Didn't bush Look In This Guys Eyes And See His Good Soul?

dlowan wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
dlowan wrote:

...It's nonsense for you to say you thought BPB was suggesting Putin's behaviour is Bush's fault, Brandon.

You are either being very obtuse, or mendacious...

Can't you guys ever disagree with someone without implying base motives - simply accept the fact that you're talking to someone who sincerely disagrees with your viewpoint? My actual serious point was that fascism in Russia is an absurd basis for criticising President Bush. If he's been friendly to a head of state of another powerful nation, it probably just means that he's trying to maintain friendly relations. The opening post of this thread is really quite absurd. It's like using a bad year for the American wheat crop as a basis for criticising a politician you don't like - merely stupid.

Once again you avoid the point, trivial though it may be.

Fascism in Russia was NOT used as a basis for criticising Bush.

Bush's paroxysm of enthusiasm about Putin was used as a basis for questioning his judgment, given that he was far more fulsomely fawning over Putin than it is normal to be...even in media schmooze fests after meetings, and Putin was and is a politician about whom most leaders with a soupcon of sense would have considered it reasonable to harbour serious doubts.

As Putin's actions continue to demonstrate.

Actually, Bush's fulsome and mawkish demeanour resembled Yeltsin on a bender more than anything else.

I would doubt Yeltsin saw much more in Putin than a smart and steely dictator wanna be, even through his bleary eyes and brain, so I am probably being unfair to the buffoon.

As I said already, there's no reason to believe that it's not simple diplomacy. If the president went the other way, the Bush haters would criticize him for being tactless.

0 Replies

Come one Brandon, you have to admit there is a big difference in simple common polite diplomacy and..

Quote:

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.

"I was able to get a sense of his soul.

"He's a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship," Mr Bush said.

source

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
dlowan wrote:

...It's nonsense for you to say you thought BPB was suggesting Putin's behaviour is Bush's fault, Brandon.

You are either being very obtuse, or mendacious...

Can't you guys ever disagree with someone without implying base motives - simply accept the fact that you're talking to someone who sincerely disagrees with your viewpoint? My actual serious point was that fascism in Russia is an absurd basis for criticising President Bush. If he's been friendly to a head of state of another powerful nation, it probably just means that he's trying to maintain friendly relations. The opening post of this thread is really quite absurd. It's like using a bad year for the American wheat crop as a basis for criticising a politician you don't like - merely stupid.

Once again you avoid the point, trivial though it may be.

Fascism in Russia was NOT used as a basis for criticising Bush.

Bush's paroxysm of enthusiasm about Putin was used as a basis for questioning his judgment, given that he was far more fulsomely fawning over Putin than it is normal to be...even in media schmooze fests after meetings, and Putin was and is a politician about whom most leaders with a soupcon of sense would have considered it reasonable to harbour serious doubts.

As Putin's actions continue to demonstrate.

Actually, Bush's fulsome and mawkish demeanour resembled Yeltsin on a bender more than anything else.

I would doubt Yeltsin saw much more in Putin than a smart and steely dictator wanna be, even through his bleary eyes and brain, so I am probably being unfair to the buffoon.

As I said already, there's no reason to believe that it's not simple diplomacy. If the president went the other way, the Bush haters would criticize him for being tactless.

Snort!

Yeah, sure.

Think how you would view those words had they been Clinton's.

0 Replies

Gad. Some instance of blunt-force-trauma? Inbreeding? An adolescence huffing Exxon 90? How is it possible to be this unwilling to think clearly and honestly?

0 Replies

I recall reading what he said about Putin and being stunned at his naivety especially since Putin headed the KGB! Bush had just met him and announced that he had looked in his eyes and seen his good soul! I had a feeling that Putin laughed to himself about Bush. Diplomacy and reading people's characters have not been traits of Bush.

0 Replies

He looked into Bernard Kerik's soul and there were butterflies and babbling brooks and angels and lollipop trees.

0 Replies

http://www.bartcop.com/monkey-suit507.gif

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm getting kind of sick of hearing that every case of bad weather is president Bush's fault.

I didn't know, but i'm not surprised to learn that the Shrub is behind all the bad weather we suffer from. That rotten SOB.

*************************************************

We were at peace with Iran and North Korea when the Shrub described them as part of an "axis of evil." The Shrub was very selective about his criteria, and he could as easily have applied his condemnation to Russia.

0 Replies

Golly, I thought he was just to blame for everything else... now the weather too! Jeebus!

0 Replies

I'm rather curious as to where all the threads are complaining about Putin. Certainly, at this moment, there's nothing recent about him on A2K. So much condemnation of President Bush from the left and utter silence about Putin. How typical.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm rather curious as to where all the threads are complaining about Putin. Certainly, at this moment, there's nothing recent about him on A2K. So much condemnation of President Bush from the left and utter silence about Putin. How typical.

Comedy is not your forte.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I'm rather curious as to where all the threads are complaining about Putin. Certainly, at this moment, there's nothing recent about him on A2K. So much condemnation of President Bush from the left and utter silence about Putin. How typical.

Comedy is not your forte.

Which is the comedy part? I did a search on "Putin" and found no recent threads about him or the apparent return of totalitarianism to Russia. Are you simply unable to respond? Why is Bush supposed to be some kind of international pariah, whereas someone who puts reporters in jail for criticizing government officials, and arrests political opponents isn't worth a single thread?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Which is the comedy part? I did a search on "Putin" and found no recent threads about him or the apparent return of totalitarianism to Russia.

I'm sure this will change as soon as a substantial fraction of A2K members is governed by Putin.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Which is the comedy part? I did a search on "Putin" and found no recent threads about him or the apparent return of totalitarianism to Russia.

I'm sure this will change as soon as a substantial fraction of A2K members is governed by Putin.

That's the standard, then? It's not the size of their countries, nor the magnitude of their sins? We only disscuss our own governments here? The Germans, British, and Australian members of A2K criticize George Bush because they known that the board has many Americans, not because of the importance of the events to the world?

I don't think so. It looks like a double standard, plain and simple to me.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

That's the standard, then?

No it isn't. There is no standard. People here can and do post whatever they want. Since A2K is an American site, most members are Americans. They care a lot more about their nation's government than other nations' governments, so their government is who they write about. The rest are non-Americans who found their way here because they happened to be interested in American affairs. So they talk about America's government as well as their own. That's all there is to it. If you want to talk about the evilness of Vladimir Putin, you are welcome to start a new thread and do it.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Which is the comedy part? I did a search on "Putin" and found no recent threads about him or the apparent return of totalitarianism to Russia.

I'm sure this will change as soon as a substantial fraction of A2K members is governed by Putin.

That's the standard, then? It's not the size of their countries, nor the magnitude of their sins? We only disscuss our own governments here? The Germans, British, and Australian members of A2K criticize George Bush because they known that the board has many Americans, not because of the importance of the events to the world?

I don't think so. It looks like a double standard, plain and simple to me.

Of course it does. You're a bush apologist. there's nothing he could do to dislodge your head from his hindquarters.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Which is the comedy part? I did a search on "Putin" and found no recent threads about him or the apparent return of totalitarianism to Russia.

I'm sure this will change as soon as a substantial fraction of A2K members is governed by Putin.

That's the standard, then? It's not the size of their countries, nor the magnitude of their sins? We only disscuss our own governments here? The Germans, British, and Australian members of A2K criticize George Bush because they known that the board has many Americans, not because of the importance of the events to the world?

I don't think so. It looks like a double standard, plain and simple to me.

Of course it does. You're a bush apologist. there's nothing he could do to dislodge your head from his hindquarters.

I know it's easier for you to argue on this basis, but it isn't the truth. I support him because he does the things which I myself advocate, and seems to have a similar philosophical outlook to mine. This is why anyone supports any politician. I will openly state my disagreement with him in areas in which I disagree with him such as immigration and tort reform, and, if he began to deviate significantly from my philosophy, I would certainly say so. This doesn't constitute being an apologist.