Bush says that “history” will judge the success of his presidency. I’m guessing it’ll be the “future.”

8 Responses to 407

  1. In most circumstances, at long range, the pen is mightier than the sword, as the pen can write things which sway the masses.

    However at ranges of, say, less than 6ft, the sword is mightier.

    Now, a sword dipped in ink, that is a good compromise.

  2. However at distances of say less than a foot i would rather have a pen, because at that point the stabbing motion with a pen is easier than swinging a big sword with enough force to hurt someone.

  3. We’ll see. It was thought that Reagan was going to start World War III when he was president, but instead the Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin wall was removed shortly thereafter.
    Nuclear pens would just be your own suicide as well unfortunately. Me? I prefer to sneak up behind ’em with a good shiv.

  4. I think a nuclear powered LASER pen would be the best… no, wait. Okay, a nuclear powered laser SWORD with a little pen in the back when you turn it around. THAT would be the awesomest.

  5. Reagan wasn’t really that bad, because he actually held talks with the USSR. (Although the ‘trickle down’ theory of economics is of course bull excrement, and the only people who’ll support junk like that stand to gain from it.)

    You just don’t publicize those compromise things. Like how JFK handled the cuban missile crisis, he actually did open lines of communication and compromised.

    The problem with Bush was that he only seemed to do the public statements, but totally missed the stuff the past presidents did to make it work.