Act of God?

[metamadman.livejournal.com]

Comments

[sawgunner.livejournal.com]

lol os all i have to say

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Funny cuz it's true.
Sad for the same reason. =/

[tubaboy81.livejournal.com]

The difference is, only one of them causes disasters on the opposite side of the world.

[le-trombone.livejournal.com]

Here, there, everywhere.

[glenniebun.livejournal.com]

Punishment for sins past, as the Christians say.

[bluetooth16.livejournal.com]

The last frame is epic fail. Bennett seriously has full blown Bush Derangement Syndrome.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say the Bush presidency could easily be defined as anything other than an astounding and utter disaster.

[j0kerr.livejournal.com]

Not to deflate you or anything, but usually to tell the full worth of a president we have to wait about 20 to 30 years and then history will judge from there. I mean right now our last two presidents don't look that good, but in time I am sure they will both come up as pretty much average, once the Bush/Clinton hate dies down.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

I'm very much betting not.

[j0kerr.livejournal.com]

Remember, thats what was said about Reagan and now history remembers him as one of the greats.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007243

[david-deacon.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I don't have to buy gas in the future; I buy it in the present. Fuck George Bush. There is a strong possibility that future commentators will judge him *even more harshly* than today's commentators.

[j0kerr.livejournal.com]

If you blame Bush for the gas price you are not that smart. Also, when can you see the future?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/20/news/economy/gas_price_history/index.htm?postversion=2008052010
http://foro.univision.com/univision/board/message?board.id=politicaeneeuu&message.id=40579
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5365439

Not one of these sources blames Bush, because they look at the facts. So, now that I have shown you the folly of your ways, please tell me how you see the future when scholars of history place Bush now in Avg president land. Tell me how you see the future and know more than they do? What kind of degree do you have that compares with theirs?

[david-deacon.livejournal.com]

Also, when can you see the future?

I must've seen the same year you were referring to when you said "we have to wait about 20 to 30 years and then history will judge from there."

now that I have shown you the folly of your ways

(Always a good way of getting a polite response.)

scholars of history place Bush now in Avg president land

Not hardly. Sean Wilentz (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history) (Rolling Stone, April 21, 2006), Eric Foner (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html) (Washington Post, December 3, 2006), Scott Horton (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804) (Harper's, April 15, 2008), Robert S. McElvaine (http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html) (History News Network, May 17, 2004), and Nicholas von Hoffman (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070226/howl) (The Nation, February 14, 2007) have for the last four years consistently reported historians' consensus that Bush is at least one of the worst Presidents in American history, if not the worst. All you can do is repeat the tired canard that "we won't know what the verdict of history is," and I just replied to that by saying that it's entirely possible that history will be even more unkind to Bush that present-day historians.

You have been thoroughly pwned. At least be polite and acknowledge it.

[j0kerr.livejournal.com]

"I must've seen the same year you were referring to when you said "we have to wait about 20 to 30 years and then history will judge from there.""

Your first lie. I did not give the results of the futures judgment, just that they will past judgment. So thats lie, that I saw the future, meanwhile you and your ilk know the future and say what will happen in the judgment of Bush.

The studies that I have shown you are compiled results from 75 scholars in one, and 150 from another. You looked at individual historians, while I looked at the group work of scholars. Hmmm.....More samples means more accurate in any scientific study.

"You have been thoroughly pwned. At least be polite and acknowledge it."

[david-deacon.livejournal.com]

You couldn't have carefully read through all those articles yet. (Bystanders are welcome to check the time-stamps.)

[ltmurdoch.livejournal.com]

You wrote: "Your first lie. I did not give the results of the futures judgment, just that they will past judgment. So thats lie, that I saw the future,..."

In spite of your very tenuous command of the English language, it is clear that you are claiming you made no predictions of how our recent presidencies will be viewed in the future. HOWEVER, just 108 minutes earlier you wrote:

"I mean right now our last two presidents don't look that good, but in time I am sure they will both come up as pretty much average,..."

In other words, you gave the results of future judgements. In fact you claim to be "sure" of these future judgements. Then you go and call david_deacon a liar. Shame, shame, shame on you.

Now, I've dealt with you enough to know exactly what your reaction to this will be. You'll either deny that the proof that I've presented here is what it is, or you'll simply ignore it by turning your attention to something else by writing something like "Don't change the subject," or "I see you're ignoring my Reagan reference," etc. What you certainly won't do is acknowledge your error. Because that's what polite community participants do and that's the kind of person you've repeatedly demonstrated that you are not.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Your first lie. I did not give the results of the futures judgment, just that they will past judgment.

Ahem.

"but in time I am sure they will both come up as pretty much average, once the Bush/Clinton hate dies down."

Sounds like a prediction to me.

[j0kerr.livejournal.com]

To further pwn you:

1. Its nice how you glazed over the Reagan scenario I put to you.

2. You are proven my point by showing historians that think Bush is the worse president ever. There are historians that have different opinions of Bush, meaning that history is still not sure where he lies.

Thank you for showing that I am right and you are wrong.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

A disaster for who? U.S. companies post record profits. Tax laws returning to Reagan standards. Lax ecological legislation.

If you are rich, this is practically the American Golden Age. :)

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Thank you for making my point for me. = )

[david-deacon.livejournal.com]

[ltmurdoch.livejournal.com]

It's amazing what they call "Breaking News" these days! We've all known it for years!

Seriously, though, this image is hillarious! That is, of course, until I realize how true it is and start crying uncontrollably.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Like Scotty McClellan's book: "Everything I said up at that lectern was a barefaced lie, and I lied because the President told me to." This is news????

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

The funny thing is, last night I was watching a Family Guy episode (the one where Peter grows a beard) the other night. which made the same joke.

No matter how many times it's told, it never gets old.

to david_deacon

[j0kerr.livejournal.com]

I read the articles. They still show that historians still have different opinions as we are find sources that have different conclusions. Which means only time will tell how Bush goes down in history. You look like a fool getting pwned with your own sources.