Quote from Dr. Zhivodka:
Alright..accepted. You're a gentleman for recognizing that.
My question is how can one be so reasonable in one regard and so unreasonable in another? Politics of course.
Bush is terrible and arrogant human being that has done and authorized horrible and grotesque things. Obama may turn out yet to be the same way. But we don't know. Yet you convict him before the fact based on what you hear and read in right wright media. How reasonable is that?
I had to run out to do an errand and I made that post in haste. I almost turned around and came back to delete so thanks for accepting the 'sorry".
Doc, I have always had the ability to judge people in the public eye. I have never been wrong yet.
Even though all my college buddies were voting for Carter I was the lone holdout that told them that they were crazy for voting for him. He turned out just like I predicted. Weak, ineffective, terrible by all accounts.
I told all my buddies in Atlanta who liked Clinton what a piece of shit he was. They all said I was nuts. Well, I was right. I could tell just by looking at his record in Arky and by his body language and how he spoke that he was trash.
I had heard that FDR was like a God but when I went to start reading about him, watching shows on the Military channel about Bataan, McArthur, the horrible mistakes he made in managing the war and giving away Eastern Europe to Stalin which was the whole basis for the Cold War and the reason China went Commie then I it became apparent to me what a poor president he was.
I won't even go into the SS Ponzi scheme.
It takes 50-60 years for historians to strike a balance. Historians can't have lived through the events and keep an open mind. Its the writers who come later that can look at things objective and whose views are probably more accurate.
In Bush's case, everyone hates his guts because of the hatred in on the left for him and they run the media so naturally that is going to be what people think.
In 50-60 years when objective Historians look back on his presidency they will consider him an excellent president.
The irony in all of this is that Bush was a student of history and the only reason he took the bull by the horns in the middle east was because he was determined not to repeat FDR's mistake of ignoring Hitler as early as 1933. Had FDR been the leader Bush is he would have dragged the country kicking and screaming to heed the upcoming War. But he wasn't he was just your typical not rock the boat politician so he just let it fester until we had horrible war going.
You see, this what I admire about Bush, he did what thought was right and didn't give a shit what anyone else thought because he felt that he was doing what he considered right with the information at hand.
That is what leaders do. They lead. They don't need teleprompters because they know what they want to say. Bush said the same thing on every topic every time.
Some people say Churchill was a great leader. Well maybe so but he was promptly kicked out of office right after wars end and quite frankly England was sick of him.
Go figure.
As far as Obama goes, I understand that it appears that I am not giving him a chance but Jesus man. I already know what he is. Its so obvious to me what he is and it was obvious to me way last year.
John
PS As far as that post of yours goes, I remember everything I read and it had just stuck in my mind. I wasn't poking around your history although I did look back to find it so I could make sure I had remembered it correctly and post.
