Posted on 11/03/2009 6:51:56 AM PST by big bad easter bunny
I was at my friends house last night, Ivy League grad, smart, successful and we got on the subject of politics, which I have not done with the opposing side lately.
He thinks George was horrible and Obama is still great, "he is so smart, best guy for the job!"
He gets all his news from NPR, CBS, NY Times etc.
So I asked him one question which he could not answer and created a total meltdown; I asked him to name one policy of George Bush's that he didn't like. In short he couldn't, the only thing he could say was he was stupid and his poll numbers were bad when he left office, he could not mention one policy.
Rubbing salt in these fresh wounds I then asked him to tell me one policy that Obama has implemented that he likes, well that didn't go so well, he then blurted out Iraq, Bush lied to us about Iraq we never should have been there. He of course didn't know the UN was behind the war, I guess NY Times and those others guys never mentioned that.
You didn’t drive him insane ... all you did was shine a big bright light on all the cockroaches of insanity that were already scurrying around in his brain.
You burst his little “Hopie and Changie” bubble, by asking for facts instead of how he ‘felt’ about Bush and Barry.
“Obama is still great, “he is so smart, best guy for the job!””
My stock answer to that bullshit is this; Indicated by his terrific GPA in college? What was it that he studied, and what were his grades, again?
You should get it on video next time. ;)
They are too dumb to discuss politics when facts are being used.
If you think this friend is all that intelligent, then your world is flipped upside-down. The ivy-leage schools have a certain focus, and that focus provides many advantages for getting ahead in society, but it sounds like this guy is only capable of learning what he is told to learn... and probably quite well
They are already insane, and you can’t argue with insane people.
From El Rushbo:
“A conservative will ask, “What do you think about that?”
“A liberal asks, “How does that make you feel?”
Another good question:
“Democrats during the Bush years took the position that the Patriot Act was horrible, horrible, horrible.
The Democrat party has had control of Congress for nearly three years, and the Presidency for nearly a year. Why haven’t they repealed the Patriot Act?”.
Liberals don’t think. They feel. I got into it with a cousin, hard core san fran freak. She was bashing on the oil companies and so I asked her where does she think the gasoline comes from to run her little car? No answer.
I just put them in a round room and tell them to go sit in a corner. Works every time.
He hates Bush because the liberal media told him to hate Bush. Similarly, he loves the zero because he was told to.
When liberals start to reason and use logic, they become conservatives.
It's also good to point out that if a liberal owns shares in a mutual fund, IRA, etc. they are most likely one of the owners of "big oil" and benefiting directly from those obscene profits. They rarely have an answer for that, either.
Add to that during the winter, aren’t the libidiots staying warm with some form of petroleum product, natural gas or heating oil? They ought to be thanking God for man’s innovation to take a natural product and keep from freezing to death. Maybe they out to use firewood again, but then the tree huggers would be killing off their tree friends.
“A conservative will ask, “What do you think about that?”
“A liberal asks, “How does that make you feel?”
That is so true. My mother is a radical leftist, and avoids rational thought like vampires avoid sunlight. During a conversation, she'll ask me, "Well, how do you feel about that?"
She's been doing that to me since I was a teenager. To this date, I have been unable to answer. I may think a great many things about many subjects, but expressing feelings about them is completely useless.
Yeah I’d love to see a battery powered clown car tackle the hills in sf.
RE :”He of course didn’t know the UN was behind the war,..”
The UN was behind invading Iraq ? Sorry, that was GWB’s baby. Not only liberals give Bush that honor, most voters did too. WMDs will be forever Bush’s “i didnt have sex with that women!”
For a year a CIA investigator interviewed Saddam before is execution, he admitted he had to give the impression he had the weapons or he would have problems with the Iranians;
Imagine sitting across from Saddam Hussein every day for nearly seven straight months—slowly earning his trust, getting him to spill secrets on everything from whether he gave the order to gas the Kurds (he did) to whether he really did have weapons of mass destruction on the eve of war (he didn’t). All the while gathering information that would ultimately be used to prosecute the deposed dictator in an Iraqi court.
That was the job of FBI Special Agent George Piro, who told his story Sunday, January 27, on the TV news program 60 Minutes.
Soon after U.S. special forces pulled Saddam out of a spider hole on December 13, 2003, the CIA—knowing the former dictator would ultimately have to answer for his crimes against the Iraqi people—asked the FBI to debrief Hussein because of our longstanding work in gathering statements for court.
That’s when we turned to Piro, an investigator on our terrorism fly team who was born in Beirut and speaks Arabic fluently. Piro was supported by a team of CIA analysts and FBI agents, intelligence analysts, language specialists, and a behavioral profiler.
Piro knew getting Saddam to talk wouldn’t be easy. He prepped by carefully studying the former dictator’s life so he could better connect with Saddam and more easily determine when he was being honest. It worked: during the first interview on January 13, 2004, Piro talked about Saddam’s four novels and Iraqi history, which impressed Hussein. Saddam asked for Piro to come back.
From that day forward, everything Piro did was designed to build an emotional bond with Saddam and to get him to talk truthfully. To make Hussein dependent on him and him alone, Piro became responsible for virtually every aspect of his life, including his personal needs. He always treated Saddam with respect, knowing he would not respond to threats or tough tactics. As part of his plan, Piro also never told Hussein that he was an FBI field agent, instead letting him believe, for the sake of building credibility, that he was a high-level official who reported directly to the President.
Image of Saddam Hussein being fingerprinted by an FBI agent
An FBI agent fingerprints Saddam shortly after his capture.
It took time. Piro spent five to seven hours a day with Saddam for months, taking advantage of every small opportunity that presented itself, including listening to Hussein’s poetry. Eventually, Saddam began to open up.
Among Saddam’s revelations:
* Saddam misled the world into believing that he had weapons of mass destruction in the months leading up to the war because he feared another invasion by Iran, but he did fully intend to rebuild his WMD program.
* Piro told 60 Minutes that Saddam considered Usama bin Laden “a fanatic” and a threat who couldn’t be trusted.
* The former dictator admitted “initially miscalculating President Bush and President Bush’s intentions,” Piro said, thinking the war would be more like the shortened air campaign of the Gulf War.
* Saddam never used look-alikes or body doubles as widely believed, thinking no one could really play his part.
* Hussein made the decision to invade neighboring Kuwait in 1990 following an insulting comment by one of its emirs.
Piro was so successful at befriending Saddam that the former dictator was visibly moved when they said goodbye. “I saw him tear up,” Piro said during the television interview.
Joe Persichini, Assistant Director in Charge of our Washington office and Piro’s boss, told 60 Minutes that Piro’s expert work in revealing Saddam’s secrets was “probably one of the top accomplishments of the agency in the last 100 years.”
To watch or read the full interview of George Piro, visit the 60 Minutes website.
Headline Archives home
I had a similar discussion a while back with a lib who blamed Bush for his business being slow, and he said thing were so much better under Clinton.
So I asked him what Bush did that made his business bad and what Clinton did that made it good.
He immediately changed the subject.
I have read all or most of those points you posted( at #21) and don’t disagree with them. (it's good information, dont get me wrong.)
The problem I have is the world didnt come to the USA and asked them to invade Iraq. GWB talked this country (USA) into the war and tried to convince the UN, without luck. So it was still GWB’s baby. That is not liberal propoganda. Every voter could see what GWB and administration was doing in runup to war and later held him, and republicans responsible in 2006 if not 2008 (by 2008 Bush had bigger problems.)..
The argument that GWB 'thought' there were WMDs in Iraq is common here. Well maybe Obama thought his economic plan would create jobs. Does that get him off the hook?
Even if he had no weapons of mass destruction that was not the only argument, there were plenty of other reasons to take him out and those arguments were made and are still true today. Those who turned on Bush, originally voted for it and they had access to the same information. I wish the world would be totally intolerant of viscous tyrants, unfortunately it isn’t, so we have plenty more like him screwing up the world but I will take one less, I am glad we went in, war is war, never pretty but necessary.
I pointed out the wiretaps did have judicial oversite, as well as congressional oversite, and that not one American citizen had their personal phone conversations tapped - only calls that originated from outside of the U.S. were involved. He made no response to this.
I asked him to name a company other than Haliburton that had the ability to provide the services that Haliburton provided in Iraq and Afghanistan. His response was that simply because they were the only company cabable didn't give them the right to "rip us off". I haven't asked him yet to explain what he means.
I pointed out what the Germans used as torture during WWII, and the hacking off of innocent contractors heads by the terrorists in Iraq - compared to these behaviors waterboarding is nothing - and I have no problem with it's use. He stated torture is torture in response.
Oh, and he started out his reply to me by saying we will have to agree to disagree and there is no need to continue to discuss these issues. In other words, I do not need to respond to him as nothing I say has any meaning in his opinion. Typical libtard BS. Later today I will respond to him. It will be interesting to see whether he responds back.
Saddam was so good he gassed 600,000 Kurds using a Weapon of “Minimal” Destruction.
There are reasonably intelligent liberals who know that they've been manipulated by the media but they still lap it up because those media are telling them they're smart. Many of the ones my age still despise Richard Nixon because all the right people told them to. Ask them the same question you did about Bush and you'll get the same answer. And these are people who pride themselves on "independent" thought. You may as well laugh at it because you aren't going to change it.
***Liberals don’t think. They feel. I got into it with a cousin, hard core san fran freak. She was bashing on the oil companies and so I asked her where does she think the gasoline comes from to run her little car? No answer.***
That’s the kind of question that makes the point best.
Makes them realize that they’re cutting their own throats.
Also, ask them how long they spent in the emergency room last time. Then tell them they’ll be lucky if they aren’t sitting there for many hours more, and then told they’re too old, too sick, or too whatever to get any treatment.
***GWB talked this country (USA) into the war and tried to convince the UN, without luck. So it was still GWB’s baby.***
GWB spent 14 months talking the UN into giving the go ahead and he got it. He had thirty some countries immediately backing him up. So, it wasn’t only GWB’S baby, it was the work of a large part of the world. And it was right, thanks to Bush.
I’m proud of your soldier son, and I’m proud of YOU, Dad.
<You didn’t drive him insane ... all you did was shine a big bright light on all the cockroaches of insanity that were already scurrying around in his brain.
LOL!! I used to do the same with one of my sisters. She was practically slobbering for Obama and what an inspiration he’d be for black families. When her husband walked out and she lost her job, I asked what Obama was going to do for her black a$$. Yeah, I’m a meany. I have my reasons.
I asked the ‘what do you dislike about GWB?’ question to another sister several times over GWB’s administration. She couldn’t discuss one Bush policy with clarity and understanding. Then she got angry with me for bringing up the topic. : ) You can disagree with policy, as do many here on FR, but it helps if you actually know the policy with which you disagree.
We have a San Fran cousin, the most radically liberal person I have ever seen. Now he is off Nancy because she lied and isn’t liberal enough for him anymore.
Whenever a libtard criticizes Bush for Iraq, I remind him that the invasion was preapproved by congress (about 70% of them). That usually shuts them up.
Another problem with all the arguments about the lack of WMD’s centers on the pre-war inspections between 1992 and 2002 where weapons inspectors were disallowed access to sites and (if people will recall) the trucks that our satellites showed being driven to Syria from those sites. No WMD’s? That dog died without being able to hunt during it's short life.
Thank you - he would say, “Just doing my job”.
Checkout Bush interview : Bush regrets ‘intelligence failure’ in Iraq
President George W. Bush said the biggest regret of his presidency was the “intelligence failure” that led to the war in Iraq. .
“A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein,” Bush said in a wide-ranging interview with ABC's “World News,” which aired last night. “That's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.”
With the support of Congress, Bush ordered the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 - a decision largely justified on grounds - later proved false - that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction.
Asked if he would have ordered the U.S.-led invasion if intelligence reports had accurately indicated that Saddam did not have the weapons, Bush replied: “You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.”
The lack of evidence that something exists is not evidence that something doesn’t exist. What else was Bush to say given that the evidence to prove the existance of massive amounts of WMD’s could not be found?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.