• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

George Bush Interview- Hannity

Of course not. Except these were the papers being written back then...
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON...
America’s First Communist President
"Bill Clinton Much More Than A "Stealth" Communist President: He Is An Illuminist"

Correspondent J.R. Nyquist, writing in World Net Daily, recounts how he was told in 1982, when he was still in college, that Bill Clinton was picked to be a "stealth" Marxist President. While we welcome this revelation, we will demonstrate that the issue goes far above and beyond Clinton being a Communist. It is much more serious than that.​



Communist
Murderer of around 80 people
Draft dodger
Liar All these are just conveniently... pooof... forgotten in modern memories for some reason.
And it's been your understanding all these years that J.V.Nyquist was a spokesman for the Republican Party?

Gruber was being too kind.
 
A bought-and-paid-for degree? I don't think you really want to get into a discussion of degrees and who paid for them, do you? Or to denigrate one advanced Harvard degree over another. But if you do, let's talk about transcripts and Obama's from Occidental.

:lamo
What leftists say never has to be true. The truth is simply not important to them. We know that.
 
What leftists say never has to be true. The truth is simply not important to them. We know that.

More of those independent posts eh Grant? I wish I was an independent like you. So independent. Much independence. Wow.
 
More of those independent posts eh Grant? I wish I was an independent like you. So independent. Much independence. Wow.
I am independent of leftist stupidity, and grateful for it.
 
I am independent of leftist stupidity, and grateful for it.

Making blanket statements suggest you're a victim of ridiculous black and white thinking. That's not all that much better. So independent, wow, wish I could be independent like you. :D
 
Making blanket statements suggest you're a victim of ridiculous black and white thinking. That's not all that much better. So independent, wow, wish I could be independent like you. :shrug:
It was Jonathan Gruber who made the blanket statement about leftist stupidity and I'm just agreeing with him. There is no doubt Barrack Obama recognizes it as well.

Leftist stupidity can be traced back generations so it is not something people who follow politics aren't familiar with. "Useful idiots' is another way of describing them.

.
 
It was Jonathan Gruber who made the blanket statement about leftist stupidity and I'm just agreeing with him. There is no doubt Barrack Obama recognizes it as well.

Quit trying to escape your own blanket statements:

Grant said:
What leftists say never has to be true.

Why do you do this? Try and divert attention away from what is being pointed out. You made a blanket statement. You engaged in the same tactic as the liberals your "independent" self hates so much. Why do you do this Grant? ;)

Leftist stupidity can be traced back generations so it is not something people who follow politics aren't familiar with. "Useful idiots' is another way of describing them.

.

Yes, yes Grant. Useful idiots also includes people who make blanket statements. Do you make blanket statements? ;)
 
Quit trying to escape your own blanket statements:
If you believe I have called Leftists "stupid" in the past then you are correct. In fact I've thought them stupid since there was a Cold War and listened to their own anti American, anti West rhetoric, pro Communist, pro Cuban craziness.

There is no doubt to me that, for example, Ted Kennedy thought Leftists to be stupid. Jimmy Carter probably thought they were intelligent. Ronald Reagan treated them kindly, though the opposite was certainly not true. Stupidity and the Left has a long and bloodied history, and all the historical evidence is there.

Jonathan Gruber is only saying out loud what the leftist elitists have been saying quietly about their followers for years. Lyndon Johnson certainly understood that, and so does Barrack Obama.
 
If you believe I have called Leftists "stupid" in the past then you are correct. In fact I've thought them stupid since there was a Cold War and listened to their own anti American, anti West rhetoric, pro Communist, pro Cuban craziness. Their is no doubt to me that, for example, Ted Kennedy thought Leftists to be stupid. Jimmy Carter probably thought they were intelligent. Ronald Reagan treated them kindly, though the opposite was certainly not true. Stupidity and the Left has a long and bloodied history, and all the historical evidence is there.

Jonathan Gruber is only saying out loud what the leftists elitists have been saying quietly about their followers for years. Lyndon Johnson certainly understood that, and so does Barrack Obama.

tl/dr - you make generalized statements and engage in simplistic arguments which only impress useful idiots. For example, how did you come to the conclusion that leftists never has to be true? Do Conservatives like yourself always tell the truth? Obviously not. Hell, I've caught you a few times making bull**** arguments. Here are a few examples of you regurgitating nonsense, false and flawed arguments:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...er-ax-attack-nypd-cops-18.html#post1063907087 - You stated Republicans were a majority in the CRA'64. Status: False.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...er-ax-attack-nypd-cops-15.html#post1063905924 - You claimed the majority of those who voted for the CRA'64 were Republicans. Status: False.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...er-ax-attack-nypd-cops-15.html#post1063905802 - Claimed Lincoln gave blacks "their freedom". Status: Half truth.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ce-returns-action-iraq-17.html#post1063628757 - You claimed further negotiations were a precondition for a withdrawl from Iraq. Status: False.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...efend-christian-values-22.html#post1063461624 - You claimed countries based on Christian values made countries better somehow. Status: False.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ls-redskins-trademarks-98.html#post1063427417 - You claimed Redskin was a possitive name. Status: False.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ns-attack-disabled-vet-35.html#post1062928447 - You trying to claim the civil rights movement was about verbal aggression. Status: False.

Now, with all those examples (and I got a lot more) of you stating half truths and outright lies, can I classify you as a liberal? Or do Conservatives like yourself only need to tell the truth half the time? ;)
 
tl/dr - you make generalized statements and engage in simplistic arguments which only impress useful idiots. For example, how did you come to the conclusion that leftists never has to be true? Do Conservatives like yourself always tell the truth? Obviously not. Hell, I've caught you a few times making bull**** arguments. Here are a few examples of you regurgitating nonsense, false and flawed arguments:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...er-ax-attack-nypd-cops-18.html#post1063907087 - You stated Republicans were a majority in the CRA'64. Status: False.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...er-ax-attack-nypd-cops-15.html#post1063905924 - You claimed the majority of those who voted for the CRA'64 were Republicans. Status: False.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...er-ax-attack-nypd-cops-15.html#post1063905802 - Claimed Lincoln gave blacks "their freedom". Status: Half truth.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ce-returns-action-iraq-17.html#post1063628757 - You claimed further negotiations were a precondition for a withdrawl from Iraq. Status: False.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...efend-christian-values-22.html#post1063461624 - You claimed countries based on Christian values made countries better somehow. Status: False.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ls-redskins-trademarks-98.html#post1063427417 - You claimed Redskin was a possitive name. Status: False.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ns-attack-disabled-vet-35.html#post1062928447 - You trying to claim the civil rights movement was about verbal aggression. Status: False.

Now, with all those examples (and I got a lot more) of you stating half truths and outright lies, can I classify you as a liberal? Or do Conservatives like yourself only need to tell the truth half the time? ;)

Wow!! I'm impressed with your enthusiastic following of my posts (it's NOT stalking!!) and, as I've made almost 22,000 of them, I know how much effort you must have put into this research.

I can see where you've made a couple of errors but why quibble? This is work well done!
 
Wow!! I'm impressed with your enthusiastic following of my posts (it's NOT stalking!!) and, as I've made almost 22,000 of them, I know how much effort you must have put into this research.

I can see where you've made a couple of errors but why quibble? This is work well done!

More of that liberal independent thinking of yours. When the facts are brought up to consider the weakness of your claims, you consider it 'stalking'. As if the search option was there for ****s and giggles. Now Grant, do you believe your generalized and false statements make you a liberal or a conservative? ;)
 
More of that liberal independent thinking of yours. When the facts are brought up to consider the weakness of your claims, you consider it 'stalking'. As if the search option was there for ****s and giggles. Now Grant, do you believe your generalized and false statements make you a liberal or a conservative? ;)

I said it was NOT stalking! Can you see how difficult it is to deal with leftists when they don't understand what they read??

If you don't know whether I'm a Liberal or Conservative after all those posts, I must be an independent.
 
I said it was NOT stalking! Can you see how difficult it is to deal with leftists when they don't understand what they read??

You seem to have a history of bringing up snarky little comments and then trying to distance yourself from them. How odd you'd do that here. Kind of like how you bring up what liberals do in conversations about conservative media. It supposedly has no relevance, but you just throw it out there for kicks. :)

If you don't know whether I'm a Liberal or Conservative after all those posts, I must be an independent.

No, no. You're a conservative who uses liberal tactics. Remember, liberals never have to tell the truth. You, apparently, never have to tell the truth when debating from a conservative position. :shrug:
 
You seem to have a history of bringing up snarky little comments and then trying to distance yourself from them. How odd you'd do that here. Kind of like how you bring up what liberals do in conversations about conservative media. It supposedly has no relevance, but you just throw it out there for kicks. :) No, no. You're a conservative who uses liberal tactics. Remember, liberals never have to tell the truth. You, apparently, never have to tell the truth when debating from a conservative position. :shrug:
But enough about me! What did you think of my last movie?

Really, it's time to debate the issues because your personal interest in me is not being reciprocated. Maybe there is something else you can divert your atten...Oh Look!! A squirrel!!!
 
But enough about me! What did you think of my last movie?

Really, it's time to debate the issues because your personal interest in me is not being reciprocated. Maybe there is something else you can divert your atten...Oh Look!! A squirrel!!!

Dishonest as ever Grant.

You wanna dish it out, you better be ready to take it.
 
Dishonest as ever Grant.

You wanna dish it out, you better be ready to take it.

He doesn't care, he never has to tell the truth. He's a conservative who enjoys using liberal tactics. :)
 
He uses the tactics of Alinsksorostalinazi's.

I do have to admit. Considering Grant has demonstrated time and time again that he never has to tell the truth, should he change his label to conservative (because of his positions) or liberal (because of his tactics)?
 
Did anybody watch the Bush Interview on Hannity?

Please forgive me if this is in the wrong section. Not really sure where to put it. I was thinking political platforms, but in the interview Bush said that he is genuinely wanting just to talk about his father. It was as non-political as you can get.

Here are some highlights:
Both recent Presidents have written about their fathers. While Obama hardly ever knew his, Bush's father lived to see and praised his son becoming President.
Bush has a deep loving relationship with his father.
Bush 41 never wrote a memoir and his story is often overshadowed.
Bush 41 refused to help Bush 43 on major decisions except in an effort to make him laugh, smile or feel loved.
The Bush's don't think of themselves as a dynasty. Each man had different advisers, political beliefs, and were President during different times in History.
The Bush's and the Clintons are actually quite friendly. Bush said that if/when Jeb beats Hilary. His friendship with Bill will remain in tact.
Obama has great admiration for Bush 41. It is unknown if they talk regularly.
Obama has only once called Bush 43 and that was after the Osama Bin Laden raid. He doesn't seek advice from other Presidents. Unlike, any other President.

Another thing I noticed was how humbled Bush 43 was in this interview. I can detect most BS a mile away and I didn't see any of that in the interview. It is easy for me to point out if someone is just trying to sell me a book just to gain publicity, but he just wants to talk about his father. To anyone that would listen.

He seemed reluctant to even answer specific questions about world events like ISIS. He said he was happy to stay out of the limelight because he doesn't like attacking people or the Presidency. He thinks the people have complete control over the electoral process, as proven by the recent Republican wave.

Let me know if I have left anything out. Here is part of the interview. The longest I could find: Exclusive: George W. Bush on growing up in the Bush family | Hannity | Fox News


Bush 43 was and is a humble and honest man. I've always had allot of respect for him.

He was defined as a President and a Man by the left, by a party that opposed him on principle.

The same party that used the " stupidity " of the Americans voter to justify their lies called Bush a liar throughout his Presidency.

And then they elected a ACTUAL Liar to be the President

The left called him incompetent and stupid, and then elected a incompetent President
 
Hoover's reputation among historians has been improving for quite a while.

LOL.....okie dokie. If you say so. I know some historians who have been trying desperately to argue for years that Hoover got a bad rap. I'm sure that the same historians will try to rehabilitate GWB in the same manner. Problem is.....that garbage ain't sellin.
 
Then debate the points which were raised. Isn't that why you're here?

But you aren't debating the points either, so why should he?
 
LOL.....okie dokie. If you say so. I know some historians who have been trying desperately to argue for years that Hoover got a bad rap. I'm sure that the same historians will try to rehabilitate GWB in the same manner. Problem is.....that garbage ain't sellin.

This isn't often from the viewpoint of conservative historians, but liberal ones. They may still greatly prefer FDR, but they aren't nearly as dismissive of Hoover as was once expected in the midst of FDR dynasty holders like Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

I know this is a hard thing to understand for political hacks, but trust me, historians tend to revisit previous assumptions.

Let's be honest disney. How often do you actually sit down and read histories or historical journals? How many books a month, bud?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom