When you post dry, factual articles devoid of inuendo and lackiing legalistic half truths there is little to debate.
Jet pilot makes anyone qualified to be President? While that is a whole subject that can be discussed I will leave it alone. Except to say that my son is on his way to being a Navy pilot, and I KNOW he isn't qualified to be President (as much as I love him). But there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that my son is brighter than Dubya. And certainly more responsible as a teenager than Dubya was as a 40 year old. No doubt in my mind. Actually provable without question! Bilingual? Gee, that really qualifies someone to be President. Like about half the country. But I love "self made millionaire" the most. Just like Donald Trump. I don't know what Pabst thinks, but for most of us, that first $10 million or so is the hardest! Even Gordon Gekko could be a "self made millionaire" if his grandfather was a very wealthy war profiteer doing business with Hitler; his father was also incredibly rich, was head of he CIA, was Vice President of the US, President of the US, and had some fine connections in the oil business, politics, and of course a way to buy a baseball team cheap, have the taxpayers build him a stadium and sell the team for top dollar because of that. This could go on forever. Even if GWB was the greatest President of all time, it sure isn't due to his ability to speak Spanish, fly a jet, or make money on his own. What a ridiculous list of "qualifications". Only Pabst could make a post like that and be serious. LMAO. RS
LOL. I used Dangerous as a parody of a neo-con "code word." Given my usually combative, conservative nature, I'm sure the sarcasm wasn't evident. I do think the guy's a dick though.
I think he is an intellectual elitist, but much of what he says is true and needs to be heard by those capable of freedom of thought. Speaking of dangerous, this is a quote from Coulter's recent column: "Like all beliefs universally held by liberals, Reeves' aphorism is the precise opposite of the truth." The other side of this comment is all beliefs universally held by conservatives are precisely the truth. The conservative think they have the corner on truth, and I believe this stems from their religious fanaticism and intolerance of different ideas and thought. This totalitarian thought machine known as Coulter, is dangerous in my opinion. I am now hearing the exact same rhetoric from Rush and Hannity, i.e. it is now popular for the right to denounce any and all ideas on the basis of political party, rather than examine the thought on its own merit. This new form of fascist thought can be summed up by the following statement: "We are right because we are right, and they are wrong because they don't agree with us." If this isn't dangerous, I don't know what is.
You're easily becoming the biggest asshole on this board. I only say that because your intellectualism is not equaled by the quality of your banal self serving arguments. When did I say that Bush's achievements were qualifications/prerequisites to be President. What I did say is that those talents are more extraordinary than the perception laid by the press. The press had a field day when the Twins were arrested with many other Coeds for underage drinking (they were 20 yo at the time) but Albert Gore lll was arrested for his second DWI along with drug possession last week and I don't think the late night comics had much to say.
Aren't you close enough to Cuba to hang out. No wait! RS can drive down from Boca and both of you can party with Fidel.
OK, I must be "becoming the biggest asshole on this board" because I don't agree with you? This is NOT the first personal attack you have made against me. If I recall correctly, the last time you did this, you had claimed that I had attacked YOU personally, when in truth, I had not. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone's views, and directly attacking them as an individual. So you have called me an "asshole" and a "prick". What have I called you (except possibly "wrong"), which is only a matter of opinion, and not fact. And certainly not the same as calling you an "asshole" or a "prick". "banal self serving arguments"? Fine words, but what are you talking about? How is anything I said "self serving"? Did you say that Dubya's accomplishments...excuse me ...."talents"...qualify him to be President? Perhaps not in the context of the post I responded to. But this is probably the 100th time you have brought up these same points. It's really getting old. Why don't you just tell us what it is that you really DO believe made Dubya a qualified candidate in the first place? Try and do this WITHOUT telling us how he is one of the greatest Presidents ever. Because even if it were true (which will always be a matter of opinion and individual perspective, and certainly in any case it is too early to judge), clearly history has proven that it is the times and the circumstances that make "great" leaders "great". If Churchill were PM of the UK now, would he be the prominent historical figure he became after being in power during England's "darkest hour"? Keep up the personal attacks. They really do reinforce your credibility. Oh, and now I must be a communist too. You think I want to go "hang out with Fidel"? What is this based on? McCarthyism at it's finest. I don't agree with you, so I am an enemy of the state, a communist, a traitor, etc. I served in the US Army. My son, with my blessing and encouragement is serving in the Navy. What have you done in the name of our country? (cheerleading for Dubya doesn't count). RS