The papers say, "Bush incompetent".

[Lincoln]

Settle down Agathon. We all know what you meant to say (I think)

A little advice: Don't tell anyone here you are a philosophy professor.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Are you a sponsored idiot or is this free?

Neither, just non-partisan.

What is wrong with comparing two people who lack the normal human faculty of knowing what is appropriate to say at a certain time? Nothing. Was I drawing an inference? No. Was I illustrating a lack of tact? Yes.

BS, you didn't pick an evil person - the KKK Grand Dragon - out of the blue.

If you want to call this "brutal honesty" then go ahead - that just sounds to me like trying to change a vice into a virtue.

After what you've said, I can see why you consider honesty, brutal or not, to be a vice.

Nothing I say implies that Donald Rumsfeld has any greater similarity to the Grand Dragon of the KKK than any other person who has no sense of tact.

You have no sense of tact, why not compare yourself to Rumsfeld?

I could draw a Venn diagram for you: "people who have no sense of tact". It would contain the GD, Donald Rumsfeld, Prince Phillip, Jerry Springer guests and millions of other people.

And yet, strangely enough, you chose someone we'd all despise because you're so non-partisan.

And it is already established that Rumsfeld has no sense of tact given his recent diplomatic gaffes. If you agree that the GD has no tact - case closed.

I don't consider "tact" more important than honesty.

Yet another Berzerker fuss over nothing.

Just having fun exposing your BS.

[ThePantaloonDog]

This thread is going down the tubes.:

Anyway...

We will see what history says of Bush and Blair. Winston Chruchill was thought of as a devisive war hawk and alarmist as well. Why is it that Europe never learns from history? And why do you ridicule the US but then beg us for help when you are caught with your pants down? Blair is an example to you of a true leader as is Bush.

I think your comparision (or do you equate?!? if you equate I shan't have anything to do with this ridiculous argumen) of Bush with Churchill is correct in that both took/are taking big chances to try to resolve the big problem of their time but Chuchill handeled his allies much better. Churchill was extremly anti-communist but was able to put his behind him to beat a larger problem. Bush really hasn't done this, he's divided his allies on an issue (which I don't believe will actually ease or solve terroism) while seemingly forgetting that their is a larger "War on Terroism". Whatever you think of France's position on the War on Iraq we need France on the War on Terroism. Bush's policy may have made FRance and other allies less likely to aid us.

[DarthVeda]

oh wow... the three most liberal newspapers in the US... big fat hairy deal

[HolyWarrior]

Re: The papers say, "Bush incompetent".

[HolyWarrior]

Re: The papers say, "Bush incompetent".

Originally posted by Agathon
I guess that it's time for reputable news organisations to say what Agathon has been saying since he joined Apolyton.