Russia just being Russia

[dead0man]

link-ABC (the Aussie one)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - Bush

Unlike Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - Bush

Unlike Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news.

Yes, Bush wanted to try and work well with the Russian President. That is not a surprise.
That still doesn't justify the fact that you claimed he, a fairly-elected President who never touched his opposition and allowed a peaceful transfer of power to a big rival, was worse than Putin, an authoritarian dictator who's threatening almost every country bordering him and violently preventing real electoral opposition

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - Bush

Unlike Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news.

Yes, Bush wanted to try and work well with the Russian President. That is not a surprise.
That still doesn't justify the fact that you claimed he, a fairly-elected President who never touched his opposition and allowed a peaceful transfer of power to a big rival, was worse than Putin, an authoritarian dictator who's threatening almost every country bordering him and violently preventing real electoral opposition

Putin sucks, but he only tends to threaten other CIS countries. The US is involved in wars all around the war. And Florida 2000 was not fair.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - Bush

Unlike Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news.

Yes, Bush wanted to try and work well with the Russian President. That is not a surprise.
That still doesn't justify the fact that you claimed he, a fairly-elected President who never touched his opposition and allowed a peaceful transfer of power to a big rival, was worse than Putin, an authoritarian dictator who's threatening almost every country bordering him and violently preventing real electoral opposition

Putin sucks, but he only tends to threaten other CIS countries. The US is involved in wars all around the war. And Florida 2000 was not fair.

That logic just doesn't make any sense. Why would it matter where are the wars, as long as you harm the sovereignity of other countries and the freedom of other peoples (which was consistently trampled in every country the U.S. attacked, mind you, and was in a fine situation in the countries Russia attacked or is threatening)? And say what you will about Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of them were grabs for territory or attacks against legitimately elected regimes, like Russia's attacks against Georgia and Ukraine.
Besides, do you only measure the awfulness of a person by the wars he got his country involved, or was influenced to involve his country (in Bush's case)? Do Putin's trampling of LGBTQ rights, his tolerance of literal LGBTQ deathcamps in his federation's territory, his consistent persecution of opposition figures by using his country's justice system and worse, his war against free speech and his deep and blatant corruption count for nothing? Really, Florida 2000? Is that the big counter-argument, an unchallenged decision by a free court system within a flawed but legitimate democratic system?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are not even trying to pretend to pretend.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - Bush

Unlike Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news.

Yes, Bush wanted to try and work well with the Russian President. That is not a surprise.
That still doesn't justify the fact that you claimed he, a fairly-elected President who never touched his opposition and allowed a peaceful transfer of power to a big rival, was worse than Putin, an authoritarian dictator who's threatening almost every country bordering him and violently preventing real electoral opposition

Putin sucks, but he only tends to threaten other CIS countries. The US is involved in wars all around the war. And Florida 2000 was not fair.

That logic just doesn't make any sense. Why would it matter where are the wars, as long as you harm the sovereignity of other countries and the freedom of other peoples (which was consistently trampled in every country the U.S. attacked, mind you, and was in a fine situation in the countries Russia attacked or is threatening)? And say what you will about Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of them were grabs for territory or attacks against legitimately elected regimes, like Russia's attacks against Georgia and Ukraine.
Besides, do you only measure the awfulness of a person by the wars he got his country involved, or was influenced to involve his country (in Bush's case)? Do Putin's trampling of LGBTQ rights, his tolerance of literal LGBTQ deathcamps in his federation's territory, his consistent persecution of opposition figures by using his country's justice system and worse, his war against free speech and his deep and blatant corruption count for nothing? Really, Florida 2000? Is that the big counter-argument, an unchallenged decision by a free court system within a flawed but legitimate democratic system?

Do you support the Iraq war or something? Because that flushed several trillion dollars down the drain. Russia never had anything close to a western democracy anyways, so while Bush missed the fact that Putin is bad news, it's not like they had a long democratic tradition or anything. How many people has Putin killed? Something around a million died in Bush's wars.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - Bush

Unlike Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news.

Yes, Bush wanted to try and work well with the Russian President. That is not a surprise.
That still doesn't justify the fact that you claimed he, a fairly-elected President who never touched his opposition and allowed a peaceful transfer of power to a big rival, was worse than Putin, an authoritarian dictator who's threatening almost every country bordering him and violently preventing real electoral opposition

Putin sucks, but he only tends to threaten other CIS countries. The US is involved in wars all around the war. And Florida 2000 was not fair.

That logic just doesn't make any sense. Why would it matter where are the wars, as long as you harm the sovereignity of other countries and the freedom of other peoples (which was consistently trampled in every country the U.S. attacked, mind you, and was in a fine situation in the countries Russia attacked or is threatening)? And say what you will about Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of them were grabs for territory or attacks against legitimately elected regimes, like Russia's attacks against Georgia and Ukraine.
Besides, do you only measure the awfulness of a person by the wars he got his country involved, or was influenced to involve his country (in Bush's case)? Do Putin's trampling of LGBTQ rights, his tolerance of literal LGBTQ deathcamps in his federation's territory, his consistent persecution of opposition figures by using his country's justice system and worse, his war against free speech and his deep and blatant corruption count for nothing? Really, Florida 2000? Is that the big counter-argument, an unchallenged decision by a free court system within a flawed but legitimate democratic system?

Do you support the Iraq war or something? Because that flushed several trillion dollars down the drain. Russia never had anything close to a western democracy anyways, so while Bush missed the fact that Putin is bad news, it's not like they had a long democratic tradition or anything. How many people has Putin killed? Something around a million died in Bush's wars.

I don't support the Iraq war, no.
I don't know how many people Putin killed, but I'm sure that the amount is large. How did you measure this million, anyway? I could probably just as well say that Putin is responsible for much of the atrocities in Syria and reach a pretty high number. You could also claim, if counting losses is your measure for how horrible a person is, that Bin Laden was better than Bush. Hell, you could claim that Putin is better than LBJ, Truman and FDR. Are you read to claim this?
But I seem to be arguing with a wall, because you keep ignoring everything Putin did while putting the blame on all of the world's problems on George W. Bush.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - Bush

Unlike Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news.

Yes, Bush wanted to try and work well with the Russian President. That is not a surprise.
That still doesn't justify the fact that you claimed he, a fairly-elected President who never touched his opposition and allowed a peaceful transfer of power to a big rival, was worse than Putin, an authoritarian dictator who's threatening almost every country bordering him and violently preventing real electoral opposition

Putin sucks, but he only tends to threaten other CIS countries. The US is involved in wars all around the war. And Florida 2000 was not fair.

That logic just doesn't make any sense. Why would it matter where are the wars, as long as you harm the sovereignity of other countries and the freedom of other peoples (which was consistently trampled in every country the U.S. attacked, mind you, and was in a fine situation in the countries Russia attacked or is threatening)? And say what you will about Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of them were grabs for territory or attacks against legitimately elected regimes, like Russia's attacks against Georgia and Ukraine.
Besides, do you only measure the awfulness of a person by the wars he got his country involved, or was influenced to involve his country (in Bush's case)? Do Putin's trampling of LGBTQ rights, his tolerance of literal LGBTQ deathcamps in his federation's territory, his consistent persecution of opposition figures by using his country's justice system and worse, his war against free speech and his deep and blatant corruption count for nothing? Really, Florida 2000? Is that the big counter-argument, an unchallenged decision by a free court system within a flawed but legitimate democratic system?

Do you support the Iraq war or something? Because that flushed several trillion dollars down the drain. Russia never had anything close to a western democracy anyways, so while Bush missed the fact that Putin is bad news, it's not like they had a long democratic tradition or anything. How many people has Putin killed? Something around a million died in Bush's wars.

I don't support the Iraq war, no.
I don't know how many people Putin killed, but I'm sure that the amount is large. How did you measure this million, anyway? I could probably just as well say that Putin is responsible for much of the atrocities in Syria and reach a pretty high number. You could also claim, if counting losses is your measure for how horrible a person is, that Bin Laden was better than Bush. Hell, you could claim that Putin is better than LBJ, Truman and FDR. Are you read to claim this?
But I seem to be arguing with a wall, because you keep ignoring everything Putin did while putting the blame on all of the world's problems on George W. Bush.

Unlike your hero George W Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news. Putin didn't start the Syrian war. If anything, he shorted it by helping Assad. Wikipedia lists over half a million dead because of the Iraq war alone, a war that was started for entirely bogus reasons.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - Bush

Unlike Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news.

Yes, Bush wanted to try and work well with the Russian President. That is not a surprise.
That still doesn't justify the fact that you claimed he, a fairly-elected President who never touched his opposition and allowed a peaceful transfer of power to a big rival, was worse than Putin, an authoritarian dictator who's threatening almost every country bordering him and violently preventing real electoral opposition

Putin sucks, but he only tends to threaten other CIS countries. The US is involved in wars all around the war. And Florida 2000 was not fair.

That logic just doesn't make any sense. Why would it matter where are the wars, as long as you harm the sovereignity of other countries and the freedom of other peoples (which was consistently trampled in every country the U.S. attacked, mind you, and was in a fine situation in the countries Russia attacked or is threatening)? And say what you will about Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of them were grabs for territory or attacks against legitimately elected regimes, like Russia's attacks against Georgia and Ukraine.
Besides, do you only measure the awfulness of a person by the wars he got his country involved, or was influenced to involve his country (in Bush's case)? Do Putin's trampling of LGBTQ rights, his tolerance of literal LGBTQ deathcamps in his federation's territory, his consistent persecution of opposition figures by using his country's justice system and worse, his war against free speech and his deep and blatant corruption count for nothing? Really, Florida 2000? Is that the big counter-argument, an unchallenged decision by a free court system within a flawed but legitimate democratic system?

Do you support the Iraq war or something? Because that flushed several trillion dollars down the drain. Russia never had anything close to a western democracy anyways, so while Bush missed the fact that Putin is bad news, it's not like they had a long democratic tradition or anything. How many people has Putin killed? Something around a million died in Bush's wars.

I don't support the Iraq war, no.
I don't know how many people Putin killed, but I'm sure that the amount is large. How did you measure this million, anyway? I could probably just as well say that Putin is responsible for much of the atrocities in Syria and reach a pretty high number. You could also claim, if counting losses is your measure for how horrible a person is, that Bin Laden was better than Bush. Hell, you could claim that Putin is better than LBJ, Truman and FDR. Are you read to claim this?
But I seem to be arguing with a wall, because you keep ignoring everything Putin did while putting the blame on all of the world's problems on George W. Bush.

Unlike your hero George W Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news. Putin didn't start the Syrian war. If anything, he shorted it by helping Assad. Wikipedia lists over half a million dead because of the Iraq war alone, a war that was started for entirely bogus reasons.

Lol.
Also, you picked the highest estimates, of course. And whatever the case, you're putting the entire blame of this war and the deaths caused by it on Bush. Sure, he had a lot of blame, but so did JFK and LBJ for Vietnam, for example, or Truman for the Japanese nukes. I don't see you claiming that they're all worse than Putin, because you do understand that raw casualties and a single event do not constitute the entire being of a person. While Bush made quite a few blunders, Vladimir Putin is a ruthless dictator who's not only doing everything to destabilize the world and grab more power, but also denies freedom and equality to tens of million, if not hundreds of millions, of people. This guy is destroying any chance for democracy in Russia and squashing his opposition by using his country's justice system and his own power, as opposed to Bush, who never denied his citizens their democratic rights and who never laid a finger on his opposition. But I guess that counts for nothing, cause Iraq.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - Bush

Unlike Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news.

Yes, Bush wanted to try and work well with the Russian President. That is not a surprise.
That still doesn't justify the fact that you claimed he, a fairly-elected President who never touched his opposition and allowed a peaceful transfer of power to a big rival, was worse than Putin, an authoritarian dictator who's threatening almost every country bordering him and violently preventing real electoral opposition

Putin sucks, but he only tends to threaten other CIS countries. The US is involved in wars all around the war. And Florida 2000 was not fair.

That logic just doesn't make any sense. Why would it matter where are the wars, as long as you harm the sovereignity of other countries and the freedom of other peoples (which was consistently trampled in every country the U.S. attacked, mind you, and was in a fine situation in the countries Russia attacked or is threatening)? And say what you will about Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of them were grabs for territory or attacks against legitimately elected regimes, like Russia's attacks against Georgia and Ukraine.
Besides, do you only measure the awfulness of a person by the wars he got his country involved, or was influenced to involve his country (in Bush's case)? Do Putin's trampling of LGBTQ rights, his tolerance of literal LGBTQ deathcamps in his federation's territory, his consistent persecution of opposition figures by using his country's justice system and worse, his war against free speech and his deep and blatant corruption count for nothing? Really, Florida 2000? Is that the big counter-argument, an unchallenged decision by a free court system within a flawed but legitimate democratic system?

Do you support the Iraq war or something? Because that flushed several trillion dollars down the drain. Russia never had anything close to a western democracy anyways, so while Bush missed the fact that Putin is bad news, it's not like they had a long democratic tradition or anything. How many people has Putin killed? Something around a million died in Bush's wars.

I don't support the Iraq war, no.
I don't know how many people Putin killed, but I'm sure that the amount is large. How did you measure this million, anyway? I could probably just as well say that Putin is responsible for much of the atrocities in Syria and reach a pretty high number. You could also claim, if counting losses is your measure for how horrible a person is, that Bin Laden was better than Bush. Hell, you could claim that Putin is better than LBJ, Truman and FDR. Are you read to claim this?
But I seem to be arguing with a wall, because you keep ignoring everything Putin did while putting the blame on all of the world's problems on George W. Bush.

Unlike your hero George W Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news. Putin didn't start the Syrian war. If anything, he shorted it by helping Assad. Wikipedia lists over half a million dead because of the Iraq war alone, a war that was started for entirely bogus reasons.

Lol.
Also, you picked the highest estimates, of course. And whatever the case, you're putting the entire blame of this war and the deaths caused by it on Bush. Sure, he had a lot of blame, but so did JFK and LBJ for Vietnam, for example, or Truman for the Japanese nukes. I don't see you claiming that they're all worse than Putin, because you do understand that raw casualties and a single event do not constitute the entire being of a person. While Bush made quite a few blunders, Vladimir Putin is a ruthless dictator who's not only doing everything to destabilize the world and grab more power, but also denies freedom and equality to tens of million, if not hundreds of millions, of people. This guy is destroying any chance for democracy in Russia and squashing his opposition by using his country's justice system and his own power, as opposed to Bush, who never denied his citizens their democratic rights and who never laid a finger on his opposition. But I guess that counts for nothing, cause Iraq.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - Bush

Unlike Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news.

Yes, Bush wanted to try and work well with the Russian President. That is not a surprise.
That still doesn't justify the fact that you claimed he, a fairly-elected President who never touched his opposition and allowed a peaceful transfer of power to a big rival, was worse than Putin, an authoritarian dictator who's threatening almost every country bordering him and violently preventing real electoral opposition

Putin sucks, but he only tends to threaten other CIS countries. The US is involved in wars all around the war. And Florida 2000 was not fair.

That logic just doesn't make any sense. Why would it matter where are the wars, as long as you harm the sovereignity of other countries and the freedom of other peoples (which was consistently trampled in every country the U.S. attacked, mind you, and was in a fine situation in the countries Russia attacked or is threatening)? And say what you will about Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of them were grabs for territory or attacks against legitimately elected regimes, like Russia's attacks against Georgia and Ukraine.
Besides, do you only measure the awfulness of a person by the wars he got his country involved, or was influenced to involve his country (in Bush's case)? Do Putin's trampling of LGBTQ rights, his tolerance of literal LGBTQ deathcamps in his federation's territory, his consistent persecution of opposition figures by using his country's justice system and worse, his war against free speech and his deep and blatant corruption count for nothing? Really, Florida 2000? Is that the big counter-argument, an unchallenged decision by a free court system within a flawed but legitimate democratic system?

Do you support the Iraq war or something? Because that flushed several trillion dollars down the drain. Russia never had anything close to a western democracy anyways, so while Bush missed the fact that Putin is bad news, it's not like they had a long democratic tradition or anything. How many people has Putin killed? Something around a million died in Bush's wars.

I don't support the Iraq war, no.
I don't know how many people Putin killed, but I'm sure that the amount is large. How did you measure this million, anyway? I could probably just as well say that Putin is responsible for much of the atrocities in Syria and reach a pretty high number. You could also claim, if counting losses is your measure for how horrible a person is, that Bin Laden was better than Bush. Hell, you could claim that Putin is better than LBJ, Truman and FDR. Are you read to claim this?
But I seem to be arguing with a wall, because you keep ignoring everything Putin did while putting the blame on all of the world's problems on George W. Bush.

Unlike your hero George W Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news. Putin didn't start the Syrian war. If anything, he shorted it by helping Assad. Wikipedia lists over half a million dead because of the Iraq war alone, a war that was started for entirely bogus reasons.

Lol.
Also, you picked the highest estimates, of course. And whatever the case, you're putting the entire blame of this war and the deaths caused by it on Bush. Sure, he had a lot of blame, but so did JFK and LBJ for Vietnam, for example, or Truman for the Japanese nukes. I don't see you claiming that they're all worse than Putin, because you do understand that raw casualties and a single event do not constitute the entire being of a person. While Bush made quite a few blunders, Vladimir Putin is a ruthless dictator who's not only doing everything to destabilize the world and grab more power, but also denies freedom and equality to tens of million, if not hundreds of millions, of people. This guy is destroying any chance for democracy in Russia and squashing his opposition by using his country's justice system and his own power, as opposed to Bush, who never denied his citizens their democratic rights and who never laid a finger on his opposition. But I guess that counts for nothing, cause Iraq.

The Iraq wasn't the only Bush war. And there was Hurricane Katrina.

So you're telling me that I never put any blame of the Iraq war on Hillary? LOL!!! LOL!!!!!!! Anyways, the whole war was based upon lies. So by your argument, the worst US President has to be better than the best Russian leader since Russia has never been anything approaching a western democracy.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - Bush

Unlike Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news.

Yes, Bush wanted to try and work well with the Russian President. That is not a surprise.
That still doesn't justify the fact that you claimed he, a fairly-elected President who never touched his opposition and allowed a peaceful transfer of power to a big rival, was worse than Putin, an authoritarian dictator who's threatening almost every country bordering him and violently preventing real electoral opposition

Putin sucks, but he only tends to threaten other CIS countries. The US is involved in wars all around the war. And Florida 2000 was not fair.

That logic just doesn't make any sense. Why would it matter where are the wars, as long as you harm the sovereignity of other countries and the freedom of other peoples (which was consistently trampled in every country the U.S. attacked, mind you, and was in a fine situation in the countries Russia attacked or is threatening)? And say what you will about Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of them were grabs for territory or attacks against legitimately elected regimes, like Russia's attacks against Georgia and Ukraine.
Besides, do you only measure the awfulness of a person by the wars he got his country involved, or was influenced to involve his country (in Bush's case)? Do Putin's trampling of LGBTQ rights, his tolerance of literal LGBTQ deathcamps in his federation's territory, his consistent persecution of opposition figures by using his country's justice system and worse, his war against free speech and his deep and blatant corruption count for nothing? Really, Florida 2000? Is that the big counter-argument, an unchallenged decision by a free court system within a flawed but legitimate democratic system?

Do you support the Iraq war or something? Because that flushed several trillion dollars down the drain. Russia never had anything close to a western democracy anyways, so while Bush missed the fact that Putin is bad news, it's not like they had a long democratic tradition or anything. How many people has Putin killed? Something around a million died in Bush's wars.

I don't support the Iraq war, no.
I don't know how many people Putin killed, but I'm sure that the amount is large. How did you measure this million, anyway? I could probably just as well say that Putin is responsible for much of the atrocities in Syria and reach a pretty high number. You could also claim, if counting losses is your measure for how horrible a person is, that Bin Laden was better than Bush. Hell, you could claim that Putin is better than LBJ, Truman and FDR. Are you read to claim this?
But I seem to be arguing with a wall, because you keep ignoring everything Putin did while putting the blame on all of the world's problems on George W. Bush.

Unlike your hero George W Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news. Putin didn't start the Syrian war. If anything, he shorted it by helping Assad. Wikipedia lists over half a million dead because of the Iraq war alone, a war that was started for entirely bogus reasons.

Lol.
Also, you picked the highest estimates, of course. And whatever the case, you're putting the entire blame of this war and the deaths caused by it on Bush. Sure, he had a lot of blame, but so did JFK and LBJ for Vietnam, for example, or Truman for the Japanese nukes. I don't see you claiming that they're all worse than Putin, because you do understand that raw casualties and a single event do not constitute the entire being of a person. While Bush made quite a few blunders, Vladimir Putin is a ruthless dictator who's not only doing everything to destabilize the world and grab more power, but also denies freedom and equality to tens of million, if not hundreds of millions, of people. This guy is destroying any chance for democracy in Russia and squashing his opposition by using his country's justice system and his own power, as opposed to Bush, who never denied his citizens their democratic rights and who never laid a finger on his opposition. But I guess that counts for nothing, cause Iraq.

The Iraq wasn't the only Bush war. And there was Hurricane Katrina.

So you're telling me that I never put any blame of the Iraq war on Hillary? LOL!!! LOL!!!!!!! Anyways, the whole war was based upon lies. So by your argument, the worst US President has to be better than the best Russian leader since Russia has never been anything approaching a western democracy.

Lol, right, you are putting a lot of blame on a single U.S. Senator as well, my bad.
And my argument is, if you look at the context of the times, Putin is one of the most horrible leaders today in terms of his negative effect on a large amount of people. Obviously Abe Lincoln was probably just as homophobic as him, but he lived centuries ago. Putin is allowing his stooge in Chechnya to put gays in concentration camps in the modern age, and that is a big difference. Putin took his country in a very wrong direction, while, for example, Gorbachev took it in a fairly decent direction.
That is why I'd consider Gorbachev as generally better than, say, Buchanan or Trump, but yeah, most U.S. leaders were far better than most Russian leaders. That is a very low bar, though.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - Bush

Unlike Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news.

Yes, Bush wanted to try and work well with the Russian President. That is not a surprise.
That still doesn't justify the fact that you claimed he, a fairly-elected President who never touched his opposition and allowed a peaceful transfer of power to a big rival, was worse than Putin, an authoritarian dictator who's threatening almost every country bordering him and violently preventing real electoral opposition

Putin sucks, but he only tends to threaten other CIS countries. The US is involved in wars all around the war. And Florida 2000 was not fair.

That logic just doesn't make any sense. Why would it matter where are the wars, as long as you harm the sovereignity of other countries and the freedom of other peoples (which was consistently trampled in every country the U.S. attacked, mind you, and was in a fine situation in the countries Russia attacked or is threatening)? And say what you will about Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of them were grabs for territory or attacks against legitimately elected regimes, like Russia's attacks against Georgia and Ukraine.
Besides, do you only measure the awfulness of a person by the wars he got his country involved, or was influenced to involve his country (in Bush's case)? Do Putin's trampling of LGBTQ rights, his tolerance of literal LGBTQ deathcamps in his federation's territory, his consistent persecution of opposition figures by using his country's justice system and worse, his war against free speech and his deep and blatant corruption count for nothing? Really, Florida 2000? Is that the big counter-argument, an unchallenged decision by a free court system within a flawed but legitimate democratic system?

Do you support the Iraq war or something? Because that flushed several trillion dollars down the drain. Russia never had anything close to a western democracy anyways, so while Bush missed the fact that Putin is bad news, it's not like they had a long democratic tradition or anything. How many people has Putin killed? Something around a million died in Bush's wars.

I don't support the Iraq war, no.
I don't know how many people Putin killed, but I'm sure that the amount is large. How did you measure this million, anyway? I could probably just as well say that Putin is responsible for much of the atrocities in Syria and reach a pretty high number. You could also claim, if counting losses is your measure for how horrible a person is, that Bin Laden was better than Bush. Hell, you could claim that Putin is better than LBJ, Truman and FDR. Are you read to claim this?
But I seem to be arguing with a wall, because you keep ignoring everything Putin did while putting the blame on all of the world's problems on George W. Bush.

Unlike your hero George W Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news. Putin didn't start the Syrian war. If anything, he shorted it by helping Assad. Wikipedia lists over half a million dead because of the Iraq war alone, a war that was started for entirely bogus reasons.

Lol.
Also, you picked the highest estimates, of course. And whatever the case, you're putting the entire blame of this war and the deaths caused by it on Bush. Sure, he had a lot of blame, but so did JFK and LBJ for Vietnam, for example, or Truman for the Japanese nukes. I don't see you claiming that they're all worse than Putin, because you do understand that raw casualties and a single event do not constitute the entire being of a person. While Bush made quite a few blunders, Vladimir Putin is a ruthless dictator who's not only doing everything to destabilize the world and grab more power, but also denies freedom and equality to tens of million, if not hundreds of millions, of people. This guy is destroying any chance for democracy in Russia and squashing his opposition by using his country's justice system and his own power, as opposed to Bush, who never denied his citizens their democratic rights and who never laid a finger on his opposition. But I guess that counts for nothing, cause Iraq.

The Iraq wasn't the only Bush war. And there was Hurricane Katrina.

So you're telling me that I never put any blame of the Iraq war on Hillary? LOL!!! LOL!!!!!!! Anyways, the whole war was based upon lies. So by your argument, the worst US President has to be better than the best Russian leader since Russia has never been anything approaching a western democracy.

Lol, right, you are putting a lot of blame on a single U.S. Senator as well, my bad.
And my argument is, if you look at the context of the times, Putin is one of the most horrible leaders today in terms of his negative effect on a large amount of people. Obviously Abe Lincoln was probably just as homophobic as him, but he lived centuries ago. Putin is allowing his stooge in Chechnya to put gays in concentration camps in the modern age, and that is a big difference. Putin took his country in a very wrong direction, while, for example, Gorbachev took it in a fairly decent direction.
That is why I'd consider Gorbachev as generally better than, say, Buchanan or Trump, but yeah, most U.S. leaders were far better than most Russian leaders. That is a very low bar, though.

I blame a lot of people like PNAC (which includes Jeb). There's plenty of blame to go around, but I find it hilarious that someone implied that I don't blame Hillary for Iraq considering all the sh**t I get about blaming Hillary for things.

But ultimately, Bush was the command in chief who started the war. Bush wasn't exactly a model when it came to gays, using his opposition to gay marriage to get re-elected. I mean sure, none of the 42 Presidents before him had support gay marriage as President, but I don't think they usually ran against the gays quite like that. OK, Bill Clinton actually bragged about signing DOMA in some 1996 campaign ad. But anyways....

You really seem to think I'm some sort of Putin fan, which I'm not. There's no question that he's the worst Russian leader of the last 30 years, and possibly longer, and that Gorbachev is arguably the best leader Russia has ever had. And anyways, in between them was Yeltsin, who wasn't so great either, and we bragged about how we influenced the elections in his favor.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - Bush

Unlike Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news.

Yes, Bush wanted to try and work well with the Russian President. That is not a surprise.
That still doesn't justify the fact that you claimed he, a fairly-elected President who never touched his opposition and allowed a peaceful transfer of power to a big rival, was worse than Putin, an authoritarian dictator who's threatening almost every country bordering him and violently preventing real electoral opposition

Putin sucks, but he only tends to threaten other CIS countries. The US is involved in wars all around the war. And Florida 2000 was not fair.

That logic just doesn't make any sense. Why would it matter where are the wars, as long as you harm the sovereignity of other countries and the freedom of other peoples (which was consistently trampled in every country the U.S. attacked, mind you, and was in a fine situation in the countries Russia attacked or is threatening)? And say what you will about Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of them were grabs for territory or attacks against legitimately elected regimes, like Russia's attacks against Georgia and Ukraine.
Besides, do you only measure the awfulness of a person by the wars he got his country involved, or was influenced to involve his country (in Bush's case)? Do Putin's trampling of LGBTQ rights, his tolerance of literal LGBTQ deathcamps in his federation's territory, his consistent persecution of opposition figures by using his country's justice system and worse, his war against free speech and his deep and blatant corruption count for nothing? Really, Florida 2000? Is that the big counter-argument, an unchallenged decision by a free court system within a flawed but legitimate democratic system?

Do you support the Iraq war or something? Because that flushed several trillion dollars down the drain. Russia never had anything close to a western democracy anyways, so while Bush missed the fact that Putin is bad news, it's not like they had a long democratic tradition or anything. How many people has Putin killed? Something around a million died in Bush's wars.

I don't support the Iraq war, no.
I don't know how many people Putin killed, but I'm sure that the amount is large. How did you measure this million, anyway? I could probably just as well say that Putin is responsible for much of the atrocities in Syria and reach a pretty high number. You could also claim, if counting losses is your measure for how horrible a person is, that Bin Laden was better than Bush. Hell, you could claim that Putin is better than LBJ, Truman and FDR. Are you read to claim this?
But I seem to be arguing with a wall, because you keep ignoring everything Putin did while putting the blame on all of the world's problems on George W. Bush.

Unlike your hero George W Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news. Putin didn't start the Syrian war. If anything, he shorted it by helping Assad. Wikipedia lists over half a million dead because of the Iraq war alone, a war that was started for entirely bogus reasons.

Lol.
Also, you picked the highest estimates, of course. And whatever the case, you're putting the entire blame of this war and the deaths caused by it on Bush. Sure, he had a lot of blame, but so did JFK and LBJ for Vietnam, for example, or Truman for the Japanese nukes. I don't see you claiming that they're all worse than Putin, because you do understand that raw casualties and a single event do not constitute the entire being of a person. While Bush made quite a few blunders, Vladimir Putin is a ruthless dictator who's not only doing everything to destabilize the world and grab more power, but also denies freedom and equality to tens of million, if not hundreds of millions, of people. This guy is destroying any chance for democracy in Russia and squashing his opposition by using his country's justice system and his own power, as opposed to Bush, who never denied his citizens their democratic rights and who never laid a finger on his opposition. But I guess that counts for nothing, cause Iraq.

The Iraq wasn't the only Bush war. And there was Hurricane Katrina.

So you're telling me that I never put any blame of the Iraq war on Hillary? LOL!!! LOL!!!!!!! Anyways, the whole war was based upon lies. So by your argument, the worst US President has to be better than the best Russian leader since Russia has never been anything approaching a western democracy.

Lol, right, you are putting a lot of blame on a single U.S. Senator as well, my bad.
And my argument is, if you look at the context of the times, Putin is one of the most horrible leaders today in terms of his negative effect on a large amount of people. Obviously Abe Lincoln was probably just as homophobic as him, but he lived centuries ago. Putin is allowing his stooge in Chechnya to put gays in concentration camps in the modern age, and that is a big difference. Putin took his country in a very wrong direction, while, for example, Gorbachev took it in a fairly decent direction.
That is why I'd consider Gorbachev as generally better than, say, Buchanan or Trump, but yeah, most U.S. leaders were far better than most Russian leaders. That is a very low bar, though.

I blame a lot of people like PNAC (which includes Jeb). There's plenty of blame to go around, but I find it hilarious that someone implied that I don't blame Hillary for Iraq considering all the sh**t I get about blaming Hillary for things.

But ultimately, Bush was the command in chief who started the war. Bush wasn't exactly a model when it came to gays, using his opposition to gay marriage to get re-elected. I mean sure, none of the 42 Presidents before him had support gay marriage as President, but I don't think they usually ran against the gays quite like that. OK, Bill Clinton actually bragged about signing DOMA in some 1996 campaign ad. But anyways....

You really seem to think I'm some sort of Putin fan, which I'm not. There's no question that he's the worst Russian leader of the last 30 years, and possibly longer, and that Gorbachev is arguably the best leader Russia has ever had. And anyways, in between them was Yeltsin, who wasn't so great either, and we bragged about how we influenced the elections in his favor.

I definitely don't think that you're a Putin fan (just like I'm not a GWB fan ), I just think that you might have an anti-American bias that is quite often seen in the radical left- tending to see things done by Western countries much more critically than things done by non-Western countries.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - Bush

Unlike Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news.

Yes, Bush wanted to try and work well with the Russian President. That is not a surprise.
That still doesn't justify the fact that you claimed he, a fairly-elected President who never touched his opposition and allowed a peaceful transfer of power to a big rival, was worse than Putin, an authoritarian dictator who's threatening almost every country bordering him and violently preventing real electoral opposition

Putin sucks, but he only tends to threaten other CIS countries. The US is involved in wars all around the war. And Florida 2000 was not fair.

That logic just doesn't make any sense. Why would it matter where are the wars, as long as you harm the sovereignity of other countries and the freedom of other peoples (which was consistently trampled in every country the U.S. attacked, mind you, and was in a fine situation in the countries Russia attacked or is threatening)? And say what you will about Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of them were grabs for territory or attacks against legitimately elected regimes, like Russia's attacks against Georgia and Ukraine.
Besides, do you only measure the awfulness of a person by the wars he got his country involved, or was influenced to involve his country (in Bush's case)? Do Putin's trampling of LGBTQ rights, his tolerance of literal LGBTQ deathcamps in his federation's territory, his consistent persecution of opposition figures by using his country's justice system and worse, his war against free speech and his deep and blatant corruption count for nothing? Really, Florida 2000? Is that the big counter-argument, an unchallenged decision by a free court system within a flawed but legitimate democratic system?

Do you support the Iraq war or something? Because that flushed several trillion dollars down the drain. Russia never had anything close to a western democracy anyways, so while Bush missed the fact that Putin is bad news, it's not like they had a long democratic tradition or anything. How many people has Putin killed? Something around a million died in Bush's wars.

I don't support the Iraq war, no.
I don't know how many people Putin killed, but I'm sure that the amount is large. How did you measure this million, anyway? I could probably just as well say that Putin is responsible for much of the atrocities in Syria and reach a pretty high number. You could also claim, if counting losses is your measure for how horrible a person is, that Bin Laden was better than Bush. Hell, you could claim that Putin is better than LBJ, Truman and FDR. Are you read to claim this?
But I seem to be arguing with a wall, because you keep ignoring everything Putin did while putting the blame on all of the world's problems on George W. Bush.

Unlike your hero George W Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news. Putin didn't start the Syrian war. If anything, he shorted it by helping Assad. Wikipedia lists over half a million dead because of the Iraq war alone, a war that was started for entirely bogus reasons.

Lol.
Also, you picked the highest estimates, of course. And whatever the case, you're putting the entire blame of this war and the deaths caused by it on Bush. Sure, he had a lot of blame, but so did JFK and LBJ for Vietnam, for example, or Truman for the Japanese nukes. I don't see you claiming that they're all worse than Putin, because you do understand that raw casualties and a single event do not constitute the entire being of a person. While Bush made quite a few blunders, Vladimir Putin is a ruthless dictator who's not only doing everything to destabilize the world and grab more power, but also denies freedom and equality to tens of million, if not hundreds of millions, of people. This guy is destroying any chance for democracy in Russia and squashing his opposition by using his country's justice system and his own power, as opposed to Bush, who never denied his citizens their democratic rights and who never laid a finger on his opposition. But I guess that counts for nothing, cause Iraq.

The Iraq wasn't the only Bush war. And there was Hurricane Katrina.

So you're telling me that I never put any blame of the Iraq war on Hillary? LOL!!! LOL!!!!!!! Anyways, the whole war was based upon lies. So by your argument, the worst US President has to be better than the best Russian leader since Russia has never been anything approaching a western democracy.

Lol, right, you are putting a lot of blame on a single U.S. Senator as well, my bad.
And my argument is, if you look at the context of the times, Putin is one of the most horrible leaders today in terms of his negative effect on a large amount of people. Obviously Abe Lincoln was probably just as homophobic as him, but he lived centuries ago. Putin is allowing his stooge in Chechnya to put gays in concentration camps in the modern age, and that is a big difference. Putin took his country in a very wrong direction, while, for example, Gorbachev took it in a fairly decent direction.
That is why I'd consider Gorbachev as generally better than, say, Buchanan or Trump, but yeah, most U.S. leaders were far better than most Russian leaders. That is a very low bar, though.

I blame a lot of people like PNAC (which includes Jeb). There's plenty of blame to go around, but I find it hilarious that someone implied that I don't blame Hillary for Iraq considering all the sh**t I get about blaming Hillary for things.

But ultimately, Bush was the command in chief who started the war. Bush wasn't exactly a model when it came to gays, using his opposition to gay marriage to get re-elected. I mean sure, none of the 42 Presidents before him had support gay marriage as President, but I don't think they usually ran against the gays quite like that. OK, Bill Clinton actually bragged about signing DOMA in some 1996 campaign ad. But anyways....

You really seem to think I'm some sort of Putin fan, which I'm not. There's no question that he's the worst Russian leader of the last 30 years, and possibly longer, and that Gorbachev is arguably the best leader Russia has ever had. And anyways, in between them was Yeltsin, who wasn't so great either, and we bragged about how we influenced the elections in his favor.

I definitely don't think that you're a Putin fan (just like I'm not a GWB fan ), I just think that you might have an anti-American bias that is quite often seen in the radical left- tending to see things done by Western countries much more critically than things done by non-Western countries.

Invading Iraq was an incredibly anti American move, that costs trillions of dollars, and hurt America's reputation. We really could have used that money to fix our crumbling infrastructure and the like.  In the 21st century, China has built HSR and limited accessed highways all over their country, while we just watch our infrastructure decay.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Waiting for the people who keep claiming Putin is better than George W. Bush...

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." - Bush

Unlike Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news.

Yes, Bush wanted to try and work well with the Russian President. That is not a surprise.
That still doesn't justify the fact that you claimed he, a fairly-elected President who never touched his opposition and allowed a peaceful transfer of power to a big rival, was worse than Putin, an authoritarian dictator who's threatening almost every country bordering him and violently preventing real electoral opposition

Putin sucks, but he only tends to threaten other CIS countries. The US is involved in wars all around the war. And Florida 2000 was not fair.

That logic just doesn't make any sense. Why would it matter where are the wars, as long as you harm the sovereignity of other countries and the freedom of other peoples (which was consistently trampled in every country the U.S. attacked, mind you, and was in a fine situation in the countries Russia attacked or is threatening)? And say what you will about Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of them were grabs for territory or attacks against legitimately elected regimes, like Russia's attacks against Georgia and Ukraine.
Besides, do you only measure the awfulness of a person by the wars he got his country involved, or was influenced to involve his country (in Bush's case)? Do Putin's trampling of LGBTQ rights, his tolerance of literal LGBTQ deathcamps in his federation's territory, his consistent persecution of opposition figures by using his country's justice system and worse, his war against free speech and his deep and blatant corruption count for nothing? Really, Florida 2000? Is that the big counter-argument, an unchallenged decision by a free court system within a flawed but legitimate democratic system?

Do you support the Iraq war or something? Because that flushed several trillion dollars down the drain. Russia never had anything close to a western democracy anyways, so while Bush missed the fact that Putin is bad news, it's not like they had a long democratic tradition or anything. How many people has Putin killed? Something around a million died in Bush's wars.

I don't support the Iraq war, no.
I don't know how many people Putin killed, but I'm sure that the amount is large. How did you measure this million, anyway? I could probably just as well say that Putin is responsible for much of the atrocities in Syria and reach a pretty high number. You could also claim, if counting losses is your measure for how horrible a person is, that Bin Laden was better than Bush. Hell, you could claim that Putin is better than LBJ, Truman and FDR. Are you read to claim this?
But I seem to be arguing with a wall, because you keep ignoring everything Putin did while putting the blame on all of the world's problems on George W. Bush.

Unlike your hero George W Bush, I always knew that Putin was bad news. Putin didn't start the Syrian war. If anything, he shorted it by helping Assad. Wikipedia lists over half a million dead because of the Iraq war alone, a war that was started for entirely bogus reasons.

Lol.
Also, you picked the highest estimates, of course. And whatever the case, you're putting the entire blame of this war and the deaths caused by it on Bush. Sure, he had a lot of blame, but so did JFK and LBJ for Vietnam, for example, or Truman for the Japanese nukes. I don't see you claiming that they're all worse than Putin, because you do understand that raw casualties and a single event do not constitute the entire being of a person. While Bush made quite a few blunders, Vladimir Putin is a ruthless dictator who's not only doing everything to destabilize the world and grab more power, but also denies freedom and equality to tens of million, if not hundreds of millions, of people. This guy is destroying any chance for democracy in Russia and squashing his opposition by using his country's justice system and his own power, as opposed to Bush, who never denied his citizens their democratic rights and who never laid a finger on his opposition. But I guess that counts for nothing, cause Iraq.

The Iraq wasn't the only Bush war. And there was Hurricane Katrina.

So you're telling me that I never put any blame of the Iraq war on Hillary? LOL!!! LOL!!!!!!! Anyways, the whole war was based upon lies. So by your argument, the worst US President has to be better than the best Russian leader since Russia has never been anything approaching a western democracy.

Lol, right, you are putting a lot of blame on a single U.S. Senator as well, my bad.
And my argument is, if you look at the context of the times, Putin is one of the most horrible leaders today in terms of his negative effect on a large amount of people. Obviously Abe Lincoln was probably just as homophobic as him, but he lived centuries ago. Putin is allowing his stooge in Chechnya to put gays in concentration camps in the modern age, and that is a big difference. Putin took his country in a very wrong direction, while, for example, Gorbachev took it in a fairly decent direction.
That is why I'd consider Gorbachev as generally better than, say, Buchanan or Trump, but yeah, most U.S. leaders were far better than most Russian leaders. That is a very low bar, though.

I blame a lot of people like PNAC (which includes Jeb). There's plenty of blame to go around, but I find it hilarious that someone implied that I don't blame Hillary for Iraq considering all the sh**t I get about blaming Hillary for things.

But ultimately, Bush was the command in chief who started the war. Bush wasn't exactly a model when it came to gays, using his opposition to gay marriage to get re-elected. I mean sure, none of the 42 Presidents before him had support gay marriage as President, but I don't think they usually ran against the gays quite like that. OK, Bill Clinton actually bragged about signing DOMA in some 1996 campaign ad. But anyways....

You really seem to think I'm some sort of Putin fan, which I'm not. There's no question that he's the worst Russian leader of the last 30 years, and possibly longer, and that Gorbachev is arguably the best leader Russia has ever had. And anyways, in between them was Yeltsin, who wasn't so great either, and we bragged about how we influenced the elections in his favor.

I definitely don't think that you're a Putin fan (just like I'm not a GWB fan ), I just think that you might have an anti-American bias that is quite often seen in the radical left- tending to see things done by Western countries much more critically than things done by non-Western countries.

Invading Iraq was an incredibly anti American move, that costs trillions of dollars, and hurt America's reputation. We really could have used that money to fix our crumbling infrastructure and the like.  In the 21st century, China has built HSR and limited accessed highways all over their country, while we just watch our infrastructure decay.

With that I agree. Iraq was a very stupid move- they should've used economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure to force UN inspectors into Iraq and make sure that they aren't developing any WMDs, and also made very clear that no transgressions of other countries' sovereignity (like the invasion into Kuwait) would be tolerated, but they also should've kept the Hussein regime intact. As deplorable as it was, it was also a crucial part of the regional power balance, a balancer against Iran's ambitions. Now they didn't only remove this balancer and disturbed the Middle East's power balance, but also botched it and let chaos reign in Iraq. This in turn caused untold atrocities by ISIS and other organizations, and then let Iran swoop in and assert their domination not only in Iraq, but also in Syria and Lebanon. So yeah, not a good move.