On 60 Minutes tonight. Didn't matter what said to Mr Bush. He's right and everyone else is wrong. Said I have a thick hide nothing bothers me that much. Even when asked how he deals that 65% of Americans do not favor war escalation. We don't understand He said. Jesus this is getting SCARY. Another guy around 1938/39 sounded that way. He was from Germany.
Scary 60 Minutes W/Bush
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
I have to say, there is something extremely irritating about hearing George Bush say that a majority of Americans don't understand something. Talk about an oxy-moron-ic situation.
I did not see the piece, but wanted to. Hopefully there is a full report or a transcript somewhere?
I did not see the piece, but wanted to. Hopefully there is a full report or a transcript somewhere?
Thanks for posting the link Buddy. Mr. Bush apparently does not believe he is accountable to anyone as he is going to do what he thinks. Actually, he is going to do what Cheney has been tellling him to do for the past 6 years.
It is frightening to see in black and white that this country is being run by a man who is quite insane.
Eddie
It is frightening to see in black and white that this country is being run by a man who is quite insane.
Eddie
Just as insane are the people who voted for him and the handful who would do it again.
..........................................................
Eddie
You seriously cannot believe that Bush is insane.
Come on now.
He is in a very difficult situation with no way out until 2008. That does not make him insane.
The new president will fair no better.
By then the US will be hit with a new round of terrorism , right on time to keep us frazzled.
Its their entire goal to disrupt us continuously.
I watched the 60 minutes segment and find George concerned and trying to do what he thinks is best for the country.
An insane person would not walk into that meeting with the families of casualties. That would be beyond a insane persons ability.
When he came out of that room, he did look like he had a idea of what they were going through.
I saw most of that interview. Bush appeared to be a man slowly realizing that he got in way deeper water than he originally thought. I give hime credit for admitting mistakes - he's been doing that more and more lately. I think he realizes now that world is big and he can't just do whatever he wants with it. ....He seems like a child starting to grow up. Too bad that process is happening while president of the US, instead of when he was like 20.
Things a little slow today Edward--imagine with holiday your phones been quiet 
Believe you were all saying same thing prior to 04 election--but the real poll proved a diff story didn't it---I think you will find same in 08
Do you really think when it come to national security people want someone whose only solutions have been when to quit--rather trying to win--who will let media dictate what happens--If the Edward-ACLU-Liberals had their way--there would be no survailence--checking muslims boardings planes/subways would be discrimination.
They are more worried about how treatment of terrorist prisoners--we catch Saddam --their X attorney general defends him--ect.
Bottom line--I won't vote for any party whose objectives are the same as terrorist--
When UBL-Zarchawi ect keep saying they will win because U.S. doesn't have stomach for conflict--he wasn't speaking about our troops--he wasn't speaking for me--but they have many pegged correctly--that they are comming through in spades.
Believe you were all saying same thing prior to 04 election--but the real poll proved a diff story didn't it---I think you will find same in 08
Do you really think when it come to national security people want someone whose only solutions have been when to quit--rather trying to win--who will let media dictate what happens--If the Edward-ACLU-Liberals had their way--there would be no survailence--checking muslims boardings planes/subways would be discrimination.
They are more worried about how treatment of terrorist prisoners--we catch Saddam --their X attorney general defends him--ect.
Bottom line--I won't vote for any party whose objectives are the same as terrorist--
When UBL-Zarchawi ect keep saying they will win because U.S. doesn't have stomach for conflict--he wasn't speaking about our troops--he wasn't speaking for me--but they have many pegged correctly--that they are comming through in spades.
Last edited:
Believe you were all saying same thing prior to 04 election--but the real poll proved a diff story didn't it---I think you will find same in 08
Do you really think when it come to national security people want someone whose only solutions have been when to quit--rather trying to win--who will let media dictate what happens--If the Edward-ACLU-Liberals had their way--there would be no survailence--checking muslims boardings planes/subways would be discrimination.
They are more worried about how treatment of terrorist prisoners--we catch Saddam --their X attorney general defends him--ect.
Bottom line--I won't vote for any party whose objectives are the same as terrorist--
When UBL-Zarchawi ect keep saying they will win because U.S. doesn't have stomach for conflict--he wasn't speaking about our troops--he wasn't speaking for me--but they have many pegged correctly--that they are comming through in spades.
Winning? He did every thing Bin Laden predicted he would do. He is the single biggest recruiter for al-quida. He never wanted a 9-11 commision. Fought it tooth and nail and to this day still does. Threw out their report just like he threw out the bipartisian Iraq report. Wanted to sell our ports to the arabs. Still to this day talking about shoring up our borders. Thought we were on the right track in Afghanny then he did an about face. You call this winning? I hate to see what you think is losing. I think Bin Laden said they would win because we were not represented with the brains for it not the stomach.
...........................................................
it is so much more complicated than any of us can even imagine.
We don't even have one iota of the intelligence that the pentagon has to sort through everyday.
For those that are critical, you dont see them coming up with any other answers.
Scott:
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different result, then yes, I would call Bush insane. I admit he probably doesn't fall under the legal definition of insanity........ yet.
Criminal, yes, ilegally insane, no.
Is he in a very difficult situation. Yes. Who put him there? He, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, the Christian right, the rich, conservatives, people like Wayne. Weasel, Freeze and a whole bunch of dumb Americans who bought the bs of these people under the guise of patriotism, fear, prejudice, and stupidity.
Same reason there were seperate drinking fountains for blacks and whites, internment camps for Japanese-Americans 60 years ago, and the current profiling of brown Americans. Remember it was this clown who turned the worlds sympathy on 9-12 into the world loathing.
Remember how so many of you were putting down the French? Guess what fellas. They were right about not going into Iraq militarily and so was the UN and their weapons inspectors. No Mr. Bush and his numbnuts administration are criminal.
This most corrupt and evil administration has killed thousands. That is the greatest immorality. If that is what Christianity is all about, then just call me Ahmed Haskell (I'm sure someone will quote that). Before anyone gets carried away, I don't advocate flying planes into building either.
The invasion of Iraq is not the "war on terror". It is the invasion of Iraq. Wayne how appropriate that you provide your black and white opinions on Martin Luther King day. By the way, I am opposed to a national holiday for Dr. King. Great man but don't think we should create a national holiday for every great man.
Wayne if anyone can save this country from what you and your kind have done to it, it may very well be the ACLU. They are a great organization and continue to fight for personal liberty no matter how shallow your thinking. I know you can't see the issues that they take on as vitally important to this country but rather choose to spin the unpopular cases they take on to appeal to the less intelligent. Thats fine, Wayne. Don't expect an insurance agent from south central Kentucky to grasp the big picture.
By the way, Wayne, Vient Nam vet right? In favor of the war in Iraq, right? Now what was that definition of insanity I was taliking about?
Eddie
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different result, then yes, I would call Bush insane. I admit he probably doesn't fall under the legal definition of insanity........ yet.
Criminal, yes, ilegally insane, no.
Is he in a very difficult situation. Yes. Who put him there? He, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, the Christian right, the rich, conservatives, people like Wayne. Weasel, Freeze and a whole bunch of dumb Americans who bought the bs of these people under the guise of patriotism, fear, prejudice, and stupidity.
Same reason there were seperate drinking fountains for blacks and whites, internment camps for Japanese-Americans 60 years ago, and the current profiling of brown Americans. Remember it was this clown who turned the worlds sympathy on 9-12 into the world loathing.
Remember how so many of you were putting down the French? Guess what fellas. They were right about not going into Iraq militarily and so was the UN and their weapons inspectors. No Mr. Bush and his numbnuts administration are criminal.
This most corrupt and evil administration has killed thousands. That is the greatest immorality. If that is what Christianity is all about, then just call me Ahmed Haskell (I'm sure someone will quote that). Before anyone gets carried away, I don't advocate flying planes into building either.
The invasion of Iraq is not the "war on terror". It is the invasion of Iraq. Wayne how appropriate that you provide your black and white opinions on Martin Luther King day. By the way, I am opposed to a national holiday for Dr. King. Great man but don't think we should create a national holiday for every great man.
Wayne if anyone can save this country from what you and your kind have done to it, it may very well be the ACLU. They are a great organization and continue to fight for personal liberty no matter how shallow your thinking. I know you can't see the issues that they take on as vitally important to this country but rather choose to spin the unpopular cases they take on to appeal to the less intelligent. Thats fine, Wayne. Don't expect an insurance agent from south central Kentucky to grasp the big picture.
By the way, Wayne, Vient Nam vet right? In favor of the war in Iraq, right? Now what was that definition of insanity I was taliking about?
Eddie
Eddie its funny what you say about the ACLU. The Fox boys did the same thing with the UN. You don't hear about the million good things they do just the handful of bad things. Then sure as snow is white Weasal, DTB, and Freeze run with it. I swear their minds are like playdo. Fox just shapes it anyway they want.
I saw a interveiw with Woodward the other day on Oreilly. It was back from his last book. Oreilly tried everything he could to get Woodward to answer the way he wanted him to. Finally Woodward said to Oreilly "Bill i don't know what you want." "Do you want me to make stuff up?" It was a Classic and i was shocked Fox would rebroadcast something like that.
I saw a interveiw with Woodward the other day on Oreilly. It was back from his last book. Oreilly tried everything he could to get Woodward to answer the way he wanted him to. Finally Woodward said to Oreilly "Bill i don't know what you want." "Do you want me to make stuff up?" It was a Classic and i was shocked Fox would rebroadcast something like that.
Edward with all due respect the only rights I've seen ACLU fighting for are Terrorists-Pedophiles- child porn wedsites-Gays vs boyscouts--fighting against religion here but fighting for terrorists to have their korans and prayer facilties.
--and I can understand your anger on Iraq War--your Icon former liberal US Attorney General Ramsey Clark loss defending Saddam Hussein had to be terrible blow to ACLU and your cause.
Maybe if they catch UBL or his 2nd in command you all will get another shot
--and I can understand your anger on Iraq War--your Icon former liberal US Attorney General Ramsey Clark loss defending Saddam Hussein had to be terrible blow to ACLU and your cause.
Maybe if they catch UBL or his 2nd in command you all will get another shot
As I said Wayne, I understand all you can see is the ACLU fighting for pedophiles, Nazi's, etc. You don't see what they are fighting for behind that. You know, the Constitution. Again that big picture argument.
I find it quite interesting that you seem to see quite clearly the "Bush/Cheney vision" behind the Iraq invasion. You don't seem to see how that little skirmish might tend to create a whole bunch of Osama Bin Laden's. Seems to me like Iran is as big of in not a greater threat than Iraq? Well????
Must be Clintons fault.
I love how you are now blaming the Iraq war on the liberals. I really respect you. You did miss your calling. You should have been a lawyer. Since the Iraq war is a loser, you have the gonads to lay this one on Clintons doorstep, blame it on the liberals, and no doubt will some day figure a way to say the democrats lost the war.
If I'm ever pulled over for speeding in Bowling Green, I'll look you up. By the way, another way of stating your point might be the ACLU is fighting for freedom of religion, freedom of speech and against discrimination. They also fight against government violation of search and seizure amendments to the constitution.
As we know, you and the press like to put a spin on these things. Kinda like you were busted a couple of months ago.
Eddie
I find it quite interesting that you seem to see quite clearly the "Bush/Cheney vision" behind the Iraq invasion. You don't seem to see how that little skirmish might tend to create a whole bunch of Osama Bin Laden's. Seems to me like Iran is as big of in not a greater threat than Iraq? Well????
Must be Clintons fault.
I love how you are now blaming the Iraq war on the liberals. I really respect you. You did miss your calling. You should have been a lawyer. Since the Iraq war is a loser, you have the gonads to lay this one on Clintons doorstep, blame it on the liberals, and no doubt will some day figure a way to say the democrats lost the war.
If I'm ever pulled over for speeding in Bowling Green, I'll look you up. By the way, another way of stating your point might be the ACLU is fighting for freedom of religion, freedom of speech and against discrimination. They also fight against government violation of search and seizure amendments to the constitution.
As we know, you and the press like to put a spin on these things. Kinda like you were busted a couple of months ago.
Eddie
As I said Wayne, I understand all you can see is the ACLU fighting for pedophiles, Nazi's, etc. You don't see what they are fighting for behind that. You know, the Constitution. Again that big picture argument.
sorry eddie....any good that the aclu does is over shadowed by their work for nambla.and for that alone i wish the aclu ill will.
sorry eddie....any good that the aclu does is over shadowed by their work for nambla.and for that alone i wish the aclu ill will.
Last edited:
not a very popular position for ACLU to take, but we at least need to put it in perspective and context:
"In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today. "
"In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today. "
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone--
unless your our troops--a boyscout-a christian-and victim of a crime ect ect--then they are tooth and nail for the other side.
How come every side they take is against your ave Joe citizen and protecting the bad guy?
Maybe a little refresher course is in order on liberals perspective of freedom of speech when you don't agree with them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnn7wTgoE8
I rest my case:142smilie
unless your our troops--a boyscout-a christian-and victim of a crime ect ect--then they are tooth and nail for the other side.
How come every side they take is against your ave Joe citizen and protecting the bad guy?
Maybe a little refresher course is in order on liberals perspective of freedom of speech when you don't agree with them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnn7wTgoE8
I rest my case:142smilie
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 49
How is this any different than the way most of you talk about Christianity/Catholocism?
I don't agree with much our current administration is doing right now, but it's entertaining how people like Sponge and others on the left have this elitist attitude about their intelligence. How is it any different than being Rush Limbaugh or Wilson?
I love when people try to bash the Church for mistakes they make. Are you ignoring the countless number of throughtless charity done on a daily basis that it and its members perform?
But I guess this argument doesn't apply when it is you being short-sighted.
ACLU = good
Christians = bad
