Searched the web for Bush idiot. Results 1 - 10 of about 301,000. Search took 0.10 seconds.

Oh ya? Well, I searched for "yunky" and got this:

I can't believe youre buying that act about how dumb W is. He puts that on so that real idiots will vote for him. Yes, he's ill-spoken, unlettered, a mediocre performer in school. But he's very smart. Just not in a good way. His is the treacherous, selfish intellect the of weasel and the hyena.

i searched for butthole and i got this

maybe i spelled it wrong

I'm going to have to agree with boorite. Bush is usually relatively witty when he's not running through a rigorously rehearsed speech. Playing dumb is an excellent political tactic. It probably kept Reagan out of prison.

And really, not being an excellent public speaker doesn't make you unintelligent. I think it's kind of ignorant in itself to call someone stupid because they fumble over words when they speak. A lot of very talented writers are complete train wrecks when they speak.

I agree with Makk. Judging someone his ability to recite some stupid speech that he has been given is not very fair. I think Bush is going to destroy us all, but I also think he's going to do it by some means other than tripping over a coffee table and spilling hot tea in our laps, then barking at us like a dog, and running around in circles on his side, all while saying "NYUK NYUK!"

He's a clever bastard. And he should be. I wouldn't want a president who manages to act smart, but be stupid at heart (Clinton).

Equating sly intellect with spoon-fed, nickel-for-six treachery pretty much suspends your objective license to differentiate between the two.

Carry on, then....

UH-- Clinton wasn't really intelligent? Fooled them people what name them Road Scholars.

If he was so smart how come he got impeached for something so stupid.

Bush declared a whole war a didn't get impeached. He must be pretty smart.

Well, aside from the fact that William Clinton didn't get impeached, uh... getting away with murder doesn't make you smart, if you think about it. Or if you don't.

He did get impeached. (see Impeachment).

OK... technically, he was impeached. Fair enough. My bad. This makes a warmongering, bought-and-paid-for charlatan and sock puppet a better president, because... ?

OMG!!!

teh mAAk=teh bUSh!!!11

quote:

---

OK... technically, he was impeached. Fair enough. My bad. This makes a warmongering, bought-and-paid-for charlatan and sock puppet a better president, because... ?

---

quote:

---

God, did everyone foget that there was war in the middle east during Clinton's reign?

---

oh yeah and bosnia

quote:

---

and what about the debate about how our troops were stretched thin during clintons time, before 9-11 blew the question out of the water?

---

im just askin for perspective is all

i will leave though because i don't know what im talking about

Everything Clinton did militarily (outside of Bosnia) pissed me off greatly. He just did enough to appease the vague notion we needed to act militarily without accomplishing any objectives. I'm thinking of the "surgical" strikes at Bin Laden and actions in Somalia specifically. I'm not saying he should have moved in with full force to destroy Bin Laden, I was like a lot of other people at the time and just thought he was mainly a blowhard. What angered me was him lobbing out missiles and shooting to appease both those who wanted decisive military action and those who didn't want to get involved. That's only irritating when you are talking about domestic politics, but when you are talking about acts of war I think it is atrocious.

Mullah Omar was on the fence about supporting Bin Laden until Clinton's missile run on his country, then he threw his lot in with him completely. Clinton only stirred up a hornet's nest. He was more concerned about what a few flag-drapped coffins on CNN would do to his approval ratings then actually making a decision.

About the unreadiness of out military: maybe someone should run on the platform that NORAD and the CIA is dangerously ill-equipped. There's plenty of cause for that. I want to know what the FUCK NORAD is good for if they can't stop a single rogue 767.

I agree with your evaluation of Clinton's actions wrt Somalia and Sudan, Makk. Wes Clark on Meet the Press yesterday was talking about how frustrated he was that no matter what kinds of reports and recommendations he submitted, they wound up sitting by and watching 800,000 people get hacked to death with machetes. And the attack on Sudan's supposed chemical weapons factory, which turned out to be a pharmaceutical plant, was a crime. Wiped out half their drug supply. Who knows how many innocent people that killed? I picture some poor fucker dying of a tooth infection in the desert.

Sudan, by way of fence-mending, offered the US thick files on al Qaeda, which the Clinton administration felt it necessary to reject, seeing as how we were enemies and all.

But I think around the time of the USS Cole attack, Clinton got serious about fighting al Qaeda. Sadly, it was a little late, and the Bush admin was not too interested in carrying on the work. And the rest is history.

quote:

---

im just askin for perspective is all

i will leave though because i don't know what im talking about

---

to busy learning about other more important things first

but ill check back with you

quote:

---

I agree with Makk. Judging someone his ability to recite some stupid speech that he has been given is not very fair.

---

I don' want my president blowing lots of money to kill people. Unless, of course, they're trying to kill us. You know... like Iraq was.

HAH!.

*cough*

Anyhoo... How, indeed, did NORAD not detect two rogue 757 Boeings? How, one may ask, did another slam into the Pentagon and leave not one speck of wreckage?

I know not these things. And those who do, ain't sayin'.

That being said...

"The economy."

*cough*

Boorite, I have to give you a lot of credit, and I mean A LOT. The fact that you see through Bush's bullshit is one thing, but the other fact that you are NOT a Clinton-loving goodfornothing is even better. Seriously. Bush is plain evil, and I will get to that in a minute, but Clinton WAS the lesser of two evils. Evil, yes, but not because of why most people think. Clinton's dalliances with a chubby White House Intern mean absolutely jack shit when it comes to leading the country. Unfortunately, his other actions speak volumes. Under the Clinton Administration, the power of the USDA, which helps to regulate our beef, chicken, and other meats, as well as the FDA, who holds the job (among others) of monitoring and approving the additives put into our meat, lost TONS of power. The Clinton Admin allowed successful lobbying by Big Beef and Big Chicken, among others, to whittle down the effectiveness of the USDA and the FDA. This has allowed these industries to permit their feedlots to feed the cattle such things as OTHER CATTLE, and chicken feces mixed into their grain. Anyone else realize that cows are HERBIVORES?
Now, as for George W., his 'stupidity', is actually NOT the complete opposite, but he is NOT stupid. He is not a dumbass, plain and simple, but he is also a horrible public speaker. Why? Contempt. He has literally so much contempt for most reporters, and people in general, that he subconsciously doesn't deem most people worthy of his energy. The only time you will see an articulate W is when he is inebriated. This is not due to any social phobia. This is due to the fact that he really hates having to explain himself. He is absolutely one of the most heinous individuals we have had in the White House, and his utter contempt for the American people is actually quite evident on his face when asked a challenging question. THAT is where you get the Bush-isms. We are not worthy enough for him to actually pay attention to speaking to us.

P.S. - Actually, bunerrabb, Wolfowitz and Cheney, among others, head up an organization that proclaimed, way before the 9/11 attacks, that what was needed was a 'New Pearl Harbor' to galvanize the American people into one solid goal. Coincidence?

Just out interest, what kind of coverage are you getting in the States about the anti-Bush protests going on over here this week?

quote:

---

Wolfowitz and Cheney, among others, head up an organization that proclaimed, way before the 9/11 attacks, that what was needed was a 'New Pearl Harbor' to galvanize the American people into one solid goal. Coincidence?

---

quote:

---

Just out interest, what kind of coverage are you getting in the States about the anti-Bush protests going on over here this week?

---

"...the cat got out of the tree unharmed and is resting comfortably with her owner. And in other news, some stinky Europeans went crazy in the streets today because they are jealous of America. President Bush issued an official smirk addressing the issue, and Congress banned English Leather, Irish Spring, Spanish Fly, and French Ticklers, which will now be known as 'Freedom Ticklers.'"

I would like to point out that MikeyG points out actually abuses Clinton committed when criticising him and only personality assumptions about Bush.

But personality goes a long way right?

Bunner when you start citing conspiracy theory stuff like "there was no plane at the Pentagon" you're going to lose a lot of your potential credibility.

Boorite, saying, "well, right when Clinton FINALLY realized he needed to do something he left office and then suddenly it was Bush's fault" isn't really convincing me.

OK, because that's not what I said.

From NORAD's website:

"Until the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD's focus was almost exclusively fixed on threats coming toward the Canadian and American borders, not terrorism in our domestic airspace. Because of that day, NORAD's focus has increased to include domestic airspace."

As for why there wasn't a whole lot of chunks of airplane lying around the Pentagon after 9/11, it's the same reason you wont find much left of a cockroach if you hit it with a hammer. On concrete that is. Seriously, try it sometime.

The Pentagon is a tad tougher than the WTC.

MaKK_BeNN is a right-wing conformist.

I was looking for accurate source material for a strip and typed in
"Bush electric company bribe links croneyism" into Google

And got Maxnews.com.

This site swings so far to the right you could run an Indy Car round a track non stop with it without touching the wheel once.

I find it a bit* messed up that none of the top 20 sites I checked dealt with this issue impartially.

NORAD was too fucking busy tracking Santa Claus that's why they didn't do anything. I'm really glad my fucking tax dollars pay for that.

I just want to smash all of our enemies I don't know how that makes me a right wing conformist. I've outlined some of my problems with Bush in another thread, I'm just saying someone's subjective opinion about a President's personality means nothing to me, they only make me suspect a bias..like calling Bush stupid with no other meat to your argument. There were plenty of people who did similar things to Clinton and I also was not impressed.

quote:

---

Bunner when you start citing conspiracy theory stuff like "there was no plane at the Pentagon" you're going to lose a lot of your potential credibility.

---

With any sane person?

Kind of taking a lot upon yourself there, aintcha, sonny Jim?

Got the gulag all warmed up?

: )

If you are trying to make a case for your sanity I don't see how that is helping.

Yeah... that must be it. You "mentioned" my sanity in a manner that was "questioning", so now I must be "defending" my sanity, yeah... Trying, desperately, to make a case for my sanity.. yeah! Cause we all know that if somebody of your lofty sense of the world in general calls one's sanity into question... weh heh hellllll, mister.... they just better hop to it and PROVE they're not nuts!

Does this shit ususally work on people in general, or are you just trying it out on me?

I swear I am lauging my ass off, here. Maybe I oughta go to one o` them, there "laughin' academies!"

HAW!

Sorry, that's all the time I have to entertain kneejerk inference and insult, today. Now... If I may slip out of the papier mache` straightjacket that you seem to think fits anybody who smells something fishy near the pond...

You may well sit there - hell, you DO sit there, baselessly pompous and dismissive as usual - and try and fit me for a tinfoil hat, but history, sirrah, history is chocked full of shit that absolutely could not have happened when and where it happened.

That's why people read it.

You should, too.

Did Bush burn the Reichstag?

Fuck if I know. Only I KNOW that I don't know, and I'm not deludued enough to think that anything but history will bear out what DID happen, and I'm certainly not anywhere near delududed enough to believe that people in power only do very holy and moral things to achieve the best results for those whom they govern, so long as they're Americans®. That sort of thinking is the result of that, there "propoganda" that you keep going on about, see?

I do know that I have about as much interest in free psychoanalysis from somebody who thinks that the world is just hunkey dory - and only lunatics and sad sacks say otherwise - as you are in being told, by somebody that you think is a tinfoil hat model, that you have no sense of history.

I guess I'll just have to start crossing the street when I see you coming in this thread, too, (It seems to be the result you're going for) because endlessly shell-gaming statements as soon as they land on your table and then replying with cheap insult, so thinly veiled that the whole point of the reply seems only to be how thinly they CAN be veiled, might be the stuff of politicians' debates, but I'm not running for anything. And I sure as hell ain't voting for you.

The only thing that remains to be seen is whether you shall respond with:

"My, you certainly seem upset about that innocent comment about your sanity. Have I touched a nerve?"

or

"I have no idea what sort of ranting you're going on about, but (string of loose facts here, signifying nothing)"

or....

"If all you can do is ridicule and attack, obviously it is YOU who cannpt offer topical debate, like us big fellas here... who.. blah, blah, blah...."

One thing is for sure... You will reply.

That's all you do.

: )

The thing that hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 was a passenger jet.

Sorry, MaKK, but I could totally get into a diatribe about what Bush has actually done. Let's start with a few of the more well-known facts: Patriot Act I was passed under the Bush Administration, which is THE definitive rollback of civil rights that the greatest activists in this country have fought and died for, for over a century. It is not only an outline for the allowance of the government to systematically spy on and revoke the rights of any individual that THEY deem suspicious, but it was worded in a way that allows for even greater revocations of civil rights, such as Patriot Act II. George W. Bush has, among other things, chopped the health and pension benefits for the very soldiers we have been so indoctrinated to 'support' NEARLY IN HALF. We will have returning 'heros' who will come back to the U.S., and when they leave the service of the military they will be Shit Out of Luck, quite like the heros of our other fuckwad endeavor, VIETNAM. MaKK, you do NOT want to get me started on Bush's bullshit. Wait, you already did. The point is, there should not BE any 'enemies' of the United States to 'smash'. The only reason we have any enemies is because WE CREATED THEM. Bunnerab, I got your back, brother.

Earlier, Makk asked, what's Bush done at home that's so authoritarian? MikeyG's examples of the USA Patriot Acts are starters.

Makk, for the record, I think you're getting misunderstood or misrepresented here to some extent. Not that you haven't misrepresented me in the immediately recent past, but I just wanted to say some of your viewpoint makes a fair amount of sense to me. Plus you have a pretty mouth.

quote:

---

I would like to point out that MikeyG points out actually abuses Clinton committed when criticising him and only personality assumptions about Bush.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I would like to point out that MikeyG points out actually abuses Clinton committed when criticising him and only personality assumptions about Bush.

---

Ok I have re-read that sentence about six times and I don't want to be rude, so I am just going to assume that someone has just smashed the back of my brain in with the pointy-end of a claw-hammer. I mean why else would my head hurt so badly when I try to read that?

---

That should be "actual" and not "actually". Abuses then becomes a noun as I intended.

But as long as someone is in pain, mission accomplished.

Also: Congress approved the Patriot Act (whether or not they objected because there wasn't enough time to read it).

I will agree that a sequel to the Patriot Act is uncalled for, and the first should be repealed as soon as it is possible.

And just because you create and enemy doesn't mean you roll over and play dead when they attack you. And just because you roll over and play dead doesn't mean an enemy stops attacking.

Ululating, I attack Makk.

First off, we have no proof AT ALL that Iraq was going to attack us. Pre-emptive strike? Isn't that the same thing Alexander the Great decided to do when he went on a rampage? Or Hitler? Or ANYONE who has invaded another country without direct provocation? Okay, Osama Bin Laden, commonly known as the head of Al-Qaeda, has REPEATEDLY denounced Saddam Hussein as an infidel. Apparantly Saddam was not extreme enough. So there's no connection there. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Do we even need to touch that one? We have had NO evidence of any desire on the part of Iraq to attack THE GREATEST MILITARY POWER IN THE WORLD. Does Saddam Hussein strike you as suicidal? The closest we have is hearsay that Iraq may have been hiding weapons. HEARSAY. Hearsay doesn't stand up in a U.S. Murder trial, so how the FUCK can we use it as a basis to kill a whole SHITLOAD of people? The enemy that attacked us was supposedly Al-Qaeda, and we never finished our little war game in Afghanistan looking to kill them. So, the whole point is that the system needs to be changed so we do not keep creating these enemies. What we are doing is like trying to kill a tree by chopping off the tips of its branches. Go to the source of the problem. Cut down the fucking tree. Solve the original problem. Change the mentality that allows people like Bush to thrive.

We just ran through all this in a whole other thread. I think there is a solid case for preemption now also since we are fighting asymmetric war.

Also I think too many anti-Bushites let their feelings get in the way of thinking rationally about the war. People who jerk off over propaganda aren't that rational to begin with though.