The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

....another good article from the Washington Post. Now that Bush is on his
way out, the Post is trying to make up for it's lack of decent writing over
the past few years. I'd subscribe again, but seeing Obama's face on the
front page every day would get old.

Washington Post article: http://tinyurl.com/8vkdox

Anyone who lives close to the Bay has little reason to knock someone else's
home waters. The Bay is going downhill fast. Actually, many believe it's
close to the bottom now. When fishing out there on a calm day, the brown
'dead zone' can be seen easily in the middle of the bay.

A good article on the dissolved oxygen problem facing the Bay:

http://www.eco-check.org/pdfs/do_letter.pdf

Obviously, the trees I had planted in the names of Harry and Jimh weren't
enough.



--
** Good Day! **

John H

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:05:25 -0500, John H wrote:

...another good article from the Washington Post. Now that Bush is on
his way out, the Post is trying to make up for it's lack of decent
writing over the past few years. I'd subscribe again, but seeing Obama's
face on the front page every day would get old.

LOL, there were quite a few decently written articles in the Post
concerning Clean Water. Pick a few:

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF8...ush+%22cle an
+water+act%22




Washington Post article: http://tinyurl.com/8vkdox

Anyone who lives close to the Bay has little reason to knock someone
else's home waters. The Bay is going downhill fast. Actually, many
believe it's close to the bottom now. When fishing out there on a calm
day, the brown 'dead zone' can be seen easily in the middle of the bay.

A good article on the dissolved oxygen problem facing the Bay:

http://www.eco-check.org/pdfs/do_letter.pdf

Obviously, the trees I had planted in the names of Harry and Jimh
weren't enough.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 07:30:26 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:05:25 -0500, John H wrote:

...another good article from the Washington Post. Now that Bush is on
his way out, the Post is trying to make up for it's lack of decent
writing over the past few years. I'd subscribe again, but seeing Obama's
face on the front page every day would get old.

LOL, there were quite a few decently written articles in the Post
concerning Clean Water. Pick a few:

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF8...ush+%22cle an
+water+act%22




Washington Post article: http://tinyurl.com/8vkdox

Anyone who lives close to the Bay has little reason to knock someone
else's home waters. The Bay is going downhill fast. Actually, many
believe it's close to the bottom now. When fishing out there on a calm
day, the brown 'dead zone' can be seen easily in the middle of the bay.

A good article on the dissolved oxygen problem facing the Bay:

http://www.eco-check.org/pdfs/do_letter.pdf

Obviously, the trees I had planted in the names of Harry and Jimh
weren't enough.

Bush Bashing was the forte of the Washington Post. That's why their
subscriptions have plummeted.

http://tinyurl.com/9nu9st

Their net income hasn't looked too good for the past few years.

--
** Good Day! **

John H

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:00:10 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush Bashing was the forte of the Washington Post. That's why their
subscriptions have plummeted.

Well, it's difficult to right anything truthful about the most
incompetent President in recent history, without looking like you are
"bashing".


http://tinyurl.com/9nu9st

Their net income hasn't looked too good for the past few years.

Seeing that you have been asleep the past decade, I'll inform you, it
isn't "Bush bashing" that is causing problems with most newspapers. It's
the internet.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:00:10 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush Bashing was the forte of the Washington Post. That's why their
subscriptions have plummeted.

Well, it's difficult to right anything truthful about the most
incompetent President in recent history, without looking like you are
"bashing".


http://tinyurl.com/9nu9st

Their net income hasn't looked too good for the past few years.

Seeing that you have been asleep the past decade, I'll inform you, it
isn't "Bush bashing" that is causing problems with most newspapers. It's
the internet.


It's always a bit of a grin, as it were, to read the political spins of
those right-wingers who have swallowed so much of the party pablum that
they have a ready but simple-minded and usually wrong rationalization
for everything in life, such as "If the Post hadn't bashed Bush so much,
the paper would be doing better financially."

Certainly the internet has hit the newspaper business hard, as have the
24-7 cable news channels and the increasing reluctance of much of the
population to, well, read. Reading a good newspaper requires a bit of
time and concentration, and it is much easier to absorb a few sound
bites from cable news.

Some of the really loony righties on the gun boards are overjoyed at the
slide of newspapers, because they believe they'll do better with the
general populace by confining "news" to blogs that are easier to control.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:00:10 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush Bashing was the forte of the Washington Post. That's why their
subscriptions have plummeted.

Well, it's difficult to right anything truthful about the most
incompetent President in recent history, without looking like you are
"bashing".

History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100 years.

http://tinyurl.com/9nu9st

Their net income hasn't looked too good for the past few years.

Seeing that you have been asleep the past decade, I'll inform you, it
isn't "Bush bashing" that is causing problems with most newspapers. It's
the internet.

Why are newspapers having problems with the Internet? Could it be that
the newspapers have been feeding their subscribers pages and pages of
biased crap for far too long?

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:01:40 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:00:10 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush Bashing was the forte of the Washington Post. That's why their
subscriptions have plummeted.

Well, it's difficult to right anything truthful about the most
incompetent President in recent history, without looking like you are
"bashing".


http://tinyurl.com/9nu9st

Their net income hasn't looked too good for the past few years.

Seeing that you have been asleep the past decade, I'll inform you, it
isn't "Bush bashing" that is causing problems with most newspapers. It's
the internet.

Have you ever noticed that many liberals must resort to personal insults in
any discussion.

Bye.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:22:08 -0500, Boater wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:00:10 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush Bashing was the forte of the Washington Post. That's why their
subscriptions have plummeted.

Well, it's difficult to right anything truthful about the most
incompetent President in recent history, without looking like you are
"bashing".


http://tinyurl.com/9nu9st

Their net income hasn't looked too good for the past few years.

Seeing that you have been asleep the past decade, I'll inform you, it
isn't "Bush bashing" that is causing problems with most newspapers. It's
the internet.


It's always a bit of a grin, as it were, to read the political spins of
those right-wingers who have swallowed so much of the party pablum that
they have a ready but simple-minded and usually wrong rationalization
for everything in life, such as "If the Post hadn't bashed Bush so much,
the paper would be doing better financially."

Certainly the internet has hit the newspaper business hard, as have the
24-7 cable news channels and the increasing reluctance of much of the
population to, well, read. Reading a good newspaper requires a bit of
time and concentration, and it is much easier to absorb a few sound
bites from cable news.

Some of the really loony righties on the gun boards are overjoyed at the
slide of newspapers, because they believe they'll do better with the
general populace by confining "news" to blogs that are easier to control.



Have you ever noticed that many liberals must resort to personal insults in
any discussion.

Bye.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:00:10 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush Bashing was the forte of the Washington Post. That's why their
subscriptions have plummeted.

Well, it's difficult to right anything truthful about the most
incompetent President in recent history, without looking like you are
"bashing".

History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100 years.


***Hahaha. Right. And Sarah Palin will be the savior of the GOP. And the
check is in the mail.***





http://tinyurl.com/9nu9st

Their net income hasn't looked too good for the past few years.

Seeing that you have been asleep the past decade, I'll inform you, it
isn't "Bush bashing" that is causing problems with most newspapers.
It's the internet.

Why are newspapers having problems with the Internet? Could it be that
the newspapers have been feeding their subscribers pages and pages of
biased crap for far too long?

Ahhh...another believer in right-wing bullschitt.



http://fc17.deviantart.com/fs10/i/20...MakinSushi.gif

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:27:21 -0500, BAR wrote:


History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100 years.

We'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it. Look at the world
situation in 2001, then, look at it now. Iran was a problem. It still
is. Israel/Palestine? No real change. North Korea, still the same.
Now Iraq? It's still unstable and dangerous. I will admit it has the
potential to be a stabilizing influence in an unstable area, but it also
still runs the chance of getting out of control. It's way too early for
any predictions.

The perception of America by the rest of the world? Sorry, Bush has had
a negative effect.

The economy? If Obama saves us from a depression, Bush won't go down as
a "Hoover". If Obama fails, Bush and Hoover are synonymous.

At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President, more
likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.


Why are newspapers having problems with the Internet? Could it be that
the newspapers have been feeding their subscribers pages and pages of
biased crap for far too long?

BS, newspapers, and media in general, are too large to pinhole. There
are quality, non-biased papers to be found in almost every market. The
reason newspapers are having a difficult time, very few people have the
time to sit down and read a newspaper, especially when you can get all
your "news" on a cell phone.

Oh, and the Internet isn't biased? Geeze, who knew?

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:28:53 -0500, John H wrote:


Have you ever noticed that many liberals must resort to personal insults
in any discussion.

Bye.

http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/

That's a personal insult.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:57:41 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:27:21 -0500, BAR wrote:


History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100 years.

We'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it. Look at the world
situation in 2001, then, look at it now. Iran was a problem. It still
is. Israel/Palestine? No real change. North Korea, still the same.
Now Iraq? It's still unstable and dangerous. I will admit it has the
potential to be a stabilizing influence in an unstable area, but it also
still runs the chance of getting out of control. It's way too early for
any predictions.

The perception of America by the rest of the world? Sorry, Bush has had
a negative effect.

The economy? If Obama saves us from a depression, Bush won't go down as
a "Hoover". If Obama fails, Bush and Hoover are synonymous.

At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President, more
likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.


Why are newspapers having problems with the Internet? Could it be that
the newspapers have been feeding their subscribers pages and pages of
biased crap for far too long?

BS, newspapers, and media in general, are too large to pinhole. There
are quality, non-biased papers to be found in almost every market. The
reason newspapers are having a difficult time, very few people have the
time to sit down and read a newspaper, especially when you can get all
your "news" on a cell phone.

Oh, and the Internet isn't biased? Geeze, who knew?

Bush will be remembered as the President who brought democracy to Iraq and
Afghanistan, dealing severe blows to al-Qaeda worldwide while defeating it
in Iraq, bringing this country back from the results of 9/11, and
preventing another attack during his term.

Chew on it. I've got to go play golf.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:27:21 -0500, BAR wrote:


History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100 years.

We'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it. Look at the
world situation in 2001, then, look at it now. Iran was a problem.
It still is. Israel/Palestine? No real change. North Korea, still
the same. Now Iraq? It's still unstable and dangerous. I will admit
it has the potential to be a stabilizing influence in an unstable
area, but it also still runs the chance of getting out of control.
It's way too early for any predictions.

The world has been an unstable and dangerous place since man took his
first steps. The survival instinct is strong. Family, tribe, city,
state, in that order, are where the allegiance's lie. You aren't going
to change that and that is the root of most all conflicts.

The perception of America by the rest of the world? Sorry, Bush has
had a negative effect.

The rest of the world should be in awe of us economically and militarily.


Yeah, with our tanked economy and our inability to win wars against
serious or smarter adversaries....

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:27:21 -0500, BAR wrote:


History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100 years.

We'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it. Look at the
world situation in 2001, then, look at it now. Iran was a problem.
It still is. Israel/Palestine? No real change. North Korea, still
the same. Now Iraq? It's still unstable and dangerous. I will
admit it has the potential to be a stabilizing influence in an
unstable area, but it also still runs the chance of getting out of
control. It's way too early for any predictions.

The world has been an unstable and dangerous place since man took his
first steps. The survival instinct is strong. Family, tribe, city,
state, in that order, are where the allegiance's lie. You aren't going
to change that and that is the root of most all conflicts.

The perception of America by the rest of the world? Sorry, Bush has
had a negative effect.

The rest of the world should be in awe of us economically and militarily.


Yeah, with our tanked economy and our inability to win wars against
serious or smarter adversaries....

Our economy was tanked by the Democrats. They held the purse strings
when the economy when it tanked.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:27:21 -0500, BAR wrote:


History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100
years.

We'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it. Look at the
world situation in 2001, then, look at it now. Iran was a problem.
It still is. Israel/Palestine? No real change. North Korea, still
the same. Now Iraq? It's still unstable and dangerous. I will
admit it has the potential to be a stabilizing influence in an
unstable area, but it also still runs the chance of getting out of
control. It's way too early for any predictions.

The world has been an unstable and dangerous place since man took his
first steps. The survival instinct is strong. Family, tribe, city,
state, in that order, are where the allegiance's lie. You aren't
going to change that and that is the root of most all conflicts.

The perception of America by the rest of the world? Sorry, Bush has
had a negative effect.

The rest of the world should be in awe of us economically and
militarily.


Yeah, with our tanked economy and our inability to win wars against
serious or smarter adversaries....

Our economy was tanked by the Democrats. They held the purse strings
when the economy when it tanked.


A wonderful example of why you are not equipped to shovel through the
"news" and determine what is real and what is not.

Fiscal policy in this country is set by the White House. The party of
opposition does not have a working majority in congress. But I know
swallowing and regurgitating right-wing bull**** makes you feel better.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:


At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President,
more likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.

It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.

I'm just curious, what do you consider will be his successes?

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:27:21 -0500, BAR wrote:


History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100
years.

We'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it. Look at the
world situation in 2001, then, look at it now. Iran was a
problem. It still is. Israel/Palestine? No real change. North
Korea, still the same. Now Iraq? It's still unstable and
dangerous. I will admit it has the potential to be a stabilizing
influence in an unstable area, but it also still runs the chance of
getting out of control. It's way too early for any predictions.

The world has been an unstable and dangerous place since man took
his first steps. The survival instinct is strong. Family, tribe,
city, state, in that order, are where the allegiance's lie. You
aren't going to change that and that is the root of most all conflicts.

The perception of America by the rest of the world? Sorry, Bush
has had a negative effect.

The rest of the world should be in awe of us economically and
militarily.


Yeah, with our tanked economy and our inability to win wars against
serious or smarter adversaries....

Our economy was tanked by the Democrats. They held the purse strings
when the economy when it tanked.


A wonderful example of why you are not equipped to shovel through the
"news" and determine what is real and what is not.

This from the guy who claims to have graduated from Yale but Yale has no
record of Harry ever attending. This from the guy who claims to have a
36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat but has never posted a photo of it,
however, he has posted photos of his puny Parker with a childish name.
This from a man who claims to have a Dr. Dr. wife. This from the guy who
claims to have a barn on his property but, as it turns out you don't own
the property and there is no barn on the property you don't own. Shall I
keep going Harry? You are the one who has the problem with what is real
and what is not real.

Fiscal policy in this country is set by the White House. The party of
opposition does not have a working majority in congress. But I know
swallowing and regurgitating right-wing bull**** makes you feel better.

The President submits a budget, Congress puts it on the shelf and then
Congress appropriates what it wants and sends those bills to the
President to sign or veto. I know how it works Harry.

Is the federal government operating under a continuing resolution to
fund or has money actually been appropriated?

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:

The President submits a budget, Congress puts it on the shelf and then
Congress appropriates what it wants and sends those bills to the
President to sign or veto. I know how it works Harry.


Yes, that sort of is the simple-minded 7th grade civics explanation.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:


At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President,
more likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.
It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.

I'm just curious, what do you consider will be his successes?

He did rather than talked. When action was required he took action.

A trait of leadership is being able to make a decision. It may be the
wrong decision but at least it was a decision.

With Bush, just about every decision was the wrong decision. Will you
ever tire of trying to rationalize away the utter and complete
incompetency of Bush?

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:


At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President,
more likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.
It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.

I'm just curious, what do you consider will be his successes?

He did rather than talked. When action was required he took action.

A trait of leadership is being able to make a decision. It may be the
wrong decision but at least it was a decision.

With Bush, just about every decision was the wrong decision. Will you
ever tire of trying to rationalize away the utter and complete
incompetency of Bush?

I disagree with many of the decisions that Bush made but, at least he
made decisions when they needed to be made. Clinton couldn't make a
decision without first conducting a public opinion poll. Obama has the
same problem that Clinton had. Obama will lick his finger stick it up
and see which way the wind is blowing and then contemplate making the
decision and may just put off making the decision until the next day
hoping that he won't have to make the decision.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:11:01 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:


At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President,
more likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.
It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.

I'm just curious, what do you consider will be his successes?

He did rather than talked. When action was required he took action.

A trait of leadership is being able to make a decision. It may be the
wrong decision but at least it was a decision. Contrast this with Bush's
predecessor and follower who are afraid to make decisions when the
decision need to be made. Both Clinton and Obama will wait and wait and
then they may make the decision.

Decisiveness is only one trait of leadership, and it definitely helps if
you are right, but I was asking a serious question. I personally think
Bush is the worst President in my lifetime, but you obviously don't. I
was seriously asking what you think his successes will be. I'll give you
Iraq *could* eventually be a success, but what else has he done
successfully?

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Dec 28, 11:27*am, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:11:01 -0500, BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:

At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President,
more likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.
It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.

I'm just curious, what do you consider will be his successes?

He did rather than talked. When action was required he took action.

A trait of leadership is being able to make a decision. It may be the
wrong decision but at least it was a decision. Contrast this with Bush's
predecessor and follower who are afraid to make decisions when the
decision need to be made. Both Clinton and Obama will wait and wait and
then they may make the decision.

Decisiveness is only one trait of leadership, and it definitely helps if
you are right, but I was asking a serious question. *I personally think
Bush is the worst President in my lifetime,

So, you are just a pup, born after the Carter administration? I
thought you were older. As to Clinton, he only made decisions based on
polls and getting re-elected and later financed into a nice rich
jetset lifestyle by the likes of Marc Rich, George Soros and earlier
the Chinese Military...

but you obviously don't. *I
was seriously asking what you think his successes will be. *I'll give you
Iraq *could* eventually be a success, but what else has he done
successfully? *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:50:59 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:


So, you are just a pup, born after the Carter administration? I thought
you were older. As to Clinton, he only made decisions based on polls and
getting re-elected and later financed into a nice rich jetset lifestyle
by the likes of Marc Rich, George Soros and earlier the Chinese
Military...

Not that much of a pup. ;-( I think Carter was mediocre at best, but,
personally, I think Bush is the worst. It may come as a surprise to you,
but I never much cared for Clinton. I thought "Slick Willie" was an apt
nickname. However, I do have to admit a grudging respect for his
Presidency. We all got fat, and it was a Presidency of relatively
tranquil times. I didn't like the man, but he was a competent President.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Dec 28, 12:06*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:50:59 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:
So, you are just a pup, born after the Carter administration? I thought
you were older. As to Clinton, he only made decisions based on polls and
getting re-elected and later financed into a nice rich jetset lifestyle
by the likes of Marc Rich, George Soros and earlier the Chinese
Military...

Not that much of a pup. ;-( *I think Carter was mediocre at best, but,
personally, I think Bush is the worst. *It may come as a surprise to you,
but I never much cared for Clinton. *I thought "Slick Willie" was an apt
nickname. *However, I do have to admit a grudging respect for his
Presidency. *We all got fat, and it was a Presidency of relatively
tranquil times. *I didn't like the man, but he was a competent President.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:06:38 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:50:59 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:


So, you are just a pup, born after the Carter administration? I thought
you were older. As to Clinton, he only made decisions based on polls and
getting re-elected and later financed into a nice rich jetset lifestyle
by the likes of Marc Rich, George Soros and earlier the Chinese
Military...

Not that much of a pup. ;-( I think Carter was mediocre at best, but,
personally, I think Bush is the worst. It may come as a surprise to you,
but I never much cared for Clinton. I thought "Slick Willie" was an apt
nickname. However, I do have to admit a grudging respect for his
Presidency. We all got fat, and it was a Presidency of relatively
tranquil times. I didn't like the man, but he was a competent President.

He's a big part of what got us where we are economically, along with
Reagan and the Bushes.
Dependent on foreigners to produce our goods, and deeply in hock.
We'll see how that works out shortly.
Personally I don't think it will be pretty.
But I'm often wrong.

--Vic

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:13:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 28, 12:06Â*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:50:59 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:
So, you are just a pup, born after the Carter administration? I thought
you were older. As to Clinton, he only made decisions based on polls and
getting re-elected and later financed into a nice rich jetset lifestyle
by the likes of Marc Rich, George Soros and earlier the Chinese
Military...

Not that much of a pup. ;-( Â*I think Carter was mediocre at best, but,
personally, I think Bush is the worst. Â*It may come as a surprise to you,
but I never much cared for Clinton. Â*I thought "Slick Willie" was an apt
nickname. Â*However, I do have to admit a grudging respect for his
Presidency. Â*We all got fat, and it was a Presidency of relatively
tranquil times. Â*I didn't like the man, but he was a competent President.

We got rich on paper, it was more or less like a ponzi scheme, kind of
like the Y2K hoax which really led to the crash of the electronics
industry in 02-03...

Later, remember he (Clinton) said he didn't care if we were all making
potato chips.. Then of course low skill jobs weren't good enough for
us during the Bush admin...

BTW, I was only kidding about the Pup thing;)

Respectfully, Scotty..

You better be. You're probably the Pup here among these geezers.

--Vic

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:11:01 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:


At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President,
more likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.
It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.
I'm just curious, what do you consider will be his successes?
He did rather than talked. When action was required he took action.

A trait of leadership is being able to make a decision. It may be the
wrong decision but at least it was a decision. Contrast this with Bush's
predecessor and follower who are afraid to make decisions when the
decision need to be made. Both Clinton and Obama will wait and wait and
then they may make the decision.

Decisiveness is only one trait of leadership, and it definitely helps if
you are right, but I was asking a serious question. I personally think
Bush is the worst President in my lifetime, but you obviously don't. I
was seriously asking what you think his successes will be. I'll give you
Iraq *could* eventually be a success, but what else has he done
successfully?

Why don't you just go off on your rant about how bad Bush was and we can
conclude the discussion. I doesn't matter what I say you will argue the
opposite.

Not a thunder supporter, but is a valid question. Bush has been a bad
POTUS. Maybe the worst in 40 years, but Clinton was also a bad POTUS. He,
in some ways, may be worse, in that he had the charisma and mandate to fix
things. He did not. Left the Middle East unfixed, or not even marginally
safer. Made North Korea even a bigger problem. Laid the foundation for the
present economic meltdown. Is a continuation and major result of letting
the dot.bomb debacle happen. Bush overspent, and started a war in Iraq,
when he should have completed Afghanistan first. Open 2 fronts did not work
in 1942, and does not work now. Expanded Federal government and size even
greater than the previous POTUS. A man who ran on fiscal responsibility and
restraint of government. Not! I hope Obama can fix a lot of the wrongs.
Very skeptical, as he has not a background in problem solving and has Reid
and Pelosi running Congress. We have not had a good POTUS for a long time.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:11:01 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:


At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President,
more likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.
It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.
I'm just curious, what do you consider will be his successes?
He did rather than talked. When action was required he took action.

A trait of leadership is being able to make a decision. It may be the
wrong decision but at least it was a decision. Contrast this with Bush's
predecessor and follower who are afraid to make decisions when the
decision need to be made. Both Clinton and Obama will wait and wait and
then they may make the decision.
Decisiveness is only one trait of leadership, and it definitely helps if
you are right, but I was asking a serious question. I personally think
Bush is the worst President in my lifetime, but you obviously don't. I
was seriously asking what you think his successes will be. I'll give you
Iraq *could* eventually be a success, but what else has he done
successfully?
Why don't you just go off on your rant about how bad Bush was and we can
conclude the discussion. I doesn't matter what I say you will argue the
opposite.

Not a thunder supporter, but is a valid question. Bush has been a bad
POTUS. Maybe the worst in 40 years, but Clinton was also a bad POTUS. He,
in some ways, may be worse, in that he had the charisma and mandate to fix

How can you have a mandate when you never receive more than 50% of the
vote?

things. He did not. Left the Middle East unfixed, or not even marginally
safer. Made North Korea even a bigger problem. Laid the foundation for the
present economic meltdown. Is a continuation and major result of letting
the dot.bomb debacle happen. Bush overspent, and started a war in Iraq,
when he should have completed Afghanistan first. Open 2 fronts did not work

Bush did overspend, he should have used the veto pen more often. He
should have put a stop to earmarks.

in 1942, and does not work now. Expanded Federal government and size even
greater than the previous POTUS. A man who ran on fiscal responsibility and
restraint of government. Not! I hope Obama can fix a lot of the wrongs.
Very skeptical, as he has not a background in problem solving and has Reid
and Pelosi running Congress. We have not had a good POTUS for a long time.

Obama is not a leader, not an executive, not a decision maker. He is a
consensus builder by trade.

Pelosi is a disaster happening in real time. She is more interested in
the trappings of office than she is in serving the people of the country.

True, it has been 20 years since our last good president.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:56:40 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:


At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President,
more likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.

It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.

I'm just curious, what do you consider will be his successes?
Bush will be remembered as the President who brought democracy to Iraq and
Afghanistan, dealing severe blows to al-Qaeda worldwide while defeating it
in Iraq, bringing this country back from the results of 9/11, and
preventing another attack during his term.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:27:49 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:11:01 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:


At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President,
more likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.
It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.

I'm just curious, what do you consider will be his successes?

He did rather than talked. When action was required he took action.

A trait of leadership is being able to make a decision. It may be the
wrong decision but at least it was a decision. Contrast this with Bush's
predecessor and follower who are afraid to make decisions when the
decision need to be made. Both Clinton and Obama will wait and wait and
then they may make the decision.

Decisiveness is only one trait of leadership, and it definitely helps if
you are right, but I was asking a serious question. I personally think
Bush is the worst President in my lifetime, but you obviously don't. I
was seriously asking what you think his successes will be. I'll give you
Iraq *could* eventually be a success, but what else has he done
successfully?

Bush will be remembered as the President who brought democracy to Iraq and
Afghanistan, dealing severe blows to al-Qaeda worldwide while defeating it
in Iraq, bringing this country back from the results of 9/11, and
preventing another attack during his term.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 15:00:40 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:27:49 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:11:01 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:


At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President,
more likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.
It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.

I'm just curious, what do you consider will be his successes?

He did rather than talked. When action was required he took action.

A trait of leadership is being able to make a decision. It may be the
wrong decision but at least it was a decision. Contrast this with Bush's
predecessor and follower who are afraid to make decisions when the
decision need to be made. Both Clinton and Obama will wait and wait and
then they may make the decision.

Decisiveness is only one trait of leadership, and it definitely helps if
you are right, but I was asking a serious question. I personally think
Bush is the worst President in my lifetime, but you obviously don't. I
was seriously asking what you think his successes will be. I'll give you
Iraq *could* eventually be a success, but what else has he done
successfully?

Bush will be remembered as the President who brought democracy to Iraq and
Afghanistan, dealing severe blows to al-Qaeda worldwide while defeating it
in Iraq, bringing this country back from the results of 9/11, and
preventing another attack during his term.


The taliban are coming back into power in Afghanistan. Bad planning.


They're flexing now that Obama is in the works. Hopefully he won't play the
liberal game and crawl under a shell thinking it will all go away if we
just be nice.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:27:49 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:11:01 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:


At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President,
more likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.
It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.

I'm just curious, what do you consider will be his successes?

He did rather than talked. When action was required he took action.

A trait of leadership is being able to make a decision. It may be the
wrong decision but at least it was a decision. Contrast this with Bush's
predecessor and follower who are afraid to make decisions when the
decision need to be made. Both Clinton and Obama will wait and wait and
then they may make the decision.

Decisiveness is only one trait of leadership, and it definitely helps if
you are right, but I was asking a serious question. I personally think
Bush is the worst President in my lifetime, but you obviously don't. I
was seriously asking what you think his successes will be. I'll give you
Iraq *could* eventually be a success, but what else has he done
successfully?

Bush will be remembered as the President who brought democracy to Iraq and
Afghanistan, dealing severe blows to al-Qaeda worldwide while defeating it
in Iraq, bringing this country back from the results of 9/11, and
preventing another attack during his term.


The taliban are coming back into power in Afghanistan. Bad planning.

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:27:49 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:11:01 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:35:47 -0500, BAR wrote:


At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President,
more likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.
It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.

I'm just curious, what do you consider will be his successes?

He did rather than talked. When action was required he took action.

A trait of leadership is being able to make a decision. It may be the
wrong decision but at least it was a decision. Contrast this with Bush's
predecessor and follower who are afraid to make decisions when the
decision need to be made. Both Clinton and Obama will wait and wait and
then they may make the decision.

Decisiveness is only one trait of leadership, and it definitely helps if
you are right, but I was asking a serious question. I personally think
Bush is the worst President in my lifetime, but you obviously don't. I
was seriously asking what you think his successes will be. I'll give you
Iraq *could* eventually be a success, but what else has he done
successfully?

Iraq a success? Far too much blood and treasure just to kill one
relatively harmless [outside his borders, at least] asshole. They
should have sent about four gunsels and had done with him. They denied
his appeal and he swung in about three days. The guy who dragged
someone to death behind a pickup is still waiting to die after ten
years.

Casady

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:01:49 -0500, BAR wrote:

36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat but has never posted a photo of it,
however, he has posted photos of his puny Parker

There is an outfit by that name in Columbus OH that builds wooden
boats. Who in their right mind would want a wood 36 footer. Can you
say 'upkeep'.

Casady

The Plight of the Chesapeake Bay...
 

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:46:00 +0000, Richard Casady wrote:


Iraq a success? Far too much blood and treasure just to kill one
relatively harmless [outside his borders, at least] asshole. They should
have sent about four gunsels and had done with him.

I can't disagree. We've shed as much American blood bringing democracy
to Iraq, as we shed during our own Revolutionary War. So far, there are
a little over 4,200 American KIA in Iraq. During the Revolutionary War,
there were 4,435 KIA.