George H.W. Bush

Okay . . . let's try this again.

Moderators: Shirley, Sabo, brian, rass, DaveInSeattle

User avatar
sancarlos
The Dude
Posts: 18060
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:46 pm
Location: NorCal via Colorado

George H.W. Bush

Post by sancarlos »

Yup

RIP. I didn't like his politics and think he led us into an awful and unjustified war. But compared to the current jackass in the White House, he looked pretty much like a damned statesman. Plus, he had the sense to marry Barbara Bush.

I hope they don't let Trump attend the funeral.
"What a bunch of pedantic pricks." - sybian
User avatar
Rush2112
The Dude
Posts: 7276
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:35 pm
Location: Cyrus X-1
Contact:

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Rush2112 »

damn you SCK.

as I said in MY thread.

"Not a guy I supported when he was at the top, but a mess better than the shit show we have today....but one could argue that he and his son helped lead us down this path."
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
User avatar
sancarlos
The Dude
Posts: 18060
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:46 pm
Location: NorCal via Colorado

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by sancarlos »

great minds think alike and all that...
"What a bunch of pedantic pricks." - sybian
User avatar
degenerasian
The Dude
Posts: 12302
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by degenerasian »

Wow I should not have gone to twitter
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
User avatar
DaveInSeattle
The Dude
Posts: 8383
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:51 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by DaveInSeattle »

The last Republican I voted for...
Joe K
Walter Sobchak
Posts: 4754
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:37 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Joe K »

He’s no saint (see: Atwater, Lee) and there are a lot of gross things about the Bush family’s business dealings over the decades, but he was a far better President than his son or Trump. He at least had common sense not to try for full-scale regime change in Iraq, had flexibility on taxes (to his own political detriment), and actually made some efforts to be an honest broker in the Israel-Palestine dispute.
User avatar
mister d
The Dude
Posts: 29045
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:15 am

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by mister d »

I didn’t like his politics and he was terrible for the most vulnerable in our country but you’ve gotta admit Hitler was way worse may he and his find comfort in this difficult time!
Johnnie wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
User avatar
degenerasian
The Dude
Posts: 12302
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by degenerasian »

Should the US not saved Kuwait? I'm curious what he should have done. As mentioned above at least he didn't kill Saddam like his son did.
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
Joe K
Walter Sobchak
Posts: 4754
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:37 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Joe K »

degenerasian wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:49 am Should the US not saved Kuwait? I'm curious what he should have done. As mentioned above at least he didn't kill Saddam like his son did.
If we extend the time period to Bush’s years as VP, what the US should have done is refrained from aiding and supporting Saddam’s aggression against Iran in the 1980s. That was a brutal war and had we not been so cool with Saddam invading a neighboring country and using chemical weapons in those circumstances, then maybe the Kuwait invasion never happens. But putting that huge issue aside, once he did invade Kuwait then the first Gulf War was probably justified.
User avatar
degenerasian
The Dude
Posts: 12302
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by degenerasian »

Joe K wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:54 am
degenerasian wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:49 am Should the US not saved Kuwait? I'm curious what he should have done. As mentioned above at least he didn't kill Saddam like his son did.
If we extend the time period to Bush’s years as VP, what the US should have done is refrained from aiding and supporting Saddam’s aggression against Iran in the 1980s. That was a brutal war and had we not been so cool with Saddam invading a neighboring country and using chemical weapons in those circumstances, then maybe the Kuwait invasion never happens. But putting that huge issue aside, once he did invade Kuwait then the first Gulf War was probably justified.
Iraq were the good guys in the Cold War. Iran had just overthrown a friendly monarch. Irancontra just happened. Afghanistan were fighting off the Soviets. Vietnam was just lost. There was a great fear of dominoes falling.
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
Johnnie
The Dude
Posts: 16730
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:31 pm
Location: TUCSON, BITCH!

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Johnnie »

I'll just chalk up the Middle East as a never ending quagmire that's too complex to ever figure out. You can't mix religion, money, and oil and expect everyone to be happy and courteous to each other.

That said, it's quaint to think about a time when I feel there was a Republican who was a decent person in the White House.

George Bush seemed alright. But then again, I was young when he was president so I really don't know. His military service and east coast roots make me give him the benefit of the doubt.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
User avatar
EnochRoot
The Dude
Posts: 6187
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by EnochRoot »

He helped usher in post truth politics by pardoning his co-conspirators in the Iran-Contra Affair.
Noli Timere Messorem
Joe K
Walter Sobchak
Posts: 4754
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:37 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Joe K »

degenerasian wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:57 am
Joe K wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:54 am
degenerasian wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:49 am Should the US not saved Kuwait? I'm curious what he should have done. As mentioned above at least he didn't kill Saddam like his son did.
If we extend the time period to Bush’s years as VP, what the US should have done is refrained from aiding and supporting Saddam’s aggression against Iran in the 1980s. That was a brutal war and had we not been so cool with Saddam invading a neighboring country and using chemical weapons in those circumstances, then maybe the Kuwait invasion never happens. But putting that huge issue aside, once he did invade Kuwait then the first Gulf War was probably justified.
Iraq were the good guys in the Cold War. Iran had just overthrown a friendly monarch. Irancontra just happened. Afghanistan were fighting off the Soviets. Vietnam was just lost. There was a great fear of dominoes falling.
How were Iraq the good guys in any sense other than overly simplistic “enemy of my enemy is my friend” logic, which gets us in trouble over and over again? (I’m glad you mentioned Afghanistan because the mujahadeen is a perfect example of this.) Iraq started the Iran-Iraq War by invading its neighbor and then used chemical weapons in violation of international law! And Iran’s so-called “friendly monarch” was only in power because the US overthrew their democratically elected leader.
User avatar
degenerasian
The Dude
Posts: 12302
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by degenerasian »

Absolutely Cold War politics was strange that way. There was a real fear the Soviets would control the middle east. Cold War politics got the US in all sorts of trouble from South America to Asia.
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
Joe K
Walter Sobchak
Posts: 4754
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:37 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Joe K »

You’re acting like Cold War Era realpolitiks was an inescapable law of nature as opposed to a deliberate choice by men like Bush. And here’s a summary from Wiki about the “good guys.” Do you think the 1979 Islamic Revolution justified American complicity in this?
In a declassified 1991 report, the CIA estimated that Iran had suffered more than 50,000 casualties from Iraq's use of several chemical weapons, though current estimates are more than 100,000 as the long-term effects continue to cause casualties. The official CIA estimate did not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans of Iran. ...

According to Iraqi documents, assistance in developing chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France.... Declassified CIA documents show that the United States was providing reconnaissance intelligence to Iraq around 1987–88 which was then used to launch chemical weapon attacks on Iranian troops and that CIA fully knew that chemical weapons would be deployed and sarin and cyclosarin attacks followed.
User avatar
Pruitt
The Dude
Posts: 18105
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Pruitt »

EnochRoot wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:07 am He helped usher in post truth politics by pardoning his co-conspirators in the Iran-Contra Affair.
As well as all the lies spread at Congressional hearings with the help of Hill and Knowlton.

Bush was a hell of a lot better than his son and Trump, but that's a low bar.

He may have been burnished into seeming like a fundamentally decent man, but once he sniffed the white house, he certainly seemed to believe that the ends justified the means.
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
User avatar
degenerasian
The Dude
Posts: 12302
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by degenerasian »

Pruitt wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:37 am
EnochRoot wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:07 am He helped usher in post truth politics by pardoning his co-conspirators in the Iran-Contra Affair.
As well as all the lies spread at Congressional hearings with the help of Hill and Knowlton.

Bush was a hell of a lot better than his son and Trump, but that's a low bar.

He may have been burnished into seeming like a fundamentally decent man, but once he sniffed the white house, he certainly seemed to believe that the ends justified the means.
I wonder if it's like that for presidents. Take McCain for example . He died and people remember him well. The Maverick! But what if had been president in 2000? What if 9/11 happened under his watch? And he then chased bin laden into the mountains with ground troops, what if he then invaded Iraq?

Joe K: I think at times it is a law of nature. The US were going everywhere putting out fires and making weird allies. Are you suggesting Jimmy Carter would not have?
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
User avatar
DSafetyGuy
The Dude
Posts: 8728
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:29 pm
Location: Behind the high school

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by DSafetyGuy »

“All I'm sayin' is, he comes near me, I'll put him in the wall.”
Joe K
Walter Sobchak
Posts: 4754
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:37 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Joe K »

degenerasian wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:57 am Joe K: I think at times it is a law of nature. The US were going everywhere putting out fires and making weird allies. Are you suggesting Jimmy Carter would not have?
Carter very well may have supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, and he would have similarly been wrong to do so. The fact that Cold War realpolitik was the predominant consensus in DC among both major political parties doesn't make it just or moral. In many cases, Iran certainly being one of them, our Cold War enemies posed no meaningful threat to American security. This was not a Cuban Missile Crisis-type situation. Rather, leaders like Mossadegh or the ayatollahs primarily posed a threat to our economic interests. And I sure as hell don't think it's moral to support an extensive chemical weapons campaign that killed 50,000 - 100,000 Iranians in the hopes of having better access to Persian Gulf oil.
User avatar
wlu_lax6
The Dude
Posts: 10399
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:16 am

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by wlu_lax6 »

NYSE will close on wed to observe. NASDAQ also. Maybe they shut down my office in observation.
User avatar
degenerasian
The Dude
Posts: 12302
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by degenerasian »

Joe K wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:10 am
degenerasian wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:57 am Joe K: I think at times it is a law of nature. The US were going everywhere putting out fires and making weird allies. Are you suggesting Jimmy Carter would not have?
Carter very well may have supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, and he would have similarly been wrong to do so. The fact that Cold War realpolitik was the predominant consensus in DC among both major political parties doesn't make it just or moral. In many cases, Iran certainly being one of them, our Cold War enemies posed no meaningful threat to American security. This was not a Cuban Missile Crisis-type situation. Rather, leaders like Mossadegh or the ayatollahs primarily posed a threat to our economic interests. And I sure as hell don't think it's moral to support an extensive chemical weapons campaign that killed 50,000 - 100,000 Iranians in the hopes of having better access to Persian Gulf oil.
The US viewed all Cold War enemies as a threat since it was an extension of Soviet power. The more pieces you have on a chessboard.....
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
Joe K
Walter Sobchak
Posts: 4754
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:37 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Joe K »

degenerasian wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:43 am
Joe K wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:10 am
degenerasian wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:57 am Joe K: I think at times it is a law of nature. The US were going everywhere putting out fires and making weird allies. Are you suggesting Jimmy Carter would not have?
Carter very well may have supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, and he would have similarly been wrong to do so. The fact that Cold War realpolitik was the predominant consensus in DC among both major political parties doesn't make it just or moral. In many cases, Iran certainly being one of them, our Cold War enemies posed no meaningful threat to American security. This was not a Cuban Missile Crisis-type situation. Rather, leaders like Mossadegh or the ayatollahs primarily posed a threat to our economic interests. And I sure as hell don't think it's moral to support an extensive chemical weapons campaign that killed 50,000 - 100,000 Iranians in the hopes of having better access to Persian Gulf oil.
The US viewed all Cold War enemies as a threat since it was an extension of Soviet power. The more pieces you have on a chessboard.....
And that was a perverse mentality that led to a huge amount of unnecessary death and suffering worldwide. Which is why I think it was an immoral worldview, regardless of how prevalent it was.
User avatar
DaveInSeattle
The Dude
Posts: 8383
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:51 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by DaveInSeattle »

Like all Presidents (and most people in general), Bush was complicated. Did some good...did some bad...and some really bad (see this thread about the 'crack buy in front of the White House').



I do wonder if, when Jimmy Carter dies, if he'll get the same amount of hagiography that we're seeing about Bush, or saw about McCain.
User avatar
degenerasian
The Dude
Posts: 12302
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by degenerasian »

Joe K wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:22 pm
degenerasian wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:43 am
Joe K wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:10 am
degenerasian wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:57 am Joe K: I think at times it is a law of nature. The US were going everywhere putting out fires and making weird allies. Are you suggesting Jimmy Carter would not have?
Carter very well may have supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, and he would have similarly been wrong to do so. The fact that Cold War realpolitik was the predominant consensus in DC among both major political parties doesn't make it just or moral. In many cases, Iran certainly being one of them, our Cold War enemies posed no meaningful threat to American security. This was not a Cuban Missile Crisis-type situation. Rather, leaders like Mossadegh or the ayatollahs primarily posed a threat to our economic interests. And I sure as hell don't think it's moral to support an extensive chemical weapons campaign that killed 50,000 - 100,000 Iranians in the hopes of having better access to Persian Gulf oil.
The US viewed all Cold War enemies as a threat since it was an extension of Soviet power. The more pieces you have on a chessboard.....
And that was a perverse mentality that led to a huge amount of unnecessary death and suffering worldwide. Which is why I think it was an immoral worldview, regardless of how prevalent it was.
Ehhh talk to the Soviets about morals. I'm biased but the Soviets started it.
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
User avatar
EnochRoot
The Dude
Posts: 6187
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by EnochRoot »

Joe K wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:26 am You’re acting like Cold War Era realpolitiks was an inescapable law of nature as opposed to a deliberate choice by men like Bush. And here’s a summary from Wiki about the “good guys.” Do you think the 1979 Islamic Revolution justified American complicity in this?
In a declassified 1991 report, the CIA estimated that Iran had suffered more than 50,000 casualties from Iraq's use of several chemical weapons, though current estimates are more than 100,000 as the long-term effects continue to cause casualties. The official CIA estimate did not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans of Iran. ...

According to Iraqi documents, assistance in developing chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France.... Declassified CIA documents show that the United States was providing reconnaissance intelligence to Iraq around 1987–88 which was then used to launch chemical weapon attacks on Iranian troops and that CIA fully knew that chemical weapons would be deployed and sarin and cyclosarin attacks followed.
Bolded for emphasis. And that's not to single out degenerasian, because it's unfortunately a viewpoint held by those who lionize Reagan and sweep all those misgivings under the rug as a fact of life in the Cold War.
Noli Timere Messorem
User avatar
degenerasian
The Dude
Posts: 12302
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by degenerasian »

EnochRoot wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:21 pm
Joe K wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:26 am You’re acting like Cold War Era realpolitiks was an inescapable law of nature as opposed to a deliberate choice by men like Bush. And here’s a summary from Wiki about the “good guys.” Do you think the 1979 Islamic Revolution justified American complicity in this?
In a declassified 1991 report, the CIA estimated that Iran had suffered more than 50,000 casualties from Iraq's use of several chemical weapons, though current estimates are more than 100,000 as the long-term effects continue to cause casualties. The official CIA estimate did not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans of Iran. ...

According to Iraqi documents, assistance in developing chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France.... Declassified CIA documents show that the United States was providing reconnaissance intelligence to Iraq around 1987–88 which was then used to launch chemical weapon attacks on Iranian troops and that CIA fully knew that chemical weapons would be deployed and sarin and cyclosarin attacks followed.
Bolded for emphasis. And that's not to single out degenerasian, because it's unfortunately a viewpoint held by those who lionize Reagan and sweep all those misgivings under the rug as a fact of life in the Cold War.
I dont lionize Reagan. This stems back to the 50s and 60s. What is the US' role in communist advancement? Nothing and let countries sort themselves out? Maybe it should have been.

The US was lucky the UN decided to get involved in Korea (because the Soviets had boycotted for another reason and couldn't use their veto and China was still the friendly govt). If the Soviets had vetoed then would the US have gone into Korea alone like Vietnam a decade later?
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
Joe K
Walter Sobchak
Posts: 4754
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:37 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Joe K »

degenerasian wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:26 pm
EnochRoot wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:21 pm
Joe K wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:26 am You’re acting like Cold War Era realpolitiks was an inescapable law of nature as opposed to a deliberate choice by men like Bush. And here’s a summary from Wiki about the “good guys.” Do you think the 1979 Islamic Revolution justified American complicity in this?
In a declassified 1991 report, the CIA estimated that Iran had suffered more than 50,000 casualties from Iraq's use of several chemical weapons, though current estimates are more than 100,000 as the long-term effects continue to cause casualties. The official CIA estimate did not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans of Iran. ...

According to Iraqi documents, assistance in developing chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France.... Declassified CIA documents show that the United States was providing reconnaissance intelligence to Iraq around 1987–88 which was then used to launch chemical weapon attacks on Iranian troops and that CIA fully knew that chemical weapons would be deployed and sarin and cyclosarin attacks followed.
Bolded for emphasis. And that's not to single out degenerasian, because it's unfortunately a viewpoint held by those who lionize Reagan and sweep all those misgivings under the rug as a fact of life in the Cold War.
I dont lionize Reagan. This stems back to the 50s and 60s. What is the US' role in communist advancement? Nothing and let countries sort themselves out? Maybe it should have been.
There’s a huge difference between doing nothing and supporting/escalating wars and dictators that killed millions of people worldwide.
User avatar
brian
The Dude
Posts: 27740
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Downtown Las Vegas

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by brian »

Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Gunpowder
The Dude
Posts: 8525
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:52 am
Location: Dipshitville, FL
Contact:

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Gunpowder »

degenerasian wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:26 pm
EnochRoot wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:21 pm
Joe K wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:26 am You’re acting like Cold War Era realpolitiks was an inescapable law of nature as opposed to a deliberate choice by men like Bush. And here’s a summary from Wiki about the “good guys.” Do you think the 1979 Islamic Revolution justified American complicity in this?
In a declassified 1991 report, the CIA estimated that Iran had suffered more than 50,000 casualties from Iraq's use of several chemical weapons, though current estimates are more than 100,000 as the long-term effects continue to cause casualties. The official CIA estimate did not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans of Iran. ...

According to Iraqi documents, assistance in developing chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France.... Declassified CIA documents show that the United States was providing reconnaissance intelligence to Iraq around 1987–88 which was then used to launch chemical weapon attacks on Iranian troops and that CIA fully knew that chemical weapons would be deployed and sarin and cyclosarin attacks followed.
Bolded for emphasis. And that's not to single out degenerasian, because it's unfortunately a viewpoint held by those who lionize Reagan and sweep all those misgivings under the rug as a fact of life in the Cold War.
I dont lionize Reagan. This stems back to the 50s and 60s. What is the US' role in communist advancement? Nothing and let countries sort themselves out? Maybe it should have been.

The US was lucky the UN decided to get involved in Korea (because the Soviets had boycotted for another reason and couldn't use their veto and China was still the friendly govt). If the Soviets had vetoed then would the US have gone into Korea alone like Vietnam a decade later?

What, back when we were regularly attacking Cuba?
Pack a vest for your james in the city of intercourse
Gunpowder
The Dude
Posts: 8525
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:52 am
Location: Dipshitville, FL
Contact:

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Gunpowder »

I do think that looking back on US Presidents and other similar people needs to take into account that basically every single one of them has some shit on their resume that is reprehensible when you look back on it. Like, every single one of them. I'm not sure you can be in that position without accumulating said shit, and the degree to which each was involved/responsible should be taken into account.
Pack a vest for your james in the city of intercourse
User avatar
EdRomero
Donny
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:39 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by EdRomero »

A lot of Bush the Smarter's praise -- good family man, kind to everyone, tried to work with both parties, gentleman, etc, also describes Obama pretty well. Maybe I should take this take to conservative twitter when they Bush is the last of his kind.
User avatar
Pruitt
The Dude
Posts: 18105
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Pruitt »

Gunpowder wrote: Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:16 am I do think that looking back on US Presidents and other similar people needs to take into account that basically every single one of them has some shit on their resume that is reprehensible when you look back on it. Like, every single one of them. I'm not sure you can be in that position without accumulating said shit, and the degree to which each was involved/responsible should be taken into account.
An excellent point.
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
User avatar
EnochRoot
The Dude
Posts: 6187
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by EnochRoot »

Pretty sure Bush fed a false narrative to Hussein that America didn’t have any interest in any of Iraq’s border disputes. Dude was a dark man.

Good riddance.
Noli Timere Messorem
Johnnie
The Dude
Posts: 16730
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:31 pm
Location: TUCSON, BITCH!

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Johnnie »

Pruitt wrote: Sun Dec 02, 2018 9:41 am
Gunpowder wrote: Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:16 am I do think that looking back on US Presidents and other similar people needs to take into account that basically every single one of them has some shit on their resume that is reprehensible when you look back on it. Like, every single one of them. I'm not sure you can be in that position without accumulating said shit, and the degree to which each was involved/responsible should be taken into account.
An excellent point.
True. It really is a fool's errand to think that our leader must be an exalted and virtuous altruist.

All Trump has taught us is that you really, really need to be a lot more subtle and cunning with your posture.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
Johnnie
The Dude
Posts: 16730
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:31 pm
Location: TUCSON, BITCH!

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Johnnie »

Due to the national day of mourning on Wednesday, all federal agencies get the day off. This includes military as long as the daily stuff can be taken care of.

This did not happen when Reagan died in 2004.

But of course my unit sends out a mass email saying "This is not a 'day off.' This is a national day of mourning so you're being released if everything's good in your work center."

Like, unless I'm going to be forced to pray and yell like I'm in North Korea, this is a fucking day off.

What was funny was that at unit pt this was stated and a dude literally said "Well, am I mourning at my house or at work?" Valid fucking question when you're cryptic about it not being a day off, IMO. Couldn't have been prouder. Man, that was funny.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
User avatar
EnochRoot
The Dude
Posts: 6187
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by EnochRoot »

Johnnie wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:01 pm Due to the national day of mourning on Wednesday, all federal agencies get the day off. This includes military as long as the daily stuff can be taken care of.

This did not happen when Reagan died in 2004.

But of course my unit sends out a mass email saying "This is not a 'day off.' This is a national day of mourning so you're being released if everything's good in your work center."

Like, unless I'm going to be forced to pray and yell like I'm in North Korea, this is a fucking day off.

What was funny was that at unit pt this was stated and a dude literally said "Well, am I mourning at my house or at work?" Valid fucking question when you're cryptic about it not being a day off, IMO. Couldn't have been prouder. Man, that was funny.
That's gotta be some kind of HR stipulation, no?
Noli Timere Messorem
Johnnie
The Dude
Posts: 16730
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:31 pm
Location: TUCSON, BITCH!

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Johnnie »

I'm active military. What's HR?

(I'm kidding, but yeah. We have no HR.)
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
User avatar
EnochRoot
The Dude
Posts: 6187
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by EnochRoot »

Johnnie wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:09 pm I'm active military. What's HR?

(I'm kidding, but yeah. We have no HR.)
(H)infantry Resources, of course
Noli Timere Messorem
User avatar
Pruitt
The Dude
Posts: 18105
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Pruitt »

Question: Is it proper for people who have never served in the military to give a military salute?

Just a thought I had when I saw trump trying to not smirk as he saluted 41's coffin.
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
Johnnie
The Dude
Posts: 16730
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:31 pm
Location: TUCSON, BITCH!

Re: George H.W. Bush

Post by Johnnie »

Saluting is a military thing. Enlisted people are required to initiate the salute to officers and they salute back.

A while back they allowed civilians who were once military to salute the flag during the national anthem at spring events.

I think it was some time during Reagan's term where he saluted back as a kind gesture getting off of the plane or helicopter and then it stuck as commonplace.

Basically, if you've never been told to salute or haven't been properly shown how, don't do it.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
Post Reply