The legacy of 'W'?

I don't blame you.

You don't blame him for what, precisely? For not knowing there was a statewide recount in Florida that found Bush got more votes than Bush in Florida or for being angry that I have now shown I was right about it and have put him down as arrogantly as he put me down in denying it.

Or do you not blame him for doubting my credentials, which he apparently does without benefit of research?

Try reading your own posts. You said that Florida was full of Republicans and implied with the word "too" that New Orleans also had an unusual number of trailers. If you misspoke by means of poor grammar, that's fine. If not, it's not.
But, you don't get a pass because I read what you wrote. You said you wanted a debate and I have given you material in two posts that contradict the facuality of what you have said. Now, it's clear to me that you are making up an excuse to bail.


Honest to goodness, I can think of no good things to say to you because you are so off base.
Using the word TOO would have to mean I mentioned New Orleans in the previous sentence, I did not. Maybe it wasn't the best word to use, but by it's context, you misread it. No biggie.
About the republicans if you noticed, which obviously you didn't, right next to it I wrote (Lee county is 80% republicans) which means it is CLARIFYING my previous comment.
Last but not least, you have yet to come to me a debate that we are having. You did a huge post and quoted me for some reason and it was about the election...something I have made no mention to. Please feel free to go back, you'll notice I never made a comment to it. So you have YET to debate with me. You are spewing random thoughts, or can't follow who you are debating with. You then make comments like "you should read more" when in fact it is you that are saying incorrect statements (I even made a quote to that "tape" you're talking about, but you have been remarkably silent).
So before I end up getting really irritated with you and saying something that I shouldn't, you will be blocked and I will have no temptation to respond to you.
I hope your tenure here turns around cause you are most certainly heading in the wrong direction.

As-Sahab [Al-Qaeda's media wing (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/alqaeda_ramps_u.html)] produced videos always contain tons of old footage mixed together in documentary style. In fact just a few weeks ago one was released that showed an old video clip of Osama bin Laden. Much like the case for that one this upcoming release reportedly has a 50-second clip of OBL. We do not have final confirmation yet but we believe this clip to be OLD, which means that it was either previously released and is just being reaired or it was recorded awhile ago but never shown till now. Either way in the language of as-Sahab videos a 50-second clip on a 40-minute produced video does not make a "new" Osama bin Laden "video". These videos always have old clips of OBL.

All of this is not to say that this video is not significant. Almost all produced as-Sahab videos are for a variety of reasons. These videos take a lot of time and energy for al-Qaeda to produce and generally they only do so for things they feel are important. For example this new video has a new animated intro which would have taken a lot of work and computing power to do.

So, yes on significant... No, this is not a new OBL video. It is a 40-minute video with a short clip of Osama bin Laden that we have likely seen before.

fromhttp://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/07/new-osama-vid-n.html

Good link. Enjoy your "debate" with him (and I use that term loosely), I'm done.

Also, under Clinton, FEMA performed as brilliantly in Florida as FEMA performed poorly in New Orleans under Bush, who had deliberately downsized it into ineffectiveness.

Which hurricane are you referring to in Florida?

Back to the legacy of Bush...


It's no lie that this is probably one of the hardest times for any U.S. presidents to be in power. He's had to deal with terrorist attacks, hurricanes, scandals, and record low approval ratings.

I'd like to say, he stared adversity in the face, and failed. Does that mean Gore or Kerry would have succeeded? That's up for debate, albeit a pointless one.

He's going down in the history books as a president that did a lot wrong, and the presidency will be weaker for years to come because of it. The balance of power will probably shift towards the senate, and the greatest government of all time will come in and do what it's supposed to do; gather ourselves and change strategy.

Certain presidents of the past have sweet talked congress to pass every bill, but I have a strong feeling that this will become increasingly difficult for the incumbent president.

Regardless of it all, George Bush's legacy will be felt for years to come.

You don't blame him for what, precisely? For not knowing there was a statewide recount in Florida that found Bush got more votes than Bush in Florida or for being angry that I have now shown I was right about it and have put him down as arrogantly as he put me down in denying it.

Or do you not blame him for doubting my credentials, which he apparently does without benefit of research?

You didn't show you were right about it. You posted a link from one side, just like I (in fairness) posted a link from the other.

I don't blame him for blocking, or wanting to block, you. If I am to be perfectly candid. I think you offer nothing of value to this site. Clearly, all you want to do is constantly push your anti-Bush agenda (so much so that I think you even embarrass those who are philosophically on your side), and berate and belittle those who have the audacity to disagree with Mr. College Professor with a Master's Degree. Hopefully, as the season rolls around you will remember why this site primarily exists; to discuss the Washington Redskins. But I find it curious that you've started nearly 40 threads on multiple Redskins message boards and only two had anything to do with the Redskins.

Admittedly, I am a Republican (Moderate Republican I suppose) but I can respect healthy debate with the Mattyk's, SGG's, Dmek's, and 12thMan's of the world. Sure it can get heated and I get annoyed by what they say sometimes. A lot of times in Dmek's case (no offense D) but at least I know they want to discuss, not preach. I can't say the same for you. But this has nothing to do with your views. It's the arrogance behind the views. You're like a liberal Ann Coulter

I don't know you personally obviously, nor do I care to quite frankly. Of course, many others here feel the same I'm sure. Just as I'm sure there are those who feel that way about me. I'd like to think though that if I stopped posting on this site, something of value would be lost. I understand that I do post a lot of nonsensical stuff (and especially in the off-season) but I think that's balanced by compelling posts and threads (not to toot my own horn too loudly). Again, I can't say the same for you.

What's worse is that, as a professor you're seemingly influencing the minds of tomorrow. I can only hope that those students are smart enough to challenge you (whether to confirm you're right or prove that you're wrong), and that you're enough of a professor to allow them to challenge you.

Which hurricane are you referring to in Florida?
Probably Floyd, but the situations are far from parallel.

The storm took a northerly turn, weakened, and FEMA still struggled.


1999 Hurricane Swamped Clinton's FEMA (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/7/134914.shtml)

The article doesn't seem to be that convincing to me, I'll look for something a little more font friendly.

So either the Florida Bush voters knew how to correctly punch a ballot whereas the Gore voters did not, or this article is selectively using facts to draw readers to an incorrect conclusion.

Either way, this is pretty bad for your case.

You are unintentionally showing that you don't know how the ballot was designed. Also, your remark seems to be that of a racist, since ballot confusion was pretty much limited to minority districts.

I know you probably aren't exactly a racist, but you do seem to be suffering from the delusion that dems are stupid. You should acquaint yourself with the ballot's design before making pronouncements.

By the way, studies show dems more likely to achieve advanced degrees than republicans.

The ballot was perfectly clear in relation to where to vote for Bush. How to vote for Gore and not Buchanan was unclear. The poor design was probably accidental.

The ballot's design probably did cost Gore the election but it was only one of many things. Others things were probably not accidental. The case for Fraud is not affected one way or another by the ballot controversy. Nor does the fact that Gore received more votes in Florida rely in any way in counting those lost votes for Gore.

Gore had more votes in Florida than Bush anyway. The materials I've cited are pretty clear about that. Try reading them again.

I think many of you guys must be very young. You seem not to be aware of the basics of the election controversy. I was fifty six at the time. People usually don't start following the news in any detail until their forties.

Well said Smooty. I honestly don't get people who are still stuck in 2000. The man won and not only that but he won again in 2004. Time to move on and look to the future.

I don't even read the stuff Crazyhorse1 writes anymore because it's just a big rant along with some preaching. It's old and tired.

p.s. Obama for president because it feels right.

I've probably gotten more laughter out of him than any other President.

Anytime he opens his mouth something laughable is bound to come out.

He helped launched Will Ferrell's career!