JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq,
he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently
wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's
deeds are not connected with his reputation?
I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the
effectiveness of a person or a project?
That makes no sense. If a project fails, but you gave it your best
effort, then your intent was wrong?
The intent of Johnson's great society was wrong, it failed.

Your conclusion: 100% of the time, when a project fails, the intent was
wrong.

Got it. Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.


Bush *needed* a war, for personal reasons. Cheney needed it for his own
reasons. It had nothing at all to do with the good of this country.
What personal reasons?

Nothing you're educated enough to understand.

Why can't you them Doug and we will see if I can read them at least.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded
Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would
patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a
person's deeds are not connected with his reputation?
I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the
effectiveness of a person or a project?
That makes no sense. If a project fails, but you gave it your best
effort, then your intent was wrong?
The intent of Johnson's great society was wrong, it failed.

Your conclusion: 100% of the time, when a project fails, the intent was
wrong.

Got it. Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.


Bush *needed* a war, for personal reasons. Cheney needed it for his own
reasons. It had nothing at all to do with the good of this country.
What personal reasons?

Nothing you're educated enough to understand.

Why can't you them Doug and we will see if I can read them at least.


Your president once said he spent a couple of hours per day playing video
games. He also stated that he doesn't read much. That may be appropriate for
some grown men, but not for a president. I am 100% sure that his world view
is based on his pastimes, as well as a religion which promotes the concept
of a savior.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
.. I am 100% sure that his world view
is based on his pastimes, as well as a religion which promotes the concept
of a savior.


Pardon me, but is there really anything wrong with believing in a
"Saviour"?

wrote in message
oups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
. I am 100% sure that his world view
is based on his pastimes, as well as a religion which promotes the
concept
of a savior.


Pardon me, but is there really anything wrong with believing in a
"Saviour"?


No. Not until you begin to believe that YOU are the savior. You, and
soldiers who just happen to be somebody else's children.

Keep your religion apart from your political decisions. This requires
strength. I can only think of ONE politician who was able to correctly do
this. Sadly, he has returned to private law practice.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Keep your religion apart from your political decisions. This requires
strength. I can only think of ONE politician who was able to correctly do
this. Sadly, he has returned to private law practice.

If you are saying politican, instead of POTUS,

Don't forget the WWII general
or, the one assasinated in Dallas,
the one buried on his texas ranch.
The one who wasn't a crook.
The one who stumbled getting off a plane

Those are the ones I remember,
Of course, except for Gerald, they're all dead now.

wrote in message
oups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Keep your religion apart from your political decisions. This requires
strength. I can only think of ONE politician who was able to correctly do
this. Sadly, he has returned to private law practice.

If you are saying politican, instead of POTUS,

Don't forget the WWII general
or, the one assasinated in Dallas,
the one buried on his texas ranch.
The one who wasn't a crook.
The one who stumbled getting off a plane

Those are the ones I remember,
Of course, except for Gerald, they're all dead now.


My comment was written in haste, in the middle of doing 8 different things.
I should've said there was only one I know who was deeply religious and knew
how it fit with his duties while in public office. I knew because he
explained it so well. He still does, occasionally, and not in terms intended
for (and obviously originating with) a simpleton. Every now and then, he
tells people they should stop dreaming about his running for president.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
. I am 100% sure that his world view
is based on his pastimes, as well as a religion which promotes the
concept
of a savior.

Pardon me, but is there really anything wrong with believing in a
"Saviour"?


No. Not until you begin to believe that YOU are the savior. You, and
soldiers who just happen to be somebody else's children.

Keep your religion apart from your political decisions. This requires
strength. I can only think of ONE politician who was able to correctly do
this. Sadly, he has returned to private law practice.

You can't separate politics and religion. The real question is what is a
religion.