Harry Reid calling Bush a loser

UT_Air_Assault

New member
The other day Senate minority leader Harry Reid called Bush #1 "a wonderful human being,'' yet Dubaya a "Loser". As much as I like Mr. Bush personally (I've meet him before and really like the guy) I have agree with what Mr. Reid said and everyday it is reinforced by the White House.
Mr. Reid immediately made ammends by calling the White House to apologize which shows the man's charatcter and I wish we had more democrats like him. But I have to point out that if a Republican would of called any senior democrat a "Loser" we could not of imagined the doo-doo storm that would of been ignited by all my fellow liberals in the media.
 
Bush is no loser.

Bush a "Loser"? Yeah, he should have apologized for that. Bush is certainly not a loser. Stupid...? perhaps. A manipulative liar...? definitely. Evil...? well, no more than LBJ.

It's too bad, really. Maybe if Bush actually was a loser, 1595 US Troops would still be alive.

:braces for flames:
 
But I have to point out that if a Republican would of called any senior democrat a "Loser" we could not of imagined the doo-doo storm that would of been ignited by all my fellow liberals in the media.
How would it differ from the "doo-doo" they fling 24/7/365?
 
Harry Reid call Bush a loser.
How ironic can you get.

Bush is a politician; perhaps better than any in my experience. Reid is jealous.
 
LBJ: 50,000 dead, and he lost the war.

Bush: 1500 passed on, actually has a good possibility of winning, and beginning a sea-change in the middle east towards moderate democracy and away from terror-states.


No comparison. Sure, I think the Bush admin has made plenty of mistakes conducting the war...but they've got the right idea with reforming middle eastern government, and this is the only imaginable administration with the guts to do it.

Al Gore would've called another UN conference and maybe lit a candle, and Kerry would've been ignored for the ineffective poll-jockey that he is.

Is Bush perfect? No, but better than all alternatives, Yes.
 
LBJ: 50,000 dead, and he lost the war.

Bush: 1500 passed on, actually has a good possibility of winning, and beginning a sea-change in the middle east towards moderate democracy and away from terror-states.


No comparison. Sure, I think the Bush admin has made plenty of mistakes conducting the war...but they've got the right idea with reforming middle eastern government, and this is the only imaginable administration with the guts to do it.

Al Gore would've called another UN conference and maybe lit a candle, and Kerry would've been ignored for the ineffective poll-jockey that he is.

Is Bush perfect? No, but better than all alternatives, Yes.


+1
 
+1 on student

Dems are just jealous now. They truly thought they had the support against him to win big last year, and they didn't.
 
Oh, if only Kerry would have won... There would be no war, no violence in America, no guns in private hands to cause child shootings, and no terrorism, no poverty, no unemployment, no immigration problems, no racism, no homophobia, and no one without health insurance.

Everything would be perfect in every way and we'd all be holding hands and singing "Kum-by-yah."

Give me a "F" -ing break. :barf: :barf: :barf:
 
Oh, if only Kerry would have won... There would be no war, no violence in America, no guns in private hands to cause child shootings, and no terrorism, no poverty, no unemployment, no immigration problems, no racism, no homophobia, and no one without health insurance.

You know, I almost wish he would have won, just to show hardcore leftists that even if they are in control, the world won't be perfect.

Of course, they would just respond with 'we need more time, money and legislation'
 
"You know, I almost wish he would have won, just to show hardcore leftists that even if they are in control, the world won't be perfect."

You'd think that they would have gotten that idea after Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter...
 
I agree with shootinstudent on this one. I'm a 21 year old conservative with a few liberal streaks. VERY FEW, but their there. I'd put Bush against any Dem.
 
Maybe if Bush actually was a loser, 1595 US Troops would still be alive.
But how many Iraqi "insurgents" are now dead that may have taken their "holy war" onto our soil?

The biggest benefit of the Iraqi war, in my opinion, isn't the demise of Saddam's government, but all of the non-Iraqi terrorists going to Iraq to join in the fight and getting themselves killed. I'd much rather our army fight these guys in Iraq than on the streets of our own cities.
 
As far as deaths, most of them are accidents, and the peacetime death rate for accidents actually seems to be higher most of the time.
 
The big point is being missed.
It's not that he called the President a Loser, It's that:


He did it in front of a bunch of impressionable young students.


If this was intentional, it's about as low as you can go.
:barf:
 
The biggest benefit of the Iraqi war, in my opinion, isn't the demise of Saddam's government, but all of the non-Iraqi terrorists going to Iraq to join in the fight and getting themselves killed. I'd much rather our army fight these guys in Iraq than on the streets of our own cities.

Excellent point! I agree 100%.
 
Let's Compare

When a United States senator speaks before a group of high school students, you'd think he would want to "build up" and reinforce a sense of patriotism and pride in our country.

Let's see what we have here:

1. George Bush has a Yale undergraduate degree. He has a Master's in Business Administration from Harvard. He was a fighter pilot. He and a group of friends put together a deal to buy and own a baseball team. He was twice elected Governor of the state of Texas and twice elected President of the United States. When the President speaks before young people, he lifts up our nation. He challenges us all to be better than we were yesterday.

2. Harry Reid is....well....uh....he's....uh...well....he's not "any of the above".
 
Back
Top