clinton.

    4. Re:Reelect Em All by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      No term limits and all the politician cares about is re-election. Trump has spent more time campaigning and golfing than being the President in his first 2 years.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    5. Re:Reelect Em All by shess · · Score: 2

      No term limits and all the politician cares about is re-election. Trump has spent more time campaigning and golfing than being the President in his first 2 years.

      You say that like it's a bad thing. On evidence, I'd prefer him to spend less time being President, but unfortunately the consequence is that it delegates authority to mostly unelected actors.

    6. Re:Reelect Em All by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... this is strange... in the past, I considered it an important thing for the president to spend time "playing on camera"

      Trump... it may simply be that I don't like him, but let's talk about why it was important for former presidents to do so.

      Consider for a moment you were president. Meaning the public representative of the shareholders of the America... the people. This is the position. When you are president, your job is to act on behalf of your constituents and to negotiate on their behalf both foreign and domestic. You are also granted the office of war. In this case, it was a power formerly reserved for monarchs, but prior to Trump, we haven't had anyone claiming the role of monarch in America. Hell... he even wants to build big guarded walls around his kingdom.

      Before 9/11, the president often did a fantastic job of using golf or jogging or whatever to let people know that things were going so well he had time to relax and play. This is true for Camp David and such as well.

      Since GWB and 9/11, the US government has evolved to use fear tactics as a means of allowing for socialistic job creation by massive increases to military, TSA, DHS, police force, etc... spending. As such, the US has been transforming slowly into a borderline communist government with a policy "If you can't find a job, we'll make one for you" but to support this, the people need to be in constant fear of enemies from within and without. It is working though and the economy is booming by diluting the currency base and simply agreeing with other nations that they all need to make more money to employ people who would be on welfare otherwise.

      Consider than in the last 4 years, Norway (where I live) has eliminated almost all post offices, moved into grocery stores and the grocery stores have replaced most of their clerks with self-checkout. Altogether, let's suggest for every 10km sq. computers have replaced at least 150 postal and grocery jobs... then consider that Norway also just ordered self-driving postal delivery robots. These people need jobs... so the government will either pay welfare or make new jobs for them. In America that means war and fear.

      Even today, it was important for the leader...the representative of the people. The CEO hired by the shareholders of the country to be seen taking it easy. It means that he believes he is on top of things. It means that he's not locked in a room getting ready to start a war somewhere. You have a reason to sleep well tonight because you are safe and they have it all under control.

      In Trump's case, I believe he thinks that being seen working on his lovely orange glow while on a golf course is conveying to the people that he's showing those bastards in Washington and France and China that they aren't even important enough to delay his game for. He'll show them.

      No... the golf course or Clinton's jogging track... etc... these are very very important aspects of the presidency. I sure as hell would be worried if there was a president that made it look like they were so busy they couldn't trust anyone else in the white house for even a day or the world would explode.

  6. Why is this story here? by kenh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, there isn't even a hint of a tech or geek angle to post this story on slashdot.

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:Why is this story here? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

      The nukes on Irak required some tech.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Why is this story here? by jarkus4 · · Score: 1

      Its not that bad - at least it IS a current news story. Often we get old, not really tech stories.

    3. Re:Why is this story here? by Yosho · · Score: 1

      You would think that somebody with a uid as low as yours would have noticed by now that sometime Slashdot posts articles about non-techy things when they are of significant cultural relevance. "Stuff that matters", as the tagline goes.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    4. Re:Why is this story here? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seriously, there isn't even a hint of a tech or geek angle to post this story on slashdot.

      GHWB lived most of his life before computers or the Internet were widespread, but he wore glasses, was socially inept, and few women found him attractive. I always felt he was a geek in his heart, the "Calvin Coolidge" of his time. In many ways, he was "one of us".

    5. Re:Why is this story here? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      You would think that somebody with a uid as low as yours would have noticed by now that sometime users posts comment saying "not on /." because they have different views on "what matters".

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    6. Re:Why is this story here? by helpfulcorn · · Score: 1

      Yes it's been going on for a long ass time and it's no less eye rolling today than it was when I finally registered an account around 14 years ago.... and for the years before that when I was just a lurker.

    7. Re:Why is this story here? by drnb · · Score: 2

      GHWB was an accomplished athlete, a collegiate level athlete.
      GHWB believed in duty and responsibility, not entitlement, he used his father's power and influence to get into a combat unit.
      GHWB had the social grace and interpersonal skills to successfully interact with others, even others from different nations and different cultures and who had very different belief systems than he did.

      In short he was very little like "us", "us" being the slashdot community in general. Not performing well for the TV cameras is hardly evidence that he was one of "us".

    8. Re:Why is this story here? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Seriously, there isn't even a hint of a tech or geek angle to post this story on slashdot.

      News for Tech? No. News for Geeks? Also no. News for Nerds. Ahhh that was it. Your post reeks of a "no true nerd" fallacy.

    9. Re:Why is this story here? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Slashdot stopped being News For Nerds when it became Dicedot, and nobody running the show today wants anything but revenue.
      The current audience are much less geeky than in the past. That golden age ended many years ago and it isn't coming back.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    10. Re:Why is this story here? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      suddenly the same exact story is on 100s of news feeds and it's really annoying and repetitive.

      You could not click on it.

  7. Re:took the nation to war by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Yeah, another one based on lies!

    What lies?

  8. Re:He was definitely a classier man than Reagan or by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Set the stage for the 2003 homicide spree in Iraq (Gulf War II).

    No he didn't. He very eloquently and clearly explained why "going to Baghdad" would have been a supremely stupid thing to do in 1991. Everything he said applied just as much in 2003.

    It is not his fault that his son was a moron.

  9. This fella is famous for ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES"

    "War on drugs"

    And ... his good-for-nothing, that 'president went hiding' son, who launched attack on Iraq BASED ON A GODDAMN LIE !!

  10. Re:He was definitely a classier man than Reagan or by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Homicide spree? You mean Obama's drone campaign? He murdered more children than any other Nobel peace prize winner. Remember when he bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital and then sent gunners in to murder the fleeing doctors and patients? This was 2015. Don't pretend you don't remember.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  11. He is a hero now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Didn't he propagate bringing cocaine to America so he could sway politics in Central America asking for my friend with a Coke habit

  12. Re:Still? by quenda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    highly doubtful you respected him while he was president.

    A *whole* lot of people who claim to respect him now were claiming he was hitler at the time.

    Kind of like Trump now...

    No. Bush I had an average approval rating of 61% in office, as high as 89%.
    Guess what Trump's approval rating is?
    No, lower.... lower still ... keep going ...

  13. Re:He was definitely a classier man than Reagan or by drnb · · Score: 1

    Yes, it is. The first war was predicated on falsehood also, stop making excuses you old saggy titted liar.

    What falsehood, that Iraq invaded Kuwait?

  14. 5,000 casualties, not worth it ... by drnb · · Score: 4, Informative

    Tell me again how he deserves respect?

    During the first Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and Saudi Arabia(*):
    Generals: Estimated casualties to take Bagdhad and remove Saddam Hussein, 5,000 US troops.
    President HW Bush: Not worth it. End the war. Kicking the Iraqis back to their own country was our mission, not regime change.

    (*) Yes Saudi Arabia too, Battle of Kafji. 3 Iraqi divisions invaded, stopped by US Marines and Rangers and a hell of a lot of air support.

    1. Re:5,000 casualties, not worth it ... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      President HW Bush: Not worth it. End the war.

      Uh huh. He still lied his ass off to get that war started in the first place. To anyone who still supports the first Gulf War, I ask the question: why aren't we bombing Saudi Arabia to stop their actual genocide on Yemen, instead of helping them to do it?

    2. Re:5,000 casualties, not worth it ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      Because the Saudi's are opposing Al Qaeda militants and Iranian backed Shia militants. That is why both Obama and Trump sell them arms.

    3. Re:5,000 casualties, not worth it ... by drnb · · Score: 4, Informative

      The conspiracy theory based upon the ambiguous communique ignores that face to face meetings with the ambassador where Saddam was repeatedly warned not to invade Kuwait. Plus there is the whole 6 months of military build up and being told to leave Kuwait that also preceded the war.

    4. Re:5,000 casualties, not worth it ... by gtall · · Score: 1

      More revisionist history, Saddam long figured he could use Kuwait to pay off his debts for the Iraq-Iran war, which he started. Ignoring a 6 months build up was monumentally stupid seeing as the U.S. had all those lovely bombs left over from the cold war in Europe and wouldn't mind unloading them quickly as opposed to the expensive process of deactivating them.

    5. Re:5,000 casualties, not worth it ... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Because Obama fell for the Arab Spring and, after it was sprung and turned out to be no match for the dictators, decided that cowardice was the better part of valor and agreed to support the Saudis who see an Iranian behind every grain of sand.

      Yemen has been in turmoil ever since I can recall, to support one side over the other was dumb. Trump is supporting the Saudis for different reasons though. He receives money to his shell companies from them. Trump's motivations start and stop with his loot and his press, he doesn't have any thoughts beyond that. To attribute Trump's support for the Saudis to fighting al Qaeda is ridiculous. He has the U.S. military for that. If the Saudis win one against al Qaeda, he gets nothing. If the U.S. military wins one, he'll be demanding a parade of mythic proportions to celebrate HIS win.

    6. Re:5,000 casualties, not worth it ... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The US backed Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, genius.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:5,000 casualties, not worth it ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      And if not for Bush's screw-up,

      Actually it was a career diplomat that made the ambiguous statement, the ambassador, trying to make a point from Secretary of State Baker. And again she had made later statements warning Hussein not to invade about a week before the invasions.

      Saddam would have never gotten the idea into his head and the entire disaster would never have happened.

      Actually the ambassador briefly had him convinced the US would respond in one of these subsequent meetings, but then Saddam re-convinced himself he could get away with it.

      Plus we have the fact that there was an Iraqi military build-up on the border prior to all these statements.

      Your hypothesis that Saddam would never have gotten the idea on his own is clearly false.

      It's not a conspiracy theory but thanks for using a term popularized by the CIA (yes!) to discredit people. How's it feel, being on their side? I hope it pays well. And if you're not being paid, you should be. You're a sucker to defend them in public for free.

      That you for shredding what little credibility you had left and confirming your disposition towards conspiracy theories, hoaxes, etc

      And again, you ignore the six months of military build-up and instruction to leave Kuwait before the US led war began.

    8. Re:5,000 casualties, not worth it ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      Bush didn't avoid dealing with Hussein because he wanted to avoid mission creep, he did it because BushCO and the Hussein family were buddies.

      The friendship you cite is with King Hussein of Jordan, a different family, and a very different ruler. In his later years Hussein was involved in various peacemaking efforts and gave political opponents position in his government. A quite different person than the Iraqi ruler who coincidentally shared the same last name.

    9. Re:5,000 casualties, not worth it ... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      BushCO and the Hussein family were buddies

      Those were the Jordanian Husseins. Totally different family with the same name (see also: Barrak Hussein Obama is unrelated to either family). And all that came out of that relationship was a peace arrangement between Jordan and Israel

      they were in bed with bin laden as well

      Back then,BinLaden was an ally. Hell, Reagan shipped him a ton of weapons.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    10. Re:5,000 casualties, not worth it ... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Because the Saudi's are opposing Al Qaeda militants

      Your auto-correct changed "supplying" to "opposing". Just letting you know so you can check your settings. As for confusing Shiites with Sunni jihadists and dictatorships, I have no idea how you got there.

    11. Re:5,000 casualties, not worth it ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      As for confusing Shiites with Sunni jihadists

      There is no confusion. Both are being opposed, the Al Qaeda backed Sunni jihadists and the Iranian backed Shiite jihadists. That a third group, Wahhabi based Sunni extremists, are being supported does not change the former.

    12. Re:5,000 casualties, not worth it ... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      There is no confusion. Both are being opposed, the Al Qaeda backed Sunni jihadists

      Not by Saudi Arabia, they aren't. Al Queda is Saudi Wahhabism's foreign legion.

      ... as proven by the trajectory of the race ...

      There goes your credibility.

      Here comes your projection. Clinton was leading Perot and Bush before Perot dropped out, and that's just a fact that Clinton haters will have to deal with. As well as Perot never recovering from his cracking under pressure.

      Exit polling indicates Nader took about 12K democratic votes away from Gore in a race decided by around 500 votes.

      In a race where three. hundred. thousand. registered Democrats voted for Bush. That FAR more members of their own party were free to vote for the Republican candidate while the paltry number who voted for Nader are to be tarred and feathered, is just another sign that the Democrats are just another party of right wing assholes. One that hates the left more than the GOP does. This myth also ignores the fact that Buchanan "took" more than 500 votes from Bush. Scare quotes because parties have to earn votes, they aren't entitled to them.

    13. Re:5,000 casualties, not worth it ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      Al Queda is Saudi Wahhabism's foreign legion.

      Nope. Al Queda split from the state/ruling elite supported version of Wahhabism long ago.

      Clinton was leading Perot and Bush before Perot dropped out ...

      Polls that far our from an election are not that reliable and are rather meaningless.

      three. hundred. thousand. registered Democrats voted for Bush.

      That set the stage for Nader tipping the race to Bush. In the county that decided the election by 500 votes, Nader took away from Gore a net 12K votes. That was a decisive results at the critical time and place. Unlike Buchannon, etc. Sorry, you can't wave away such a decisive single event.

    14. Re:5,000 casualties, not worth it ... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Nope. Al Queda split from the state/ruling elite supported version of Wahhabism long ago.

      The Syrians killed by Saudi funded and trained Al Queda jihadists are fascinated by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      Polls that far our from an election are not that reliable and are rather meaningless.

      Two months is "far out"? There's also the fact that studies of exit polls show only one state, Ohio, flipping from Clinton to Bush if Perot wasn't in the race, under the "votes belong to candidates" theory (see scare quotes again). Which still would have seen Clinton in the White House, not Bush. Look, this isn't hard: Bush had a bad recession to deal with AND shot himself in the foot when he brook his "read my lips" pledge. All this "Perot took the election from Bush" stuff is just partisan butthurt to deny legitimacy to someone you don't like. SSDD when the Birthers said Obama couldn't be president because he was born in Kenya, or Hillbots desperately trying to project her Russian problems (Uranium One, paying Russians for campaign dirt via the Steele Dossier) onto Trump.

      And I say that as someone who thinks the country would be infinitely better off today if Perot had won. No NAFTA, no deathgrip on power from the duopoly that answers to the same set of donors, and no codependant relationship between right wing corporate democrats and right wing freakshow republicans.

      That set the stage for Nader tipping the race to Bush. In the county that decided the election by 500 votes, Nader took away from Gore a net 12K votes. That was a decisive results at the critical time and place. Unlike Buchannon, etc. Sorry, you can't wave away such a decisive single event.

      Aside from the arrogance and unearned sense of entitlement in thinking that parties own votes, you're also ignoring remedial math. A democratic vote "owed" to Gore did twice as much damage to his chances when it went to Bush as someone voting third party. Not only was a vote for Bush not a vote for Gore, it was, you know....a vote for Bush. So mathematically you're still trying to claim 12k is a huge number but 600k (double damage) isn't worthy of mention. It takes a powerful level of willful dumbfuckery to do that. To walk past twenty five Bush Democrats to wag your finger at a single Democrat who voted for Nader (who also "took" votes from Bush, another face you're ignoring).

      Moreso when a statewide recount shows Gore would have won under any scenario. Even moreso when you have no blame for Lieberman getting illegally cast military votes counted, Kathleen Harris purging 70,000 voters from rolls while she ran both the state election and Bush's state campaign, the GOP legislature, the GOP candidate's governor brother, the Supreme Court where two of the justices should have recused themselves for blatant conflict of interest, or Gore himself for not bothering to appeal to Green Party voters or go on contesting the election. Because why let a little willful. dumb. fuck. er. eee. get in the way of a good smear of anyone to the left of a conservative democrat.

  15. Re:Still? by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Informative

    Guess what Trump's approval rating is?

    More than the new speaker for the Democrats?

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  16. Re:took the nation to war by drnb · · Score: 1

    Yeah, another one based on lies!

    What lies?

    The lie that Iraq invaded Kuwait. The invasion was filmed on the old Apollo 11 moon landing set. ;-)

  17. Re:took the nation to war by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Informative

    That Iraqi troops were throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwatti hospitals, for one. There wasn't much enthusiasm for a military intervention until a teenage girl got on television and told that little fable - of course she was the daughter of an ambassador and was no where near the invasion or any clinics.

  18. Jumping out of the burning plane ... by drnb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Go jump out of an airplane over the Pacific and let us know how much kinship you feel you vicarious-living charade.

    Jumping out of a plane going down in flames isn't really the accomplishment. Flying a perfectly good airplane to the island that is heavily defended and known to be commanded by someone who beheads captured pilots and practices ritualistic cannibalism is the accomplishment.

  19. Re:by comparison by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I was not in agreement much the time with the elder Bush when he was in office. But at least he knew enough to look and act the part, and to speak about things in a somewhat intelligent fashion.

    My opposition to Trump stems not so much from his political or philosophical positions (he essentially has none), but rather from the fact that he was plainly incompetent and quite possibly detached from reality having spent all his life surrounded by yes-men. He's done nothing but confirm this since he's been in office. Add to that the fact that the same crew who engineered his election victory were also responsible for engineering the Brexit vote.

    Oh, and treason. Lots and lots of treason.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  20. Re:Still? by thegarbz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Fun fact: guess what Obama's approval rating was at the same time in his presidency? No, lower...

    I'm going to guess higher than Trump. Hey I was right. Why would you tell me to go lower? Do you have some blind partisan agenda to support the Organeutan?

  21. Re:Still? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Trump is the first US president in modern times to never get above 45%. That can still change, but smart money says it won't.

  22. Re:He was definitely a classier man than Reagan or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Set the stage for the 2003 homicide spree in Iraq (Gulf War II).

    No he didn't. He very eloquently and clearly explained why "going to Baghdad" would have been a supremely stupid thing to do in 1991. Everything he said applied just as much in 2003.

    It is not his fault that his son was a moron.

    His son was not the reason why Dick Chaney and corporate America made it a priority to invade Iraq instead of going after Pakistan and the Taliban. At the time Sadam was continuing to manage to ship oil on the sly to Asia and work in conjunction with Pakistan to develop strategic nukes. If Sadam had managed things better then things might have been different, he would not have been caught with his pants down and might have even clobbered the shit out of Dick Chaney and company if he had taken the help that was offered to him on the sly by China and some of the disaffected crowds in Russia. That is why Chaney was in such a hurry to take out Sadam, he was starting to effect the worlds oil supply again and was slowly building up support in Asia and Russia that would soon have made it impossible for the US to control.

    No the second gulf war was a war to make certain that oil would only flow to China largely through companies approved by the real oil cartels which are run by the major corporations. Chaney made certain that the big payoff for the US in undertaking the second Gulf war was the sudden dominance in world wide oil patch industries by Halliburton. In Canada Halliburton then swallowed up all sorts of major corps like Schlumberger and the like as a direct result of all the cash they were paid to do the logistics of the second Gulf war. In case you are interested at the time Canada started to ship more oil to the US than any other country or region on earth so the US was not that interested in how Iraq oil effected the world market only that Sadam would stop making his money from it.

    The Bush era was and is the era of big oil and the consequences of not diversifying the energy economy fast enough in the US. This is the real legacy of the Bush presidencies, the inability to wean the US off fossil fuels quickly enough. GM and others have finally seen the writing on the wall, as does anyone with half a brain except the petro chemical industry which still runs the United States and far to much of the worlds economy. The legacy of the Republican party and the petrochemical industry in the US is what history will remember the most about the Bush family. And the fact that the oil industry controlled the presidency of the US and led the world down the path to what has is essentially corporate despotism culminating in the presidency of the complete moron puppet that is now in power.

  23. Re:took the nation to war by ph1ll · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well documented propaganda, I'm afraid.

    Fake news ain't new.

    --
    --- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
  24. Re:Still? by voss · · Score: 1

    So which former President is he going to pal around with?

    George and Barbara couldn't stand him.
    Obama? The Obama's despise him for his birtherism crap
    George W. Bush? He and Laura wouldnt even vote for him.
    Jimmy Carter?
    Ronald Reagan snubbed Trump over and over again during his presidency.

  25. He chose Big Oil over the world's future by Misagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    George H.W. Bush was instrumental in undermining the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro ... and then bullshitting about it, calling the US a "global leader" for the climate in a speech.
    After having got a letter from his buddy Ken Lay at Enron before the event, he made sure sure that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change's mandatory emission cuts were replaced with voluntary measures. He also got it changed that developing nations would be exempt. For many nations, including the US -- the world's biggest polluter -- this meant no change at all. Also, that China -- then (and for some inexplicable reason, still ) classified as a "developing nation" could increase its emissions.

    Greenpeace called him a "environmental degenerate" and a "highway robber".
    It has been said by many researchers that have looked back, that if it hadn't been for Bush in '92, the world's climate would have been in a much better state than now.

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    1. Re:He chose Big Oil over the world's future by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, look, Greenpeace is infuriated at something. How unusual.

      Just checking, is this the same Greenpeace that slandered genetically modified foods? Why yes it is!

      "More than 100 Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine and other sciences this week signed a blistering letter attacking Greenpeace's "fact-challenged propaganda campaign against innovations in agricultural biotechnology."

      "Greenpeace and their allies have claimed falsely that GMOS are dangerous, untested and inadequately regulated," the letter states. "But the science telling us GM crops and foods are safe has been confirmed by vast experience."

      The letter goes on to point out that "As we have shown elsewhere, we know that GMOS are at least as safe as crops produced with other breeding methods. The only time a safety difference has been found the GMOs have been safer."

      Worse, the latest target of Greenpeace's anti-GMO campaign is a type of rice â" called Golden Rice â" that would "reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by vitamin A deficiency, which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeastern Asia."

      Greenpeace, mind you, is the same organization that thinks "climate change denial" is a crime worth prosecuting.

      To show just how truly muddle-headed Greenpeace is, a recent study published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature found that the use of GMOs can help fight climate change by cutting methane emissions. Which means Greenpeace's anti-science GMO stance trumps its allegedly pro-science climate-change fanaticism.

      Greenpeace isn't alone on the left-wing fringes here.

      A Pew Research Center survey found, for example, that just over a third of Democrats think GMOs are safe to eat. Translation: two-thirds of Democrats are anti-science."

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:He chose Big Oil over the world's future by hey! · · Score: 2

      Detailed economic data on China as a whole is hard to come by, but the median wage in Shenzen and Shanghai is comparable to that of Croatia, about $1000/month. A college graduate in China can expect to make ab out 4000 yuan/month, about $574.

      China's immense economic power comes from sheer scale. On a per capita GDP basis China is considerably poorer than Croatia; it's poorer than Gabon. Those recent college graduates may only be slightly better off than their compatriots, but there's a lot of them. In fact one in five college students in the world is in China.

      This is similar to India; India's median and per capita income is 30x lower than the US, but about 2% of the population would be middle class by US standards. That's 27 million people, more than the entire population of Australia.

      These are countries with immense power and immense problems to match.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  26. Re:Still? by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

    He'd need a Ouija board to pal around with Reagan, he kind of died back in 2004.

    --
    Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
  27. Re:He was definitely a classier man than Reagan or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The US basically tricked Iraq into invading Kuwait. Kuwait was pumping oil from Iraqi oil fields (horizontal drilling). When they refused to stop, Saddam Hussein met with American diplomats to ask if the US would have any problem with an Iraqi military action against Kuwait. The US told him that it wouldn't be a problem since we don't get involved in regional conflicts.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

  28. Re:He helped kill Kennedy by MrKaos · · Score: 2

    The allegation being that it was done under the direction of Lyndon B. Johnson and collaboration of Allen W. Dulles, CIA director 1953–1961 who hated Kennedy while H.W Bush was serving in the CIA at the time of Kennedy's assassination.

    Who knows what the truth is? The truth is that our reality has been fuzzed for decades now by our own media and politicians that we've been conditioned to respond to any information that challenges the status quo with the words "Conspiracy Theory" despite knowing that we are being lied to constantly.

    Most of us here wern't even alive back then which shows how practiced the lies are.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  29. Re:He was definitely a classier man than Reagan or by stud9920 · · Score: 2

    It is not his fault that his son was a moron.

    isn't the moral thing to do to public tell your son is a moron, if he's about to cause a war?

  30. Re:took the nation to war by magarity · · Score: 1

    He stole the milk because he was poor and his baby was hungry

    Maybe he should have signed up for WIC instead.

  31. Re:Tribute by hey! · · Score: 2

    Yes it should.

    People don't want what they think they want. They think they want a leader who will do the right vs. the expedient thing. But they'll punish leaders who actually do this. Bush was one of those old-school people who thought debt was a real problem for a country. Raising taxes after promising not to was political suicide, but whether or not it was the right thing to do, he thought it was.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  32. At this point in time, sad to see him go by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    At the time so many of us hated the 16 years of one Bush or the other in the White House, feeling they were evil men.. but compared to what we're having to endure now, these men were saints. Godspeed, Dubya. History will be much kinder to you than some that came after you.

  33. Re:He was definitely a classier man than Reagan or by mapkinase · · Score: 2

    No. Moron is what we have now. Bush Jr was of the same caliber as Obama: establishment stooge.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  34. Re:He was definitely a classier man than Reagan or by drnb · · Score: 1

    Apparently you did not read your own citation. You focus on a vague communique and ignore the face to face meeting where she clearly told Hussein not to use military force.

    Plus you ignore the 6 months of military build-up and instructions to leave Kuwait that preceded the US led war.

  35. Re:took the nation to war by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    What lies?

    Oh please! You really have to ask? It's marketing 101. They have a product to sell.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  36. Why Slashdot? by valnar · · Score: 1

    This story is literally everywhere else on the Internet. Why is it a Slashdot type of story?

    I hate this is becoming a generic news site. Now, if Al Gore "Inventor of the Internet" died, that would be different. :P

    1. Re:Why Slashdot? by discowriter · · Score: 1

      I agree.

  37. How is this science and technology news? by discowriter · · Score: 1

    I know this is important to world events, but shouldn't this site really be about... science and technology? Post anything you want, of course. It's just regrettable that you set precedents like this. David Bowie was at least weird enough that he appealed to hacker culture....

  38. Re:Mainstream President by discowriter · · Score: 1

    I think when Donald Trump is gone, it will be technology news. I think he rigged or unfairly influenced the election, at least indirectly with collusion with the Russians. I think it's Trump with his lying ways, not Obama. Though GW junior made things toxic, didn't he?

  39. Re:He was definitely a classier man than Reagan or by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    It is not his fault that his son was a moron.

    Well, genetically speaking, it's about half his fault. :-D

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  40. Re:took the nation to war by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    Yeh... that is the clear answer. But I've been a have and been a have not as well.

    When you're a have, it's easy to manage money. Things kinda line up and even if you screw up here and there, there's always a few hundred bucks in the couch cushions somewhere.

    When you're a have not, there are all kinds of problems.

    A friend of mine who had a childhood that still gives me nightmares to think about would tell me about how she was beaten as a child because her father was frustrated that he couldn't make ends meet. With the exception of her (who worked as a glamour model for a long while) the family was obese. This was because they couldn't afford to gas to drive to the grocery store more than once a month, so the freezer at home was full of food that would last. That means preservatives.

    When you're a have not, you run on empty. When you're buried in a hole so deep that even though you can see the top, you know you can never reach it, you eventually come to grips with knowing that you'll never get out... and if know you can never get out, what's the point of trying?

    Trust me, as a "have" I'm thoroughly convinced there's no such thing as a hole I can't get out of. But I've spent enough of my life around "have not"s to know that they lack the tools, the knowledge, and worst of all the hope to do so.

    So, if you're ok scraping by... consider this.

    You consider a big payday when you make it to the end of the week and you actually get to keep your whole welfare check because you haven't already borrowed against it at 30%/week interest rates at the corner shop.

    WIC is something you trade for cash. This is done either with a friend or family member you go shopping with and you buy their groceries and they pay your electric bill so you don't freeze. And if none of your friends or relatives are able to help you... then you end up finding some asshole you don't like who is willing to trade you $0.50 cash for $1 WIC

    T-Mobile is king because they have some crazy ass way of making it so that you can buy an iPhone X 128GB even though the government doesn't trust you with your own paycheck and is withdrawing money from it.

    Paper checks are a blessing and a curse because if you can get someone to take a $5 post dated check and get the money deposited before the check comes due... you're golden. If you can't, then your $300 pay check just became $150 because you got hit by 5 penalties for being poor.

    No... if every single week you have a deficit that is compounded by additional fees incurred from poor money management the week before...

    You and I clearly know that life doesn't have to be like this. If I were in the position today, here's my plan :
      - pawn whatever's left and get a few clean and decent outfits
      - Use that iPhone X I somehow lucked out on and watch about 1,000 hours of Khan Academy
      - Take my GED
      - Visit a local school and beg a teacher to assist me with speech therapy to make my speech patterns "wealthier" and less "ghetto". Ghetto schools actually have programs for this in big cities.
      - Start visiting a church in a wealthier neighborhood and volunteer enough to be noticed as a hard and honest worker until someone takes pitty on the fella down on his luck and offers him something. Rabbis and Priests have a "discretionary fund" which is often used to help the poor or even to make a mortgage payment for a member of the church or temple that is desperate. You'd be surprised how much those people are really willing to help. (I'm atheist, but I respect people who help other people)
      - Read the news paper every day and learn how those entitled people think in order to better communicate with them.

    This seems like a lot of work and it is. But it's a plan that has a 90% or better chance of working and certainly wouldn't leave you worse of than when you started.

    For someone in that position, no... you don't have the tools, the knowledge... or worse... the hope. And trust me... that guy has WIC... or he did on Monday and now it's Wednesday and after paying off the guy who helped keep the water on last week, there's nothing left.

  41. Re:Give my regards to kkk by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Why yes, Bush, Sr., did fight against the Nazis!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  42. Not blue wave. Trump purging congress. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Funny, those polls were predicting a Democratic wave election and wow they were right!

    As "waves" go it was a "Blue Ripple", compared to typical first-term-midterms losses. But you missed a couple other points:

    First: He GAINED several seats in the Senate, where it really mattered.

    Second: The Rs were going to lose the house anyway. So the US electorate (with Trump's assistance in the form of non-campaining for the R-side swamp creatures), took the opportunity to do some swamp-draining in the House.

    Notice it was primarily the RINOs and Never Trumpers (that hadn't already retired) who were the losers.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  43. Re:Still? by quenda · · Score: 1

    Get over your petty red-v-blue partisan politics.

    I was just pointing out that Bush I comparison to Trump was wrong.
    WTF does Obama have to do with that?

    Of course approval ratings are not a good metric. US presidents usually get high ratings by starting or escalating a war.