94 Year Old Prophesy Fulfilled

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

H. L. Menken (1880-1956) was journalist, satirist, critic, and Democrat. He wrote an editorial in the Baltimore Sun in the July 26, 1920 edition as follows:

"As democracy is perfected,the office of the Pres. represents more and more closely the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folk of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the WH will be occupied by a downright fool and narcissistic moron." (veriied by Snopes as True).

Looks like this 94 year old prophecy has come true.

[quietfan 233]

H. L. Menken (1880-1956) was journalist, satirist, critic, and Democrat. He wrote an editorial in the Baltimore Sun in the July 26, 1920 edition as follows:

"As democracy is perfected,the office of the Pres. represents more and more closely the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folk of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the WH will be occupied by a downright fool and narcissistic moron." (veriied by Snopes as True).

Looks like this 94 year old prophecy has come true.

Actually, Menken wasn't going very far out on a limb in making this prediction, since I think probably every President has been described this way by one faction or another.

[incidentally, it was only 81 years from 1920 to George W. Bush's inauguration in 2001, not 94. ]

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

But IMHO Bush wasn't half the moron Obama is. History will decide not us.

[quietfan 233]

But IMHO Bush wasn't half the moron Obama is. History will decide not us.

You are correct: History will decide.

You are also entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to my opinion that "W" was twice the moron that Obama is. (Proud that we live in a free country where both of our opinions can be tolerated!)

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Agreed. Wish more posters felt the same.

[quietfan 233]

Agreed. Wish more posters felt the same.

Amen to that!

[AURaptor 1,137]

W is far less narscasistic than BHO. Only Bill Clinton loves himself near the level of Barry.

[Weegle777 78]

But IMHO Bush wasn't half the moron Obama is. History will decide not us.

You are correct: History will decide.

You are also entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to my opinion that "W" was twice the moron that Obama is. (Proud that we live in a free country where both of our opinions can be tolerated!)

That may be true, but at least we knew that a real man occupied the oval office. And if I had to choose between the two, I would have all confidence that if I had to go into a fight, Bush would be able to pick up a weapon and know how to use it, obama, not so much.

[homersapien 12,679]

But IMHO Bush wasn't half the moron Obama is. History will decide not us.

You are correct: History will decide.

You are also entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to my opinion that "W" was twice the moron that Obama is. (Proud that we live in a free country where both of our opinions can be tolerated!)

That may be true, but at least we knew that a real man occupied the oval office. And if I had to choose between the two, I would have all confidence that if I had to go into a fight, Bush would be able to pick up a weapon and know how to use it, obama, not so much.

LOL! The question is: would he fire it in the right direction?

[Weegle777 78]

You stalking me sir?

[homersapien 12,679]

You stalking me sir?

Always.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

777....if Obama had a bazooka and saw Putin coming he would tie a white piece of cloth on it.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

But IMHO Bush wasn't half the moron Obama is. History will decide not us.

You are correct: History will decide.

You are also entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to my opinion that "W" was twice the moron that Obama is. (Proud that we live in a free country where both of our opinions can be tolerated!)

That may be true, but at least we knew that a real man occupied the oval office. And if I had to choose between the two, I would have all confidence that if I had to go into a fight, Bush would be able to pick up a weapon and know how to use it, obama, not so much.

Maybe we should make the UFC champion our next President? Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment that requires the President to prove he meets a minimum required testosterone level? Sorry women. You just aint "man" enough to be President of this here country.

[AUFAN78 4,207]

But IMHO Bush wasn't half the moron Obama is. History will decide not us.

You are correct: History will decide.

You are also entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to my opinion that "W" was twice the moron that Obama is. (Proud that we live in a free country where both of our opinions can be tolerated!)

That may be true, but at least we knew that a real man occupied the oval office. And if I had to choose between the two, I would have all confidence that if I had to go into a fight, Bush would be able to pick up a weapon and know how to use it, obama, not so much.

LOL! The question is: would he fire it in the right direction?

After how many drinks?

[autigeremt 7,460]

How about Rand Paul?

[quietfan 233]

But IMHO Bush wasn't half the moron Obama is. History will decide not us.

You are correct: History will decide.

You are also entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to my opinion that "W" was twice the moron that Obama is. (Proud that we live in a free country where both of our opinions can be tolerated!)

That may be true, but at least we knew that a real man occupied the oval office. And if I had to choose between the two, I would have all confidence that if I had to go into a fight, Bush would be able to pick up a weapon and know how to use it, obama, not so much.

Maybe we should make the UFC champion our next President? Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment that requires the President to prove he meets a minimum required testosterone level? Sorry women. You just aint "man" enough to be President of this here country.

Exactly. I'm not even sure what is meant by a "real man", or how that ties into being a good leader.

Franklin Roosevelt was an invalid confined to a wheelchair, but he was one of our greatest Presidents, leading us through the Great Depression and WWII--the leader of the "Greatest Generation". Margaret Thatcher is often referred to as "The Iron Lady", although she was obviously lacking in the "testes" department..

Physical strength or the ability to use a weapon has little to do with "manhood". To me, being a "real" man or woman includes such attributes as honesty, compassion, intelligence, the ability to build consensus, the ability to make tough decisions on one's own rather than blindly following the advise of others, the willingness to consider all sides of an argument without pre-established bias, and a commitment to exhausting all reasonable non-violent options before resorting to violence. Personally, I don't feel like G. W. Bush had any of those characteristics. (But I do not claim that Obama necessarily excels in all those areas, either.)

Nor do I think that "fighting ability"--literally or figuratively--is the first priority in choosing a President. Each of the attributes I just listed is more important in a good leader, and more descriptive of a "real" man/woman, IMO.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"To me, being a "real" man or woman includes such attributes as honesty, compassion, intelligence, the ability to build consensus, the ability to make tough decisions on one's own "

Simply using the criteria you set, I would be compelled to opine that BHO is definitely NOT a "real" man. Honesty? Are you serious? The guy has lied so much to the citizenry AND to our allies NOBODY trusts him. Compassion? Really? He's so compassionate he couldn't take a couple hours out of his fund raising activities to visit the border where a humanitarian crisis of epic proportion is underway. Ability to build consensus? HAHAHAHA..BHO couldn't band together 20 countries if the survival of the planet depended on it. Ability to make tough decisions? LMAO HIs response to anything that requires thought or leadership is to go fund raise which I will concede he's damn good at even though his going rate dropped from $25K per plate to $5K this last trip....all the rest? Not even close!

[Weegle777 78]

But IMHO Bush wasn't half the moron Obama is. History will decide not us.

You are correct: History will decide.

You are also entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to my opinion that "W" was twice the moron that Obama is. (Proud that we live in a free country where both of our opinions can be tolerated!)

That may be true, but at least we knew that a real man occupied the oval office. And if I had to choose between the two, I would have all confidence that if I had to go into a fight, Bush would be able to pick up a weapon and know how to use it, obama, not so much.

Maybe we should make the UFC champion our next President? Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment that requires the President to prove he meets a minimum required testosterone level? Sorry women. You just aint "man" enough to be President of this here country.

Exactly. I'm not even sure what is meant by a "real man", or how that ties into being a good leader.

Franklin Roosevelt was an invalid confined to a wheelchair, but he was one of our greatest Presidents, leading us through the Great Depression and WWII--the leader of the "Greatest Generation". Margaret Thatcher is often referred to as "The Iron Lady", although she was obviously lacking in the "testes" department..

Physical strength or the ability to use a weapon has little to do with "manhood". To me, being a "real" man or woman includes such attributes as honesty, compassion, intelligence, the ability to build consensus, the ability to make tough decisions on one's own rather than blindly following the advise of others, the willingness to consider all sides of an argument without pre-established bias, and a commitment to exhausting all reasonable non-violent options before resorting to violence. Personally, I don't feel like G. W. Bush had any of those characteristics. (But I do not claim that Obama necessarily excels in all those areas, either.)

Nor do I think that "fighting ability"--literally or figuratively--is the first priority in choosing a President. Each of the attributes I just listed is more important in a good leader, and more descriptive of a "real" man/woman, IMO.

A. Do you know him personally to make those statements about his character? I would suspect that the answer would be no. B. Could you be more over-dramatic or over-analyze a post any more than you did mine? Lighten up Francis.

[quietfan 233]

"To me, being a "real" man or woman includes such attributes as honesty, compassion, intelligence, the ability to build consensus, the ability to make tough decisions on one's own "

Simply using the criteria you set, I would be compelled to opine that BHO is definitely NOT a "real" man. Honesty? Are you serious? The guy has lied so much to the citizenry AND to our allies NOBODY trusts him. Compassion? Really? He's so compassionate he couldn't take a couple hours out of his fund raising activities to visit the border where a humanitarian crisis of epic proportion is underway. Ability to build consensus? HAHAHAHA..BHO couldn't band together 20 countries if the survival of the planet depended on it. Ability to make tough decisions? LMAO HIs response to anything that requires thought or leadership is to go fund raise which I will concede he's damn good at even though his going rate dropped from $25K per plate to $5K this last trip....all the rest? Not even close!

You are welcome to believe that. I disagree, but I'm not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking.

As I said, I'm not claiming Obama excels in those attributes, and I'm not trying to be his "cheerleader". I just happen to believe Bush was more of a failure in those areas. I think he was more dishonest (WMD's in Iraq was a whopper), less compassionate (I saw very little compassion in his economic policies), less intelligent (to think that reducing revenue with tax breaks for the rich made any sense in wartime), too easily swayed by advisers like Rumsfeld & Cheney, less open minded, and too eager to go to war in Iraq (I'm okay with the war in Afghanistan since it was bin Laden and his Taliban supporters that attacked us).

...just my opinion, however, and you are certainly entitled to yours.

[quietfan 233]

But IMHO Bush wasn't half the moron Obama is. History will decide not us.

You are correct: History will decide.

You are also entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to my opinion that "W" was twice the moron that Obama is. (Proud that we live in a free country where both of our opinions can be tolerated!)

That may be true, but at least we knew that a real man occupied the oval office. And if I had to choose between the two, I would have all confidence that if I had to go into a fight, Bush would be able to pick up a weapon and know how to use it, obama, not so much.

Maybe we should make the UFC champion our next President? Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment that requires the President to prove he meets a minimum required testosterone level? Sorry women. You just aint "man" enough to be President of this here country.

Exactly. I'm not even sure what is meant by a "real man", or how that ties into being a good leader.

Franklin Roosevelt was an invalid confined to a wheelchair, but he was one of our greatest Presidents, leading us through the Great Depression and WWII--the leader of the "Greatest Generation". Margaret Thatcher is often referred to as "The Iron Lady", although she was obviously lacking in the "testes" department..

Physical strength or the ability to use a weapon has little to do with "manhood". To me, being a "real" man or woman includes such attributes as honesty, compassion, intelligence, the ability to build consensus, the ability to make tough decisions on one's own rather than blindly following the advise of others, the willingness to consider all sides of an argument without pre-established bias, and a commitment to exhausting all reasonable non-violent options before resorting to violence. Personally, I don't feel like G. W. Bush had any of those characteristics. (But I do not claim that Obama necessarily excels in all those areas, either.)

Nor do I think that "fighting ability"--literally or figuratively--is the first priority in choosing a President. Each of the attributes I just listed is more important in a good leader, and more descriptive of a "real" man/woman, IMO.

A. Do you know him personally to make those statements about his character? I would suspect that the answer would be no. B. Could you be more over-dramatic or over-analyze a post any more than you did mine? Lighten up Francis.

I would be surprised if any of us on the AUFamily boards knew Bush, Obama, Biden, or Cheney personally, but suppose it's possible. Do you have personal first-hand knowledge of Bush's or Obama's relative "manliness"? Most of us form our opinions based on their public image, actions, or policies. (And image is probably the most manipulated and therefore least significant of those.) Having an opinion is not character assassination with regards to Bush, Obama, or anyone else.

I just don't think the Presidency is a manliness competition. Being a good president depends on a lot more than how "macho" one might be. I'm more interested in how compassionate, intelligent, diplomatic (domestic & foreign), and uniting a president can be than how "tough" or "manly" he/she is. But I also acknowledge that every person has his/her own definition of such attributes, and will therefore judge any president differently. Some think Bush demonstrated those attributes better, some think Obama does. Quite a few folks think both suck. To each, his own [opinion]. Mine is pretty obvious, I think.

Sorry if you felt that was overly dramatic or analytical. I find stereotypes about "real men" overly dramatic and simplistic, but respect anyone's right to think them. That's why we have a democracy that allows us each to vote our convictions. I'm glad you have a vote, and I'm glad I have a vote.

(I did enjoy that line in "Stripes", by the way.)

[icanthearyou 4,468]

But IMHO Bush wasn't half the moron Obama is. History will decide not us.

You are correct: History will decide.

You are also entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to my opinion that "W" was twice the moron that Obama is. (Proud that we live in a free country where both of our opinions can be tolerated!)

That may be true, but at least we knew that a real man occupied the oval office. And if I had to choose between the two, I would have all confidence that if I had to go into a fight, Bush would be able to pick up a weapon and know how to use it, obama, not so much.

Maybe we should make the UFC champion our next President? Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment that requires the President to prove he meets a minimum required testosterone level? Sorry women. You just aint "man" enough to be President of this here country.

Exactly. I'm not even sure what is meant by a "real man", or how that ties into being a good leader.

Franklin Roosevelt was an invalid confined to a wheelchair, but he was one of our greatest Presidents, leading us through the Great Depression and WWII--the leader of the "Greatest Generation". Margaret Thatcher is often referred to as "The Iron Lady", although she was obviously lacking in the "testes" department..

Physical strength or the ability to use a weapon has little to do with "manhood". To me, being a "real" man or woman includes such attributes as honesty, compassion, intelligence, the ability to build consensus, the ability to make tough decisions on one's own rather than blindly following the advise of others, the willingness to consider all sides of an argument without pre-established bias, and a commitment to exhausting all reasonable non-violent options before resorting to violence. Personally, I don't feel like G. W. Bush had any of those characteristics. (But I do not claim that Obama necessarily excels in all those areas, either.)

Nor do I think that "fighting ability"--literally or figuratively--is the first priority in choosing a President. Each of the attributes I just listed is more important in a good leader, and more descriptive of a "real" man/woman, IMO.

A. Do you know him personally to make those statements about his character? I would suspect that the answer would be no. B. Could you be more over-dramatic or over-analyze a post any more than you did mine? Lighten up Francis.

Rite Weegs. Quite dont no W the way you no barry. Quite dont no em personal like you. Quite cant make no jugdmints like that. Libtards is always bein damatical theys always over analizing the truth cause they dont like it. barry sux.

[quietfan 233]

theys always over analizing the truth cause they dont like it.

...and even if we've never "analized" anything, we're still going to hell for tolerating marriage between those who do!

[Weegle777 78]

Thank you quietfan for a well thought out and adult post, ICHY hopefully will learn how to be an adult from you. Apparently he hasn't quite grown up yet. WDE.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"To me, being a "real" man or woman includes such attributes as honesty, compassion, intelligence, the ability to build consensus, the ability to make tough decisions on one's own "

Simply using the criteria you set, I would be compelled to opine that BHO is definitely NOT a "real" man. Honesty? Are you serious? The guy has lied so much to the citizenry AND to our allies NOBODY trusts him. Compassion? Really? He's so compassionate he couldn't take a couple hours out of his fund raising activities to visit the border where a humanitarian crisis of epic proportion is underway. Ability to build consensus? HAHAHAHA..BHO couldn't band together 20 countries if the survival of the planet depended on it. Ability to make tough decisions? LMAO HIs response to anything that requires thought or leadership is to go fund raise which I will concede he's damn good at even though his going rate dropped from $25K per plate to $5K this last trip....all the rest? Not even close!

You are welcome to believe that. I disagree, but I'm not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking.

As I said, I'm not claiming Obama excels in those attributes, and I'm not trying to be his "cheerleader". I just happen to believe Bush was more of a failure in those areas. I think he was more dishonest (WMD's in Iraq was a whopper), less compassionate (I saw very little compassion in his economic policies), less intelligent (to think that reducing revenue with tax breaks for the rich made any sense in wartime), too easily swayed by advisers like Rumsfeld & Cheney, less open minded, and too eager to go to war in Iraq (I'm okay with the war in Afghanistan since it was bin Laden and his Taliban supporters that attacked us).

...just my opinion, however, and you are certainly entitled to yours.

WMDs was not the main reason Iraq was invaded. Iraq was invaded to remove Saddam Hussein. As far as that war goes, Bush had over 50 allies, Congressional approval as well as a UN Resolution. Hillary and Bill, as well as Diane Feinstein, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and harry Reid ALL voted in favor of invading Iraq but NOBODY seems to mind that they use the mistakes made politically against republicans but they were FOR the war themselves.

You say you see very little compassion in Bush's economic policies but dont point out the compassion you see in BHO. I have seen nothing from BHO that suggests he has compassion for ANYONE who cant help him politically.

If we're going to crack on advisors and you seem more than eager to do that to Bush advisors but seem content with BHO advisors. Well, John Kerry is the current SoS and arguably the worst of all time. If you doubt that read up on Kerry's efforts to have his fellow soldiers who served in Vietnam treated like war criminals and murderers. BHO takes most of his advice from Valery Jarret who is just a typical Chicago style bureaucrat.

Aside from Obamas work out tape in which he made Richard Simmons look like Vin Diesel. I dont care about his manliness but I see no evidence of any when his entire game is blaming others for his failures..its either GWB or those mean ole republicans who are the reason he's a failure. he has NEVER taken repsonsibility for ANYTHING. I believe the reason he's a failure is because his idea of compromise is the other side laying down and giving him 100% of what he wants. When he doesn't get it, nothing happens he just blames republicans for inaction while he refuses to compromise on anything.

This guy is worse than GWB which is too funny. After hearing the left whine incessantly for years about how stupid W was they elect a guy that is arguably worse in every measure. Bush made his academic records public. Wonder why Obama didn't? Obama believes the answer to big govt malaise is more govt. If you believe that then you're on the right team supporting Obama.

[quietfan 233]

WMDs was not the main reason Iraq was invaded. Iraq was invaded to remove Saddam Hussein. As far as that war goes, Bush had over 50 allies, Congressional approval as well as a UN Resolution. Hillary and Bill, as well as Diane Feinstein, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and harry Reid ALL voted in favor of invading Iraq but NOBODY seems to mind that they use the mistakes made politically against republicans but they were FOR the war themselves.

You say you see very little compassion in Bush's economic policies but dont point out the compassion you see in BHO. I have seen nothing from BHO that suggests he has compassion for ANYONE who cant help him politically.

If we're going to crack on advisors and you seem more than eager to do that to Bush advisors but seem content with BHO advisors. Well, John Kerry is the current SoS and arguably the worst of all time. If you doubt that read up on Kerry's efforts to have his fellow soldiers who served in Vietnam treated like war criminals and murderers. BHO takes most of his advice from Valery Jarret who is just a typical Chicago style bureaucrat.

Aside from Obamas work out tape in which he made Richard Simmons look like Vin Diesel. I dont care about his manliness but I see no evidence of any when his entire game is blaming others for his failures..its either GWB or those mean ole republicans who are the reason he's a failure. he has NEVER taken repsonsibility for ANYTHING. I believe the reason he's a failure is because his idea of compromise is the other side laying down and giving him 100% of what he wants. When he doesn't get it, nothing happens he just blames republicans for inaction while he refuses to compromise on anything.

This guy is worse than GWB which is too funny. After hearing the left whine incessantly for years about how stupid W was they elect a guy that is arguably worse in every measure. Bush made his academic records public. Wonder why Obama didn't? Obama believes the answer to big govt malaise is more govt. If you believe that then you're on the right team supporting Obama.

To quote myself:

You are welcome to believe that. I disagree, but I'm not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking. Just my opinion ... and you are certainly entitled to yours

Willing to listen to your thoughts...but not likely to convert, so hope you are not wasting your time in hopes of that. Otherwise, all's good.