Neither GHWBush nor GWBush are great men

Neither GHWBush nor GWBush are great men.
There, I said it. Here, in the Pit. That’s right, the failure to praise our commander in chief is now suitable only for the Pit.

Now, you would think had I actually said that Bushes were Mindless, Pointless Things About Which I Must Share, that the Pit would not be the appropriate place for it, but here we are. (Or I am.)
And I mean great in the sense of having made next to impossible accomplishments of a positive nature to the human race or our country. Like Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc.

I dunno…GHWB had that wonkish competance thing going on.

We’ve just opened up China? Send in Bush to be ambassador.

The Republican Party is in trouble with Watergate? Make Bush head of the RNC.

The CIA’s just had a bunch of scandals? Make Bush director to clean it up.

Moderate Republicans are worried the ticket’s been hijacked by the Right? Give the Veep slot to Bush.

I don’t think history will look at him as a great hero, but, through his life, he was smart, hardworking, loyal, and competant, and that counts for something.

Yes, Captain Amazing. And he has a sense of duty that is respectable. But these do not make Sr. a great man in the sense of say John Adams or John Quincy Adams, both of whom were giants of human beings (JQ a little less so, but nonetheless) who had made a historical name for themselves in their own right. And Nixon and Kissinger did call Sr. a wuss (or the equivilent) in their wonderful sound studio called the Oval Office.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=great

Definitely not great, per #16 :stuck_out_tongue:

Well, being insulted by Nixon is kind of a badge of honor. I don’t know that John Quincy Adams’ presidency is all that admirable, although I’ll agree he had a fascinating life, but I think George Bush has had a fascinating life too…from a scion of a famous New England family, to the youngest pilot in WWII and a war hero in his own right, to a sucessful Texas oil wildcatter, to a failed congressional attempt, to Ambassador of China, to head of the RNC, to head of the CIA, to Vice President, to President.

Fascinating yes, but great, no. JQA, whose life I don’t know a great deal about, was at least a lawyer who took on the Amistad case against all odds and hope and on the side of right with no one else supporting him. And he did manage to win. The closest thing in the Bush family is Sr. serving as a Navy pilot in WWII, which a lot of lads did. But then he had to go mess it up by lying on his application about his age, which he now artfully spins as “youngest” Navy pilot. I suppose that he never stopped to consider that there were many younger who pulled the same routine but never were running for public office and bound to get publicity. As for his constant resume improvement, this was a result of coming from a political family that made sizeable donations and not messing up badly. Not messing up badly and having a fascinating resume are not greatness.

Well, there WAS that little incident where he puked on the Japanese Prime Minister…

And when he gave Australia the um backwards peace sign-pretty much the equivalent of the Aussie PM coming here and giving us the bird.

Actually, he got into Congress in a North Houston district, but he failed in his run for the Senate against Lloyd Bentsen in 1970.

Bush Sr is a much better politician than son…

A lot of things that the current Bush is doing are down right scary, between Ashecroft and the military tribunerals… and the fact that nobody is really raising a big stink over the matter…
What’ll be scary is that Bush Jr will probably get reelected simply from 9/11… Which he really didn’t do anything… spectacular except for a couple of really bad speaches. Evil-doers and Axis of Evil really stick in my mind… Oh well thank god what he said about England was ignored… (Remember when he said that Mexico was our greatest Ally) … Umm yeah

I had far more respect for Bush Senior than his son. Bush Jr. seems to really have only one goal in mind, and that is to get re-elected. I really hope people wake up and that oft-mentioned popularity rating starts to go down as more folks realize he really isn’t doing anything to help this country unless it personally benefits himself.

Just out of curiosity, who is claiming that either Bush is a great man? Link?

You haven’t listened to conservative talk radio lately, have you?

Heck, we’ve got geniuses out there who think George W. Bush’s high approval ratings means he’s actually competent…

You just don’t get it, do you? You took advantage of Bush thread in MPSIMS to get a jab in at a president you dislike; an off-topic jab, no less. No one mentioned the relative “greatness” of either of the Bushes until you posted your little non sequitur. That makes it a rant. Rants are not appropriate for MPSIMS. Period.

Got it now?

I believe Tom Delay (why, Lord, must all these guys come from Texas?) was laying it on a bit thick with his recent suggestion that if Our Leader had been President during the Viet Nam era, we would have won that one. No kidding. He said it. With a straight face.

Gregor Samsa awoke to find himself an insect, Shrub awoke to find that he was Churchill. I find the cockroach more credible.

Well, now, I think it’s a little early to be rating Shrub. After all, he’s only just come off the starting line.

Then again, if he wants to impress me, he’d better have about five gears in reverse…

I would slice off my penis and eat it for dinner before I listen to conservative talk radio.

Careful what you say there, SPOOFE. That may be one of your “rights” someday soon.

No, I don’t get it. Let me explain why I don’t get it. That I dislike the man’s politics and general lack of competence is irrelevant to anything. For the record, I don’t dislike him personally, I’ve never met the man and I don’t believe that media reports on personal likeability or projected image tell me anything worthwhile.

Did I take advantage? I respectfully disagree. One short declarative sentence, on topic, and not insulting, or sarcastic, or sly or ironic is hardly taking advantage.

The topic thread was comparing the Adams presidents to the Bush presidents, and all the startling similarities, much like the old Lincoln/Kennedy stuff. Of course, I pointed out that both Presidents Adams were great men and that neither President Bush was a great man. Nothing more. If that is a “jab”, it is an awfully gentle one. I respectfully disagree that it is a “jab”.

Since when is it a flame to say that someone isn’t a great man? I have pointed out none of the policy reasons that I dislike the Bush Redux Administration, either here or in the original thread, and cast no aspersions on the man’s character. And since the thread is about comparisons, why not compare the most prominent feature, greatness, and find, gasp! no comparison at all.

The tread was about Adamses and Bushes, and comparisons, and I did that. I merely introduced a new parameter, one that didn’t match the previous ones, but really was the point of the whole matter. (Or do we take the injunction to Pointlessness to absurd extremes?) Why invite comparison if you aren’t willing to discuss it? The entire point of the original thread was to juxtapose Adamses and Bushes with the implied suggestion that this was all great, and weren’t these fine leaders, great leaders, Adams Sr. having started the revolution and Adams Jr. having dedicated his whole life to the rule of law, etc. In retrospect it reminds me of J. Danforth Quayle constantly comparing himself to Jack Kennedy, and Lloyd Bentsen humiliating him by saying he was no Jack Kennedy. Well, neither Bush was any John Quincy Adams, much less John Adams, who were great enough that it isn’t an insult to point that out.

You disagree that this was appropriate, fine. I respect that. And I respect your authority on the subject of what forum is appropriate while respectfully disagreeing with your decision. I moved it over here without further posts in the original thread. What more do you want? It is considered graceful when you get your way not to rub people’s noses in it. Particularly when you got your way not by being right, but by an unsupported exercise of a flat fiat.

A non-sequitar is defined by Merriam Websters Unabridged Dictionary defines as “an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent”. Unless you are to limit MSPSIMS threads to parallelism with the original post and having no disagreeing statements whatsoever, you are off base here. It was precisely on topic, merely another side of it.

Then, when I see fit to lampoon the right knee jerk overreaction in the proper place for lampooning (the Pit) as distinguished from a simple observation in the original thread that they aren’t great by any stretch of the imagination (which my fellow posters seem to uniformly agree with in suitably ironic detached voice, you seem to be the only one not in on the joke), I am followed around. Isn’t there a rule prohibiting following a poster around and harassing him or her?

Bushes are not great Presidents is not a rant. *Ibid: * intransitive verb
1 archaic : to have a noisy good time with dancing, singing, and drinking : CAROUSE, REVEL
2 : to talk noisily, excitedly, often extravagantly : declaim in bombastic fashion rant and rave in loud voices Priscilla Hughes
3 : to scold vehemently : be in a rage : RAIL ranted at the boy who paid no attention
transitive verb : to speak in an extravagant grandiose fashion : declaim noisily the actor who rants Shakespeare H.E.Clurman

The original post in the original thread was a short declarative statement. It may be interpreted either as opinion or fact, or both. But not a rant in any meaning of the word people actually use. (Your unsupported assertions to me here in the Pit is a rant, mine in response is a rant.)

Next, did I flout the moderator’s authority when warned not to say more in MPSIMS? No. I did not post there further. However inappropriate I felt the authority figure’s exercise of discretion was (and it seemed to me to be a tad oversensitive at either best or worst, probably conditioned by a bunch of right wing emails complaining about the criticizing of our President) to be respected. And it still is. Our moderators are volunteers, this is a fun and informative message board, and we can’t expect to have all decisions made correctly, but they must all be respected as though made correctly.

So I took it over here to the Pit. And we are all having a very nice discussion about whether Bushes are Great, and the uniform consensus seems to be not, but that senior had some respectable civic achievements.

The lesson to be learned here is that if you are going to say anything that suggests that President of the United States George Walker Bush is not a fine fellow, nay, is less than a great fellow, you damn well had better not do it while Attorney General John Ashcroft is on duty! You are either with us or against us! We shall keep the USA free!

Thank you for this opportunity to defend my thread.

Well, I don’t think that’s really the lesson to be learned here, unless UncleBeer is John Ashcroft, and I don’t think he is. I also don’t think Ashcroft would really care much if you said “I don’t like George Bush”. I’d assume he’d disagree with you, in that he works for the man and all, but you know…

I think the lesson to be learned here is not to add a “I think the Bushes were bad presidents” comment in a whimsical thread exploring coincidences between the Adams and the Bushes. That sort of comment seems to fit better in either GD or the Pit.