NationStates Jolt Archive

Who else would have a VP so dispicable that he wouldn't be assassinated, even by the craziest of crazies?

The genius is the VP himself, who can rule the country without ever getting in danger of being assassinated.

George is just a poor little boy who has for his whole life been used by others to do what they wanted.
I think if anyone had ever really sat down and asked him, George would want to be a cowboy/farmer on a farm somewhere in Texas, far away from business and politics and all his daddy's friends.

He's a tragic figure, really.

He's a tragic figure, really.
I think that imagning tragedies for no particular reason, and with no real factual basis, is pretty tragic meself.

Last I heard, the relationship between Bush and Cheney was described as "icy." Then again, this was rumor. Either way, never in six years have I heard a well-presented case that Cheney had more influence on the President than any other VP in recent history. I know it's frustrating to be a Democrat right now, but how about some consistency? One moment, they're claiming Bush is running things on his own ego, without consulting others, and the next moment they're saying Cheney's in charge, and Bush bows to his every opinion. Neither opinion is true.

Who else would have a VP so dispicable that he wouldn't be assassinated, even by the craziest of crazies?
There's been a number of attempted assassinations on Bush.
One was a grenade that didn't go off when he was touring Russia.
Some people wouldn't mind Bush as a corpse.

But about Cheny running the country...
that hunch on Bush's back in the first debate...
was obviously a radio transmitter connected to Cheny, who was feeding him answers.
Thus why I usually refer to Bush and all that is right wing Republican:
Bush & Co.

Its a joke really. I'm not being serious. I really think Bush can think for himself, but it just makes being a lefty in American politics easier this way.

Last I heard, the relationship between Bush and Cheney was described as "icy." Then again, this was rumor. Either way, never in six years have I heard a well-presented case that Cheney had more influence on the President than any other VP in recent history. I know it's frustrating to be a Democrat right now, but how about some consistency? One moment, they're claiming Bush is running things on his own ego, without consulting others, and the next moment they're saying Cheney's in charge, and Bush bows to his every opinion. Neither opinion is true.
Obviously the answer has something to do with Russian weather control machines, a Jew Conspiracy, the Corporatists Republican Liberal Media, and a member of the Illuminati thrown in for good measure.
Until an answer can fulfill all those requirements, we will still have yet to come anywhere near plumbing the full depths of the Mystery of the Bush White House, Part III!

I think that imagning tragedies for no particular reason, and with no real factual basis, is pretty tragic meself.
Look at his life, put it onto a stage, and people would call it a tragedy...maybe with an uplifting ending.

He was never the character to go and become president. If it hadn't been for his name, he'd never even have gotten close.
He wasn't any good at Uni, he failed every business venture he got into, he drank a lot, and following his dad around for photo opportunities someone came up with the idea to get George Jr. to run for things himself, which also didn't work until years later.

He's not who you would call a successful man, a "winner".

Obviously the answer has something to do with Russian weather control machines, a Jew Conspiracy, the Corporatists Republican Liberal Media, and a member of the Illuminati thrown in for good measure.
Until an answer can fulfill all those requirements, we will still have yet to come anywhere near plumbing the full depths of the Mystery of the Bush White House, Part III!
You forgot the communist zombies and the lizardmen. How can you forget them?

Who else would have a VP so dispicable that he wouldn't be assassinated, even by the craziest of crazies?

Well, that's obviously... erm... I mean, plainly... um... *blink blink* Huh. That's a good point, actually. The best presidential anti-assassination defense available- a VP worse than you.

Who else would have a VP so dispicable that he wouldn't be assassinated, even by the craziest of crazies?
I will assassinate Cheney for five bucks, hell I'll through in the second politician for an extra three fiddy. Who would call me crazy?

Either way, never in six years have I heard a well-presented case that Cheney had more influence on the President than any other VP in recent history.
Oh that's not even the point...sure Bush does the ruling. But the motivation behind all those policies is not Bush himself, particularly in foreign policy (which is the only thing I really care about, not being from the US).

I'm of course talking about PNAC, of which Bush himself is not a member, but pretty much everyone in the foreign- and defense ministries is, and whose ideas and visions seem to so far have been attempted to be put into practice by this administration.

He's not who you would call a successful man, a "winner".

I dunno.. making a comeback after losing a Congressional race and defeating an immensely popular Governor of Texas (Anne Richards), serving two terms as Governor of Texas and winning two Presidential races seems pretty successful to me.. Unless we're basing Bush's entire life on the fantasy that he has no free will, makes no decisions for himself, and only speaks words that some nameless corporation tells him to, for the last 30 years. That's much more plausible. :p

You forgot the communist zombies and the lizardmen. How can you forget them?
I didn't forget the Communist zombies, who do you think is controlling the Russian weather control machines?
The lizard men, however, I left out on purpose. They might have come across as a bit cheesy on top of everything else.

Last I heard, the relationship between Bush and Cheney was described as "icy."
You would prefer them as "loving and gushing", i imagine.
There's a photo op :eek:
Seriously, it's amazing anyone let Cheney close enough to them to procreate. But maybe he does it through a cloud of spores or like "god" date-raped Adam ...
Neither opinion is true.
Yes, you're the all-knowing source of what's true about opinion. You can tell by the voluminous amount of empirical evidence you bother to espouse when called upon to do so. :rolleyes:

Look at his life, put it onto a stage, and people would call it a tragedy...maybe with an uplifting ending.

He was never the character to go and become president. If it hadn't been for his name, he'd never even have gotten close.
He wasn't any good at Uni, he failed every business venture he got into, he drank a lot, and following his dad around for photo opportunities someone came up with the idea to get George Jr. to run for things himself, which also didn't work until years later.

And EVEN THAT has inaugurated a new legacy of strategery and misunderestimation.

I didn't forget the Communist zombies, who do you think is controlling the Russian weather control machines?
The lizard men, however, I left out on purpose. They might have come across as a bit cheesy on top of everything else.
Trying to look innocent again? We know you left out nuns on purpose. We know they have everyone on their pay-roll. The Communist Zombies, the Russians, the mods, the Lizard Men, Posi, and George W Bush are all being paid by nuns.

No, Bush is not a genius.

I will assassinate Cheney for five bucks, hell I'll through in the second politician for an extra three fiddy. Who would call me crazy?
Uhm you might consider calling yourself crazy, given all the witnesses here and reproducible evidence ... :eek:

I dunno.. making a comeback after losing a Congressional race and defeating an immensely popular Governor of Texas (Anne Richards), serving two terms as Governor of Texas and winning two Presidential races seems pretty successful to me.. Unless we're basing Bush's entire life on the fantasy that he has no free will, makes no decisions for himself, and only speaks words that some nameless corporation tells him to, for the last 30 years. That's much more plausible. :p
It's just that I watched a documentary recently about his life before the presidency, and to me it looked* like he didn't do much himself at all.

When he tried to leave the family and achieve something on his own, he failed. Everytime he had to come crawling back. I mean, he was pretty much unemployed for many years, not doing anything at all.

All his politics was done by a team of people who had already helped his father. There was footage of his campaign for House of Reps early on, and that was just him campaigning without all the big theatre. He lost both times.
His campaign in Texas however was a grand scheme, designed by some very capable people.

If having connections is a measure of success, then in that way Bush Jr. is a successful man. But if achievement out of your own ability and hard work is success, then he is not.

As always, it's probably a bit of both.

* EDIT

You would prefer them as "loving and gushing", i imagine.


Yes, you're the all-knowing source of what's true about opinion. You can tell by the voluminous amount of empirical evidence you bother to espouse when called upon to do so. :rolleyes:

It doesn't much matter to me whether Bush and Cheney get along well personally.. But like I've been saying, Democrats can't seem to make up their minds whether Bush drowns out his peers' opinions and runs things by his own ego, or whether Cheney really runs things, and excludes Bush from the process entirely. I can say that neither of those are true without any hesitation.. Like I said, it's a frustrating time to be a Democrat, and many of them have created those cartoonish fantasies to vent said frustration on the internet.. I'm not saying they really believe either scenario, and I'm sure they don't. They need to vent sometimes, just like anyone else.. they just do it in a contradictory way sometimes, which is amusing.

They need to vent sometimes, just like anyone else.. they just do it in a contradictory way sometimes, which is amusing.
To be fair though, I don't think I ever really portrayed Bush as this evil thing, as some do.
To me he was never really much more than the poor guy I described earlier. It's the people around them, and the people who support him through thick and thin which worry me a lot more. One could say that I consider him more of a symptom than a cause - but then, I have never set foot into the US.

Last I heard, the relationship between Bush and Cheney was described as "icy." Then again, this was rumor. Either way, never in six years have I heard a well-presented case that Cheney had more influence on the President than any other VP in recent history. I know it's frustrating to be a Democrat right now, but how about some consistency? One moment, they're claiming Bush is running things on his own ego, without consulting others, and the next moment they're saying Cheney's in charge, and Bush bows to his every opinion. Neither opinion is true.

Pepe this is just another anti President Bush thread.
President Jeb Bush 2008.

It doesn't much matter to me whether Bush and Cheney get along well personally.. But like I've been saying, Democrats can't seem to make up their minds whether Bush drowns out his peers' opinions and runs things by his own ego, or whether Cheney really runs things, and excludes Bush from the process entirely. I can say that neither of those are true without any hesitation.. Like I said, it's a frustrating time to be a Democrat, and many of them have created those cartoonish fantasies to vent said frustration on the internet.. I'm not saying they really believe either scenario, and I'm sure they don't. They need to vent sometimes, just like anyone else.. they just do it in a contradictory way sometimes, which is amusing.

I don't really have a stance on whether or not Bush is Cheney's puppet, but the two scenarios you describe aren't so mutually exclusive. It seems quite possible that, most of the time, Bush following his cabinet's advice; it's also possible that, once in a while, he decides to do something himself, with the cabinet rushing to provide damage control; remember that fiasco about Social Security last year?

Also, in common speech, most people who refer to 'Bush' are talking about 'the Bush administration', which includes his cabinet. Their logic, I think, is that the cabinet members are working according to their own agendas (which range from arranging things so that the Illuminati can rule the world to saving the world from the likes of the evil and vile Muslim Man, depending on who you're talking to), without seeking any outside advice. This also goes along with my previous hypothetical situation- that Bush is the cabinet's puppet most of the time, but occasionally decides to take initiative, with his cabinet rushing to clean up the mess.

President Jeb Bush 2008.

Christ no.

Pepe this is just another anti President Bush thread.
Started off that way, but we don't have to make it one.
Why not focus on the lifes, the sort of people GWB and Dick Cheney are, the sort of lifes they had and how you think that influenced them as politicians?

It's up to us to make a thread into something interesting.

President Jeb Bush 2008.
Better not.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Signed by:
...Jeb Bush...

It doesn't much matter to me whether Bush and Cheney get along well personally.. But like I've been saying, Democrats can't seem to make up their minds whether Bush drowns out his peers' opinions and runs things by his own ego, or whether Cheney really runs things, and excludes Bush from the process entirely. I can say that neither of those are true without any hesitation.. Like I said, it's a frustrating time to be a Democrat, and many of them have created those cartoonish fantasies to vent said frustration on the internet.. I'm not saying they really believe either scenario, and I'm sure they don't. They need to vent sometimes, just like anyone else.. they just do it in a contradictory way sometimes, which is amusing.
Well the nice thing about a forum like this is that you REALLY don't need to repeat yourself ... given a person need only scroll back a smidge to remind themselves of what someone said the first time.
And i imagine if it's necessary there's myriad instances of bizarre and contradictory repub behaviour that can be posted here, if it really need be regressed so much.
Since it's about Bush ...

*ahem*

1. Social Security Surplus

2. Patient's Right to Sue

3. Tobacco Buyout

4. North Korea

5. Abortion

6. OPEC

7. Iraq Funding

8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

9. Science

10. Ahmed Chalabi

11. Department of Homeland Security

12. Weapons of Mass Destruction

13. Free Trade

14. Osama Bin Laden

15. The Environment

16. WMD Commission

17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

20. Gay Marriage

21. Nation Building

22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

23. U.N. Resolution

24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

25. Campaign Finance

26. 527s

27. Medical Records

28. Timelines For Dictators

29. The Great Lakes

30. Winning The War On Terror
---------------
Go ahead, task me. C'mon, it's good for some yuks, I presume you have some kind of staying power ... ;)

To be fair though, I don't think I ever really portrayed Bush as this evil thing, as some do.
To me he was never really much more than the poor guy I described earlier. It's the people around them, and the people who support him through thick and thin which worry me a lot more. One could say that I consider him more of a symptom than a cause - but then, I have never set foot into the US.

He certainly didn't accomplish much in his early life, I agree, and I think he would agree.. But I think he harvested a persona from the more endearing bits of his personality, read up on issues, became passionate about a few (still, indifferent about others), and created a successful public image. That's politics, and I think he's good at it. I don't think you were calling him evil, and I think most people online who do call him evil don't really mean it genuinely, but rather use that kind of language as a coping strategy..

If you ever want to read about a real tragic hero in the White House, try President Grant.. he set all new standards of failure and mental troubles before finally reaching success..

Pepe this is just another anti President Bush thread.
President Jeb Bush 2008.
Well, he'll surely get the "still-cognitive-and-politically-aware-citizen-NOT-in-a-vegetative-state" vote.

;) *snippity*
Ah, yes, this certainly puts influence of power into perspective. It would explain so many shifting positions and no clear semblance of Don't step in the "leadership".

I don't really have a stance on whether or not Bush is Cheney's puppet, but the two scenarios you describe aren't so mutually exclusive. It seems quite possible that, most of the time, Bush following his cabinet's advice; it's also possible that, once in a while, he decides to do something himself, with the cabinet rushing to provide damage control; remember that fiasco about Social Security last year?

Also, in common speech, most people who refer to 'Bush' are talking about 'the Bush administration', which includes his cabinet. Their logic, I think, is that the cabinet members are working according to their own agendas (which range from arranging things so that the Illuminati can rule the world to saving the world from the likes of the evil and vile Muslim Man, depending on who you're talking to), without seeking any outside advice. This also goes along with my previous hypothetical situation- that Bush is the cabinet's puppet most of the time, but occasionally decides to take initiative, with his cabinet rushing to clean up the mess.

I think you're right.. Bush likely defers to his cabinet members, choosing policy from their proposals, but takes the initiative other times. Ideally, they would keep him in check, and he would keep them in check, if everything goes right.

Pepe this is just another anti President Bush thread.
President Jeb Bush 2008.

I'm still all about Jeb.. Have been since Nov. 3, '04, on this forum too.. :)

He certainly didn't accomplish much in his early life, I agree, and I think he would agree.. But I think he harvested a persona from the more endearing bits of his personality, read up on issues, became passionate about a few (still, indifferent about others), and created a successful public image. That's politics, and I think he's good at it. I don't think you were calling him evil, and I think most people online who do call him evil don't really mean it genuinely, but rather use that kind of language as a coping strategy..

The thing is, how did he read up on the issues? Who taught him the various issues and the conflicting opinions on them? I would be very, very surprised if his current cabinet members weren't influencing him somewhat.

That's the thing- they influence him. They suggest that invading Iraq is a good idea, and much conjoling later, he agrees. Thing is, the whole point of the cabinet is to give advice, and the President's job is to accept or reject that advice based on its merits. My concern is that he may be too trusting or not aware enough to judge those merits.

If you ever want to read about a real tragic hero in the White House, try President Grant.. he set all new standards of failure and mental troubles before finally reaching success..

Oh, jeez, much agreed. Grant was the prime example of this. He was a skilled general, but he was never supposed to be a politician; he is the epitome of a president who served merely as the figurehead for a corrupt cabinet. Poor guy... He freed himself, though- his cabinet tried to convince him to run for a thrid term, but a resounding "DEAR GOD NO!" from the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Supreme Court convinced him otherwise.

Started off that way, but we don't have to make it one.
Why not focus on the lifes, the sort of people GWB and Dick Cheney are, the sort of lifes they had and how you think that influenced them as politicians?

It's up to us to make a thread into something interesting.


Better not.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Signed by:

After reading that I say Viva President Jeb Bush 2008.

Actually Poppy Bush was smarter. Who would want Quyale as President?

As to Jeb. No way in hell!

Well, he'll surely get the "still-cognitive-and-politically-aware-citizen-NOT-in-a-vegetative-state" vote.

...you sure about that?

I'm still all about Jeb.. Have been since Nov. 3, '04, on this forum too.. :)
????!

Why? My goodness, surely there are better candidates than this guy!

What about Condi? Still not neocon enough for you?

...you sure about that?
No, but i have faith and stock investments in Diebold and ES & S, and they sure have a way of covering the map as far as voting goes. :eek:
Statistically, that voting bloc is BOUND to show up somewhere.
Something like 16,661 votes or so.

I'm of opinion that if America votes in another Bush, America's a stupid nation that deserves whatever it gets. China's starting to look good, at least their leadership isn't a bunch of inbred morons.

After reading that I say Viva President Jeb Bush 2008.
...and never by relying on exile groups and the like. They lie.

Anything for your own agenda, hey?

"American Military Leadership" is not something good. Not for America, not for Cuba, not for the world. When the Nazis tried the same thing, it didn't turn out well. When the Soviets tried the same thing, it didn't turn out well.
How is this any different?

????!

Why? My goodness, surely there are better candidates than this guy!

What about Condi? Still not neocon enough for you?

Condi's got electability problems, as her opponents will pretty much try and saddle her with responsibility for all of the multinational intelligence failures that lead to our miscalculations on the WMD issue.. she's not an excellent speaker, and tends to stutter, I've seen.. less shrill than Hillary, but she'll need a lot of work..

Jeb, on the other hand, is a natural at the podium. He comes across humble, takes responsibility for miscues and missteps, and has an air of honesty that comes through to the listener.. I'm not from Florida, so I'm not sure how he's governed in specific terms, but I know he's popular, and defied expectations in his re-election when the DNC was allocating a lot of their resources into efforts against him, winning by large margins, and he's got practical experience. I think he's a marketable and (probably) worthy choice. That's a preliminary bit of supposition there, until I know more about his stance on issues, but on a prima facie level, I think he's high on the list.

Anything for your own agenda, hey?

"American Military Leadership" is not something good. Not for America, not for Cuba, not for the world. When the Nazis tried the same thing, it didn't turn out well. When the Soviets tried the same thing, it didn't turn out well.
How is this any different?

Yes I know you know my agenda, with President Jeb Bush Viva Cuba Libre.

...she's not an excellent speaker, and tends to stutter, I've seen..
Well, aside from the dubious aspect of intelligence "failures" and the responsibility of in your post, i ask in earnest ...
as one who would prefer right-wing ordination, in this sense, do you think that the repubs are actually sick of Bush's consistent employ of same behaviour, and are more interested in someone who doesn't come off as the utterly contemptible bumbling and inconsistent moron that Bush "appears" to be? For EIGHT years?
More to the point, is this an admission of how abominable that is as an "strategery" of public persona?

That's a preliminary bit of supposition there, until I know more about his stance on issues, but on a prima facie level, I think he's high on the list.
So is this just about he having a good chance to win in order to keep the Democrats from power?

Surely the issues are a little more important than "electibility". And as far as I can tell, he's even more conservative than GWB, a neocon on the outside, and a Christianist (my new word, like Islamist, a person trying to make his religion a political program) on the inside.

He's not the sort of guy the States need right now. If you have to elect conservative, try Lieberman.

Jeb, on the other hand, is a natural at the podium. He comes across humble, takes responsibility for miscues and missteps, and has an air of honesty that comes through to the listener.. I'm not from Florida, so I'm not sure how he's governed in specific terms, but I know he's popular, and defied expectations in his re-election when the DNC was allocating a lot of their resources into efforts against him, winning by large margins, and he's got practical experience. I think he's a marketable and (probably) worthy choice. That's a preliminary bit of supposition there, until I know more about his stance on issues, but on a prima facie level, I think he's high on the list.

He also has a somewhat scandalous history- some people still remember the madness of the 2000 Presidential elections, the results of which are still controversial. *flips through the Wikipedia article on Jeb* Curses, little on his political positions. Anyway, my hope is that the current Bush's unpopularity, the controversy of the Florida vote, and Jeb's interferance in the Schiavo case would prevent Jeb from being selected as party candidate.

The saddest political news I ever heard was the Colin Powell wasn't planning to run for President. One of the few Republicans that I like... *sigh* :(

Yes I know you know my agenda, with President Jeb Bush Viva Cuba Libre.
I just don't know how you can complain about an undemocratic government under Castro, but actively want US intervention, when last time they were quite happy to fail your nation and leave Batista in place. You should be perfectly aware that the people who founded PNAC have absolutely no interest in helping anyone. The thing they keep talking about is "US interests", nothing else.

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/batist.htm

Trying to look innocent again? We know you left out nuns on purpose. We know they have everyone on their pay-roll. The Communist Zombies, the Russians, the mods, the Lizard Men, Posi, and George W Bush are all being paid by nuns.
Ah, yes, the Communist Zombies, Russians, mods, Lizard Men, you, Dubya, are all being paid by nuns who are in the employ of the late Pope John Paul II. His spirit remains, and his will is the will of Christ! Bush is a pawn of God, just like he says! Ah!

The saddest political news I ever heard was the Colin Powell wasn't planning to run for President. One of the few Republicans that I like... *sigh* :(
Nice to agree with ya. *bows*

Ah, yes, the Communist Zombies, Russians, mods, Lizard Men, you, Dubya, are all being paid by nuns who are in the employ of the late Pope John Paul II. His spirit remains, and his will is the will of Christ! Bush is a pawn of God, just like he says! Ah!
So are you a puppet of Fiddlebottoms, or just a throng?
*note: emphasis diminished intentionally*

Well, aside from the dubious aspect of intelligence "failures" and the responsibility of in your post, i ask in earnest ...
as one who would prefer right-wing ordination, in this sense, do you think that the repubs are actually sick of Bush's consistent employ of same behaviour, and are more interested in someone who doesn't come off as the utterly contemptible bumbling and inconsistent moron that Bush "appears" to be? For EIGHT years?
More to the point, is this an admission of how abominable that is as an "strategery" of public persona?

It's hard to give a definite answer to that question.. Everyone wants to see their views expertly articulated to the public, by a candidate who can do it in a genuine, believable way.. I think Bush's charisma made up for his shortcomings in 2000 versus Gore, and was a nice contrast.. but of course that genuiness and believability was eroded somewhat over the years by his mistakes and policy failures.. naturally, you can't be the reform candidate twice, and you can't run for re-election without updating your policy projections.. this is why Bush didn't perform as well in the '04 debates, in my opinion.. the public wasn't looking for the same kind of personality as they were in 2000, and probably wouldn't have accepted the same routine Bush laid out back then.. so he squeaked by through optimistic delivery and discreditting the opposition, rather than by watered-down idealism.. but it worked.

So to answer the question, I'd say that most of us (if I can speak for Republicans in general for a moment) would prefer a more articulate voice for our opinions, in choosing a candidate for '08.. but without any regrets or bitterness toward our curent President because, for good or ill, he carved out a niche, a personality, that worked for us in the last three election cycles.. painful as it might be to watch the outtakes from his speeches, he got the job done, and I'll always be grateful for that.

So is this just about he having a good chance to win in order to keep the Democrats from power?

Surely the issues are a little more important than "electibility". And as far as I can tell, he's even more conservative than GWB, a neocon on the outside, and a Christianist (my new word, like Islamist, a person trying to make his religion a political program) on the inside.

He's not the sort of guy the States need right now. If you have to elect conservative, try Lieberman.

At this stage in the game, so far from primary season, electibility has to be a primary concern.. there's just no sense in building up a candidate who can't deliver on the podium.. this is why I can't back someone like Giuliani or Rice or Pataki. This time next year, the whole game changes. :)

It's hard to give a definite answer to that question.. Everyone wants to see their views expertly articulated to the public, by a candidate who can do it in a genuine, believable way.. I think Bush's charisma made up for his shortcomings in 2000 versus Gore, and was a nice contrast.. but of course that genuiness and believability was eroded somewhat over the years by his mistakes and policy failures.. naturally, you can't be the reform candidate twice, and you can't run for re-election without updating your policy projections.. this is why Bush didn't perform as well in the '04 debates, in my opinion.. the public wasn't looking for the same kind of personality as they were in 2000, and probably wouldn't have accepted the same routine Bush laid out back then.. so he squeaked by through optimistic delivery and discreditting the opposition, rather than by watered-down idealism.. but it worked.

So to answer the question, I'd say that most of us (if I can speak for Republicans in general for a moment) would prefer a more articulate voice for our opinions, in choosing a candidate for '08.. but without any regrets or bitterness toward our curent President because, for good or ill, he carved out a niche, a personality, that worked for us in the last three election cycles.. painful as it might be to watch the outtakes from his speeches, he got the job done, and I'll always be grateful for that.
All things considered, actually, that's a pretty decent answer, as much as i could possibly expect.
Thank you.

Obviously the answer has something to do with Russian weather control machines, a Jew Conspiracy, the Corporatists Republican Liberal Media, and a member of the Illuminati thrown in for good measure.
Until an answer can fulfill all those requirements, we will still have yet to come anywhere near plumbing the full depths of the Mystery of the Bush White House, Part III!

Look, I'm not saying that there isn't a conspiracy going on, but the Illuminati? Don't be ridiculous.
There is no such thing as the Illuminati. Ahahaha. Everybody knows that! :cool: Fnord

Look, I'm not saying that there isn't a conspiracy going on, but the Illuminati? Don't be ridiculous.
There is no such thing as the Illuminati. Ahahaha. Everybody knows that! :cool: Fnord

Yeah, well...thats what an illuminati would say, right?

Haven't you forgot about Santa in this conspiracy? I mean, he knows if you been bad or good...so he must have big intelligence department.

So are you a puppet of Fiddlebottoms, or just a throng?
*note: emphasis diminished intentionally*
I'm being accused of being a puppet.
Interesting.
There are so many different ways I could disprove this, that I won't even bother.

But, I'm not bipolar, or possesed by a legion of Satan's minions.
The middle-man for the Communist zombies, Lizard Men, the Nun Mafia, Bush & Co., Osama Bin Laden, the hallowed spirit of Pope John Paul II, the Michigan Militia, China's copyright infringement ring, and the Big Man Himself? Well, I'm not at the liberty to say. :p

Who else would have a VP so dispicable that he wouldn't be assassinated, even by the craziest of crazies?


If by genius you mean moron..and if by moron I mean a psychotic blood thirsty douche bag...

Jeb....
The problem I have with Jeb, you see, is that his last name is: Bush.
I always thought that my country was a two family system.
Its not exactly a monarchy, because we switch off every four or so years, but its a two family system nevertheless.

All American presidential canidates are all distant relatives of the frisky Ben Franklin, who created the electoral college to be filled by his cousins, croonies, and illegitmate sons. Just recently, the Kennedy's were the most powerful and influencial of all the families, but they were slowly picked off by the other competing families. In the power vacuum that followed, the remaining descendants are split quite evenly between House Clinton and House Bush, with a few renegade reform minded extremests flying the Green flag of Nader.

Its the nature of our nations politics, and why we can't have a direct election.

Yeah, well...thats what an illuminati would say, right?

Haven't you forgot about Santa in this conspiracy? I mean, he knows if you been bad or good...so he must have big intelligence department.

It has already been states that the Jews are involved with the conspiracy. The Jews would never be allies with Santa. I know this because he has never given me a Christmas present, nor a Chanukkah present either. He's just to mean to be part of our conspiracy.

Yeah, well...thats what an illuminati would say, right? :eek:

Of course not! If they existed, they would want you to believe in the nutty conspiracy, wouldn't they?
Kraggistan might know to much! You know what to do guys, put him on the List. And remember, he doesn't like Santa either. Fnord

Pepe this is just another anti President Bush thread.
President Jeb Bush 2008.
That'll make you throw up.

That'll make you throw up.

Yes another anti President Bush thread will make me throw up, it has actually.

Viva President Jeb Bush 2008.

Obviously the answer has something to do with Russian weather control machines, a Jew Conspiracy, the Corporatists Republican Liberal Media, and a member of the Illuminati thrown in for good measure.
Until an answer can fulfill all those requirements, we will still have yet to come anywhere near plumbing the full depths of the Mystery of the Bush White House, Part III!
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/images/Conspiracy.jpg

See the link between Miami Cubans and Jeb Bush?

Hehehehe...so very appropriate. :D

I'm being accused of being a puppet.
Interesting.
There are so many different ways I could disprove this, that I won't even bother.

But, I'm not bipolar, or possesed by a legion of Satan's minions.
The middle-man for the Communist zombies, Lizard Men, the Nun Mafia, Bush & Co., Osama Bin Laden, the hallowed spirit of Pope John Paul II, the Michigan Militia, China's copyright infringement ring, and the Big Man Himself? Well, I'm not at the liberty to say. :p
Good answer, the "non-answer".
Try reading the post again. I didn't accuse you of being a puppet, i asked if you were a puppet or a throng. Do you understand what i'm saying? Once for yes, twice for no.
Reason being is that your post is EXTREMELY similar to Fiddlebottoms'. It's not much of a leap of reason to come to that conclusion.
But sure, it's a forum, why not be at liberty to say?

EDIT: See post #60. It would appear that at least another poster here's got yer back.

If by genius you mean moron..and if by moron I mean a psychotic blood thirsty douche bag...
Don't mince words, it's confusing!! :confused: