should the celtics have to meet bush?

[humblebum]

OK, so Bush is not the reincarnation of Hitler but the guy is still the worst President in the history of the United States. He's done more in eight years to damage the U.S. on domestic, foreign, economic, etc. fronts than any other president in the history of the country. He has displayed an absolute disrespect for the constitution and the rule of law in this country. He fabricated lies to get the country to go to war with Iraq (and the congress disgracefully went along with it) which has lead to reckless spending and numerous unwarranted deaths. The guy, by any sane moral scale, is an absolute monster and an abomination to this earth. He cares more for profit and power than he does for human life and his policies consistently and repeatedly display this. No amount of talk and rhetoric can undue or hide his ACTIONS and DECISIONS which have negatively impacted millions from Iraq, to New Orleans, to all the people he's left in worse economic positions due to his carelessness and pourly conceived economic plans.

Now this is not to say that Democrats and all the other Replican leaders (and to an extent the American people who allowed this guy to win two elections, are not implicated in this travesty of an administration, but with great power comes great responsibility, and there is (was) no more powerful position than President of the United States. Thus, he will rightfully bare, when all is said and done, the burden of responsibility that history will undoubtedly lay upon him. And frankly I don't think he even cares.

[BeanTownBrawler]

OK, so Bush is not the reincarnation of Hitler but the guy is still the worst President in the history of the United States. He's done more in eight years to damage the U.S. on domestic, foreign, economic, etc. fronts than any other president in the history of the country. He has displayed an absolute disrespect for the constitution and the rule of law in this country. He fabricated lies to get the country to go to war with Iraq (and the congress disgracefully went along with it) which has lead to reckless spending and numerous unwarranted deaths. The guy, by any sane moral scale, is an absolute monster and an abomination to this earth. He cares more for profit and power than he does for human life and his policies consistently and repeatedly display this. No amount of talk and rhetoric can undue or hide his ACTIONS and DECISIONS which have negatively impacted millions from Iraq, to New Orleans, to all the people he's left in worse economic positions due to his carelessness and pourly conceived economic plans.

Now this is not to say that Democrats and all the other Replican leaders (and to an extent the American people who allowed this guy to win two elections, are not implicated in this travesty of an administration, but with great power comes great responsibility, and there is (was) no more powerful position than President of the United States. Thus, he will rightfully bare, when all is said and done, the burden of responsibility that history will undoubtedly lay upon him. And frankly I don't think he even cares.

My point is that posts like these, "by any reasonable standard," are subjective and exaggerated and pretty much every point can be debated as to its accuracy and extent. On top of that, to assume the man doesn't care about his actions as if that's a fact is also unfair.

My point is not that what he did was good or bad, but that interpretations such as yours are extreme.

It just feels like too many people are still sticking with the same anti-bush rhetoric that has been spewed for the last 8 years without looking at facts. We're in Iraq for Oil? Please tell me then why China just signed a 3 billion dollar agreement with Iraqi oil companies and Russia is about to get the rest of the Lion's share. You are simply ignoring facts to support your agenda.

I honestly have no agenda in defending Bush, it's just that with so many people blindly bashing him for the sake of bashing him and joining the hate-fest, I feel someone needs to play devil's advocate.

[GuyClinch]

We have had some pretty bad presidents. I doubt Bush will go down as the worst - guys like Harding, Pierce, Buchanan..are pretty bad if you know your history. I think though Bush could sneak into the top ten - especially if this financial crisis blows up in his face. That's the kind of thing that really gets you a black mark in the history books.

It's difficult to say if you should judge someone by effectiveness or "morality." Most of the anti-bush rhetoric springs from his moral failings (in the eyes of the people) but it's the lack of effectiveness that plummets Bush in the rankings.

A good example is Nixon - maybe not the best guy but not wholly uneffective as President. Andrew Jackson was by all accounts a SOB - but he absolutely did alot with the presidency.. Nixon is sitting by most accounts as #10. So perhaps Bush will push him out.

Pete

[humblebum]

Let's look at a few cases of Bush's failed presidency.

Iraq, a country which was wholly unrelated to the 9/11 attacks is invaded without justifiable cause or reason. Take a look at the UN votes and popular rallies around the world that have condemned this war from the very beginning. Now consider the death tolls on both sides as well as the ridiculous amounts of taxpayer dollars that continue to be spent on this war.

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, torture camps and a string of systemic injusticies/invasion of personal rights against Arabs in the U.S. and abroad. This stuff is massively inhuman and goes against years and years of U.S. compliance with the Geneva conventions. The torture is despicable but Arabs more generally have suffered much harassment and injustice at home and abroad due to extreme U.S. practices especially at airports.

The Patriot Act and the expansion of presidential powers. The Bush administration has completely utilized fear tactics in order to advance and expand the powers of the presidency. Illegal wire tapping is implemented, less privacy and rights to Americans and general violations against the rights and checks and balances of the U.S. constitution. These crimes are going to be especially troublesome down the road because the people of the U.S. are subject more and more the whims, greed, and irresponsibility of one man and his buddies, the U.S. president.

Now we have a potential economic meltdown on our hands due in part to Bush's anything goes free market policies. $12 Trillion dollars of debt? Are you kidding yourselves people?!? This country has taken a complete turnabout in only 8 years time (not to say that everything was peachy before). America is more vulnerable now than it has ever been domestically and abroad. Widespread hatred of America continues to grow while foreign powers like China are rising on the world stage and quickly putting our country in their pocket. Environmental issues on the rise and the Bush admin is basically continuing with a complete stance of burn more gas and oil.

Wake up people

[GuyClinch]

^^^ Don't agree. I think you have to look at a presidents failings with historical perspective. Their are alot of presidents who have done some pretty dumb things. Harding, Buchanan, et. al still well ahead of Bush. Bush is merely one of the worst MODERN presidents.

Like I said though a massive depression could easily boost him into the top ten. From a historical perspective small though misguided wars and the "Patriot Act" isn't going to resonate compared to things like Dred Scott.

[LongTimeFan]

Sure wish the season would start soon.

Bush hatred is no substitute for Sixers or Lakers hatred. I hate to see our animosity directed at a lame duck who is no threat to us repeating.

The guy is soon to be history and unless the Democrats are complete idots, they should easily win.

[BeanTownBrawler]

I just want to respond to the point of the financial crisis being Bush's fault. People blaming him for this or the Katrina damage is absolutely absurd. I dont mean to be condescending but if you think Bush was in any way shape or form responsible for the current financial crisis or that the next President can do anything to effect it, you know nothing about finance or the economy. Neither Bush, Obama or McCain can do anything to help it.

[chakdaddy]

If this country was such a group of "wimps" we woould have this war done with already. But no we have to play by all the rules while no one else does.

So, what are you implying, that we should hijack some planes and fly them into skyscrapers in Dubai or something? Not sure if there are any "terrorist-owned" skyscrapers to blow up but anything in the Middle East would probably do by your definition.

It sure is a shame that we have to play by all these rules. If we weren't so handcuffed by the Geneva convention, maybe we could ignore the United Nations and start wars in random countries on a whim. Sure, our president would be considered a war criminal, but surely then our war against the sovereign nation, "The United Sultanate of Terrorism" would be over by now!!! And we could relax our security since the war on terrorism is over, after we draw a nice treaty with the remaining terrorists where they promise to stop. Then we can turn our attention to our war on the sovereign principality of "drugs".

Luckily we have the strong support of the UN and the rest of the world since we have been such sticklers for the rules. Like...most of the civilians we have killed haven't been on purpose, for the most part; I guess that's a rule we've followed.

[Bad-Thoma]

^^^
WOW!! So he was wrong to protect us from the terrorist? By wrong I assume that you mean going to Iraq and fighting Al Qaeda? If that makes him wrong then I don't ever want to be right. I understand my view is unpopular, but the man was right. Fight them on their turf so it doesn't have to happen in the streets of the USA ever again. Why do people have trouble understanding that?

So how's that 1st grade education treating you? I mean Wow. Wow. That's just.... wow. I think you're confusing unpopular with completely (Please Use More Appropriate Word). As for ever being right, I really wouldn't worry about it.

Calling me (Please Use More Appropriate Word) is completely unecesarry. When all I did was use facts. Sorry you don't like the war and you think it is not needed. But you are wrong plain and simple. This is a just war where you are fighting Al Qaeda terrorist who resided their when Sadam was in power. Sorry you fail to understand the truth.

NOTE: No name calling. Amazing made a point with acting like a first grader. Now you try.. Or can't you do it?

Calling you (Please Use More Appropriate Word) was unnecessary, however you have no clue what you are talking about. The war with Iraq has little to nothing to do with terrorism. I wasn't against going into Afghanistan after Bin Laden, but the war with Iraq is about oil and regional middle east power. It's also about lining the pockets of some members of the current regime (see: Haliburton). It's no secret. If it was about going after terrorists, why would Bush's regime have to justify the war with lies about having proof of WMDs? If it was about "liberating" the Iraqi people why did we bomb their infrastructure back to the stone age and then only repair the oil infrastructure and airports? I don't pretend to be a historian or an expert on the region, but anyone who has an education above that of a 1st grader knows more then just the rehashment of the Bush regime spin machine that you self-righteously spout as "fact". Sorry I fail to understand the truth? I don't know the whole truth but at least I am self-aware enough to realize it, however I am certain of one thing- your understanding of the situation in the middle east amounts to jack ****, and jack left town.

[Rondo_Fan]

I don't have a problem with the Celtics meeting Bush, even though I don't support a lot of things that Bush has done. I didn't oppose the war because I was anti-Bush. I opposed the war because it was the wrong thing to do.

think of it this way. All of the people who warned us about Saddam, WMD, etc. were wrong. There is no argument at this point in time, no debate, and they know it. So they are busy doing all kinds of things to avoid looking in the mirror and facing the fact that they were wrong, including trying to bait people who opposed the war for good, solid reasons into appearing to have an "agenda", anti-Bush or whatever.

For me it started back in 1991. I remember asking myself why Bush 41 didn't take out Saddam. I mean, he just stopped in the middle of the war without finishing it off. Very strange. So I read a lot of policy statements on the issues, think tank papers, etc., and it turns out that Bush 41 received a tremendous amount of pressure from within his own administration not to take out Saddam. The reasoning was that Saddam was a Sunni ruler in a **** majority country, and served as a useful balance to Iran in the region. Iraq and Iran have historically been the only two countries in the region with the resources and population to dominate other countries. Take out Saddam, and you likely get a **** ruler in Iraq, who would immediately align themselves with Iran. It turns out, more or less, that that is what we are dealing with now.

The WMD issue was obvious fiction. I have studied nuclear issues quite a bit, and you can't hide a viable nuclear program. It is a large-scale, industrial endeavor. Neither did the chemical weapons argument make sense. The only chemical weapons that Saddam ever had he obtained from us, in the 1980s. They were either gone, or no longer useful.

We went there for oil, period. Look at a map of where the oil is in world. The vast majority of remaining reserves are in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. If you put 150,000 troops in Iraq, you control the flow of oil out of both countries. If the Saudis get uppity, you quickly bring them in line. We have constructed permanent military and air bases, and have no intention of leaving. A U.S. "withdrawal" will still leave 25 to 30 thousand troops stationed permanently at those bases. The only argument people have offered against this is that oil is not cheap now. Since when has the goal of the oil companies been to give us cheap oil? They wanted to get their hands on it, not give us a break in price.

As far as the terrorist argument goes, please, grow a pair. 9/11 was a one-time occurrence, very unlikely to be repeated, at least on a time scale that you can plan for. It reminds me of Jonestown. Right after that happened, some people were predicting that loonies all over the world were going to start drinking coolaid. Did it happen? No. But there were plenty of loonies in cults all over the world. After 9/11, we again hear that large-scale terrorism within U.S. borders is going to happen again soon. Well, who is going to do it? Sure, there are lots and lots of Arabs in the world who are very angry with the U.S., but you can count on the fingers of one hand those who have the means and the inclination to try to strike in the United States. They are concerned primarily with issues in their region, with each other.

Here's an interesting new study that came out in Science magazine. http://www.kotatv.com/Global/story.asp? ... enu411_2_5 I was kind of sick of hearing after 9/11 about how people like myself who didn't want to rush to war were afraid, not brave, etc. And I remember thinking, "Hmmm. I don't think that I'm the one who's acting scared here..."

Anyway, we had better hope that I'm right about not a lot of people having plans to attack the United States on a large scale. Because our current policies almost seem designed to guarantee that anyone who wants to attack will be successful. Before 9/11, we had identified the terrorists, but we neither communicated that information successfully between government agencies, nor did we act on it. So by definition, our intelligence was adequate. But our ability to use it was not. And our approach to solving that problem? Why, to exponentially increase the amount of intelligence that we gather, of course, through reading people's email and snail mail, tapping phones, hiring snot-nosed kids to follow around people who point out that Bush doesn't know what he's doing, etc. Gee, that will probably help us to act quickly on any real problems that come up, don't you think, surrounding all of our intelligence efforts with a limitless and growing cloud of white noise? It's kind of like looking for a needle in a haystack, while somebody keeps piling truckload after truckload of hay on top of you. Makes sense to me.

I hope this helps.

[GuyClinch]

I just want to respond to the point of the financial crisis being Bush's fault. People blaming him for this or the Katrina damage is absolutely absurd. I dont mean to be condescending but if you think Bush was in any way shape or form responsible for the current financial crisis or that the next President can do anything to effect it, you know nothing about finance or the economy. Neither Bush, Obama or McCain can do anything to help it.

Oh come on now. Given hindsight this crisis could have been avoided.

"But it was the federally established and backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that spread the subprime mortgage risk throughout the financial world," writes Ferrara today in an op/ed featured on American Spectator online, entitled 'The Economic Recovery Plan.'

"When Fannie and Freddie started selling shares in pools of subprime mortgages, they were spreading serious, unrecognized risk throughout the financial system," he said.

That's a quote from Peter Ferrara - an economist. While Bush may not be entirely to blame if he current crisis if he mismanages the RECOVERY program he will bear the brunt of history. That was my point. Most of the other bad presidents suffered this fate.

Herbert Hoover is a good example of this - credited with worsening the great depression.. Personally I don't think even liberal historians will condemn Bush for the Iraq war - as we threw out a genocidial dictator (even if it was for the wrong reasons) nor will the Patriot Act go down in history as the worst. John Adams was in favour of the sedition acts - and he was considered one of the best presidents.

History has yet to judge Bush. You can't tell at the time of a president exactly how great or how bad he is. Lincoln was incredibly unpopular in his time and now is considered far and away the best president ever. But like I said - a prolonged depression linked to Bush's failure would put him in the top ten worst..IMHO.

[bruno sundov]

So how's that 1st grade education treating you? I mean Wow. Wow. That's just.... wow. I think you're confusing unpopular with completely (Please Use More Appropriate Word). As for ever being right, I really wouldn't worry about it.[/quote]


Calling me (Please Use More Appropriate Word) is completely unecesarry. When all I did was use facts. Sorry you don't like the war and you think it is not needed. But you are wrong plain and simple. This is a just war where you are fighting Al Qaeda terrorist who resided their when Sadam was in power. Sorry you fail to understand the truth.

NOTE: No name calling. Amazing made a point with acting like a first grader. Now you try.. Or can't you do it?[/quote]

Calling you (Please Use More Appropriate Word) was unnecessary, however you have no clue what you are talking about. The war with Iraq has little to nothing to do with terrorism. I wasn't against going into Afghanistan after Bin Laden, but the war with Iraq is about oil and regional middle east power. It's also about lining the pockets of some members of the current regime (see: Haliburton). It's no secret. If it was about going after terrorists, why would Bush's regime have to justify the war with lies about having proof of WMDs? If it was about "liberating" the Iraqi people why did we bomb their infrastructure back to the stone age and then only repair the oil infrastructure and airports? I don't pretend to be a historian or an expert on the region, but anyone who has an education above that of a 1st grader knows more then just the rehashment of the Bush regime spin machine that you self-righteously spout as "fact". Sorry I fail to understand the truth? I don't know the whole truth but at least I am self-aware enough to realize it, however I am certain of one thing- your understanding of the situation in the middle east amounts to jack ****, and jack left town.[/quote]


No clue what I'm talking about? That might be a first. When WE went into Afghanistan we pushed the terrorist out. Many went into Pakistan and many went to iraq. What you did was take a group that was localized running a country and just destroyed their infastructure. So who do you think you are fighting in Iraq now? Al Qaeda and Irani terrorist. Now remember why this is happening also


Chakdaddy what you wrote is the stupidest most ignornat thing I have read on this topic yet. It's not even a bad reactionary comment. It is a fact that Al Qaeda owned business. Everythig from quarries and landfills to transportation business. Your comment is the single worst point. My point was if people saw the war for what it really is instaed of being such wimps who believe everything they are spoon fed by the lefty media. It would have empowered our ARMY to take care of these people already. It would be done with. But no everything is has to be this self depricating attitude towards our own country. The single greatest nation in the world by the way. To make us out to be the ones who started this. We are just finishing it.

[Bad-Thoma]

No clue what I'm talking about? That might be a first. When WE went into Afghanistan we pushed the terrorist out. Many went into Pakistan and many went to iraq. What you did was take a group that was localized running a country and just destroyed their infastructure. So who do you think you are fighting in Iraq now? Al Qaeda and Irani terrorist. Now remember why this is happening also.

Your black and white, hollywood war-flick interpretation of a situation that is anything but black and white is unfathomable to me. However I think debating this with you is a pointless exercise in frustration for both of us. On a final note however patriotism is a matter of loving your country, not loving your government. The government is supposed to be an employee of our country, and as a people our job is to hold them accountable for their actions, not blindly support their every move while waving the flag and singing "God bless America". Anyone who has a problem with criticism of the government, including the president is missing the essential point of having a free-speech democracy (I'd like to live in one someday).

[bruno sundov]

patriotism the way you defined would be supporting your countrymen fighting for you on foriegn soils. They do this because we were attacked. Why do so many people forget that we instigate this whole thing is beyond me. Talking about free speech, everytime I said what I thought I was called names. SO you lose credibility their also.

[goulardi]

patriotism the way you defined would be supporting your countrymen fighting for you on foriegn soils. They do this because we were attacked. Why do so many people forget that we instigate this whole thing is beyond me. Talking about free speech, everytime I said what I thought I was called names. SO you lose credibility their also.

You also lose credibility when you use the wrong homonym.

[chakdaddy]

Chakdaddy what you wrote is the stupidest most ignornat thing I have read on this topic yet. It's not even a bad reactionary comment. It is a fact that Al Qaeda owned business. Everythig from quarries and landfills to transportation business. Your comment is the single worst point. My point was if people saw the war for what it really is instaed of being such wimps who believe everything they are spoon fed by the lefty media. It would have empowered our ARMY to take care of these people already. It would be done with.

Ignornat eh? I will admit that it's difficult to respond to you with anything but hyperbole and mockery. But I will bite - exactly what rules are we being handcuffed by that you think we should not be bound by, and what exactly would we be "done with" if we didn't have to follow them? Would terrorism be abolished if we would just man up and torture more people or something?

[DubaLakers]

wat u guys think of this? its called 'George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People (Unless They're The Celtics)'.. title mite be betta than the article hehe

Isn’t it patently ridiculous, nigh absurd, that the Celtics are forced to meet Bush?

I’m not here to make cheap Dubya zingers — they’re nearly as played out as Michael Jackson jokes — but why would a team of athletes want to meet an embarrassment to democracy like Bush? Are they forced to attend? If a politically-minded player justifiably opted to reject a Bush handshake, would they be fined or suspended?

i dont think bush fans will like it

the rest here: http://thesportcount.com/2008/09/23/geo ... e-celtics/

This ignorant OP gets 7 pages? Everything is Bush's fault?! Got anything else you want to blame on somebody else, besides yourself? All the more reason for a revenge killing in the NBA Finals. You guys got a year to enjoy your victory, savor it.

[greenbeans]

^^^hahaha. . It's gonna be SOOO sweet when Kobe opts out and goes to Chicago or NY after losing in the playoffs this year.

[canman1971]

I feel this thread has run its course.